Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Friday, 22 February 2013
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
(EN) INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
UK & US
Individual rights are those principles that are held by a single person rather than an entire group. The rights of individuals can be mandated by the law, provided by social means or gained through self-determination. These rights are generally associated with the concept of nature. Essentially, each person is born with rights that cannot be disenfranchised by the group.
According to political scientists, individual rights can either be negative or positive. This means that a negative right allows the person to not act on a certain principle, while a positive right means that a person may act in a certain capacity if they want. This can either be mandated by the laws of a society or simply exist in a natural way. For example, a negative right is one that prevents a person from stealing from another individual. Meanwhile, a positive right is the right to speak freely.
Individual rights around the world are associated with the concept of individualism. In the United States, individual rights are often viewed as a viable way to promote freedom and prevent abuses by the government or the majority. This is very similar in most European countries; however, much of the discourse about individual rights are geared towards negative rights. In China, individual rights are used as a way to prevent the upheaval of society and promote a stronger central power. This is accomplished by combining negative rights with positive rights, essentially defining a parameter of what the individual can and cannot do.
To determine which individual rights exist, society uses a combination of self-determination and political philosophy through legal means. Most nations around the world mandate the positive and negative laws in a form of codified law such as a constitution for the nation or state. Certain philosophies state that the only reason for a government to exist at all is to identify and codify these respective rights so they are upheld by society.
Throughout history, singular rights have been the principle behind many revolutions and rebellions. Both the American and French Revolutions made the rights of the individual a central theme of the reason behind the conflicts and social changes. Inversely, the collective rights of each individual together was essential in the Bolshevik Revolution which brought the Communist Party to power in the Soviet Union. These individual rights were defined to benefit the entire population.
UK & US
Individual rights are those principles that are held by a single person rather than an entire group. The rights of individuals can be mandated by the law, provided by social means or gained through self-determination. These rights are generally associated with the concept of nature. Essentially, each person is born with rights that cannot be disenfranchised by the group.
According to political scientists, individual rights can either be negative or positive. This means that a negative right allows the person to not act on a certain principle, while a positive right means that a person may act in a certain capacity if they want. This can either be mandated by the laws of a society or simply exist in a natural way. For example, a negative right is one that prevents a person from stealing from another individual. Meanwhile, a positive right is the right to speak freely.
Individual rights around the world are associated with the concept of individualism. In the United States, individual rights are often viewed as a viable way to promote freedom and prevent abuses by the government or the majority. This is very similar in most European countries; however, much of the discourse about individual rights are geared towards negative rights. In China, individual rights are used as a way to prevent the upheaval of society and promote a stronger central power. This is accomplished by combining negative rights with positive rights, essentially defining a parameter of what the individual can and cannot do.
To determine which individual rights exist, society uses a combination of self-determination and political philosophy through legal means. Most nations around the world mandate the positive and negative laws in a form of codified law such as a constitution for the nation or state. Certain philosophies state that the only reason for a government to exist at all is to identify and codify these respective rights so they are upheld by society.
Throughout history, singular rights have been the principle behind many revolutions and rebellions. Both the American and French Revolutions made the rights of the individual a central theme of the reason behind the conflicts and social changes. Inversely, the collective rights of each individual together was essential in the Bolshevik Revolution which brought the Communist Party to power in the Soviet Union. These individual rights were defined to benefit the entire population.
(EN) THE LAND OF THE FREE. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free
Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights
in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and
regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for
denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been
taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been
condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.
Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?
Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?
While
each new national security power Washington has embraced was
controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But
they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under
which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian.
Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world
while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree.
Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack
basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any
reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more
in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.
These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.
The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.
Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)
Indefinite detention
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)
Arbitrary justice
The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)
These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.
The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.
Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)
Indefinite detention
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)
Arbitrary justice
The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)
Friday, 15 February 2013
Thursday, 7 February 2013
(ES) Marco financiero plurianual: salvando la distancia
Marco financiero plurianual: salvando la distancia
Traducido por Jose V. Sánchez Cuenca
Revisado por Mónica Moure Peña
Los Jefes de Estado o de Gobierno europeos reanudarán el debate sobre el marco financiero plurianual (MFP) de la UE para 2014-2020 en la reunión del Consejo Europeo de los días 7 y 8 de febrero, en la que intentarán llegar a un acuerdo unánime. Las conversaciones, que quedaron suspendidas en el Consejo Europeo de los días 22 y 23 de noviembre, serán retomadas desde este punto.
Esto significa que la propuesta transaccional del 22 de noviembre, presentada por el Presidente del Consejo Europeo, Herman Van Rompuy, constituye el punto de partida de las conversaciones durante el próximo Consejo Europeo. Desde finales del mes de noviembre, el Presidente Van Rompuy ha continuado consultando a los dirigentes de la UE con la finalidad de preparar el terreno para un compromiso.
El Consejo de Asuntos Generales preparó los debates del Consejo Europeo sobre el MFP el 20 de noviembre y no volverá a tratar este tema antes de que el próximo Consejo Europeo reanude el trabajo sobre este expediente.
Si el Consejo Europeo alcanza un acuerdo, su contenido se incorporará al trabajo legislativo:
|
El objetivo es concluir el trabajo legislativo a tiempo para que los nuevos programas de gastos se apliquen desde el 1 de enero de 2014 en adelante.
Más información:
- Observaciones de Herman Van Rompuy sobre la cumbre MFP (22/01/2013)
- Informe Especial sobre el MFP
- Sesión extraordinaria del Consejo Europeo (22-23 de noviembre de 2012)
Saturday, 2 February 2013
(EN) Cultural Literacy
US idea of 'cultural literacy' and key facts a child should know arrives in UK
CLICK HERE for article
The philosophy of American education guru ED Hirsch could be coming to a primary school near you
US professor ED Hirsch argued that having a body of common knowledge would enable children to function as fully rounded citizens
Hirschism, if there is such a thing, is spreading fast through the English school system. Two proposed new primary free schools – the West London free school, backed by journalist Toby Young, and the Pimlico Academy primary – are planning to base their lessons on it. A new curriculum centre is devoting its efforts to promoting it, and a right-leaning thinktank is publishing a series of how-to guides on it for teachers.
Moreover, a new primary curriculum – due to be implemented in 2014 – has Hirsch at its heart. Both Michael Gove, the education secretary, and Nick Gibb, until recently his schools minister, and architect of a major review of the curriculum, have been profoundly impressed by his ideas.
So who is ED Hirsch? What does he believe? And how on earth did he manage to influence the way children across England will learn – without even being aware he was doing so?
Eric Donald Hirsch Junior is an 84-year-old retired professor – originally of English literature – from Virginia. He began his career as a professor at Yale, specialising in the Romantic poets. But by the 1970s, he was teaching at the University of Virginia, conducting research on reading with young people at local community colleges. He was shocked to discover those from poorer backgrounds struggled to read a passage on the surrender of General Robert E Lee near their home town of Richmond – because they lacked the necessary background knowledge of the American Civil War.
The result was a hugely influential book, first published in 1983, on what he calls Cultural Literacy. In it Hirsch argued that all American children needed a body of "core knowledge" which would allow them to function as fully rounded citizens – and that, as some were not absorbing this knowledge at home, they needed to be taught it at school. He even added an appendix, with long lists of facts, words and phrases whose significance every US child should know: the Adirondack Mountains; the Alamo; Alaska; the Founding Fathers.
In the ensuing years – during which Hirsch was greeted by the American right as a prophet and a saviour, and by the left as a scion of the empire of evil – these ideas solidified. Hirsch published a series of further works, which argued that children not only needed a clear body of factual knowledge but that they should also learn that knowledge in a very highly structured way – starting with basics and building up, rather than taking a more thematic approach.
Hirsch's position as an influential figure in American education has long been established – he set up a body called the Core Knowledge Foundation, which has spread his philosophy across the States – but how did he come to be influential here?
