kerkko.fi

The Finnish crane manufacturer, Konecranes, has announced that it would stop selling new equipment and services to Iran. The advocacy organisation, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), urged the company to leave Iran because one of the regime's preferred methods of execution is public hanging from construction cranes.

Konecranes follows four other crane manufacturers, -- Tadano, Terex, UNIC, and Liebherr, -- which ended their business in Iran following public calls from UANI. Another Finnish company, Cargotec, has exported ship cranes to Iran. UANI launched its "Cranes Campaign" in May 2011 to exert pressure on crane manufacturers.

http://t.uani.com/noivr6

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tifinagh

Ghoga met former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi for the first time on 6 February 2011, only eleven days before the popular revolution. Gaddafi had Ghoga and three other lawyers from Benghazi be brought to a meeting with him in his tent in Tripoli.

The meeting lasted for ninety minutes. Also present was Abdullah Senussi, Gaddafi's brother-in-law and head of his secret service. The four human rights lawyers from Benghazi called for freedom of the press, freedom of opinion, and a constitution.

After the discussion with Gaddafi, who, according to Ghoga's words, was clearly irritated at the demands, the four lawyers from Benghazi decided to call for a "Day of Rage" in Benghazi on 17 February 2011. This was the beginning of the Libyan revolution.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hakim_Ghoga

Tempting as it is to simply turn away, it is important for democrats to understand the pro-tyrant left. It is vastly influential on campuses and its ideas are trickling down into the wider culture. In the short twentieth century, the rise of Stalinism, a reactionary but non-capitalist social system, disorientated the left -- bar some fragments -- more or less completely.

There was a slow scouring out of the habits of mind, the sensibilities and the values of an older left-wing culture that had been rooted in the Enlightenment, the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century, and the ethical socialism of the mass European labor movements. In its place was put power-worship, authoritarianism, and a cult of the transformative power of revolutionary violence.

Crucially, in the 1960s and 1970s, while the New Left innovated in the realm of culture and personal relations, when it came to geopolitics it mostly fell into line as cheerleader or apologist for one authoritarian “progressive” after another. As this New Left aged and drifted to the faculties and publishing houses it declared itself to be anti-anti-communist. In practice, it blamed America first.

After the collapse of its global alternative to liberal capitalism, the pro-tyrant left simply refused to rethink. Rather than give up either its Manichean view of a world composed of two camps of progress and reaction, it recreated both by substituting an implacable negativism, centred on a conception of America as the “Great Satan,” in the place of what had been a coherent (if wrong-headed and tyrannical) program for social reconstruction.

After 1989, and especially after 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the old idea that Stalinism (its crimes notwithstanding) was objectively progressive against the West, morphed into the idea that all opposition to "US imperialism" or "Empire" was a "resistance" or "multitude" that must be (its crimes notwithstanding) supported, or at least not opposed energetically.

This pro-tyrant left thinks it holds the key to the entire world in the palm of its hand. If America is opposed to a tyrant, then -- there is some dubious logic here, but this really is the crucial move -- the tyrant must be opposing America. And -- this is the last stretch, stay with me -- therefore the tyrant is an "anti-imperialist" and, objectively, "progressive."

These ideas have been adopted in softer forms throughout the culture. We see it in the refusal of emotional commitment to the West in its battles against dictators and terrorists, the refusal to credit the West with anything but malign intent, the tendency to blame ourselves when we are attacked, and the pathological refusal to see plain the nature of forces such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Two decades after creating the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee says humans have become so reliant on it that access to the Web should now be considered a basic right. In a speech at an MIT symposium, Computation and the Transformation of Practically Everything, Berners-Lee compared access to the Web with access to water. While access to water is a more fundamental right, because people simply cannot survive without it, Web access should be seen as a right, too, because anyone who lacks Web access will fall behind their more connected peers.

The UN resolution that authorized military force to protect civilians from attacks by Muammar Gaddafi’s troops has made history. For the first time, the UN Security Council authorized measures specifically to protect civilians under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which means they are militarily enforceable. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the decision "historic."

The council resolution [pdf] "affirms, clearly and unequivocally, the international community’s determination to fulfill its responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated on them by their own government. The resolution authorizes the use of all necessary measures, including a no-fly zone to prevent further casualties and loss of innocent lives."

"Ten years ago, the world probably would not even have considered such a resolution," said Edward Luck, UN Special Advisor on the Responsibility to Protect. "Today, the principle of human protection and responsibility to protect are so strong that even governments traditionally worried about sovereignty did not want to stand in the way of forceful council action."

Luck pointed out that protection of civilians has been included in many UN resolutions. What makes the resolution on Libya historic is that "this is the first time that the council has taken Chapter 7 enforcement measures specifically to ensure the responsibility to protect," he said. "This authorizes a much greater use of coercive force if necessary."

Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan first raised the issue at the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly in 1999, telling ministers that the main challenge facing the United Nations in the 21st century was its role in protecting civilians. He called for “humanitarian intervention” to protect civilians in strife-torn regions -- a proposal that China and other countries rejected.

Many countries argued that human rights were an internal affair and any intervention would violate national sovereignty. Six years later, however, Annan finally succeeded. World leaders attending a UN summit in 2005 agreed that governments had a collective responsibility to protect people from genocide, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing.

Passage of the Security Council resolution on Libya marked "a significant advance of the rule of law in maintaining international peace," according to William Pace, Executive Director of the World Federalist Movement. The group hosts a coalition of non-governmental organizations working to implement the agreement on the responsibility to protect.

Mr Pace noted that the resolution came on top of an earlier resolution imposing sanctions on Gaddafi’s regime and referring Libya to the International Criminal Court for possible crimes against humanity. "It offers hope to all who are trying to resist dictators who have committed these crimes with impunity for centuries, and very often against their own people," he said.

We have seen how the Chinese society has collapsed and how the younger generation is suffering. China's autocratic regime has become an organization that merely shares the booty, and is becoming more and more fascistic day by day. The political system is rotten and corruption has run amok. The independence of the courts is being reversed. Government officials and their children have monopolized all resources.

Chinese society has become extremely polarized; there is a wide gap between the rich and the poor. Prices are rising, especially real estate prices, causing seething popular discontent. China's human rights situation is dismal, arbitrary detentions and kidnappings are widespread. News are heavily censored. The Constitution performs practically no function; people's property is recklessly plundered and demolished.

We feel that the root of all these problems lies with China's autocratic regime. What makes us even more troubled is that the rulers are closing off communication channels. We only possess a virtual space where we can feel that we exist. Last week, we initiated China's "Jasmine Revolution," hoping to gain momentum from the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East. We urge China to reform or change.

http://www.google.com/buzz/116452835947032961239/gr5jen69Gjz/We-are-the-initiators-of-the-jasmine

The rule of law is a universal value, as are human rights. In Russia, I have met with "sovereign democracy" as some sort of opponent to human rights. In Asia, I have met with "Asian values." I do not think human dignity is minimised because of the colour of your skin. I think that human dignity is minimised because elites have an economic interest in screwing people. That is one of the reasons why I am not just a human rights lawyer; I believe that much of the political repression we see is economic in nature. The older I get, the more I respect Karl Marx.