RIGHTS. The 2020s could be a decade when new systems and functions concerning rights are developed. But the future development can be both light and dark, depending on which ideas win more support and acceptance in public debates. Keeping in mind the 2010s nationalist and populist development where human rights are despised, at the same time as there is a lack of new ideas about rights catalogs for a post-industrial societal development.

Brexit and rights 

In connection with the Brexit debate, the academic David Miller asked why many left-wing Britons took a stand for EU membership based on communication about labor union organization, working conditions, and social rights. After all, rights as civic ones are a historical product of formations of nations and nation-states as the UK.

Miller’s point about rights being interpreted from a state-centric perspective is also about the idea of ​​”liberal nationalism”, which can also be likened to nationalist social democracy – high taxes and a demand-based welfare state, as well as restrictive immigration and demands for cultural uniformity. In addition, the liberal-nationalist view is that citizenship and rights should only be national because the nation-state is regarded as the only possible form of social and institutional organization.

The argument in the style of Brexit being bad for social rights and the working class in Britain has been part of the pro-Remain left-wing referendum campaign. Furthermore, millions of anti-Brexit and pro-EU Britons realized that they risked losing their civil rights as EU citizens regarding turnout, mobility, and health care. In turn, pro-Brexit leftists have argued the opposite, namely that Brexit would be good for British civil rights, partly because the European Union is still equal to neoliberalism and undermining national democracy.

European Union and rights 

But regarding Brexit and the view of rights, it is important to understand the following, as the historian Yuval Harari argues. According to Harari, Brexit was not a political battle between people who were for or against rights. Rather, it was a political struggle between those who wanted rights in a universal and cosmopolitan sense against those who wanted the rights to stay at the border and primarily be for “our own“.

Much of the EU’s ‘social dimension’ of rights and conditions can and should be criticized for improving and further evolving over time. At the same time, it is also important to understand that the EU is the only example in the world of how concrete civil rights have been shaped at the supranational level and could thus include and unite more people than ever before in history.

This partly explains the establishment of European citizenship in the 1990s and 2000s as a kind of political target for both left-wing and right-wing populists and nationalists in the Union. For those who in an authoritarian way believe that man must be subordinated to the nation and mentally limited to “the national”, ideas about rights and the individual’s private sphere at the supranational level can feel very irritating and negative.

The “civil rights vs human rights” false narrative

Rights discussions in the 2010s also show that nationalism cannot be divided into good and evil because different ideas tend to merge. For example, when the Sweden Democrats in 2017 handed out their “freedom prize” to the Czech Republic’s former prime minister and now right-wing extremist Vaclav Klaus, the motivation was that Klaus had argued that human rights have become a threat to civic rights and national sovereignty. However, such ideas and reasoning are not limited to right-wing extremist actors, as the debate on rights from a nationalist and authoritarian point of view has occurred among other debaters, including on the left.

For example, the historian and debater Lars Traedgaordh, known for the texts concerning Swedish identification and social trust, argued in the 2010s that civil (welfare) rights should outweigh human rights regarding Sweden’s function as a state. Above all, it is about the view of humanitarian immigration and resources concerning the welfare state, where Traedgaodh believes that Sweden has a greater responsibility for its own citizens than for non-citizens. In addition, Traedgaordh has reasoned in the style that the focus on multiculturalism, pluralism, and universality should be reduced in favor of culture in the “national” sense.

A rights debate for 21st century

In this way, based on the 2010 rights debates, one can conclude that the political battle that Harari believes is generally not about for or against rights but is about which people should have rights and how the rights should be managed institutionally. Those who want a cosmopolitan world and are driven by universal values and rights need to explain how democracy, welfare, and the rule of law can really function globally. And those who want rights based on nationalist and discriminatory reasoning need to explain why the public as the state should treat people in an arbitrary, repressive, and exclusive way.

There are several reasons why more people as in the Swedish debate should look ahead and write about modern ideas about rights. The modern state needs to be precisely universalist and cosmopolitan to be able to deal with global problems and challenges and contribute to human security and the development of the climate and the planet. Today, more and more people are joining decentralized and often global communities such as networks and associations with their own constitutions, democratic processes, and economic ecosystems. Animals also need to have their rights more protected in line with climate change. There are also transhumanist and futuristic ideas about rights for robots, AI, and cyborgs in the post-industrial as well as “post-human” societal visions of the future.