Several years ago, Nick Gibb – then shadow minister for schools – came across Hirsch and began reading his books. As long ago as 2008 he told fellow MPs they should read Hirsch for insight into an "anti-knowledge ideology" which, he said, was rife in American and English schools. The problem, he said, was that the education establishment had its roots in a romantic ideology that said skills, rather than knowledge, were the key to learning.
Michael Gove, too, has spoken of his admiration for Hirsch, citing him in 2009 in a speech to the Royal Society of Arts. "A society in which there is a widespread understanding of the nation's past, a shared appreciation of cultural reference points, a common stock of knowledge on which all can draw, and trade, is a society in which we all understand each other better," he added.
Soon afterwards the thinktank Civitas began translating Hirsch's views into practical guides for English schools: What Your Year 1 Child Needs to Know, for instance, provides a comprehensive guide for teachers. Its index reads very much like an English version of Hirsch's lists of what American children should learn, with Hans Christian Anderson, the Angel of the North and the English Civil War replacing the basic touchstones of US "cultural literacy".
Since Civitas took up the cause, two proposed free schools have announced they plan to teach using Hirsch's methods. And a new curriculum centre has been set up, using funds from wealthy benefactors, to spread the ideas further.
Toby Young, who is planning to follow such a knowledge-based curriculum at his new primary free school in west London, wrote on the Guardian's Teacher Network recently that more subjects would be taught by specialists and the aim was to raise attainment "particularly among children from deprived backgrounds".
When the government announced the initial outcome of its curriculum review – designed to overhaul and slim down what schools must teach – at the end of last year, Hirsch was writ large across it. "The new national curriculum will set out only the essential knowledge that all children should acquire," runs the Department for Education website introduction to new draft programmes of study for primary maths, English and science. The drafts are "very specific about the content to be covered, given the fundamental importance of these subjects as a foundation for further study and as the basis for our system of school accountability," it adds.
Perhaps it was hardly surprising that some members of the expert panel set up to advise on the new curriculum were less than pleased. The panel had proposed broad, two-year blocks of learning which would give teachers freedom to decide what to teach and when. But the published programmes were detailed and far more prescriptive. Professor Andrew Pollard, who was a member of the panel, stepped down as a result.
Ministers have shown "a cavalier disregard" for research evidence from the UK and elsewhere, he says. All the best evidence shows that it is excellent teaching rather than curriculum reform that raises standards, he points out. Countries such as Singapore and Finland – often cited by ministers as beacons of excellence – recruit the most able graduates as teachers and give them time and freedom to develop their skills.
"Ministers have a responsibility to do no harm and there is some risk that what they're proposing will actually reduce the quality of learning and reduce the breadth of education that's available in primary schools," he says. "Despite the rhetoric about opportunities, it's quite possible that what is proposed will increase inequality and the disadvantaged will become more disadvantaged."
Gibb, who arrives for an interview on the subject bearing a little pile of Hirsch's works adorned with yellow Post-it notes, is unrepentant. "All the evidence from around the world is that the more autonomy professionals have, the higher the standards. But, in order to do that, you have to have a curriculum that sets out the key things, the core academic knowledge in those core academic subjects – maths, English, science in particular – that children need to learn," he says.
He is confident his Hirschian curriculum will survive his departure from office in the September reshuffle: "The work has been done. It's out for consultation. I know the secretary of state is pleased with the product. I think he broadly accepts this approach, so I think that will remain," he says.
"At every stage, as we've drafted the primary curriculum, he [Gove] has been deeply engaged in it. He has his own views and they have not differed from my view."
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the man himself seems blissfully aware of the waves he has been making.
"Oh, I did not know that. How interesting!" he exclaims after being told education ministers in the UK have seized on his idea of "cultural literacy". He had a brief email exchange with Gibb a few years ago but apart from that there has been no contact between them, he says. But he is delighted to learn his ideas have spread across the Atlantic.
"I'm very gratified, particularly if in fact it has some positive effect in England. That would be terrific. I'm surprised and I'm gratified."
Fran Abrams will discuss the influence of ED Hirsch on BBC Radio 4's Analysis programme at 8.30pm on Monday 22 October
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)