INVENÇÕES MAIS PROMETEDORAS DE 2013

Luzes LED diretamente nas rodas

                        Carregador que usa energia eólica







LES 10 INVENTIONS LES PLUS PROMETTEUSES DE 2013

VICTOR HUGO LE DISAIT DÉJÀ EN 1862

"À ceux qui ignorent, enseignez-leur le plus de choses que vous pourrez; la société est coupable de ne pas donner l'instruction gratis; elle répond de la nuit qu'elle produit. Cette âme est pleine d'ombre, le péché s'y commet. Le coupable n'est pas celui qui y fait le péché, mais celui qui y a fait l'ombre".

[Pequena contribuição literária para o debate sobre a redução da maioridade penal]

ADULTS' RIGHT TO INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY (CONCERNING THE CIRCUMCISION OF JEWISH BOYS)

At its 31st Sitting (on 1 October 2013), Council of Europe adopted the text of Resolution 1952 (2013) dealing with some issues of 'Children's right to physical integrity', inter alia circumcision for religious reasons.

Despite Council of Europe's important contributions for the protection of children’s rights and the rapporteur’s (Mrs Marlene Rupprecht, from Germany) commendable and consistent record of initiatives and reports for the adoption of measures for the protection of children at European level, the above-mentioned Resolution fails to consider the uniqueness of Jewish circumcision, treating it among other forms of circumcision and not even referring to it.

 

The very fact that this Resolution states that ‘supporters of the procedures tend to present as beneficial to the children themselves despite clear evidence to the contrary’ suffices to cause concern.

 

First, Jewish circumcision is not a practice primarily based on medical grounds.

 

Second, the point that should be considered is not whether Jewish circumcision is medically recommended, but whether this entails physical or psychological consequences for Jewish boys.

 

Third, the necessary reference to  discussions on whether circumcision is beneficial or not to boys has been avoided in a Resolution where it wrongly states ‘clear evidence to the contrary’. A fair discussion would easily highlight the beneficial consequences of Jewish circumcision as pointed out by a large number of medical doctors in Europe and elsewhere and most of all that such consequences carry no negative long-lasting impact on the lives of Jews, as wrongly mentioned in Resolution 1952 (2013). However, I would like to stress once more, the point is not whether Jewish circumcision is medically recommended, but that this carries no negative consequences.    

 

Given the growing number of cases of anti-Semitism in Europe, any parliamentary initiative towards preventing or regulating circumcision should avoid treating this issue without considering the specificities of Jewish circumcision and without first consulting with Jews themselves and representatives of their communities.

Since Resolution 1952 (2013) refers to ‘Children’s right to physical integrity’, we found just fair to name our draft resolution ‘Adults’ right to intellectual integrity (concerning Jewish circumcision)’ for the adopted Resolution contains serious mistakes by treating as equal Jewish circumcision and other forms of circumcision and as comparable to female genital mutilation. These matters should never be treated in the same legal text. Of course, the name we chose is exclusively for the purposes of drawing the necessary attention to these points. However, our draft resolution could bear a more appropriate name, such as ‘Protection to Jewish circumcision’. But its name is not the issue at stake.

Here-below we post the text of Council of Europe's Resolution 1952 (2013) for information and we subsequently submit our draft resolution (produced during Sunday, 6^th of October, 2013).

__________________________________________________________________________________
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

 

Resolution 1952 (2013)1

 

Provisional version
 

Children’s right to physical integrity
1. Many legislative and policy measures have been taken by Council of Europe member States in recent decades to improve the well-being of children and their protection against any form of violence. Nevertheless, children continue to be harmed in many different contexts.

2. The Parliamentary Assembly is particularly worried about a category of violation of the physical integrity of children, which supporters of the procedures tend to present as beneficial to the children themselves despite clear evidence to the contrary. This includes, amongst others, female genital mutilation, the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons, early childhood medical interventions in the case of intersexual children and the submission to or coercion of children into piercings, tattoos or plastic surgery.

3. According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), in all actions concerning children, comprising every person under 18, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration and States are required to take “all appropriate ... measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse ... while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child” (Article 3).

4. The Council of Europe has been actively promoting children's rights and child protection since 2006 through its Strategy for the Rights of the Child, and in which “Eliminating all forms of violence against children” can be found as one of four strategic objectives.

5. The Assembly itself has adopted numerous texts drawing attention to various forms of violence inflicted upon children in bad faith (sexual violence in different contexts, violence in schools, domestic violence, etc.). It continues to fight against different forms of violence inflicted upon children via different promotional activities and campaigns (domestic violence, sexual violence). However, it has never looked into the category of non medically justified violations of children’s physical integrity which may have a long-lasting impact on their lives.

