An inheritance of exclusion: Roma education, genetics and the turn to biosocial solutions

ABSTRACTIn far too many instances treatment of persons with dementia has reflected a fundamental denial of basic human rights. At times, these individuals are treated worse than the treatment of animals when the five basic freedoms of animals, described by Pachana in her editorial, are implemented. A number of such examples of dehumanizing (and “de-animalizing”) persons with dementia are presented. A case is made for the position that this is the direct result of the “medicalization” of dementia and “Alzheimer Disease.” This has led to the disenfranchisement of persons with dementia and their caregivers regarding the treatment of dementia, while medical “expertise” has led to a paradigm of learned helplessness while waiting for “the cure.” While the medicalization of dementia has been a financial success in terms of funding failed researcher to find a cure, it has been a catastrophe for the quality of life of persons with dementia and their caregivers. It is time to take control of the treatment of dementia back, and especially to listen to the voices of persons with dementia. It is time to take action NOW – to become disruptive to the current paradigm. The emperor and his cure have no clothes. We deserve better. We must make this change in paradigm our mission, to demand it, and to accept nothing less. Power to the people.

Beyond Claim‐Rights: Social Structure, Collectivization, and Human Rights

This paper explores the conceptual connections between poverty and human rights through the lens of the capability approach. The concept of capability can be seen as the bridge that links poverty with human rights because it plays a foundational role in the characterisation of both poverty and human rights. Once this common foundation is noted, poverty can be defined as denial of human rights. Furthermore, the capability approach also helps us to address the question of whether just any denial of human right should count as poverty or whether there should be some restriction in this regard admitting only certain cases of denial of human of rights into the domain but not others. The capability perspective suggests that the domain should indeed be restricted in some well‐defined ways. Finally, the paper argues that such restriction of domain need not be inconsistent with the principle of indivisibility of human rights.

South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe occupy a special place in the history of United Nations action to promote human rights. The perpetuation of white minority rule in these territories in a world order committed to decolonisation, self-determination and majority rule provoked a concerted response from the United Nations, which included economic sanctions and the toleration of military support to national liberation movements. United Nations action against Southern Rhodesia (as it then was) was premised on the denial of self-determination and the perpetuation of minority rule. The international status of South West Africa/Namibia and the failure of South Africa to honour the obligations contained in the Mandate for South West Africa provided the basis for United Nations action against South Africa. In South Africa itself racial discrimination, political repression, military intervention in neighbouring states and minority rule combined to justify United Nations intervention. But in all three cases there was a serious denial of human rights and most of the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council on these three territories castigated the government or the administering authority for its denial of human rights to the majority of the people. The action of the United Nations in the Southern African region can therefore legitimately be characterised as action taken to promote human rights. It is not surprising that when change came to these territories the national liberation movements involved in the negotiations that led to the establishment of new political orders should insist on constitutions that provided guarantees for human rights.

The theme of the 2003 CITRA conference concentrated on archives and human rights and the problems associated with the status, use and collection of such archives. It provided a global view of large-scale denial of human rights, and gave insight into different views and perceptions. In the UK the issue is less the mass denial of human rights, more the recurrent denial to individuals. How does the UK measure up in terms of trying to prevent the abuse of such rights? Will the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act make a difference? Raising awareness is a first step, but more action is needed in order to avoid any repetition of past failures.

Religion, Gender, and Wellbeing in Africa argues that, in many African societies, ideas and practices of wellbeing and gender relations continue to be informed and shaped by religious epistemologies. The contributors affirm that for many Africans, it is through religio-spiritual frameworks that daily experiences, interactions, and gender relations are understood and interpreted. However, for many African women, religions have functioned as a double-edged-sword. Although they have contributed to the struggle against issues such as colonialism, gender justice, climate justice, and human rights, they have also endorsed and perpetuated sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, and the denial of human rights for a wide variety of people on the margins. The chapters within this collection demonstrate that most religions and religious formations in Africa have not yet positioned themselves as forces for wellbeing, gender justice, and security for African women and children. The contributors challenge simplistic and superficial readings and interpretations of religio-spirituality in Africa and call for deeper engagements of the interplay between Africa’s religio-spiritual realities and the wellbeing of women, particularly around issues of gender justice, reproductive health, and human rights.

