Making The Activist: Through ANY Media?
Here discusses the sincerity or validity of one of the most used phrased and mentioned Article, Article 19 within the inner-regional practices in the roots of everyday living, and camping 2nd PART...
ARTCLE 19 Follows:
ARTCLE 19 of the Universal Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
**
Is the article above then just a status quo to keep people in place?
To keep our feet on the ground or to make us feel that even though the true authority is from God and not the State, at least the State recognises everyman’s right to freedom?
How far does the State, or will State go to implement that right in light of the obvious contradictions is another question? Bearing in mind also that the Article in relation to 19 mentions that what it demands should not be directed to one State or nation only. (see:below) Another flaw if one could see, is that not all nations and States hold the same view of morals and principles, why neither do people in the areas within the State or even better within the “frontier.”
No, even the common men and women in some towns and communities may allow me to get away with doing some things in their midst that I could not in the city. For example if I were on a pilgrimage to Norwich (East Anglia) the “Shrine of England”, and I were to fall behind schedule and so decide to pitch a tent close by, and near the townspeople but not actually at the site of the Shrine I would be an outsider using God’s land that has been lawfully claimed as "Real Estate" for temporary accommodation. Now the townsmen or women there are generally use to this sort of mishap taking place knowing fully well that there are scarcity of buildings they would not be surprised at all if one or a few outsiders decided to use some space or land near them to crash for a night. Of course they are not ignorant to the fact that people are going to visit the Shrine, and so expect just that-visitors to be on their way not to stay there but to pass by their premise. The home owners don’t have to allow visitors to tent close of course but in most cases it doesn’t really bother them as long as the crashing visitors do pay their common courtesy to not to disturb them then no harassment or charges should follow the passing visitor afterwards.
Now, if I were to do that same sort of thing at Regents St. MacDonald’s in London on a royal day, I would first get disgusting, apathetic looks by the passer-by then would be harassed by the nearest neighbour for disfiguring their side of the street and even charged by Macdonald’s officials if they decided flex their “property ownership” rights to fine me just for laying there tired. Did the townspeople just like the idea of having transitory, unpaid and asleep bodyguards that may crash nearby, no but they may tolerate it if they choose. That’s just it, “if” they choose, as not all barriers within the coast of England have the same attitudes towards the Living Standard. Townsmen, and communities have their way, just as the city folk have theirs. Some things go unspoken but are known, while others must be highlighted. Within this interplay I may find that the townsmen and little communities take things into their own hands more as they will do than city dwellers who rather rely on what the authorities do on their behalf. People are of the land, people are what makes the land known for what it is and so therefore people will do what they can to maintain it. Any law or any policy that dares blanket itself overall, is just that a status-quo to keep us on the ground. Not all get the same, not all want the same from any given mandate that says it is for ALL.
So then, if it is certainly as we could see not possible with the Western democratic
free-thinking and willing side of the world to practice what they wrote without perverting to economical interests and updates of law in mind, because of the contradictions to morality, values, governing polices, areas, and space and even artistic taste, then what chance if any do non-western democratised and non-democratised nations have to accept the rule ARTICLE 19 states?
-That….“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression”...
without perverting to economics and updates of law in mind of the contradictions to morality, values, governing polices, areas, and space and even artistic taste?
Has this become the new golden rule? The new Universal rule. After all common people use it passively, that term "everyone has the right to express." But that is only here in the West and not World-Wide...
The act of expression is to manifest one’s thoughts and ideas, passions and motives.
If this resolution is Universal then I should remember as a “citizen” of this world that everywhere I may go that I am:
I AM officially treated.
MAY officially learn.
I AM officially protected.
MAY officially earn.
I AM officially secured, I MAY officially express,
I AM officially attended.
Officially amended
I AM officially recommended.
I AM officially granted the…
ONE THING THAT I CAN NEVER BE, OFFICIALY CURED, OR OFFICAILY SAVED. I AM A CHRISTIAN AND MY CONVICTIONS is that THE true freedom in us cannot be given by the State rule solely but rather by HAVING the living spirit of BROTHERHOOD DO JUSTICE from the inside out in my life, and surroundings FIRST.
This is what I feel seems to be the situation of injustice today world-wide.
A written but unpractised Liberty.
(The Article 2, which is in relation to the above Article clearly states:
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty).
Prisoner ID:Resolution1948-Through ANY media? 2ND PART
MY
ENTRIES