6. The Assembly strongly recommends that member States promote further awareness in their societies of the potential risks that some of the above mentioned procedures may have on children's physical and mental health, and take legislative and policy measures that help reinforce child protection in this context.

7. The Assembly therefore calls on member States to:

7.1. examine the prevalence of different categories of non-medically justified operations and
interventions impacting on the physical integrity of children in their respective countries, as well as the specific practices related to them, and to carefully consider them in light of the best interests of the child in order to define specific lines of action for each of them;

7.2. initiate focused awareness-raising measures for each of these categories of violation of the physical integrity of children, to be carried out in the specific contexts where information may best be conveyed to families, such as the medical sector (hospitals and individual practitioners), schools, religious communities or service providers;

7.3. provide specific training, including on risks of and alternatives to certain procedures, as well as the medical reasons and minimum sanitary conditions that should be fulfilled when performing them, to various professionals involved, in particular medical and educational staff, but also, on a voluntary basis, religious representatives;

7.4. initiate a public debate, including intercultural and interreligious dialogue, aimed at reaching a large consensus on the rights of children to protection against violations of their physical integrity according to human rights standards;

7.5. take the following measures with regard to specific categories of violation of children’s physical integrity:

7.5.1. publicly condemn the most harmful practices, such as female genital mutilation, and pass legislation banning these, thus providing public authorities with the mechanisms to prevent
and effectively fight these practices, including through the application of extraterritorial “legislation or other measures to establish jurisdiction” for cases where nationals are submitted to female genital mutilation abroad, as specified in Article 44 of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (CETS No. 210);

7.5.2. clearly define the medical, sanitary and other conditions to be ensured for practices
which are today widely carried out in certain religious communities, such as the non-medically
justified circumcision of young boys;

7.5.3. undertake further research to increase knowledge about the specific situation of intersex people, ensure that no-one is subjected to unnecessary medical or surgical treatment that is
cosmetic rather than vital for health during infancy or childhood, guarantee bodily integrity,
autonomy and self-determination to persons concerned, and provide families with intersex
children with adequate counselling and support;

7.6. promote an interdisciplinary dialogue between representatives of various professional
backgrounds, including medical doctors and religious representatives, so as to overcome some of the prevailing traditional methods which do not take into consideration the best interest of the child and the latest state of medical art;

7.7. raise awareness about the need to ensure the participation of children in decisions concerning their physical integrity wherever appropriate and possible, and to adopt specific legal provisions to ensure that certain operations and practices will not be carried out before a child is old enough to be consulted.
________________________________________________

OUR DRAFT RESOLUTION

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Parliamentary Assembly

Resolution No. ____ (2013)

Provisional version

 

Adults’ right to intellectual integrity (concerning Jewish circumcision)

1. Europe is a continent where Jews have been present for more than two millennia.

 
2. Jews have always been a distinctive group for their religion and practices within their communities, but no Jewish community has ever acted against European values and the rule of law of the place, region or State where they live or have lived.

3. Jews have always adapted their external practices in order to abide by the laws of the place, region or State, even where such laws had been adopted in order to discriminate the Jews, preventing them from certain activities or restricting their rights, or to force them to pay for the fundamental or basic rights recognised to non-Jews.

4. Not a single discriminatory law adopted all over Europe at different periods of European history has ever been justified by any recognised European values, but exclusively by reasons, be them economic or political, that can be all encompassed under the term of anti-Semitism.

5. European anti-Semitism has produced large massacres and the destruction of Jewish communities and eventually allowed the Pogroms and the Holocaust (or Shoa), where six million innocent Jews perished under the Nazi regime.

6. After 80 years of the appointment of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany and the Parliamentary Enabling Act giving him dictatorial powers, the burning of the Reichstag, the opening of the Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen and Ravensbrück concentration camps, the first Nazi policies boycotting Jewish shops and businesses, the burning of books in Berlin and throughout Germany, the adoption of legislation allowing forced sterilization of those found to have genetic defects, the exclusion of Jews from Arts, the prohibition of Jews from owning land and from being newspaper editors, among other discriminatory measures, and after 70 years of the liquidation of the Krakow, Vilna, Minsk and Bialystok Ghettos, the Waffen-SS attack of the Jewish Resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto, the declaration of Berlin to be Judenfrei (cleansed of Jews) and Himmler’s open talks about the Final Solution, Europe is facing a renewal of open anti-Semitism, such as the killing of innocent Jews, including children, for the mere fact that they are Jews, negationism of the Holocaust by certain public figures with widespread media coverage or open political statements against Jews among many other examples of anti-Semitic expressions.