Such a development may sound comical and strange, but it is important to remember that one of the most important functions of rights is to ensure peaceful interpersonal relationships. The future development may mean that relationships between people and with other beings become increasingly complex and interconnected over time through various interactions and processes concerning the handling of the climate issue. In such a world, a universalist and complex view of rights is needed for humanity as a whole to keep the ability to solve common challenges.

The post Fight for your rights! first appeared on Opulens.

Winter Olympic games in a country with concentration camps? Are Swedish athletes expected to bobsled through a gulag?  Have their equipment carried, not by volunteers, but by forced labor with bruises on their backs? It should be completely out of the question. Sweden has no choice but to boycott the Winter Olympics in China next year. So why the silence?   

Fear is an important factor and a rational one considering how easily the Chinese regime resorts to blackmail and power politics. For each passing day, the Chinese ambassador in Sweden sounds less like a diplomat and more like Tony Soprano.

According to The Economist, around 85% of Swedes have a negative view of China, a statistic partly attributable to the ambassador’s undiplomatic behaviour. Any objection concerning Huawei, Gui Minhai, trade or Hong Kong, however minor and justified, is enough to awake his wrath and have open threats hurled against you. “Stop what you are doing or face the consequences”, he is fond of saying to Swedish journalists, businesses and the government itself.

It is a credible threat. Standing up to China is costly both in terms of commerce and security policy. On the other hand, a gulag is a gulag. This short article does not allow for a full list of torture methods to which the Uighurs are being subjected to. Among a total population of 12 million Uighurs, between one and two million people have been either brainwashed, physically abused, forcefully sterilized, raped or forced into labour. And that is not all. The whole Xinjiang province is an open-air prison where the distinction between free and unfree people is hard to make.

Even on the streets, people are being harassed, kept under surveillance and forced to spy on each other. Having a beard and taking a moment to pray can be interpreted as extremism. To receive a phone call from a Muslim majority country can be penalized, regardless of what the phone call is about. 

There is another creative evil which the Chinese regime is spreading into every household. Han Chinese (members of the majority ethnic group in China) are encouraged to move into Uighur homes, and the hosts are forced to share their beds and meals with the uninvited guests. Sometimes they stay for up to ten days, each month. This practice is called ”becoming kin”. One witness account tells us about a ten-year-old girl being paired up with a man twice her age. There they were, “the relative” and the child, sitting on a sofa in front of the mother who could do nothing but watch.

Children belonging to abducted parents are seen as a logistical problem because there are so many of them. They end up in different “educational facilities”, surrounded by high fences. Their teachers are instructed to distance children from parents, partly by prohibiting any use of the Uighur language in schools. The parents’ religion is also demonized. When pupils are asked if God exists and answer yes, they get beaten.

China’s extermination campaign aims to dilute and eliminate Uighurs’ Islamic faith, culture and language. It is an extreme example of what islamophobic assimilation policy can lead to. It is also a crime against humanity on a scale that is hard to find anywhere else in the world. A crime that the USA government has labelled as genocide, invoking satellite images, eyewitness testimonies and official documents which are in no need of hacking. Sometimes they are readily available to download from a Chinese municipality’s website.

Consumer and NGO campaigns against Western companies profiting on Uighur slave labour have recently been intensified. When H&M and other corporations voice concern about cotton harvested in Xinjiang, they are met with a fierce boycott organized by the Chinese government and nationalist Internet trolls.

The USA, EU and Canada have jointly imposed sanctions against Chinese individuals actively involved in the atrocities. More than ten Muslim-majority countries have withdrawn their official support for Xi Jinping’s treatment of Uighurs. Needless to say, these actions are far from sufficient.

Boycotting the Winter Olympic games is the least Sweden could do. This issue should not be conflated with the age-old debate about politics and sports. It should not be seen as a debate of any kind. Celebrating sports in China today is equal to dancing on someone’s grave. It simply cannot happen. So why not make Sweden’s boycott official – today?

