kashifshah

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
 

New York-headquartered Human Rights Watch and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) said that at the end of September there was a "wave" of arrests of people "peacefully celebrating or posting on social media" about the anniversary marking the creation of the Yemen Arab Republic.

The groups said the Iran-backed Huthis, who control vast swathes of Yemen including its capital Sanaa, had brought no charges against the protesters and "should immediately release all those who were detained solely for exercising their right to freedom of assembly and speech".

The Huthis have kidnapped, arbitrarily detained and tortured hundreds of civilians, including UN and NGO workers, since the start of Yemen's civil war in 2014, according to rights groups.

 

archive.org link

First, and foremost, references to States’ obligations under international human rights law are not sufficiently robust nor consistently mainstreamed throughout the text. We call on Member States to ground all objectives set out in the document in international human rights law. This includes adding references to “international human rights law” while also maintaining the role of international human rights law as a body of international law. For example, we are concerned that paragraph 30(d) refers to “international law” and fails to recognize the need for States to refrain from the use of mass surveillance and ensure that targeted surveillance technologies are only used in compliance with international human rights law, including the principles of legality, legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality. This paragraph should also acknowledge the need for States to promote privacy-preserving and rights-respecting technologies, including end-to-end encryption, pseudonymity, and anonymity, which secure and protect the confidentiality and security of digital communications, in accordance with various UN resolutions (including the UN Human Rights Council resolution on the Right to privacy in the digital age A/HRC/RES/54/21 and the new General Assembly resolution on the Promotion and protection of human rights in the context of digital technologies A/RES/78/213). We further call on Member States to add references to “international humanitarian law” and “international refugee law” where relevant for the same reasons.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/19769250

Summary provided by https://notegpt.io/pdf-summary

Summary

The International Court of Justice has found that Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, violate international law. The Court determined that Israel’s actions, such as its settlement policy, acts of annexation, and discriminatory legislation and measures, constitute a breach of international law, including the prohibition on the use of force and the non-acquisition of territory by force. Israel’s presence in the territory is deemed unlawful, and the Court has called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages caused, and non-recognition of the illegal situation by states and international organizations.

Key Insights

  • The International Court of Justice has determined that Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, violates international law.
  • Israel’s settlement policy, acts of annexation, discriminatory legislation, and measures were found to be in breach of international law.
  • The Court has called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages, and non-recognition of the illegal situation.
  • The General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations are tasked with considering further action to end Israel’s presence in the territory.
  • The Court emphasizes the importance of achieving a just and lasting peace in the region for the benefit of all parties involved.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question

What actions were deemed unlawful by the International Court of Justice in the Occupied Palestinian Territory?

Answer

The Court found Israel’s settlement policy, acts of annexation, discriminatory legislation, and measures to be in violation of international law.

Question

What measures did the Court call for to address Israel’s presence in the territory?

Answer

The Court called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages caused, and non-recognition of the illegal situation.

Question

Which international organizations are obligated not to recognize the illegal situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Answer All states and international organizations are obligated not to recognize the illegal situation in the territory.

Question

What role do the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations play in addressing Israel’s presence in the territory?

Answer

The General Assembly and Security Council are tasked with considering further action to end Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/17907463

archive.org link

Decarbonization of the energy, transportation and industrial sectors by 2050 is a formidable challenge, and getting there will require significant use of nuclear power. But whether nuclear power figures into a country’s future energy mix or not, rigorous planning is needed to determine the clean energy composition that will work best depending on country-specific factors.

The publication, entitled ‘From Knowledge to Action: IAEA Toolkit for Sustainable Energy Planning’, was presented during a side event held on the margins of a meeting of the G20’s Energy Transitions Working Group in Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 5 months ago

also, apologies to everyone at lemmy.sdf.org if i am flooding local for you. i've been busy adding a bunch links

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago

they also have an email address: membership at sdf dot org, but yeah, the internal BBS is where it is at.

We are a public access UNIX system, so it's not as much of a void as it might seem :D

 

Exciting for me that the community is actually getting some visitors.

This is my first time being a moderator for a community, so would be happy to receive any tips!

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Well, please do share what you find!

You are on the right track w/ idealism vs materialism in psychology, at least.