7. Europe faces also a series of disguised anti-Semitic initiatives, including measures aimed at preventing or prohibiting Jewish circumcision by treating it as equal to any form of circumcision or as comparable to female genital mutilation.

8. Many legislative and policy measures and recommendations, including by Council of Europe, to regulate  the circumcision for religious reasons, have mistakenly not treated Jewish circumcision with due regard to its distinctive nature and core value for any Jewish identity and wrongly considered it as an issue of children’s right to physical integrity as comparable to female genital mutilation, the latter clearly impacting on a woman’s capacity to have pleasure and depriving them from a normal sexual life, entailing permanent psychological effects.

9. During all the history of the Jewish people religious circumcision has been performed on boys at the age of eight days with no negative effect for their health and no negative mental consequences, thus having no long-lasting negative impact on their lives.

10. By comparison, parents’, legal guardians’ and other responsible persons’ decisions regarding the food and beverages to be given to small children or their physical activities –or lack of it-, do actually have long-lasting impact on children’s lives and most of the over-weight and obesity health problems in Europe are a direct consequence of such decisions and represent a real matter for concern, differently from any allegedly (and totally unproved) consequence of Jewish circumcision.

11. Jewish circumcision as performed during all the Jewish history for religious reasons does not constitute a physical or mental violence, injury or abuse against boys (no dysfunctional or painful consequence has ever been recorded for any human organ due to Jewish circumcision) and does not violate any of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) nor of any other international conventions or treaties adopted at UN or European levels and certainly cannot be considered as violating any children’s rights at any level.

12. National and international initiatives aimed at prohibiting Jewish circumcision on grounds of health protection or prevention of violence against children have not overcome any of the medical and cultural counter-arguments presented by representatives of the Jewish communities and no evidence of negative impact has ever been produced so as to justify such initiatives. Therefore, these shall always be a matter of concern as to their likely anti-Semitic hidden agenda.

13. Circumcised Jews have made great contributions to the world and to Europe all long their history in all fields of Science and Arts. Given the fact that Jews correspond to just a very small part of the population of Europe and that their contributions to the development of European societies and nations are proportionally much larger than their corresponding presence in any given European society and nation, it is quite obvious that if Jewish circumcision has had any impact on Jews –as alleged by its opponents-, it can only have been a positive impact. This fact is further corroborated by the evidence that there is no record of any Jews complaining about their condition of being circumcised.

14. The social and psychological impact on Jewish boys of not being circumcised would certainly be considerable and any attempt to prevent or even regulate Jewish circumcision would certainly constitute a measure of violence against their Jewish identity and may contribute to the weakening of the Jewish culture and presence in Europe. Thus, any measures that might be taken to prevent Jewish circumcision as it has been performed for more than two thousand years in Europe should give rise to serious concern given their similarity with the goals that inspired the facts of 80 and 70 years ago recalled above and many other not recalled in this text.

15. The Assembly strongly recommends that member States promote further awareness in their societies of the potential risks that some of the above mentioned procedures of indistinctive approaches as to Jewish circumcision may have  on encouraging anti-Semitism, and take legislative and policy measures to reinforce Jewish circumcision protection as a fundamental issue among other measures aimed at combating anti-Semitism.

16. The Assembly calls on member States to:

16.1 regard Jewish circumcision as a distinctive form of circumcision;

16.2 not consider Jewish circumcision as a form of violence, physical or mental, or abuse or injury against children while discussing measures to be taken in order to protect children’s integrity;

16.3 not discuss or treat Jewish circumcision as equal to other forms of circumcision and not as comparable to female genital mutilation;

16.4 not discuss any issue regarding Jewish circumcision without consulting with representatives of all the prevalent Jewish groups and without taking into account their positions, statements and opinions;

16.5 take legislative and other measures in order to promote further awareness that Jewish circumcision is a fundamental part of Jewish identity and that measures to prevent or regulate it may have wider and further negative consequences, including the increase of acts of violence against the Jewish population in Europe and other forms of anti-Semitism;

16.6 extend these focused awareness-raising measures to schools, higher education institutions, legislative, executive and judicial bodies, and media professionals among other groups;

16.7 public condemn any initiative aimed at attacking or preventing Jewish circumcision or at comparing it to other forms of circumcision or at treating it among any forms of violence against children, including female genital mutilation.