Religion, Gender, and Wellbeing in Africa argues that, in many African societies, ideas and practices of wellbeing and gender relations continue to be informed and shaped by religious epistemologies. The contributors affirm that for many Africans, it is through religio-spiritual frameworks that daily experiences, interactions, and gender relations are understood and interpreted. However, for many African women, religions have functioned as a double-edged-sword. Although they have contributed to the struggle against issues such as colonialism, gender justice, climate justice, and human rights, they have also endorsed and perpetuated sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, and the denial of human rights for a wide variety of people on the margins. The chapters within this collection demonstrate that most religions and religious formations in Africa have not yet positioned themselves as forces for wellbeing, gender justice, and security for African women and children. The contributors challenge simplistic and superficial readings and interpretations of religio-spirituality in Africa and call for deeper engagements of the interplay between Africa’s religio-spiritual realities and the wellbeing of women, particularly around issues of gender justice, reproductive health, and human rights.

Historically, policies aimed at prohibiting and punishing the use of certain drugs have driven the international approach to drug control and dominate the approach of most countries, guided as they are by the three UN drug control conventions and the dominant policy directions emanating from the associated international bodies. Such an approach is usually defended with moralistic portrayals that demonise and dehumanise people who use drugs as representing a ‘social evil’ menacing the health and values of the public and state. Portrayed as less than human, people who use drugs are often excluded from the sphere of human rights concern. These policies, and the accompanying enforcement practices, entrench and exacerbate systemic discrimination against people who use drugs and result in widespread, varied and serious human rights violations. As a result, in high-income and low-income countries across all regions of the world, people who use illegal drugs are often among the most marginalised and stigmatised sectors of society. They are a group that is vulnerable to a wide array of human rights violations, including abusive law enforcement practices, mass incarceration, extrajudicial executions, denial of health services, and, in some countries, execution under legislation that fails to meet international human rights standards. At the level of the United Nations, resolving this situation through established mechanisms is complicated by the inherent contradictions faced by the UN on the question of drugs. On the one hand, the UN is tasked by the international community with promoting and expanding global human rights protections, a core purpose of the organisation since its inception. On the other, it is also the body responsible for promoting and expanding the international drug control regime, the very system that has led to the denial of human rights to people who use drugs. All too often, experience has shown that where these regimes come into conflict, drug prohibition and punishment has been allowed to trump human rights, or at least take human rights off the agenda. The UN system needs to ensure coherence in its policy and programmatic approaches, a coherence that reflects the primacy and centrality of human rights to the rest of its work. In three parts, this report: presents a critical analysis of the UN systems of drug control and human rights, and their relative relationship within overall UN governance, and outlines the basis for the primacy of human rights; highlights the multiple ways in which the enforcement of drug prohibition, the dominant approach of the UN drug control system, leads to a wide and varied range of human rights violations; and sets out recommendations aimed at ‘recalibrating the regime’ to prevent the ongoing subversion of human rights protection in the name of drug control.

Scientific research at the junction of history, theory and philosophy of law, political science, sociology and paramedical discipline – eugenics is presented. A rather extensive bibliography of the Great Terror of 1937-1938 is gathered, analyzed and systematize; it is conventionally divided into three directions. An attempt is made to objectively estimate the number of victims of terror and the social belongings of the repressed and executed. The mechanism of the implementation of the Great Terror (1937-1938) is discovered, which was to develop and approve for each region of the Soviet Union the limits for the "first category" (shooting) and for "the second category" (imprisonment in camps for a term from 8 to 10 years). The theory and practice of the creation of a "new person" in the Union of SSR of the 1920s-1930s as a total denial of human rights are considered. The main trends of eugenics and their representatives in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are determined. There is a clear division of eugenistic views into positive ones, according to which eugenics was engaged in the derivation of a more perfect breed of people through promoting births from parents with "good" genes, and negatives that promoted elimination from the reproductive process of carriers of "bad" genes (sterilization of mentally ill, alcoholics, mentally inferior, etc). Clear parallels between the views of the Soviet leading eugenics experts on the creation of a superman and similar desires of the leaders of the USSR are made. Taking into account such common views and goals of academics and officials, it was highly desirable to use the state repressive and punitive apparatus to implement the idea of ​​creating the ideal gene pool of the future communist community. The scientific concept of the Great Terror (1937-1938) is proposed as a general attempt to create a person of the communist future. The consequences of this global crime against humanity and the ways to prevent the recurrence of such tragedies in the future are assessed. Keywords: eugenics in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; cultural revolution in the theory and practice of the communist states; Great Terror 1937-1938; denial of human rights; crimes against humanity in the practice of communist regimes &nbsp

