June 7, 2007
Why does the Right so much opposes the many attempts that have been made to enact legislation on the abortions? It is incredible how the political parties that win elections use this prerogative to avoid that the part of the population that has not voted for them be considered as such: a part of the whole that the parties are obliged to take into account when laws are to be passed. On the contrary what they do is create new sources of division among the citizens. And those citizens that support them carry on with their system of avoiding the national laws and taking their daughters abroad whenever they have to face their conscience.
My experience has taught me that both the Right or the Left prefer in many cases to make use of the abortion to solve these problems, irrespective of whether the Law in their own countries permits it or not. So we are considering here a case of moral hypocrisy.
But no, as usual the so-called Right – which in my opinion should be called Ultra-Capitalism – ignore the interests of those electors one of whose main problems of always has been abortion, apart from the proved fact that many of the offspring of those Rightists have used their money and power to move abroad to have the dreadful – for them – abortion operation which they cannot get in their country of origin because of their progenitors’ fake fanaticism. Because this is nothing but an idea that originated in Religions which have always been the staunchest allies of the so-called Right or Ultra-Capitalism as you like.
Abortion is a problem of conscience, not a legal problem by all means. I wouldn’t like to be in the shoes of a woman whose dilemma is to abort or not to abort because once a new being is begot in her womb to decide whether to dispose of it or not is not an easy question.
And it must be women in all cases who should decide how to proceed. Nobody knows better than they in these cases.
February 27, 2007
The International Court of Justice in The Hague said the massacre of 8,000 men in Srebrenica was genocide, but Belgrade was not directly responsible.
But it said Serbia broke international law by failing to stop the killings.
And my mind has started to fly. It could not be otherwise because the incrimination of a British author in Austria and his imprisonment because of his doubts on the Holocaust has been too recent.
The Nazi regime, according to the official news, massacred millions of Jews – they also killed millions of other ethnicities but this has not been stressed world-wide – during Nazism. This crime was condemned immediately after the end of the war although it had been happening before and during WWII and Germany has been made to pay dearly for it ever since, either in money or in kind. Germans are practically not allowed to raise their eyes before a Jew.
Another fascist regime ruled Serbia when the Srebenica butchery took place, and as you can see above Serbia broke international laws by failing to stop the killings.
I have some questions to ask.
1. Has the law changed so much since 1945 that its ruling considers two similar cases in a patently dissimilar way?
2. If the tribunal rules that Serbia broke the international law, why is it that it is not punished to indemnify, at least subsidiarily, what its subjects in a massive way did at that time?
3. Has the State of Israel protested against this decision?
4. All of a sudden a tribunal decides that the human life is so priceless that it cannot be compensated by any means. Are Muslim lives dearer than Jewish ones?
Sincerely I think that what The Hague Court of Justice – a U.N.’s organisation – has done is simply misadminister justice.
Something which will no doubt be voiced airily by the Muslim world, something more to add to the injustices we have been witnessing during the last times.
A doubt hovers before me, is this also a part of the fight against terror?