17. The Assembly calls on member States to take into account the present Resolution when considering any other texts referring to circumcision for religious reasons, including Resolution 1952 (2013).   

_____________________________________________________________________________   

HATIKVA: Astrith Baltsan teaches

Ha Tikva (The Hope): learning the amazing 600-year origin of the national anthem of Israel and much more with Astrith Baltsan

GERSHWIN

          Understanding Gershwin with Astrith Baltsan & Israeli Philarmonic

PLAIDOYER POUR DE LA SHEMOCRATIE EN AMÉRIQUE ET AILLEURS

Dialogue entre René et Samuel (de mon livre 'Les mystères de René Bardof', pas encore publié, qui est une traduction modifiée de mon livre 'O Código David')

«- Mais n’est-ce pas justement le Pouvoir Judiciaire qui est appelé à juger?

- Exactement. Il s’agit d’une question de pouvoir, c’est-à-dire, du pouvoir de se prononcer par omission sans devoir en répondre des conséquences. C’est pour cette raison que le Pouvoir, avec un «P» majuscule, ne peut pas être confié à des personnes avec un «p» minuscule. C’est le drame de la démocratie. Si le «d» de celui-là est majuscule et celui de celle-ci est minuscule, le «j» de la justice sera minuscule. Mais si c’est l’opposé, alors nous aurons l’espoir du Tsedek Tsedek, de la Justice Juste.

- Vous, les juristes, vous parlez toujours de démocratie, mais ce qu’on appelle démocratie c’est un héritage grec qui ne correspond pas à ce que nous désirons qu’elle soit quand nous y faisons allusion.

- Comment ça, elle ne correspond pas? La démocratie est un idéal.

- Mais c’est là justement tout le problème. N’étant qu’un idéal, celui-ci n’est même pas ce qu’il devrait être.

- Et qu’est-ce qu’il devrait être alors?

- La vraie démocratie.

- C’est-à-dire?

- C’est la démocratie qu’on n’a pas héritée des Grecs, raison pour laquelle, à la rigueur, il ne faudrait pas non plus employer le mot démocratie.

- Et de qui aurions-nous hérité ou plutôt aurions-nous dû hériter de la démocratie qui n’en est pas une?

- Je n’ai pas dit que ce n’est pas de la démocratie. J’ai dit que ça ne s’appelle pas démocratie.

- Alors, comment s’appelle-t-elle cette démocratie?

- Shemocratie.

- D’où as-tu sorti cette histoire de shemocratie?

- De notre tradition. Si le monde avait choisi l’héritage d’Israël plutôt que celui des Grecs, ce que nous aurions aujourd’hui ce serait de la shemocratie.

- Et en quoi consiste-t-elle cette shemocratie?

- Tout d’abord, notre profession de foi, «Shema Israel», c’est-à-dire «Écoute, Israël». Mais il ne s’agit pas uniquement d’écouter, mais d’effectivement prendre en compte ce qu’est dit pour être entendu.

- Et ensuite?

- Le récit de la Tour de Babel, que nous lisons dans la paracha Noach.

- Je remarque que tu as un déluge d’idées sur n’importe quel sujet et que le ciel est la limite. Ça ne fait rien. Continue.

- Tu as certainement lu “De la Démocratie en Amérique” d’Alexis de Tocqueville.

- Il y a longtemps.

- Tocqueville y parle de l’omnipuissance de la majorité. Quand il traite du pouvoir de la majorité sur la pensée, il dit qu’il ne connaît aucun pays où règne, en général, moins d’indépendance de l’esprit et de vraie liberté de discussion qu’en Amérique, où la majorité dessine un cercle formidable autour de la pensée. À l’intérieur de ces limites l’écrivain est libre. Mais malheur à celui qui ose les franchir. Il subira des persécutions tous les jours. Cette démocratie dictatoriale est d’origine grecque.

- Comment ça? Je n’ai pas encore saisi en quoi la démocratie grecque n’est pas démocratique.

- Par exemple, dans le dialogue entre Socrate et Criton, le premier émet des opinions tandis que le second ne fait que dire «oui», «comment nier?», «c’est bien clair», «exacte» et beaucoup d’autres phrases qui n’expriment que son accord avec le philosophe ou ne servent qu’à préparer le terrain pour l’affirmation socratique suivante, mais sans jamais les contester.

- En somme, tu es en train de dire que la fameuse dialectique grecque n’est rien d’autre qu’un monologue travesti de dialogue.

