viernes, 4 de octubre de 2013

TEXTO EXTRAIDO DE LA PAGINA DE NU: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/history.shtml



History of the Document
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, was the result of the experience of the Second World War. With the end of that war, and the creation of the United Nations, the international community vowed never again to allow atrocities like those of that conflict happen again. World leaders decided to complement the UN Charter with a road map to guarantee the rights of every individual everywhere. The document they considered, and which would later become the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was taken up at the first session of the General Assembly in 1946.  The Assembly reviewed this draft Declaration on Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms and transmitted it to the Economic and Social Council "for reference to the Commission on Human Rights for consideration . . . in its preparation of an international bill of rights." The Commission, at its first session early in 1947, authorized its members to formulate what it termed "a preliminary draft International Bill of Human Rights". Later the work was taken over by a formal drafting committee, consisting of members of the Commission from eight States, selected with due regard for geographical distribution.
In 1950, on the second anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, students at the UN International Nursery School in New York viewed a poster of the historic document.   After adopting it on December 10, 1948, the UN General Assembly had called upon all Member States to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."  (UN Photo)
The Commission on Human Rights was made up of 18 members from various political, cultural and religious backgrounds. Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, chaired the UDHR drafting committee. With her were René Cassin of France, who composed the first draft of the Declaration, the Committee Rapporteur Charles Malik of Lebanon, Vice-Chairman Peng Chung Chang of China, and John Humphrey of Canada, Director of the UN’s Human Rights Division, who prepared the Declaration’s blueprint. But Mrs. Roosevelt was recognized as the driving force for the Declaration’s adoption.
The Commission met for the first time in 1947. In her memoirs, Eleanor Roosevelt recalled:

“Dr. Chang was a pluralist and held forth in charming fashion on the proposition that there is more than one kind of ultimate reality.  The Declaration, he said, should reflect more than simply Werstern ideas and Dr. Humphrey would have to be eclectic in his approach.  His remark, though addressed to Dr. Humprhey, was really directed at Dr. Malik, from whom it drew a prompt retort as he expounded at some length the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.  Dr. Humphrey joined enthusiastically in the discussion, and I remember that at one point Dr. Chang suggested that the Secretariat might well spend a few months studying the fundamentals of Confucianism!
The final draft by Cassin was handed to the Commission on Human Rights, which was being held in Geneva. The draft declaration sent out to all UN member States for comments became known as the Geneva draft.
The first draft of the Declaration was proposed in September 1948 with over 50 Member States participating in the final drafting. By its resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, the General Assembly, meeting in Paris, adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with eight nations abstaining from the vote but none dissenting. Hernán Santa Cruz of Chile, member of the drafting sub-Committee, wrote:

“I perceived clearly that I was participating in a truly significant historic event in which a consensus had been reached as to the supreme value of the human person, a value that did not originate in the decision of a worldly power, but rather in the fact of existing—which gave rise to the inalienable right to live free from want and oppression and to fully develop one’s personality.  In the Great Hall…there was an atmosphere of genuine solidarity and brotherhood among men and women from all latitudes, the like of which I have not seen again in any international setting.”

The entire text of the UDHR was composed in less than two years. At a time when the world was divided into Eastern and Western blocks, finding a common ground on what should make the essence of the document proved to be a colossal task.

Video sobre los Derechos Humanos extraído de Youtube


lunes, 30 de septiembre de 2013

TEXTO EXTRAÍDO DE https://www.redcar-cleveland.gov.uk/rdv.nsf/Web?ReadForm&id=2E5EB92E543A9445802577F30032D36A

Causes of Domestic Violence
Abusers choose to behave violently to get what they want and gain control. Their behaviour often originates from a sense of entitlement which is often supported by sexist, racist, homophobic and other discriminatory attitudes.

Domestic violence against women by men is 'caused' by the misuse of power and control within a context of male privilege. Male privilege operates on an individual and societal level to maintain a situation of male dominance, where men have power over women and children. In this way, domestic violence by men against women can be seen as a consequence of the inequalities between men and women, rooted in patriarchal traditions that encourage men to believe they are entitled to power and control over their partners.

