Old and new dictatorships

How many dictators will we still have to see, haranguing from the balconies of power, the dull masses of the Naziolists, before a true universal government forever prevents them from exercising a power that offends the soul of the world?

 How many Hitlers, how many Mussolins, how many Erdogan, will we still have to endure, without being able to prevent them from imprisoning dissenting politicians and the lawyers who defend them? 

 The latest, in order of time, seems to be the elected president of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan, one who has imprisoned dozens of lawyers, guilty in his eyes of having defended dissenting politicians in court. The bully of Instambul now took it out on Mario Draghi, who had the courage (and perhaps also the unconsciousness, being a non-political in a strictly sense) to remove from him the mask of democratic fiction behind which he disguised himself since long time and that other politicians pretend not to see, in the name of diplomacy, business and politics.

 The diatribe between Mario Draghi and the Turkish president starts from the recent "sofagate", the diplomatic incident involving the Turkish ceremonial, which saw Ursula Von der Layen, president of the EU Commission, deprived of the diplomatic chair that was due to her (perhaps more as a woman than as chief of the executive of the European Union) and on which the president of the European Council

Charles Michel, has instead slammed! 

 But that's just the finger! The moon, or rather the real question that lies behind this apparently trivial motivation, is the exit from the Istanbul Convention, already signed by Turkey in 2011, from which Erdogan wanted to call himself out, worried that international norms they could force him to respect those human rights that he refuses to acknowledge even to men; and even less to  women, mercilessly imprisoned, even if they perform defense functions in court as lawyers! 

 And here it  comes to the focal point of this post. 

The only way to stop these dictators of whom we've really had enough,  would be to set up a world government that abolishes by law all naziolisms, discrimination and the thirst for power that are the common denominators of every and each  dictator, since  the existing world! 

 I know it won't be easy! 

But must we wait for an alien's invasion in order to unite in an international coalition that recognizes the right to exist for all peoples? Or should we wait for the ongoing third world war to finish destroying the earth?

You may also say I'm a dreamer, again; but dreams and words are the only arms I have to make my thought spread!

Free Nasrin Sotoudeh

Though Mohammad Moqiseh, a judge at a revolutionary court in Tehran, said on Monday that Nasrin Sotoudeh had been sentenced only to five years (and not to decades of prison and to be lashed in a public place) for assembling against national security and two years for insulting the country’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, we are all very worried about the human rights in Iran.
The concerns are increased by the circumstances that Nasrin Sotoudeh is a lawyer and as such she has spent her professional efforts to defend several  Iranian  people from the invadence of the religious dictatorship.
As a western citizen I found inacceptable that a regimen of a no democrat state  inhibits lawyers and writers to criticise the vertices and the powermen of the apparatus.
Please don't think and don't tell me this is a domestic jurisdiction affair.
The globalisation has mad the entire world a unique, great comunity.
How long do we have to wait until all the men and women in the world can freely speech even against the power?
It's a shame that in the third millennium we must assist to convictions for opinion crimes.
We want freedom of speech for everyone in the world.
We want the men of state and power stop preventing lawyers, journalist and simple citizens to express their opinions.
We can't tolerate anymore a censorship of the free speech and the free human thought.
Enough it's enough!

Manifesto for Panracial Rights

There is nowdays a great movement of people from the most poor regions of the world to Europe and the other western countries. The European states, facing the worst crisis after 1929, seem to be not able to manage what seems to represent an unstoppable exodus. These moving people, escaping famine and wars, are searching a better chance of life for themselves and for their sons.

The European citizens, mostly those paying the high price of the crisis, in terms of unemployment and cut of  public services, don't want these mass of desperates from Asia and Africa occupying their spaces in their towns, consequently diminishing the resources already scarce because of the crisis.

I wonder who owns the most valuable right between those who have firstly occupied the European lands and who secondly comes in search of fortune.

The question might seem rethoric and the answer quiet easy to be done. But , on the contrary, I find hard to debate the matter, above all if I try to look at it with a gaze of proof, avoiding a selfish a narrow minded approach.

Since long time ago, ethnic groups, countersigned by common uses and language, have started conquering lands, fencing them whith enforced borders and calling them states. So the earth now is fractioned in to 190 states, more and less, which one with its own laws, flags and soldiers, the most numerous, the most powerful.   Talking about natural rights and from a point of view not merely nationalist are we sure that each of these state has the right to close its borders to the arriving people and to push them off?

I mean: it's really so pacific and clear that Africa belongs to Africans, China to Chinese and America to Americans?

And what kind of right behold the single states of Europe to declare themselves owners of the lands their ancestrals have conquered centuries ago may be taking them off from the former inhabitants? What if we start reasoning about the earth belonging indinstinctly to the all humanhood ?

I have worked the following principles:

1. The earth belongs to all human kind indistinctly and pro quota;

2. The human groupes who have closed portions of land, sea and sky, whatever they have called them, are running those territories on behalf of the whole humanity;

3. Hence every man born on the earth has the same rights and same duties anywhere on the earth no matter who is ruling the territory where he's standing;

4. Every man born on the earth has the right to move and to stay anywhere on the earth no matter who is in charge in those lands, or seas or skies he wants to move to or stay;

5. Every man has the right to be able to exercise the previous rights and therefore he must be welcomed and nurtured for a reasonable time until he is able to work and legally obtain his own livelihood or move to another place;

6. Every man, anywhere he lives, is compelled to respect the rules, the customs and the laws generally observed by the sedentary population who inhabits the territories he moves to ;

7. All the natural resources, wherever they might be set, belong to the whole manhood, no matter who temporarily is exploiting them.

1. to be continued...