Barb Wild, DipWSET, CSW’s Post

On this World Day for International Justice, we stand united in our commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice prevails. Eleanor Roosevelt, who envisioned a system of collective security among nations creating lasting peace, reflected upon American inaction against the Nazis in a 1946 speech: “I have the feeling that we let our consciences realize too late the need of standing up against something that we knew was wrong,” she said. “We have therefore had to avenge it, but we did nothing to prevent it. I hope that in the future, we are going to remember that there can be no compromise at any point with the things that we know are wrong.” For this reason, international justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), are crucial to holding perpetrators of grave human rights violations accountable. As our world continues to grapple with injustices, now is the time to act. Heal pain. Teach change. Shape history. Join us.

Statement by the American PeopleIn In our democracy, the rule of law is paramount, and no individual is above it—not even the President of the United States. While the President holds significant responsibilities and privileges, this office does not confer total immunity from accountability. The foundations of our republic are built on the principles of justice, transparency, and equality under the law.Our Constitution and legal system are designed to ensure that all public officials, including the President, can be held accountable for their actions. This accountability is essential for maintaining the trust and integrity of our democratic institutions. We, the American People, affirm that the President must adhere to the same laws and ethical standards that apply to every citizen. Through proper legal channels and due process, presidents can and should be investigated and, if warranted, prosecuted for any actions that violate the law. This principle is crucial for the preservation of our democratic values and the protection of our rights and freedoms. Signed,The American People

America already — affords ‘great freedoms. We need not await a ‘savior. Open debate require us to share the opinions of both sides. As an exemplar, Oxford Union debate, requires Oxford to host and platform opinions, that Oxford, as a University does not agree with either in whole, or part. On the other side of the ‘pond, American people need not adjudicate motives, either of themselves, others or of the institution or intention. Americans are afforded a ‘rule of law’ under Bill of Rights and by Construction (Case Law, Common Law, Constitution and of Rights not assumed or suborned). Neither you or I, as Americans, are burdened or necessarily encumbered to attest to patently unassailable rights and privileges ‘once assured, by the Constitution. —— Having said that, it’s not ahistorical to burden the ‘individual or institution , once weakened, to ‘false encumbrances.—— American did experience ‘Cultural Revolution in several epochs including the Revolution and Civil War. —

📜 Supreme Court's Bold Move: Law Is No Longer Blind 👁️ "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." – Martin Luther King Jr. Today, justice is evolving beyond age-old symbolism. The Supreme Court has recently unveiled a groundbreaking change—a new justice statute without the traditional blindfold, signaling a transformative shift in how we perceive fairness. 🚨 For centuries, Lady Justice's blindfold has symbolized impartiality and objectivity, but in a world of complex social, economic, and technological challenges, is blind justice still enough? ⚖️ This bold decision reflects a deeper truth: Law must see—it must be aware of the realities that shape our lives. In this new era, justice isn't just about neutrality; it's about understanding context, addressing inequalities, and ensuring fairness for all, not just in theory but in practice. 🌍 So, what does this mean for us as legal professionals and as citizens? More Contextual Decisions: Courts will consider the broader social implications of cases, ensuring that justice serves everyone equitably, especially the marginalized. Redefining Neutrality: The law now looks beyond surface-level facts and acknowledges the systemic issues at play. It balances impartiality with empathy. Shaping Legal Strategy: As advocates, we must adapt. Arguments need to be richer, more nuanced, and tailored to a justice system that sees the bigger picture. This move invites us all to rethink the role of the law in shaping society. Can we afford to continue with 'blind justice,' or should we welcome this new approach that actively sees and responds to the world’s complexities? What do you think: Should justice remain blind, or is it time to open our eyes to a more contextual understanding of fairness? #SupremeCourt #LawAndJustice #LegalProfession #Fairness #SocialJustice #ShreyanDutta #LegalInsight

In our contemporary world, the endeavor to stand up for my rights as both a human and citizen is often perceived as troublemaking and lawless. This prevailing perspective reflects a societal inclination to label assertiveness in defending these rights as disruptive, rather than recognizing it as an inherent responsibility of being a conscientious citizen. Despite this narrative, I firmly believe that advocating for my rights is not only an assertion of personal strength but also a fundamental duty I bear in contributing to a just and equitable society. In this pursuit, I find it imperative to defend the rule of law and actively combat the injustices prevailing in our own backyard. It becomes a call to action against the march of authoritarian enforcers of techno-feudalistic justice. If I do not speak up and if YOU don’t speak up against these encroachments on justice and individual rights who will? It's so important you find the courage to stand up for what you believe in – because anything less is just a compromise.