The question there arose from the brain: how do you rectify the mind/soul with the brain/body? Dualism apparently fails (the idea that there is a separate mind from the brain) which leaves only some form of monism. A sort of hybrid materialism-idealism seems to make the most sense, where consciousness is a property of the universe, like time or space, and different entities have differing consciousnesses. In that sort of a philosophy, when talking about the brain of a person you are equally talking about the experience that person is having, just in different terms.

I suspect that in sociology that would be some sort of unified anarcho-marxism, if such a thing exists. The atomic theory of society seems to be the thing where they are working on unifying language. If society is fully atomized, asking whether a new society arises due to free choice or resource demands is like asking whether rivers rise due to rain or sewer overflow, if that makes sense?

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago

this was one of my favorite childhood games, thanks for posting this!

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

You are very welcome!

I'm glad to be able to be of appreciation, as I know how that is - looks like you are in the right place to discuss political science though!

In the interest of conversation, maybe you can explain or point me to an explanation of why Anarchism vs. Marxism is considered "idealism vs materialism" in sociology?

In Psychology, we had an "idealism vs materialism" debate, but it is mostly resolved with a sort of "idealistic materialism" or "materialistic idealism" where, essentially, "idealism <=> materialism", as I understand it.

I'm curious about what the current state of the art is, in that debate!

Either way, I'll definitely spend some time in !politics@lemmy.ml checking things out.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago

I think "Outsider Left" may have subsumed "Faith and Family Left" in the new version of the typology.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

A good rule of thumb is to measure twice, cut once, so perhaps give it a try twice: once where you answer philosophically and once where you answer practically?

I'm due for taking it again, myself, but I generally consider myself a radical moderate (I'm all for system-wide changes) and I think Pew described me as "faith and family left" when I last took the test.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago (7 children)

Hah, hello neighbor :D

I'm curious how universal these political typologies could be made. I'm sure this one might apply a great deal to a number of western countries, if you change the names accordingly, etc.

 

archive.org link

Take our quiz to find out which one of our nine political typology groups is your best match, compared with a nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 U.S. adults by Pew Research Center. You may find some of these questions are difficult to answer. That’s OK. In those cases, pick the answer that comes closest to your view, even if it isn’t exactly right.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_Wi-Fi

:D

I'll see if i can find something specifically about what you are asking, but I would be surprised if anyone has taken the time to try to bounce WiFi. The wavelength might not be amenable to bouncing, as it is such a high frequency signal. If I recall correctly, there is a relatively narrow range of wavelength that will actually bounce back to earth off of the atmosphere.

edit: https://radiojove.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/activities/iono.html

 

archive.org link

Communicating During Contentious Times: Dos and Don'ts to Rise Above the Noise

Community leaders can play a central role in reducing tensions, divisions, and the spread of misinformation that may accompany an election season. The below pointers highlight dos and don’ts for leaders to avoid inadvertently causing harm. Last, we provide simple steps for taking action to reduce likely harms before, during, and after voting occurs.

DOS

Model positive norms: Show that your community is overwhelmingly committed to ensuring free, fair, and peaceful elections.

Highlight stories of community members taking actions consistent with these norms. Emphasize your community’s unifying, local identity–which cuts across lines of division–and draw on local values and stories demonstrating cooperation. Define your community in terms of who it is, rather than who it is not, using its own words, narratives, and local sources.

Emphasize individuals’ agency and the many actions underway to ensure a free, fair, peaceful election.

Amid tensions and uncertainty, people can feel limited in whether and how to respond. Narratives may deliberately create a sense of chaos or cast violence as an inevitability. This can create pressure for people to remain silent or even go along with violence. Emphasizing the work underway to ensure a secure and peaceful election can counteract perceived powerlessness and a sense of chaos, and can offer concrete ways for people to get involved in ensuring a peaceful election. Highlighting this broader context–for instance, the many groups working to ensure communities can securely vote–can also prevent violence or intimidation from having a chilling effect on public engagement.

Where tensions, misinformation, and violence do emerge, consult with targeted communities to learn their needs and preferences for public statements before acting.

Communities targeted with violence and false information often have experience responding in high-threat moments and know best what their community members need. When you do speak out, model empathy toward targeted communities.