The post No to Winter Olympics in China during an ongoing genocide! first appeared on Opulens.

Recently, the leader of a major opposition party in Georgia was detained, despite calls from the outside world for dialogue and restraint. Prime Minister Giorgi Gakhari resigned last week, alleging the plans to arrest the opposition leader to be the cause that risks plunging the country in crisis. But what is the conflict really about? We put the question to George Mchedlishvili, associate professor of political science at International Black Sea University in Tbilisi.

This article was originally published by Tomas Nordberg via Global Bar Magazine. 

The protests continued on Saturday the 27^th with the demonstrators demanding the release of Niki Melia. The Washington Post writes that the chaos in Georgia plays into Putin´s hands and encourages the Georgian politicians to act in unity and to compromise.

How are we to understand what is happening? And what is the background to the conflict? We asked George Mchedlishvili, associate professor in political science at International Black Sea University in Tbilisi.

How would you characterize recent developments? 

– The detention of the leader of the United National Movement (UNM), the biggest opposition party, is hardly a positive development on its own right. However, it must be said, that the detained Nika Melia bears a significant portion of responsibility for what happened. He had been warned on more than one occasion that the failure to pay a 40,000 Georgian Lari (around $12,000) bail would entail his detention. This bail was imposed on Melia for the removal of the monitoring bracelet that had been attached to his wrist for the alleged calls to storm the Parliament during the huge June 2019 protests. So, despite the lack of wisdom on the part of the Government, who should have been cognizant that the detention of the political figure of such magnitude would escalate political tension in the country, from the standpoint of the law they were right.

– These developments contribute to the further polarization of the Georgian political landscape, which hardly bode well for the country’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations.

How would you describe the background of the conflict? 

– The background is a nearly decade-old conflict between the United National Movement (UNM), the ruling party till October 2012, and the Georgian Dream (GD), which was created in late 2011 for this very goal – to defeat the UNM – the mission GD successfully accomplished in October 2012. The parties changed roles, but their attitude towards each other did not change, and continues to be characterized by extreme degrees of animus and vitriol. The narrative of UNM against the GD has not undergone any changes over the past decade and is based chiefly on accusations of pro-Russian orientation. The narrative of the GD is also practically unchanged and is associated with the authoritarian and repressive methods of governance that the UNM employed when in power. Unfortunately, this bipolarity remains the defining feature of Georgian politics, whereby both ”poles” view the game exclusively in a zero-sum fashion and a new and meaningful political force, substantively distinct from both GD and UNM, is yet to appear.

What are the underlying reasons for the conflict? 

– UNM and several small opposition parties pinned their hopes on the elections, hoping to seriously squeeze the Georgian Dream’s parliamentary preeminence. But the elections, although they were held with some violations, were nevertheless recognized as legitimate, and gave a majority (albeit very far from constitutional) to the incumbent Georgian Dream. The UNM-led opposition chose to boycott the parliament (thus betraying their voters) and opted for escalating political tensions to avoid complete irrelevance. For this reason, the leader of UNM, Melia, publicly removed the monitoring bracelet, fully aware that this in-your-face act of disobedience would trigger the response on the part of the law enforcement. The current escalation of tensions plays into the hands of the opposition, as they stand to lose more from the status-quo.

What does this unfolding of incidents portend for the future of democracy in Georgia? 

– Georgia’s fledgling democracy seems to be the biggest loser in the current confrontation. Situations like these, whereby a politician is detained (even though he partially bears the responsibility), and the rhetoric is inflammatory, is distinctly bad for the state of democracy and political dialogue in Georgia.

Who is responsible for the situation?

– Both parties bear the responsibility. The opposition leader himself chose the path of obstructing justice. He could not help but foresee the consequences of such a line of conduct. I believe the bulk of responsibility lies on Nika Melia himself. On the other hand, the authorities acted very unwisely and clumsily. They could have predicted international reaction to such a forceful step.

The post What is the conflict in Georgia about? first appeared on Opulens.

