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/19768980

archive.org link

In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid. The court has placed responsibility with all states and the United Nations to end these violations of international law. The ruling should be yet another wake up call for the United States to end its egregious policy of defending Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and prompt a thorough reassessment in other countries as well.

 

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/19768980

archive.org link

In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid. The court has placed responsibility with all states and the United Nations to end these violations of international law. The ruling should be yet another wake up call for the United States to end its egregious policy of defending Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and prompt a thorough reassessment in other countries as well.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 months ago (7 children)

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.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 months ago

Agreed. Let me see what I can do.

 

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.

 

archive.org link

In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid. The court has placed responsibility with all states and the United Nations to end these violations of international law. The ruling should be yet another wake up call for the United States to end its egregious policy of defending Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and prompt a thorough reassessment in other countries as well.

 

archive.today link

The Finance Bill, 2024 was tabled in parliament on 9 May 2024 and faced strong opposition from members of the public and other stakeholders during the public participation stage. This was due to the threats that it posed to data protection, the business environment, and a choking cost of living crisis that would be worsened by increased taxes. While President Ruto announced the withdrawal of the contentious bill on 26 June 2024, the actions of state authorities prior to and after this decision have created a very chilling environment for citizens, human rights defenders, journalists, and political dissidents opposed to the bill and critical of the government’s actions.

 

archive.org link

Hamas’ military wing – the Qassam Brigades – and at least four other Palestinian armed groups committed numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity against civilians during the October 7, 2023 assault on southern Israel, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Governments with influence over the armed groups should press for the urgent release of civilian hostages, an ongoing war crime, and for those responsible to be brought to justice.

The 236-page report, “‘I Can’t Erase All the Blood from My Mind’: Palestinian Armed Groups’ October 7 Assault on Israel,” documents several dozen cases of serious violations of international humanitarian law by Palestinian armed groups at nearly all the civilian attack sites on October 7. These include the war crimes and crimes against humanity of murder, hostage-taking, and other grave offenses. Human Rights Watch also examined the role of various armed groups and their coordination before and during the attacks. Previous Human Rights Watch reports have addressed numerous serious violations by Israeli forces in Gaza since October 7.

 

archive.org link

AI is already facilitating and generating harms and violations, for instance, by reinforcing discriminatory practices, excluding marginalized groups from access to essential goods and services, supporting misinformation, undermining democratic processes, surveillance change climate, the epidemic of Indigenous and local languages and cultures, and up job insecurity.

To ensure AI systems promote innovation based on human rights, ethics, and responsibility, it is crucial to establish minimum rules to safeguard the rights of affected individuals, obligations for AI agents, governance measures, and the definition of a regulatory framework for oversight and transparency. This is not prevents development and innovation; on the contrary, effective regulation that rights is an indispensable condition for the flourishing of the world's of the world.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They’re just categorically different, there isn’t an “inside” or an “outside” in the sense of spatial structure as that is something derived a posteriori as part of thought.

So.. there are things that are either within the category of thought or not? Is thought mutually exclusive to material? Is thought composed of material or the other way around? Or are they both the same?

I’m not sure what it would even mean to say reality is “thought”.

That is the standard definition of idealism, is it not? That existence is immaterial?

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

But what justification is there that what is thought of is actually in existence outside of thought? One can think of things that do not exist outside of thought.

What justification is there that reality isn't thought by it's very nature?

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 months ago (5 children)

How do you justify the premise that reality is objectively-existent?

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 4 months ago

Language like that plus the failure to treat the subject of discussion to dignity was almost enough for me to remove this comment, on it's own. Thankfully, the community has spoken using the tools available to them to indicate that your behavior is unacceptable. Keep it up and you'll be removed.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 months ago

Interesting that this is being downvoted.

It would be great if someone could articulate the negative sentiment towards bitcoin.

As a former software developer, and someone who has briefly experimented with the blockchains, I can say that the technology is vastly over-hyped and completely misunderstood.

Can Human Rights be furthered by use of blockchains? It's quite possible.

But what use is there focusing on the simplest of use cases: bitcoin?

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Indeed, it is:

https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/18443730 <- universal healthcare and human rights

The right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health[10]—a right that practically all countries have committed to uphold

Except, the United States still hasn't ratified.

https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/17662154 <- map of who hasn't ratified

https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/17841177 <- easy-to-read ICESCR

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 months ago

Comment removed for violating "0-tolerance for breaking all three rules at once"

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 months ago

See https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/18229170 and https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/18182706 for relevant UN and academic discussions about this topic.

view more: next ›