Should all domestic violence be seen in the context of power relations?


No, not all domestic violence occurs within a context of traditional power relations. Ultimately, responsibility for the violence must lie with the perpetrator of that violence, despite any societal influences that we may draw on in order to understand the context of the behaviour.
 

Is domestic violence a consequence of things such as stress?
 

Domestic violence is learned intentional behaviour rather than the consequence of stress, individual pathology, substance use or a 'dysfunctional' relationship. Perpetrators of domestic violence frequently avoid taking responsibility for their behaviour, by blaming their violence on someone or something else, denying it took place at all or minimizing their behaviour.
 

Whilst responsibility for the actual violence is the perpetrators alone, there are belief systems in our society that perpetuate abusive attitudes and make it difficult for women and children to get help.
These include:
·         Blaming the victim for the violence
·         Putting the 'family' before the safety of women and children
·         Tolerating the use of violence
·         Privileging men over women and children's needs
·         Treating domestic violence as a private matter

Research shows that violent men are most likely to perpetrate violence in response to their own sexual jealousy and possessiveness; their demands for domestic services; and in order to demonstrate male authority. Some men also believe that sex is another type of domestic service that they can demand. Violent men will also typically justify or ignore their behaviour by:
·         Minimising the violence eg, saying it was "just a slap" or "isn't that bad".
·         Justifying the behaviour to themselves and blaming the victim.
·         Denying the violence happened or refusing to talk about it and expecting the victim to just "move on". (Dobash & Dobash, 2000).

Can alcohol or drugs cause domestic violence?


Many people who drink too much or take drugs don't abuse their partners or family members. Likewise, abuse doesn't exclusively occur when an abuser is drunk or under the influence of drugs. Substance use isn't the underlying cause of domestic violence.
 
Abusers who use alcohol or drugs may use this as an excuse for their behaviour saying "I was drunk" or "I don't remember". Even if they genuinely don't remember what they did, it doesn't remove responsibility for their behaviour. The causes of domestic violence are far more deep rooted than simply being an effect of intoxication or alcohol/drug dependency.

If an abuser is alcohol/drug dependent, it is important that this is treated in tandem with addressing the violent behaviour. Addressing only one without the other is unlikely to prove successful.

Women experiencing domestic violence may also turn to alcohol or drugs as a form of escape from the violence. Sometimes abusers will use their partner's addiction as an excuse for violent behaviour, saying they have been provoked into using violence. Excuses such as these are used by the perpetrator to deflect responsibility from themselves and put the blame for the violence onto the victim. In these situations it is vitally important that women receive the support they need, but also, that the perpetrator is held accountable for their actions and that they are not excused because of the woman's behaviour.
 
A study of 336 convicted offenders of domestic violence, found that alcohol was a feature in 62% of offences and 48% of offenders were alcohol dependent (Gilchrist et al, 2003).
 

Is domestic violence caused by a lack of control?


Domestic violence is about gaining control, not a lack of control. If an abuser is careful about when, where and to whom they are abusive, then they are showing sufficient awareness and knowledge about their actions to indicate they are not 'out of control'. Abusers use violence and tactics of coercion as a way of exercising control and getting what they want.
 

Can domestic violence be caused by mental illness?


The vast majority of people with mental health problems do not abuse other people. However, there are a small number of people who are in mental distress who may behave abusively, though this may not be caused by the mental health problem itself.
 

If an abuser is careful about when, where and to whom they are abusive then they are showing sufficient awareness and knowledge about their actions to indicate they are making choices about their behaviour.
 

If an abuser is random and unpredictable, being abusive to strangers as well as people they know (eg in public and in the workplace), then mental illness may be a possibility. Even if it is, it still doesn't mean anyone must put up with abusive behaviour. In these situations, it is important that the safety of survivors is prioritised and that the person experiencing mental distress obtains the professional care they need.