Scientific research at junction of history, theory and philosophy of law, political science, sociology and paramedical discipline – eugenics is presented. A rather extensive bibliography of Great Terror of 1937-1938 is gathered, analyzed and systematize; it is conventionally divided into three directions. An attempt is made to objectively estimate number of victims of terror and social belongings of repressed and executed. The mechanism of implementation of Great Terror (1937-1938) is discovered, which was to develop and approve for each region of Soviet Union limits for first category (shooting) and for the second category (imprisonment in camps for a term from 8 to 10 years). The theory and practice of creation of a new in Union of SSR of 1920s-1930s as a total denial of human rights are considered. The main trends of eugenics and their representatives in Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are determined. There is a clear division of eugenistic views into positive ones, according to which eugenics was engaged in derivation of a more perfect breed of people through promoting births from parents with good genes, and negatives that promoted elimination from reproductive process of carriers of bad genes (sterilization of mentally ill, alcoholics, mentally inferior, etc). Clear parallels between views of Soviet leading eugenics experts on creation of a superman and similar desires of leaders of USSR are made. Taking into account such common views and goals of academics and officials, it was highly desirable to use state repressive and punitive apparatus to implement idea of ​​creating ideal gene pool of future communist community. The scientific concept of Great Terror (1937-1938) is proposed as a general attempt to create a person of communist future. The consequences of this global crime against humanity and ways to prevent recurrence of such tragedies in future are assessed. Keywords: eugenics in Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; cultural revolution in theory and practice of communist states; Great Terror 1937-1938; denial of human rights; crimes against humanity in practice of communist regimes

Geopolitical opportunism and the denial of human rights – Towards a cultural-critical criminology of war In this article we argue that a culture-crit­ical criminology of war can contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics that play a role in how we view present-day conflicts and wars. After a general introduction into the development of a criminology of war, we focus on two analytical tools, namely 1) the notion that a culture of denial is indispensable in the legitimation of war and war-crimes and 2) that postcolonial thinking can explain why different conflicts are framed differently in different countries, and that the differences between the global North and the global South are the most fundamental in this respect. Next, we try to argue how the Israeli Palestinian war is probably the most illustrative in this respect and hence we single out that particular conflict in the remainder of our analysis.

The understanding of human rights concepts and laws has developed dramatically. Human rights concepts have shaped the moral, ethical, legal, political, and religious realities of many civilized nations. Modern nations give utmost significance to humans, and all laws of the states revolve around humans. Murder, terrorism, honor killing, and the denial of human rights are frequently blamed on Islam. This review paper focused on the practical conditions of human rights in Pakistan as an Islamic country, based on human rights reports and observations, and its relevance to the contemporary discourse on human rights within international standards of human rights. Islam advocates the peaceful co-existence of peoples, religions, and societies and guarantees individual and collective rights. Rather, human rights are a central feature of Islam. Islam as a religion recognizes two types of rights: rights that humans are obliged, by virtue of being the creations of God, to fulfill and obey, and rights that they are entitled to expect from their fellow human beings. Domestic implementation failure of human rights refers to moral collapse and state failure