Offer a concrete, non-violent path forward for grievances, including clear channels and processes for addressing things in real-time.

Be specific in referring to tensions and/or violence.

Political violence, including harassment, and misinformation are tools to intimidate communities from engaging in public life. Precise, accurate, and accessible language can help ensure violence does not appear more widespread than it is. For example, naming specific districts or stating “at one street corner” rather than referencing full cities or states. Also, be precise about who was involved. For example, saying “there was violence at a protest” could be misleading if the violence was actually from a group of armed counter- protesters and only one or two protesters were involved. Speaking with clarity and precision can limit the ability of violence to intimidate communities from showing up to vote. Importantly, it can also guard against signaling that violence is the norm or expected for those associated with any groups.

DON'TS

Don't signal negative norms, including through depicting violence as widespread.

Don't speak about violence without condemning it and highlighting responses.

Highlighting the many efforts underway to ensure all community members can safely vote or peacefully protest help prevent violence from being used as a tool to intimidate and chill civic engagement. Likewise, avoid repeating calls to violence–even if to report on them–lest you provide a platform to vigilante or extremist groups, who may use past violence to further their notoriety and recruitment efforts.

Don’t use vague or speculative language which can engender mischaracterizations and fear-based responses (particularly if the language misconstrues violence as more widespread than it is). Using specific language eliminates room for assumptions and speculation.

Don’t use language that activates fear or anxiety, such as war and natural disaster metaphors (e.g., “protestors flooded the streets,” or “violence erupted”). This also reduces individuals’ sense of agency (personal empowerment) in responding. Relatedly, avoid repeating language that describes people as animals or as less than human (“dehumanizing language”), such as pests, deadly or wild animals, or diseases. This language drives people to act towards those described with less care or concern than they typically would other humans.

Don’t reference entire groups of people when discussing individual actions or viewpoints.

When an incident is the result of one or a few individuals, don’t attribute it to a general group, such as Republicans, Democrats, or protestors. This can engender an association between harmful actions with entire groups of people, furthering notions of collective blame and negative norm-signaling that all within a particular group or community should or do feel/act a particular way. However, when specific individuals or groups are acting in an explicitly unified way, such as illegal militias or institutions, naming them can highlight culpability.

Don’t repeat misinformation or rumors.

Anticipate the types of misinformation and dangerous rhetoric that might circulate throughout the election and arm yourself with clear, specific corrections. Follow best practices in responding to misinformation (see below).****

 

It is time to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Tell the supreme court that they have to account for a treaty in international human rights law.

archive.today link

Since the Supreme Court overturned the right to abortion two years ago, far-right conservatives have been trying to curtail birth-control access by sowing misinformation about how various methods work to prevent pregnancy, even as Republican leaders scramble to reassure voters they have no intention of restricting the right to contraception, which polls show the vast majority of Americans favor.

 

archive.org link

Roy Irvin alleges he was reprimanded as ‘insubordinate’ for flagging issues on 787 Dreamliner planes

 

archive.today link

From countering divisive rhetoric to enhancing community-centric safety skills, voters themselves are showing what it looks like to protect against election violence. Tackling divisive rhetoric, strengthening community-led safety skills and adeptly navigating the evolving landscape shaped by the 2024 election cycle is essential. We must invest time, energy and resources to reinforce nonviolent, civilian-led safety endeavors — rather than accepting violence and deepening securitization.

It is essential that this undertaking begins with community-based systems for safety, which means adopting a forward-thinking, constructive strategy rooted in relationships. By reinforcing the connections that bind us together, neighbors can come together to control rumors, provide protective presence, receive training in violence de-escalation, interrupt violence and more. This is not a new approach, and there is precedent. Creating pockets of safety during elections has been done from Nigeria to Myanmar to the United States.

Let's do things in a human rights based approach.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago

Disappointment is the feeling that I experience when looking at the right-side-up flag, so I feel for ya.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 6 months ago

Key excerpt, pseudo-TLDR:

The pro-independence, largely Indigenous protests were sparked by planned changes to voting laws that will allow more long-term French residents of the islands to vote in local elections. The move has sparked fears among the indigenous Kanak population that their influence will be further diluted.

view more: next ›