- Exactement. Par contre, la tradition d’Israël est tout l’opposé. Dans la paracha Noach, par exemple, les hommes décident de construire une tour pour arriver jusqu’au ciel et Dieu, qu’est-ce qu’Il dit? «Voilà un même peuple et une même langue pour eux tous; c’est ça qui leur a fait commencer». Autrement dit, le pouvoir absolu, tout le contraire de ce qu’on entend d’habitude par démocratie. Dieu confond la langue de sorte que les hommes passent à parler des langues différentes, selon chaque peuple. Ce qu’Il fait c’est, si tu m’autorises l’analogie, donner de la voix à Criton. La voix discordante. L’important c’est qu’il n’y ait pas de pensée unique. Non pas pour qu’il n’y ait pas de confusion, mais pour qu’il y ait un dialogue réel et vrai et, par conséquent, du progrès. C’est ça le sens des différentes langues, car même dans les pays où tous parlent la même langue, la démocratie ne peut consister dans une majorité qui ignore la minorité. La différence, quelle qu’elle soit, y compris d’opinion ou de croyance, c’est ce qui nous protège de la dictature.

- C’est ça la démocratie?

- Non, ça c’est la shemocratie, c’est-à-dire le régime de l’écoute effective de l’autre, des minorités, par opposition au régime de la seule majorité.

- En somme, tu proposes que l’héritage grec soit remplacé par l’héritage d’Israël.

- C’est ce que je soutiens, en effet. Et le monde sera plus juste et meilleur ainsi.

 

- Mais quelle en serait la base légale?

- Ne t’en fais pas.  Je n’invente rien. On n’y peut pas avoir de meilleure source, car le texte biblique lui-même nous en donne la base légale nécessaire. Après, ce n’est qu’une question de choix pour la shemocratie.

- Est-ce que tu pourrais être plus précis? C’est-à-dire, donner la référence de cette base légale.

- Évidemment. Quand Dieu décide de détruire Sodome avec tous ses habitants, Abraham conteste cette décision en questionnant comment Dieu pourrait-Il anéantir d’un même coup l’innocent avec le coupable. Abraham plaide pour le pardon de Dieu à la contrée s’il s’y trouvaient cinquante justes. Et Dieu écoute Abraham qui, alors, place ce seuil du pardon à quarante-cinq dans sa plaidoirie, et ensuite à quarante, puis, successivement, à trente, à vingt et, enfin, à dix, et à chaque fois Dieu l’écoute. Le Roi tout puissant écoute celui qui n’est pas, mais se fait le porte-parole des innocents de Sodome. C’est peut-être parce que Dieu venait de lui dire qu’il avait été distingué pour prescrire la voie de l’Éternel non pas par la dictature, mais au travers de la pratique de la vertu et de la justice. Or, la démocratie comme étant la loi de la majorité aurait conduit Dieu à détruire Sodome du simple fait que la majorité méritait de mourir. La shemocratie, c’est-à-dire la loi de l’écoute de la minorité, permit à Dieu de prendre en compte les mots d’Abraham et d’aller compter, à chaque fois, les innocents, conformément à la plaidoirie. Malheureusement, il n’y avait même pas dix innocents à Sodome, et comme Abraham ne poussa pas plus loin, Dieu anéantit Sodome. »

VERDADEIRO CAMPEÃO DO CICLISMO: GINO BARTALI

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on printMore Sharing Services

O campeão italiano, duas vezes vencedor do Tour de France (1938 e 1948) e três vezes do Giro d'Italia (1936, 1937 e 1946), recebeu no passado dia 23 de setembro a título póstumo o reconhecimento de "Justo entre as Nações", a maior distinção outorgada por Israel (Yad Vashem) àqueles que ao risco de suas vidas salvaram judeus durante a Shoa. 

Católico devoto, Gino Bartali participou da rede dirigida pelo rabino de Florença Nathan Cassuto junto com o arcebispo de Florença, o cardeal Elia Angelo Dalla Costa, para salvar judeus durante a ocupação alemã da Itália na Segunda Guerra Mundial. Arriscando sua vida, Gino Bartali ajudou a salvar centenas de judeus locais e refugiados. Sob pretensos treinamentos ele transportava documentos dissimulados na sua bicicleta percorrendo trajetos de até 350 km (ida e volta).

Tendo em vista os péssimos exemplos de alguns vencedores do Tour de France e outras competições importantes do ciclismo mundial que recorreram a drogas para aumentar suas performances, colocando em risco apenas a própria saúde para o fim egoísta de suas glórias pessoais, enganando milhões de fãs e muitos patrocinadores, é importante recordar Gino Bartali.