Worldwide, the many debates over water management emphasise the importance of establishing secure rights systems as the foundation for the efficient and equitable allocation of scarce freshwater resources. This perspective follows from global statements recognising water as an economic good and from pragmatic considerations regarding the incentives individuals have to waste resources in the absence of clear ownership rules. Private, tradable rights are the foundation for water allocation systems based on market mechanisms. According to economic theory, private rights and the presence of a market should also provide strong incentives for individuals to use water as efficiently as possible. The above pragmatic perspective has formed the basis for many efforts in many countries to reform water rights systems. There is, however, increasing dissonance between this perspective and a broad array of values or perspectives held by local water users and others who may lack formal legal rights but whose interests are affected either directly or indirectly by water allocation decisions. When rights to any resource are allocated or claimed by any one group of individuals, other individuals will lose their right to that resource and also to the values it supports. This raises questions concerning the legitimacy of the initial allocation system and whether or not those losing rights did so willingly and in an informed manner. It also raises questions regarding the authority of those who allocate rights to make such an allocation. This issue is particularly fundamental when, as in the case of water, the resource being allocated is essential for life. Access to water is essential for human survival and the right to life is recognised as fundamental in many religions, national constitutions and international agreements. Should, then, access to a basic minimum of water be classified as a human right? Taking it a step further, is a human right being violated when water is privatised or private rights to water are issued? Classifying access to water as a human right would pull the chords of emotive and legally powerful global institutions. This said, however, arguments about the denial of human rights are most often associated with acts of commission – such as murder, torture and genocide – as opposed to acts of omission – such as the failure of a government to provide for the basic needs of its people. In general, questions about access to water for fundamental needs are more acts of omission or at most diffused commission (such as the depletion of groundwater aquifers by thousands of individual users) rather than the direct violations associated with what are commonly perceived as human rights abuses. Furthermore, looking at water through a human rights lens may obscure many of the basic ethical issues inherent in the growing effort to develop private rights systems. My perspective, articulated in this paper, is that it may be more appropriate to recognise a new category of basic rights or entitlements which differs from – but which complements – those rights commonly falling in the human rights category. This new category would not carry the sets of associations already embedded in debates over human rights. Instead it would capture and give voice to many of the fundamental ethical issues inherent in different approaches to the allocation and management systems water and other natural resources. Drawing on examples from the western US, South Asia and the Islamic world, this paper explores themes in the growing debate over water rights systems. The economic logic underlying current efforts to reform rights systems is discussed first. A discussion of the social and historical roots of concepts emphasising the public ownership of water and providing for the role of the state owner or trustee of water resources follows. Private rights approaches, the counterpart of public ownership, are discussed next, followed by an exploration of ethical issues inherent in different rights systems. Particular attention is given to the ethical foundations of other rights systems such as those evolving for intellectual property. The subsequent section focuses on links to debates over human rights and the utility of using a human rights lens for looking at water issues. The final section explores potential alternatives and introduces notions of a ‘basic ethics’ framework. Water Nepal Vol. Vol.9-10, No.1-2, 2003, pp.165-183

One of the most controversial and thorny issues in international politics is the issue of human rights violations. Governments are criticized for consistently and willingly violating human rights. This approach assumes that governments have the option to violate or respect human rights. However, many governments may face a different dilemma, namely the eradication of poverty or a war that threatens their existence as a nation. Thus, governments should not be judged solely on their human rights record but also on their performance in reducing the number of their citizens who live below the poverty threshold. As rightly pointed out by the UNDP (2023), “poverty is a denial of human rights”. All other indicators may be considered as luxury goods that will be pursued only when a country reaches a certain level of economic development (income per capita). The aim of this paper is to investigate the association between human rights indicators and per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and to examine whether human rights, deemed a commodity, can be considered a luxury good, a normal good, or a necessity. It is found in this paper that the income elasticity of human rights is positive but less than one and at very high levels of income, close to zero, indicating that the commodity human rights is a necessity. Based on this evidence, countries are classified according to whether, given their per capita income, their human rights record aligns with expectations. The evidence identifies overperforming and underperforming countries. Keywords: human rights, per capita GDP, luxury goods, normal goods, United Nations, statistical analysis, income elasticity, politics

Opportunities for population-based studies of complex genetic disorders after the human genome project.