ESQUEMA DEL TEXTO EXTRAÍDO DE https://www.redcar-cleveland.gov.uk/rdv.nsf/Web?ReadForm&id=2E5EB92E543A9445802577F30032D36A


Video, mejor anuncio del año 2012 "Los niños hacen lo que ven"

Video de NTVG "Nunca más a mi lado"

sábado, 28 de septiembre de 2013

Texto sobre ley de aborto http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/10/26/uruguay-new-abortion-law-breaks-ground-women-s-rights

In a historic move this week, Uruguayan President José Mujica has signed into law a bill that waives criminal penalties for abortion in the first 12 weeks of gestation, with certain procedural requirements, and in the first 14 weeks of gestation in the cases of rape.

The law marks a significant development in realizing women’s human rights and preventing unsafe, clandestine abortions in the region.

“This bill is an important step forward to prevent the life-threatening risks of clandestine abortion,” saidAmanda Klasing, women’s rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Uruguay’s neighbors should take note of this progress. As sensitive an issue as abortion is, governments can and should pass laws that save women’s lives.”

Latin American countries have some of the most restrictive abortion policies in the world. Several countries, such as Chile, El Salvador, and Nicaragua have absolute bans on abortion with no exceptions whatsoever. These highly restrictive laws fuel unsafe, clandestine abortions, putting women’s lives at risk. The United Nation’s World Health Organization estimates that approximately 13 percent of maternal deaths in the region are from unsafe abortion.

Mujica had promised he would sign the bill passed by the Senate to waive penalties for abortion with few restrictions in December 2011. However, it took until September 2012 for the bill to pass through the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of Uruguay’s legislature. The lower house made significant changes to the Senate bill, adding procedural requirements that must be met for women to access abortions. The bill passed by a margin of just one vote, with 50 deputies in favor and 49 against. In October, Uruguay’s senate ratified the Chamber of Deputies’ version of the bill, clearing the way for the president’s signature. The final version retains abortion as a crime under the criminal code, but waives penalties.

The law requires women seeking abortions to inform a doctor of the circumstances of the conception and the economic, social, or family hardships which would prevent her from continuing the pregnancy. The same or next day, the doctor is required to consult an interdisciplinary team of at least three professionals, including at least one gynecologist, one mental health professional, and one specialist in social support. The interdisciplinary team must meet with the woman to inform her about the law, the process of abortion, and any inherent risks of the procedure. It will also inform her of alternatives to abortion and offer psycho-social support and information.

After the woman meets with the team, the law requires a five-day reflection period before she can reassert her choice to continue with the abortion. Upon her informed consent, a doctor can perform the procedure. The decision to have the abortion remains solely with the woman. These requirements do not apply for victims of rape or incest. The only requirement in those cases is the filing of a criminal complaint.

While the new law represents an advance in the region, the procedural provisions – in particular the mandatory five-day reflection period and consultation with the panel – could amount to an arbitrary barrier to accessing abortion services. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health has found that legal restrictions can make legal abortions inaccessible. Examples of abortion restrictions that the Rapporteur criticized in a 2011 report include: “requirements of counselling and mandatory waiting periods for women seeking to terminate a pregnancy” and “requirements that abortions be approved by more than one health-care provider.”

Uruguay’s Ministry of Public Health is now charged with developing regulations to implement the law. These regulations should ensure that any woman who seeks an abortion within the legal time frame is not denied the procedure as a result of delays caused by the law’s procedural requirements. Civil society organizations should have the opportunity to participate in developing these regulations.

“Having taken this positive step, Uruguay should now ensure that in practice women seeking this essential medical service can do so without arbitrary interference,” Klasing said.

Cuestionario sobre el texto informativo de la ley del aborto

Preguntas utilizando scanning:

1) ¿ Cuáles son los países de América Latina que tienen las políticas de aborto más restrictivas del mundo?

Los países son: Chile, el Salvador y Nicaragua.

2) ¿Por cuántos votos a favor y en contra se aprobó la ley?

 Se aprobó por 50 votos a favor y 49 votos en contra.


Peguntas utilizando skimming:

1) ¿ Cuántos días exige la ley como plazo para que la mujer tome la decisión definitiva de abortar o  de no abortar, y por qué?

La ley exige un plazo de cinco días para que la mujer tome la decisión definitiva de abortar o no, con el fin de que reflexione sobre su decisión.

2) ¿ Qué especialistas intervienen en el proceso previo a la realización del aborto?

La ley exige que el médico consulte con un equipo interdisciplinario de al menos tres profesionales: un ginecólogo, un profesional de salud mental y un especialista en apoyo social.


Manifestación a favor de la legalización del aborto


viernes, 27 de septiembre de 2013

CON LA FINALIDAD DE TRABAJAR EL DERECHO A LA VIDA PROPONEMOS EL SIGUIENTE TEXTO

EL PRESENTE TRABAJO ES EXTRAÍDO DE : http://www.warchild.org.uk/issues/child-soldiers

CHILD SOLDIERS

Child soldier. Some words don't belong together.

It's bad enough that children's lives are torn apart by wars they didn't start. But when they're forced into fighting in the conflict themselves, it causes psychological and physical damage that can often never be repaired.
Every child has the right to go to school and to live free from violence. Using kids as soldiers constitutes one of the most horrendous breaches of those rights and it is simply and unequivocally wrong.
THERE ARE ESTIMATED TO BE 250,000 CHILD SOLDIERS IN THE WORLD. 40% OF CHILD SOLDIERS ARE GIRLS

Key facts and statistics about child soldiers

There are an estimated 250,000 child soldiers in the world today.
It is estimated that 40% of all child soldiers are girls. They are often used as 'wives' (i.e. sex slaves) of the male combatants.
Many rebel groups use child soldiers to fight the government, but some governments also use child soldiers in armed conflict.
Not all children take part in active combat. Some are also used as porters, cooks and spies.
As part of their recruitment, children are sometimes forced to kill or maim a family member - thus breaking the bonds with their community and making it difficult for them to return home.

Where are child soldiers?

Africa has the largest number of child soldiers. Child soldiers are being used in armed conflict in Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia and Sudan.
In June 2013 The UN set a goal to have no child soldiers anywhere in the world by 2016. There are eight Government armies listed for the recruitment and use of children and six of them have already committed to making their armies child-free. In 2012, South Sudan, Myanmar, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo signed action plans with the United Nations. The previous year, Afghanistan and Chad made similar commitments. Discussions initiated with the Governments of Yemen and Sudan are expected to lead to action plans in the near future. 

Why use children as soldiers?

Children are used as soldiers because they are easier to condition and brainwash. They don't eat much food, don't need paying much and have an underdeveloped sense of danger so are easier to send into the line of fire.
As children make up the majority demographic in many conflict-affected countries, there's a constant supply of potential recruits. Due to their size and 'expendability', children are often sent into battle as scouts or decoys, or sent in the first wave to draw the enemy's fire.

What are the effects on children?

The effects on children are felt long after their physical scars have healed and their drug dependencies overcome. Many child soldiers are desensitised to violence - often at a very formative time in their development and this can psychologically damage them for life.
Even when they're set free or escape, many children can't go back home to their families and communities because they've been ostracised from them. They may have been forced to kill a family member or neighbour just so they can never go back. Many girls have babies from their time in the rebel groups and their communities/families don't accept them home.
Most have missed out on school - sometimes for many years. Without an education they have very little future prospects and sometimes return to the rebel groups as they have simply no other way of feeding themselves.

How do child soldiers get recruited?

·         Some are abducted from their homes and forced to become soldiers
(a tactic notoriously used by the Lords Resistance Army.)
·         A village may be forced to provide a certain number of children as soldiers in exchange for staying safe from attack.
·         Some children are volunteered by their parents due to extreme poverty and hunger at home.
 In some rare cases children volunteer to join the fight because of ideological reasons or to avenge the death of their family