HUMANITY. In “Pieces of the puzzle – Managing migration in the EU” researcher Bernd Parusel argues for a new European immigration policy and system based on human rights, social inclusion and global cooperation. One important conclusion is that if the EU cannot improve and learn from current failures, it will be more or less impossible to create better solutions at the world level as well.

During 2015, more than 1 million refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants came to the EU. Most of EU-governments accepted the majority of immigrating individuals as in cases of Germany, Sweden and Portugal. But instead of taking pride in such large and historical humanitarian effort, the EU has changed negatively when it comes to policies, decisions and communication. Even those EU-states as Germany with a “welcoming attitude” are not more restrictive and pessimistic regarding humanitarian migration.

While the Corona pandemic has resulted in border closures and reduced human mobility across the world, the EU: Commission has been organising a new “New Pact on  Migration and Asylum”. A pact that most of the EU-governments and parliamentary groups in the European Parliament are unsatisfied with. Several analysts and experts have already been proclaimed the pact as “business as usual” where ideals of open society and closed society are mixed as a European, one can often feel that issues concerning immigration policies and systems are a never-ending story. 

However, it is not a never-ending story, but migration will always be part of Europe. After all, most Europeans have someone in their history as parents or have friends and colleagues who have been refugees and immigrants. Also, as the EU is integrating politically and economically, even the migration policy areas will have to follow. It is hard to have a single market and common institutions with 27 asylum systems.

Historically seen, EU-governments have been discussing and negotiating about integrating policies and institutions for the humanitarian and labour migration already since the 1980s. 

Such historical background is described in the book “Pieces of the puzzle – Managing migration in the EU”  by Bernd Parusel, published via European Liberal Forum. Parusel makes a detailed historical presentation that is important when understanding Europe concerning migration. In the first place, the book is a strong encouragement to political actors, especially liberal and progressive ones, to find and create better solutions than the existing ones. 

Parusel emphasises that it is important to defend human rights that are EU:s cornerstone and push forward with new dynamics such as offering meaningful storytelling about the future of Europe. For example, an important proposal in the book is how new legal pathways could be created so that more people can enter the EU legally, freely and safely when applying for the right to asylum. Among other important proposals are to develop new mechanisms for shared responsibilities between EU-governments. 

The book provides a detailed and comprehending analysis concerning what has happened and what can be done by Europe. Parusel is also proposing better cooperation between the EU and other governments as the African ones when it comes to humanitarian assistance and deportation actions. The overall message is that more fences and walls will not work, while better cooperation and common goals will benefit humans, governments and continents. 

Finally, an important message of the book is that what is done Europe does not stay in Europe. Parusel highlights the importance of the 2018 Global Compact on Migration agreement and negotiations depending on European governance and development. Thereby, the EU can improve itself and our planet regarding human dignity and security. 

The post Time for EU:s humanitarian update first appeared on Opulens.

INTERVIEW. Hind Al-Eryani is a writer and journalist from Yemen. She received the Arab Woman of the Year Award in 2017 in the category of Achievement in Public Awareness and is a member of the Yemenite Women Pact for Peace and Security. She is a well-known peace negotiator, journalist and activist for LGBTQ rights. Because of her work, Hind Al-Eryani was forced to move to Turkey and then, as threats continued, to Sweden where she and her daughter have residency. Here Hind Al-Eryani tells her story to Tomas Nordberg.

This article was originally published by Tomas Nordberg via Global Bar magazine. 

”I was born in a small town called Jiblah, this town was actually the governor´s central for Queen Arwa, she is the first Muslim queen and the only real queen we had in Yemen and I think this had an impact on me, the idea of a woman leading a country and being a leader. I had my High School in Yemen and also BS in Computer Science in Yemen and then I moved with my family to Lebanon. In Lebanon, I worked with the UN. It was during the Arab Spring and I was so excited about it. But it was wrong, because as an employee with the UN you shouldn´t have your own opinion.

I did a campaign during that time called ”Shame on Reuters”. It was about a Reuter´s reporter who was working with the government. I was surprised why Reuters did not cover the revolution in Yemen, and then it turns out he is the personal reporter of President Saleh, so I decided to do this campaign. In the beginning, Reuters refused to fire him. They said: ‘We have been working with him for so long and we trust him’, but then we put more pressure, the New York Times and the Washington Post wrote about the campaign and they had to fire him.

