DEMOCRACY

LET´S WATCH THE FOLLOWING VIDEOS ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF DEMOCRACY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHVupd4Grc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqvI1oyA7Eo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1hVyo_7mt8

MULTICULTURALISM VS INTERCULTURALISM

DEFINITION
World English Dictionary
multicultural (ˌmʌltɪˈkʌltʃərəl) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— adj
consisting of, relating to, or designed for the cultures of several different races

INTERCULTURALISM


in·ter·cul·tur·al (ntr-klchr-l)
adj.
Of, relating to, involving, or representing different cultures: an intercultural marriage; intercultural exchange in the arts.

LET´S SEE SOME VIDEOS
These are the addresses :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ejsmNHvRQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2baLpYafzNM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LjvSIBKVc

ACTIVITIES
1- Look for examples of Multiculturalism and Interculturalism around the world.
2- Is it possible that all races live in peace?

ACTIVITIES

SEE THESE VIDEOS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTlrSYbCbHE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndQ8gjaIxkA


1- Read the article and see the video . Then you should make a document where you write down all the human rights .
2- Were/are these rights respected in the world? Show several examples where our rights are not respected.

HUMAN RIGHTS

THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly[15] in 1948, partly in response to the atrocities of World War II. Although the UDHR was a non-binding resolution, it is now considered by some to have acquired the force of international customary law which may be invoked in appropriate circumstances by national and other judiciaries.[16] The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights as part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." The declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the behaviour of states and press upon them duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality.
“ ...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world ”

—Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

The UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt as Chair, who began to discuss an International Bill of Rights in 1947. The members of the Commission did not immediately agree on the form of such a bill of rights, and whether, or how, it should be enforced. The Commission proceeded to frame the UDHR and accompanying treaties, but the UDHR quickly became the priority.[17] Canadian law professor John Humphrey and French lawyer René Cassin were responsible for much of the cross-national research and the structure of the document respectively, where the articles of the declaration were interpretative of the general principle of the preamble. The document was structured by Cassin to include the basic principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood in the first two articles, followed successively by rights pertaining to individuals; rights of individuals in relation to each other and to groups; spiritual, public and political rights; and economic, social and cultural rights. The final three articles place, according to Cassin, rights in the context of limits, duties and the social and political order in which they are to be realized.[17] Humphrey and Cassin intended the rights in the UDHR to be legally enforceable through some means, as is reflected in the third clause of the preamble:[17]
“ Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law. ”

—Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Some of the UDHR was researched and written by a committee of international experts on human rights, including representatives from all continents and all major religions, and drawing on consultation with leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi.[18][19] The inclusion of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights[17][20] was predicated on the assumption that all human rights are indivisible and that the different types of rights listed are inextricably linked. This principle was not then opposed by any member states (the declaration was adopted unanimously, with the abstention of the Eastern Bloc, Apartheid South Africa and Saudi Arabia); however, this principle was later subject to significant challenges.[20]

The Universal Declaration was bifurcated into treaties, a Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and another on social, economic, and cultural rights, due to questions about the relevance and propriety of economic and social provisions in covenants on human rights. Both covenants begin with the right of people to self-determination and to sovereignty over their natural resources. This debate over whether human rights are more fundamental than economic rights has continued to the present day.[21]

The drafters of the Covenants initially intended only one instrument. The original drafts included only political and civil rights, but economic and social rights were also proposed. The disagreement over which rights were basic human rights resulted in there being two covenants. The debate was whether economic and social rights are aspirational, as contrasted with basic human rights which all people possess purely by being human, because economic and social rights depend on wealth and the availability of resources. In addition, which social and economic rights should be recognised depends on ideology or economic theories, in contrast to basic human rights, which are defined purely by the nature (mental and physical abilities) of human beings. It was debated whether economic rights were appropriate subjects for binding obligations and whether the lack of consensus over such rights would dilute the strength of political-civil rights. There was wide agreement and clear recognition that the means required to enforce or induce compliance with socio-economic undertakings were different from the means required for civil-political rights.[22]

This debate and the desire for the greatest number of signatories to human-rights law led to the two covenants. The Soviet bloc and a number of developing countries had argued for the inclusion of all rights in a so-called Unity Resolution. Both covenants allowed states to derogate some rights.[citation needed] Those in favor of a single treaty could not gain sufficient consensus.[23][24]

ACTIVITIES

1- LOOK FOR INFORMATION ABOUT GHANDI´S LIFE AND IDEAS . DO YOU AGREE WITH HIS WAY OF DEALIING WITH CONFLICTS ? SHOULD WE DO THE SAME WAY ?

GHANDI AND HIS IDEAS

VIOLENCE REJECTION

The Rejection of Violence in Gandhian Ethics of Conflict Resolution

1. Giuliano Pontara
1.
University of Stockholm

Abstract

This article is concerned with the problem of Gandhi's rejection of violence in situations of group conflict. Two questions have been asked: (1) On the basis of what arguments did Gandhi reject violence ? (2) Why did he on some occasions support violence ? The answer given to the first question is that Gandhi bases his rejection of violence on two different sorts of arguments. On one hand violence is condemned as morally bad in itself, independently of the consequences to which this rejection may lead. On the other hand violence is also rejected because of the consequences to which it leads. Violence, even used in self-defence, is in full contradiction with the democratic values and is not even able to defend them. Moreover it is never able to bring about accepted solutions of conflicts and it brutalizes man. According to Gandhi, Lenin is completely mistaken in his belief that violence can be used as a means to the achievement of the non-violent society of which he speaks in a famous passage of State and Revolution. For only means which are of the same ethical nature as the end sought can be conducive to its reali zation.

Gandhi, however, on four occasions took direct part in war and repeatedly advised others to do the same. Our examination of Gandhi's writings and actions has shown that there are situations in which Gandhi believed it to be our duty to fight. These are the situations in which the alternatives open before us are not violence versus non violence but only direct violence versus indirect violence or violence versus cowardice and fear.

The greatness of Gandhi, however, is not accounted for by his rejection of violence alone. His main contribution to the history of political ethics lies in his whole philosophy of conflict and in the non-violent techniques of conducting social conflicts which he devised as an effective and practical substitute for the traditional methods of violence.

FIRST CONTACT

1- THE FIRST ACTIVITY WILL CONSIST ON DEFINING THE FOLLOWING BASIC TERMS AND LOOK FOR EXAMPLES AND IMAGES WHICH REPRESENT THEM :

A- ETHICS
B- MORALITY
C- FREEDOM

2- HOW DO THE PREVIOUS ELEMENTS HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON HUMAN BEINGS LIVING IN SOCIETY ?
<

WELCOME

Welcome to this blog , I hope you enjoy working here and I also hope that you learn a lot of things .

EQUALITY BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN

1- LOOK FOR EXAMPLES OF LACK OF EQUALITY BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN THROUGH HISTORY . ADD SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.
2- WHICH SITUTATIONS HAVE TO CHANGE TO GET A COMPLETE EQUALITY ?
3- COMPARE LIFE OF WOMEN IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD .