Mexico, where Supreme Court is against women rights

In common perception -exactly as in general theory of law- Supreme Courts should be “the rules of the game” watchdog, that means avoid that ordinary legislative act and laws could infringe costitutional rules and spirit, so to grant citizens freedom against majority and government power. Using a synecdoche, we can compare the Courts to “lex animata”: they are the only interpreter of Costitutional rules and the heepers of dreedoms and power balance in their countries; Consequently, their are “super partes” for definition, and this means that as collegial organ they trascend single judges opinions (and also the sum of them) becoming something similar to what was “Ideas world” in Plato phyiosophy: they have to value laws using justice and general principles as only measure units of their decisions.

Now ask ourselver what happens when Costitutional jurisdiction is on the hands of courts appointed by executive powers (and so without the balancement of compromise)? The first ansewr is “generally happens nothing”at first because almost all countries contemplate that term of office for supreme judges (when a term exist) and the Powers that appointed them are different, so to give an equilibrium due to alternance of ruling parties that appoint single judges. The system generally have good results also when is only one Power (for example the President, as in US) to choose jugde courts because the proposal have to face with both branch of legislative assemblies.

But sometimes this mechanism doesnt work, as is happening in Mexico nowadays. In this country, victim of a no-declared war between narcos, and suffering a progressive dissolution of social tissue and a growing of economic inequality and violence (also perpetrated by policemen), also civil rights are having an involution, as its happening with the law that depenalize abortion (with heavy restrictions).

In 2007 Mexican Parliament voted a law to depenalize abortion in a country that, as almost all South american Nations, is dominate by Catholic church, where Chile, Hicaragua and Haity dont allow people to abortion in any case, even if mother's life is in danger, while in others (Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela, Perù and so on) rape is not a reason that depenalize abortion (sic), in an area where in the only Guatemala, between 1960 and 1996 there were more than 100.000 documented rapes and were in all central american countries (and not only) rape is a weapon to fight enemies band (the infamous “pandillas” and “maras” wars) attacking womens of enemies, or is used to overthrown women or simply to affirm male domination. IN all south american countries only Cuba, Suriname and French Guyana have a legislation that allows women to follow their will on responsible parenthood.

But for Catholic Church the mexincan law was a wounds and immediatly after the vote, local Bishops assembly asked to Vatican to excommunicate the politicians that promote and vote it. As a result, Pope spokesman, mr. Lombardi, affirmed that people who vote such kind of things excommunicate themselves and is better not to take holy communion in church, while, the immediate excommunication works for who helps women abortion (not matter if is to preserve their life, for fetus malformation or for rape) and for women (can. 1398, excommunication redemption can be given from single bishops and in main sanctuaries).

For years later, in that aradise with 36.000 people killed from 2006, with a federal State -Chihuahua- that in 2001 voted a law that punished more a rustler than a raper (3 years as predictable minimum for rape, excluding extenuatings) and in wich capital Ciudad Juarez more than 1.000 women were killed in terrible way from 1993 (and only 430 bodies, or part of them, were discovered...) and the violences numer in uncountables, the interest of Supreme Court is again on abortion... to avoid it asiding law. In fact the nwe president appointed a new ultraconservative judge at Supreme Court with the result that in any civil right law the court vote as a parliamentar majority:8 against 7, to stop it and now their voting in favour of single states laws that avoid again abortion in any case. Now is possible to follow federal law that grant the right only in Mexico City district.

So the paradox of jurisdiction is this: 1) there is a federal law that grant the right that is not in contrast with mexican constitutional general principles, and so cannot be quashed by Courts.
2) Catholic groups boicott it in single state legilation 3) the caourt, politically inspired, cannot quash the federal law because is constitutional, but cannot allo people to the right for political and religious behaviours, and so dont quash the single state laws against federal law, but is impossible that in the same time can exist a law that allow a right and another that punish it, both judged by the same Supreme Court.

Now the question is what is the credibility of a Supreme court that act following singles judges behaviours? How is possibile that a secular court can make a decision based on metaphisycal ideas as that of soul and catholic behaviours about the moment of “creation” of a soul?UNfortunatly this is a problem not only in mexico, but there is a contagion also in countries that seemed safe, as in Hungary where the preambolous of new Costitution could modify hardly the rights of citizens, submitting them to a religious-oriented control, made by local Supreme Court that should use as parametre the preambolous itself that is inpired to catholic doctrine and in deeply contrast with UE general laws


Food insecurity for so much where none thought could happen

US; in 2007 there were 36 million people who feared everyday to have not enough food to put together meal with dinner, and not in a figurate manner. Was the sunrise of the great crisis, the moment in wich dreams turned in nightmares and anger against the system grow up so much that the presidencial election 2008 seemed a God's judge against conservative politics that took the country in such shameful way. Then the crisis exploded as a bubo plague and was the moment of the choices between “sub prime tornado” victims and Wall Street: politicians chose the second one.

As consewuence, in 2009 the number American citizens in food insecurity grow up: 50 million and last year became a monster of; 118 million people, unbelievable and shameful for a nation with so many riches. 118 million men and women and children which main problem during day is food, food ladies and gentlemen, food; And is not a report of a NGO, are Ministry of Agriculture data.

What saddens and disturbs more is that waxwork politician with irony heart (on the brain material is better to delay...) use the misery of life in these times to going on with their will to destroy democracy, equality and life of people that are not part of their voters. Last but not least, was the time of Ron Paul -according to many more liberal and democratic repubblican presidential candidate- that to fight unemployment proposes to abolish minimum wage

We perfectly know that was more or less Tony Blair theory “temp job or law wage job is better than no job”, but if i have a pain to my finger doctor gave me a knife to cut it i dont care if the doctor is my friend: what he propose is wrong, stop.

In fact the only result would be declare the war of poors with proorest, skin against skin, male and women, single mom against single fathers and nothing could heal those social wounds, not certanly a law that allows DREAMers to frequent US universities because with the increasing of chapter 11 between students that cannot efford more loans for study also this risk to become only rethoric, something that can remember new frotiers of kennedy age but without the soul that guided those times.

I remember a story on the 1929 great recession: between all the homeless there were two families with children; one had some vegetables and the other children looked with desire it. Without say nothing, the mother who had food shared it, that was very few, with the other and in this mythology sough the starting of american force, the real americanamerican dream.

And today? Today before rich and powerful and dirty smart stole freedom, money, force to phter using also local law to grant themselves, then they use bible to blame poor instead to blame greed and inequality that is first allied of poorness (for example, to justify that 42% of single mother live under poverty line they said is a God punishment for they lust, not the consequence less money for women in labour, food too expensive and houses unaeffordables...)

If the leader nation of so called “free world” become everyday more conservative hypocritical, confessional and uncapable to understand what is justice and what is only legal rule, if citizens feared to visit free mobile clinic for no insurenced persons if they do not know who the workers are because they couldnt pay nothing (and this means that someone tried to use their need to make money also with poors), this means that there is a reversal in the fundament of US: at the time of Jonathan Edwards “second awakening” US was David of Justice, freedom and prosperity and UK was the Goliat of abuse, while now David became a Saturn that cannibalized his sons and that bit anyone who say him that what he do his wrong, now Saturn believe that himself is the Lord and make only the laws to prevent someone to ask what more scare himself: “Who are you”?


The sowers of hate

The Bible warns: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" (2 Corinthians 6:14). An ox and a donkey can't work in the same harness. Why? Because their natures are different! When God says "no" to certain things He's not being difficult, He's being protective. Heed Him! Wise Up! *Bishop E. Earl Jenkins , aug 2011

"Matar a un niño indefenso, y que lo haga su madre, da a los varones, licencia absoluta, sin límites de abusar del cuerpo de la mujer porque la tragedia se la traga ella, y se la traga como si fuera un derecho: el derecho a vivir toda la vida apesadumbrada por un crimen que siempre deja huellas en la conciencia y para el que ni los médicos ni los psiquiatras, ni todas las técnicas conocen el remedio" *Javier Marinez, catholic archibishop of granada dec 2009 (in those lines he talke about a supposed "right" of men to assault women who choise for abortion....).

No doubt, to be "men of faith", often christian ministries (and not only them obviously) talk (and act, directly or indirectly) as sowers of hate, no matter if they justify it using biblical language or a supposed God's will, it is. The question is: how to relate -and if can be related- the christian awakening up started during late '70 of past century (the same time of muslim and rabbi awakening, probably is not a coincidence) with the objective "low tide" of civil right wave and the increasing of an economic model based on supremacy withut compromises and with a progressive reduction of work protection.

Is it clear that , starting with pope Ratzinger in catholic area, and with those protestant preachers so integralist to run a race with mujahiddin in orthodoxy, progressive movements as peace corps or theology of freedom are over and churches, as happened in XIX and first half of XX century are now a coloumn to preserve status quo, that means now neo liberism on a planetary scale, and this to have again by governments (that are often very less representative of their people due to electoral systems not proportional and often influenced by economy) monopoly on instruction, moral and marriage and as counterpart offer to government sinlence on economic and social injusties or, worse, to orient people in believing that is freedom and not the oppression of the rich and global firms at the fundament of social diseguality, that public health is less important than omosexuality, than rape is less important or even a consequence of pro choice policy, that instruction is better if religious and that freedom is...freedom to believe what they want to teach. Using the words of a latin hystorian, tacitus: "They make a desert and call it peace"


The fundament of laws in contemporary age

Profusion of specification and continuous derubrication in petty determinations have on the main traits of Law -generality and abstractiveness- the same effect than water river on stone that carry on: shaping the surface of rules abrading their stenght, on one side rise them at constitutional rank (in the immanent sense of concretness statuition as determinated in sovietic constitutional doctrine), on the other side debase them at the rank of regulations to serve and preserve "status quo", not differently from what happened during the "great crisis" of communal age in late middle ages (XIV century, with the collapse the experience of democracy in free communal towns).

Common feature of both periods is in fact the progressive closure of social improvement through work and its consequent placing in more rewarding roles due to ability. This happened (and is happening) through the use of self regulation in art and professions as a way to preserve leading roles to parents or people belonging to the same social class, and sometimes these rules (extended also to job regulations, labour cost, litigations and so on) were often included in municipal statutes considering that often "Guilds" ruled inderectly olso city government.
At that time we can also register a strong international financial system -we can think for example to Paride Datini in Prato, or to bankers as Bardi and Peruzzi, that made a revolution in european credit system- and, related to this, the progressive emptying of democratic assemblies and growing imbalances in income and social power between "fat people" and "little people" in medieval sense), both of those feeding themselves of a reborn religious ideology, uses as a sword by who was ousted by power, or as a shield by those who
defended status quo.

Talking about similarities, we cannot forget that traits thought as "contemporaneouses" as the use of images powers to catalyze emotional communication and aggregation tools of "think sharing" grid based are not so modern: think to "painted facades" propaganda in Cola di Rienzo Roman Republic (1347), or to the "bottom up" approach that characterized the preaching and dissemination of ideas of heretical movements such as that of the "apostolic" (nowadays we could call them as radical no global millenarists, not far from some "green" movements with a "new age" ideology).

Ovbiously this doesnt mean that we agree at all with a vision of history were everything happens agains and again, but that analogies between periods make clearer the in instrumental use of laws and its direction during periods of political instability and economc crisis, and enlight once again how the legislative procedure and electoral system are fundamental to grant neutrality in legislation (generality and abstraction), so that laws cannot be used as a way of legal domination of minorities by majority or rather, by a monistic minority with economic power and moral suasion instruments (often collateral with clergy positions) that can impose his vision tho the others that act as monads, for example, some pro-choice could be against social security or health care system, and working to amplify differences the minority leadership have a sort of golden share on the entire society, thank also to a electoral systems not proportional and with a lot of wall for citizens to vote


The trap of ethnic suprematists

Any society is compound by groups tha fight each other to conque power and shaping reality according their economical and social interests, often hidden under the curtain of eschatological beliefs. When power is conquered, historycally “phase two” was to legitimate it and it happened generally in three ways: In the name of the Lord; In the name of the Nation (often declined in an antidemocratic sense, as happened to all “bloood based nations in the sense of folks” as theorized for the first time in well known “Reden an die deutsche Nation” by Johann Fichte); or, in a more subtle way, a “Natural law”, a needs independent by subjective factors, a sort of compensation to restore social and ethic equilibrium in the World.

This last attempt is probably the newer and is strongly related with catholic jusnaturalist doctrine elaborated in XIX century when, to fight modernist groups leaded by cardinal as Newman (prevopusly an anglican theologist) and Ferrari, the majority of church developed the theory of a Law coming from nature and superior to any human law declared by parliament. According to them, this jusnaturalistic law had value for everyone, no matter thei religion or culture and the value was because all people belonged to nature, and this nature was the law that said what in nature was good and wrong. Obviously the interpeter of it were catholic priest that decided it, as shown in the well known “XXIV” tomistic thesys approved in 1904 by by the reigning pope at that time, Pius X.

In substance with these thesys they try to legitimate supremacy of thei world vision with soft power (not with a world but with a rational evidence of the need to follow iit to choose the right). This soft power was incarnated by the christ thelogical theory of Christ as king of all history. This supremacy (and the soft power to affirmate it) had a spiritual factor and a supremacy subject: catholics as follower of True God and guadians of the true faith. No mathe who those catholics really were in thei everyday life. No matter as if humans they were best of worse of other persons who should to be subected to their weltanshhaung. They were on the right side and had the right to lead .

Nowadays, after the foolish time of fascim,nazi doctrine and also after the communist tempt to create the “new man” free from “any religion and from capital slavery” (a dream that became a nightmare for those who lived it), a new suprematism is arising in US (in fundamentalistic reniwed churches) and is developing even more in African southern cointries, gripped by a terrible social crisis due to sovrapopulation, lack of freedom and a mix between western companies greed and local power greed often based on tribal ruling. In this situation to prevent social revolution the conservative power used the weapon of eschatology and of religious awakening to find new enemy to use as scapegoat to show frustrated masses why their countries are so poor and inequal.

These churches use the Bible as a sword and give to their followers a sense of moral impunity (and unfortunatly also legal, sometimes). They influence at first young men scared by the perspective to loose the power tradition gave them in society and think that imposing with the force or the fear and the law their way of view they can conquer society; or better, any society in wich they live or go to live, as modern conquer protected by a fearful Lord (that of ancient testament in a myopic vision).

So happened with Uganda LRA (Lord Resistance Army), a paramilitary group that after detroying villages kidnapped children to fight for a awuful “promise Land” with the only law of Lord (and his prophet, the goup leader...). So in Kenya there were a lot of children burnt because “possessed by devil” (simply had mental deseases) or girls because are witches (that here is consider a very glamour thing), in Zimbabwe there were a lot of mass rapes to horryfy oppositors (at first whites) and create a better race and in South Africa mass killings (and rapes too) of homosexuals in “The name of the Lord”.

And this is the point. How people can justify these acts, at first to themselves? Reading their books and watching interviews to followers, the impression is that they use a supremacy theory not far from that explained before about catholics in XIX century. The center is the “syllogism of retaliation”. Retaliation law was a thologiacal figure during middle ages that meant: “if you do something wrong in this life, you'll pay it in related way after dead; forever”.

In the case of many fundamentalist supremacy thinkers, considering that their churches are millenarists and so paradise is in this world (even if after the Judgment...), retailation law works for now and is merged with bible verse “the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children” (Gen. The episode of Can and Cannan cursed).Using these point they use such this syllogism: “considering that whites colonized Africa, and enslavered back africans, the white living now and in future have a neverending fault; No matter if live in nation that never went here (as the great majority, from central europe to northern to russia to all former USSR repubblics). They are fault for the fact that they are white and everything is happening of bad in our continent and everywhere is for their greedy and Their bad influence on our governor and people. So they had to carry all consequences of our anger in our country and in their too (with a predatory migration theorized by someone), because they destroyed Africa and so is a good Retaliation. In Lord name”

These theory had - in a more or less visible way- a great spreading in millenaristic conservative circles and also with people in illiterate rural areas and are the temp of conservative and church based government to avoid their failure and corruption and to prevent movements as those in “middle east spring”, in Greece, Spain and now also in Italy against conservatisms, market dictatorship and social stability. To mantain power despiting starvation and poorness increasing, they're trying to support their weltanshaung creating at one side enemies, and at the other helping sovrapopulation to increase misery and helping “holy wars” against sinners.

Using also the net they're trying to “export “ their vision in hosting countries (at first in Europe), with the results that in these countries fears of this predatory and fearful vision is increasing in a zenophobic feeling specular to that of these conservative people in southern Africa (and of their “spin doctors” in US conservative churches). Fortunatly their temps faild miserably because the great majority of migrant (at first those with family) want to integrate and to merge and not follow traditions rules, but the rules of the country in wich they live and are more interested to have health care as a right for all as water and instruction that to decide who have the right to have it for Lord laws or reteiled one...

So even if these groups can scares, they are a risk for those who live with them, not for other and the fear ourside their borderline is unjustify, but probably our asylum right should be modify to give priority to people threatened by them, as homosexuals, women that dont follow traditional rules, whites in south africa, atheist, religious minority.


Water and public goods dont belong to Parliamentary majorities

Contrary to what some liberist scholars say, equalize private company management with that of a country is a "nonsense".
In a private company, executive managers have full ownership of assets, as well as on contract with suppliers and employers work: they can fire employers or sell assets -even declare bankruptcy- all with one goal only: make money.
No matter in wixh way, with who (or without who) employees, anything is useful to win the free market race, wich rules are written by the State, that use this rule to combine private initiative with social purpose of welfare and growing (in wellness, economy and cutural way) of society, that his Statual milestone.
To do this legislative power and government use obviously laws, regulaments and administrative powers.
All of this, there will never tire of emphasizing, is made ​​by delegates to the representatives; so that they become the guardians of social welfare, not his demiurge or "dues ex machina" as some apologetic literature describes corporate managers.
The duty of public administration is protect society and country goods, their aim is the welfare of citizens and
their task is limited in time; it is evident that they can not mortgage future choices of the country and have no mandate for structural changes.
That's why leaders can not dispose as they will of the resources that belong to the community, first of all water: for example, cannot alienate to private corporates, or inhibit access to someone (even if they do not pay, in any cause a country have to provied in each case a basic access, at least).
This is because resources (differently for their current use) do not belong to the single political majorities, because are as the air for a body. If we use this metaphore, consequently giuridical elaboration as "free market" or "companies" are as clothes : without clothes you can survive, for certain time; without air you die almost immediatly. So by the common definition of the State (population-territory-sovereignty) follows the close link between those who live in a place and the resources thereof, that are property of no one, even of the community, but of wich everyone have the right to use these.
 For this reason is unacceptable and immoral even to think that a government can privatize the water and that a community, perhaps rich in water, must pay to use it. Is possible even to imagine a city without fountains to drink? and what about the people cannnot wash themselves because cannot pay the bill? where this sscenary becomes real is obcious that there is a steal to some people of the essential country goods in favour of other people or to free market. And what about the scams and the speculations that increasingly characterize the deregulation (as happened with electricity in California at "Enron time")?
Those who objected said that increasing prices will help to rationalize consumption. It 's the stale, old rhetoric of the "rational consumer", which clashes with the reality of continuous  abuse of dominant market position in utilities market, and that those who keep the water could sell it to the better consumer (as for mineral water) with enormous costs to agriculture that will further reverberation on retail prices, increasing the spiral of recession, because the increasing is concentrate in  goods with high stiffness and low rate of replacement (water, bread etc.), bringing the economy back of a century, and the quality of life as well.

More, water is not as electricity, that is produced. Water is a natural resource that makes the richness of a community and if a community wanted, could, for example, hand over (not the network, but the content) to someone in exchange for a price that can  be used to reduce the bills for citizens, While it is certainly unthinkable that the waternetwork could be given to individuals possibility to deprive those who not pay their water bills of this resources or to increase the price to make more money as we could talk about pens or pencils.

Water is a public good, a human right; is the essence of life of individuals. But Water is also the sign of community cohesion (even in the bible water was a right in any water well). Remove public controlled water means  transform the State from a paritetic communic into "a guardian" of greed of the few, or many, hiding behind a screen of human creations such as businesses, free markets, the budget, while the State, the States, as well as people there are because there is water, not vice versa.

That's why water, such as forests or seas (or beaches) may not be available to governments that must preserve and regulate its use, not to upset them by taking away the role of brick on which they rest their States


Equality is it a good thing?

Equality is simple a product of the concrete social evolution in particular systems. This fact is nowadays accepted by majority of scholar experts (but not in common opinion).

In fact the admission of equality between humans determines the acceptance of a fungibility criteria,since equality means that anyone “counts” as everyone else, giving the impression of a judgment value (both in quantity and quality), as an individuality could be weights and at the same time diminishes each individual peculiarity, drowning them in a common “broth” in which live the fundaments of Humanity (as onthologic category). And in this broth (the kernel of human being) there is the fundament of self recognitions as humans and so as equals.

So, talking about equality means accept they have a common fingerprint inside and that anyone with his individuality is only the dress in which this fingerprint is the body and that this kernel is outside from the disposition of single human because belongs to all humanity,and not the opposite.

And what is this common heritage? Merely biological? Obviously, no. It 's the morphological trait to determine philosophy (and legal consequences) of equality? Could be. But this'll open the view to infinite theoretical discussions on AI evolutions if at one time could be human morphs. But not is so. The common heritage is seen in the “common sense”, often associated to a transcendent “natural law” based on religious morality or human rights (it depends from interpreters background).This metaphysical legal construction on the surface seem to help the weakest, but in reality often are a weapon to oppress single individuals.

In fact equality principle penetrates with another cornerstone of human evolution: democracy (that implies formal equality),that means accept majority principle as fundament of law production and accept (and follow) majority rules. Great!!! the only problem is: what'd happen if majority, would use formal equality to destroy freedom of frustrate value that for someone are important. Considering the impossibility to coercive methods to prevent abuse of majority in name of equality (and democracy and that majority decision are ever to be imposed to minority, or obviously the opposite).

For example,someone say that life is a value not available for single choices while for other single freedom on his body is the fundament of human rights and the paradigm of equality(if we are at the samelevel you cannot decide for me,it doesnt matter if you are one or 100.000,you are a mylevel in high so cannot overthrown me).

Generally, if we accept equality we accept majority decision that descend from this and so the answer to previous question is the one, because majority will could seen as a single ball opposite to thousand of marbles and so is majority that impose human value and equality principlebecomethe instrument of lossof freedom (and sometimes even more) of single that cannot impose their vision.

And then, what is the definition of majority? The majority of a single country?or of a state inside the country? The majority of worldwide believers even if are minority in a single country? What else? Look for example to what's happening in middle East, where bodies of Islam Palestinian masses are used as weapon against Israeli borders: life destroyed to destroy other life and if all would be equals in a unify Israelo-palestinian country what yould be the limit of majority muslims against people who not believe in the same rules, or the opposite now in Israel? If equality means that no one is taller than the other and so no matter the number of people who believe a thing, equality is the same life, but if equality means at one side that there is a common sense inside (and single choices cannot modify it...) and on the other side that majority means more reason also with coercive methods this is not equality,is lack of freedom.

For this reason,maybe could be better talk about “parification” in differences, and let to majority only decisions that don't modify the “real persons” status both in positive and negative way and have as fundament concrete countries while the acceptance of values outside individuals change the acceptance of laws as freedom sward to protect singles decisions (that don't damage other persons) from power,and not to impose them decision coming from outside, it doesn't matter if from God, of majority, or market or human right declaration