This was my first campaign. When I realized that I could make an impact using social media, I decided to do a campaign against chewing khat, which is a drug that people are using a lot in Yemen. As a result, they grow more khat than any other plants. This means that Yemen had to import fruits and vegetables from outside of the country. I went to Yemen and I led protests in front of the Parliament, asking those elected to accept a strategy to solve the khat problem in twenty years. After every protest, the parliament would discuss this law and then they voted against the measures because many members themselves grow khat on their land. After the parliament refused it twice then the national dialogue started. So I went there and we suggested a constitution article that could solve khat gradually, and they actually accepted it and added it to the draft constitution 2015 but then unfortunately the war started.

My next campaign was in 2016, after the war in Yemen started in 2014. Peace talks where organized in Kuwait, and people were so hopeful, because Kuwait was always a country that is accepted by Yemenites and also Saudi and Houthis. We started the campaign ”Don´t come back without peace”. The politicians on all sides said they supported the campaign, ‘we are not going to come without peace’ and all this blah blah. Of course they were just talking and it wasn´t true. The journalists who were related to these parties were against peace and they all wanted the war to continue, because they are gaining from it. So then, of course they didn´t agree, and the Kuwait talks failed.

Lately I worked for LGBTQ rights, which is a very sensitive subject.

After that I took part of the Yemeni Women´s Pact for Peace and Security. The UN Women organized this group and our goal is to work for peace so last time we did a campaign to support the UN Envoy for ceasefire. We also did a meeting with the Foreign Minister of Sweden, when Sweden hosted the peace talks in 2018, which resulted in the Stockholm Agreement. Unfortunately the Stockholm agreement did not reach to any long lasting result, even if it stopped the war in Hodeida.

Today, the war still goes on. One reason is that all parties in the war want it to continue, because they are gaining from it. There should be more pressure from the international society and from the UN. They should of course also put more pressure Saudi and Iran, as both countries are running a proxy war in Yemen and there should be talks between these countries.

During all those years, I worked for women´s rights and this caused me lots of problems because I was criticizing some clerics and they threatened my daughter and me.

Lately I worked for LGBTQ rights, which is a very sensitive subject. Actually there were no activists that were talking about this before in Yemen, because they know how sensitive the issue is. I wrote an article about the Prime Minister of Finland and how she was raised in a gay family. Many Arabs were commenting about this when it was published in one of the newspapers. They were saying: ‘How come she is a good person, how come she is not lesbian?’  So I wrote an article and I explained all the wrong things that the homophobic believe about gays and the title was: ‘Why are you scared of homosexuality?’ or ‘Why you are homophobic’. As a result, the backlash was really strong. There were newspapers saying: ‘Kill her when you see her ‘.

But the output of this was that I started a group for LGBTQ in Yemen and we gathered many people from the community. They started to contact me after I talked about the subject and then the UN – for the first time – decided to write about the LGBTQ in Yemen and what they are facing. As a result, a report was published in September this year. Today, I am based in Stockholm with my daughter. I am studying Swedish and I am still working with Monte Carlo Radio. We have residency, we are ok. Also, our work with the Yemeni Women´s Pact continues. Recently I moderated a meeting between a coalition of Yemeni women working for peace, the Swedish foreign ministry and the Swedish Institute. One issue that I have been brought up has been the situation for the Baha’i community in Yemen and I was happy that we secured the release of several jailed persons.”

The post “Kill her when you see her.” Hind Al-Eryani tells her story first appeared on Opulens.

DEMOCRACY. The situation in Belarus is one of cheating in the election, of violent replies to demonstrations by the government and removal of access to the internet. How did it come to this?

This text was published in cooperation with cooperative Kunlabori

The country had been taken over at times and after Russia had its revolution after world war one it had was somewhat independent during German influence by the Brest-Litovsk treaty 1918, before some turmoil, and then the Soviet Union seized the area. By the end of the second world war, half of the population had been either killed or moved – this cannot be said of any other European country according to Timothy Snyder and his book “Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin 2010”.

Nazi Germany implemented “the Lebensraum policy” there and Stalin fought the nazis back on this territory. The Soviet Union rebuilt and used the area for manufacturing. Then Chernobyl occurred 1986 which affected Belarus more than Ukraine. On July 27 1990, Belarus became independent but still had the authoritarian political structures left from the Soviet Union.

Since 1994 Lukashenko has been the president of the country by fraudulent elections. The country is not in the EU and has problems with corruption in elections, human right violations and more according to the OSCE. A side note important to add is that democracy generally in the world is on a trend pointing down according to Varieties of Democracy – and the coronavirus situation is just making the trend even steeper (and a more efficient and less corrupt variety of democracy can absolutely be a possible solution).

We interviewed a Belarusian about the situation, and they told us that they have to use a VPN during the day to be able to communicate with us. The actual demonstrations are violent and there can be violent consequences for demonstrating. The people of Belarus are tired of government, and tired of offices that are always corrupt. We asked them if they knew about liquid democracy, which they did not.

The text ”Liquid Democracy, the solution to the Belarusian problem” by an anonymous Belarusian by the alias ”a patriotic Belarusian” has been spread on various media (VK and Telegram for example). The texts explain that Belarusians are tired of this old system that is corrupt and that they, therefore, should get rid of it – changing it into blockchain integrated online liquid democracy, to do the opposite of Lukashenko and spread means of accessing the world digitally. The full text in Russian can be found at the end of the article.

Now, it seems awareness of liquid democracy is not very large. Still, it has started to spread in Belarus between Belarusians during these times when government, politicians and the old structures are tiresome, and the people want something totally new. Hopefully, we will get a result that is as democratic as possible.

The post Concerning Belarus first appeared on Opulens.

WELFARE. The idea of basic income has a long history. In Europe, during the last decades, it has transformed from a theoretical approach to the practical implementation as with the experiment in Finland during 2017-2019.

In Switzerland, a referendum in 2016 took place where citizens voted about the issue concerning the government providing every citizen with a guaranteed citizen salary. The proposal was later rejected by a significant marginal. Namely, around 74% voted against. However, despite the relevant terms basic income, citizen income or citizen salary a considerable difference within the debate.

The ongoing debate and the supporters of the basic income policy can be divided into three main categories: the economic-liberal, the welfare supporters and the economic-growth critics. In its original, the idea of the basic income, such as argued by academic Phillipe van Parijs, should be provided to each individual and citizen within the society. In practice, it means that a basic income should, by the state government, be given, for example, both a businessman who earns several million euros per year as well as to a low-income job seeker.

One of the most prominent specifics of the basic income idea is that it has broader support within the ideological sphere since political thinkers from left to the right, from freedom to authoritarian side, have been supporting the idea. The economic-liberal side of the debate has different political ambition, based on two main arguments. The first one is to reduce the overall size and expenditure of the welfare state by cutting down the size of bureaucracy and its costs. The second is to make the welfare state gentler and less paternalistic towards the individual.

Liberals in favour of basic income often argue that the individual should have the personal freedom to choose how to spend the basic income. The argument is that the individual knows better how the basic income can be used for their own personal success, welfare and future perspectives. Therefore from the economic-liberal side of the debate, the general idea is that basic income should be provided by a more limited distribution of welfare. For example, by providing basic income only for those who are outside of the labour market or who lack other kind of sufficient income. Also, there can be an age limit, such as providing basic income only for individuals in the age span of 19 – 65 years.

 Another support for the economic-liberal basic income policy is original ideas of liberal economist Milton Friedman regarding the negative income tax (NIT). The primary purpose is that a person without income or earning much less than the average salary would be able to receive payments in the form of subsidies from the taxation agency based on the scale the person`s income gets under the tax threshold.

Historically seen the idea of basic income has had its supporters among liberal thinkers. One prominent thinker who supported the purpose of such income was Friedrich Hayek. As a classical liberal, he was against the existence of the welfare state. However, he argued that an individual should be guaranteed a basic income if for example, being left out from the labour market. For Hayek, the primary assignment of the basic income was to deal with and correct the ”imperfections” of the free market economy.

According to Hayek, the basic income could function as a protective floor to hinder the individual from falling down into poverty. For him, this was a preferable method for making things right in the free market economy where the government could provide support for the individual in a difficult socio-economic situation.  A classical liberal argument can, therefore, be presented in short as the argument that every individual member of the society should be guaranteed freedom from poverty.

Similar ideas as Hayek’s are proposed by Matt Zwolinski, a bleeding-heart libertarian and philosophy professor in the USA.  He argues that a basic income would be an effective way to reduce the spending and the size of the federal government’s welfare, by cutting down the administration and giving money directly to individuals. Also, he means that basic income is compatible with original thoughts of the classical liberalism, meaning that the tax-funded necessary social protection can be provided.

Zwolinski’s argument is that society’s morals, rules and rights should be available to be exercised by everybody in the society as much as possible. A society based on free but complex social and economic interactions between individuals also leads to specific problems. By having citizens who are stressed and dissatisfied because of the issues as poverty, social exclusion and lack of confidence, the free and democratic society gets challenged by having the members not being able or willing to practice the morals, rules and rights of the society. The basic income can, therefore, ensure that a free and democratic society can function better since its imperfections can be corrected.

Another support for the economic-liberal basic income policy is original ideas of liberal economist Milton Friedman regarding the negative income tax (NIT). The primary purpose is that a person without income or earning much less than the average salary would be able to receive payments in the form of subsidies from the taxation agency based on the scale the person`s income gets under the tax threshold.

In contrast to the progressive taxation, the NIT is also part of the method where overall taxation would be lower and managed with the different percentage depending on the size of the taxpayer’s income. Friedman’s vision was that this would be a kind of win-win situation where the welfare state and its spending are being reduced while individual is more stimulated to take a low-paid jobs as well as getting protected from poverty.

Finally, there are also more social-liberal arguments for basic income based on positive rights. Civil rights activist Martin Luther King also advocated that a basic income should be given to every citizen, human and families in the USA. He argued that it was easier to erase poverty than to deal with its roots. Interesting fact is that during the same time period president Richard Nixon was also in favour of basic income policy which was called the family assistance plan and inspired by Friedman’s approach. For Martin Luther King, the basic income was a way for empowering the civil rights movement and also of reshaping the society into becoming more civic.

In Europe historically seen the idea of the welfare state was from the beginning, a conservative idea which can be traced to Bismarck’s Germany during the later period of the 19-the century. By, for example, providing guaranteed pensions and free schooling for all citizens it was a method of maintaining stability in the society. Many conservative politicians at the time were, for example, worried about the class-based struggle and protesting actions among the growing working class.

Today the idea of having more substantial or smaller welfare states is widely spread across the union, including the different models being implemented such as the Nordic and the continental model. For most of the citizens welfare is not a question of having or not having but a question about what kind of welfare policy should be exercised. The basic income idea has, therefore, a lot of potentials to become a modern welfare approach in future within the EU to have a more human-centric welfare policy rather than older versions of paternalistic and integrity infringing welfare states.

The post The liberal case for basic income first appeared on Opulens.

HUMAN RIGHTS. United Nations and the World Health Organization call for decriminalisation of all drug users and possession of drugs for personal use. In a joint statement on ending discrimination within health care settings, the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organisation (WHO) urges all countries to decriminalise the use of all drugs and the possession of all drugs for personal use.    

Decriminalisation of drug use and possession of drugs for personal use is not to be confused with legalisation and the regulated sales of drugs such as in countries and states that have legalised cannabis for personal use. With decriminalisation, the manufacturing and sale of a scheduled narcotic drug remain illegal for the public.

Since some countries’ repressive drug laws did not live up to international human rights and established public health evidence, there is a worldwide growing support from human rights organisations, public health groups, the medical and scientific community to decriminalise use and legalise drugs for personal use. As well as the UN:

“International human rights law lays down obligations which States are bound to respect. By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights.”

WHO have issued support and recommendations to decriminalise all drug users before. In a previous report regarding consolidated guidelines on HIV prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care for key populations the recommendation regarding decriminalisation and ban on forced treatment on drug users was stated under the section Good practice recommendations concerning decriminalisation:

• Countries should work toward developing policies and laws that decriminalise injection and other use of drugs and, thereby, reduce incarceration.

• Countries should work toward developing policies and laws that decriminalise the use of clean needles and syringes (and that permit NSPs [needle and syringe programmes]) and that legalise OST [opioid substitution therapy] for opioid-dependent people.

• Countries should ban compulsory treatment for people who use and/or inject drugs.

Decriminalisation of all drug use and possession of drugs for personal use in order to reduce harm is not only supported by the United Nations and the World Health Organisation because it is a matter of human rights. It is supported worldwide because these discriminatory, draconian and punitive laws should have never been implemented in the first place.

Not living up to international human rights is breaking them. Furthermore, breaking international human rights is a crime. Who in their right mind supports crimes against humanity?

The post UN and the WHO call for decriminalisation of drugs first appeared on Opulens.

HUMAN RIGHTS. Citizens of the world, or should I say, individuals, the spotlight is once again on Sweden’s judicial system. A long-time has passed since prosecutors in Sweden started a preliminary investigation, that later was referred to as the Julian Assange case. To this day it continues to haunt Swedish authorities, even after discontinuing the case against the publisher.

Currently, Assange is being detained in a state-run prison in south-east London, but there are also privately owned prisons in England. One should keep in mind that a different way is possible: in Sweden, for example, no prison-industrial complex exists, no artificial market has been created there. Yet.

The judicial process was once regarded highly in the United Kingdom, but today the justice and prison services might very well be deteriorating if the neoliberal state can lock away a journalist, by pursuing a constructed narrative and makeup charges as they go along.

After all, the Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote that the degree of civilisation in a society could be judged by entering its prisons. So, what does the inside of prisons look like in various countries? The common image of a confinement is a dirty and foul box, maybe not as horrible as the US creation and hellhole, Guantanamo Bay, but similarly dark.

For a different counterpart, one envisions Sweden and what a nomad’s minimalistic deluxe hotel room might look like. This is the product of a strong welfare state, thus it presents the standard of a decent motel, clean facilities with TV sets and libraries. When Saddam Hussein in 2004 requested to serve his prison sentence in this Nordic country, maybe it was not just a coincidence of safety measures.

Furthermore, in Norway, the mass murderer and terrorist Anders Behring Breivik is serving a life sentence. Breivik has since been able to sue the state for not complying with the European Declaration of Human Rights. If we embark on measuring like Dostoyevsky suggested, the Norwegian way is a sign of a great civilisation, one that lets an incarcerated human preserve the right to justice.

In the UK contrarily, Julian Assange might be subjected to debilitating drug treatments, according to Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. These treatments have caused him not to be able to follow his court hearings, Craig Murray, a good friend of Assange, wrote after attending the proceedings.

A different way should always be envisioned. Some additional information that is relevant to the matter is that in Sweden a prison is not simply called that, but always referred to as “kriminalvården”. One could translate it as a “correctional facility” but more accurately, it is a rehabilitation centre for criminals. The name hints of a system built on the idea of humanism and its inmates preserve some form of human dignity and are not labelled merely as prisoners but will instead receive treatment and not be completely stripped of their rights while serving their time.

Societies that are deteriorating by the standard of Dostoevsky’s measure are many, and one cannot help but think of Turkey after the coup attempt against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan when he ordered thousands to be imprisoned. It cannot be forgotten. These humans Erdogan said, had committed treason and were thrown into overcrowded prison cells. Photos later emerged showing men lying in pits, naked on top of each other and Amnesty reported on starved and tortured captives.

The Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad after the American invasion of Iraq is another example that comes to mind. It was in this location on the world map, once called Mesopotamia, that human civilisation developed and advanced. Sadly, it was also here, in modern times, that man became animal.

Wikileaks has revealed in-depth, the machinery of American imperialism and how this form of deep state governance works. Moreover, it drops bombs, takes captives and creates dungeons, wherever it sees fit.

In Her Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh in the United Kingdom, Julian Assange might at this moment be contemplating from within his isolation cell, what type of society would imprison someone who delivers the truth to people.

The post From within Julian’s cell, one can understand society first appeared on Opulens.