Indeed, the concept of justice is multifaceted and often varies dramatically depending on the perspective from which it is viewed. The video you mentioned highlights a crucial and universal lesson, yet it also underscores the complexities and disparities in how justice is perceived and enacted globally, especially in the context of international conflicts. Justice is typically understood as the principle of moral rightness, fairness, and equality. However, the interpretation of these principles can vary significantly across different cultures, societies, and political landscapes. This variation often stems from historical contexts, socio-political dynamics, and cultural beliefs. For instance, what is considered just by one nation or group may be perceived as unjust by another, leading to conflicting definitions and applications of justice. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the notion of justice is profoundly polarized. For Israel, backed by powerful allies like the USA and the UK, justice might be defined in terms of security, sovereignty, and historical claims to land. Conversely, for Palestinians, justice often revolves around rights to self-determination, freedom from occupation, and the right to return to their ancestral lands. This dichotomy illustrates how justice can simultaneously be a source of national pride and a cause of profound grievance. The disparity in the definition of justice is not unique to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Similar contradictions can be observed in various global and regional disputes. National heroes and freedom fighters in one context may be labeled as terrorists and insurgents in another. These conflicting views are often shaped by the narratives and interests of those in power, further complicating the pursuit of a universal definition of justice. The good intentions of your colleague in sharing the video are clear, aiming to provoke thought and discussion on these critical issues. The video serves as a reminder of the importance of empathy and understanding in the face of such complex and deeply rooted conflicts. The reason for different interpretations of justice lies in the diversity of human experiences and the multiplicity of moral frameworks that guide societies. Achieving a universally accepted notion of justice is challenging because it requires reconciling these diverse perspectives, each shaped by unique historical, cultural, and political influences. The pursuit of justice, therefore, often becomes a balancing act of navigating these differences, striving for fairness, and recognizing the inherent subjectivity in its application.

There was a time when we revered the offices that embodied our shared ideals, even if we didn't always agree with the individuals who held them. The president and vice president were not just politicians, they represented the continuity of the republic, the People's voice, and the orderly transfer of power. Criticism was expected, even necessary, in a free society. But it was directed at policies and decisions, not at the humanity of the officeholder. Somewhere along the way, this distinction blurred. Now, public discourse seems less about accountability and more about dehumanization. Profanity and vulgar attacks have become the weapons of choice, leaving behind the respectful critique that once defined the essence of American civility. Even peace through strength, a principle that once guided our foreign policy, has been questioned. It was never about brute force but about standing firm, projecting stability, and preventing war by being prepared for. When does strength become synonymous with recklessness, and when did the pursuit of peace come to be seen as naïve or weak? We have lost something precious along the way. But the way back is not closed to us. We find our way again by remembering who we are at our best. We are nation built not just on laws but on ideals: liberty, justice, compassion, and the pursuit of a more perfect union. We rebuild by choosing dialogue over destruction, by seeking common ground even a disagreement, and by refusing to let cynicism to find us. We can only become who we were meant to be if we build together, recognizing that tearing each other apart leads nowhere but to ruin. It begins with small acts of intentional kindness, the refusal to meet contempt with contempt. It starts with listening to understand rather than to refute, and with the courage to respect not only those we love but those who we struggle to tolerate. It demands we see the person behind the policy, the human being behind the argument, and that we hold our leaders accountable without abandoning the principle of dignity for all. The road back to civility, to respect, to hope is not easy. But it is possible, and it is necessary. The America we could be, the America we still have a chance to become, waits on the other side of this divide. We only have to walk toward it together.

International Justice Day Let's consider the significance of International Day for Justice and its relevance to our lives. Devoting so much screen time, is an injustice to our rest, sacrificing our priorities is an injustice to our own happy time, Not taking a stand for ourselves again is an injustice to ourselves, and not helping others is an injustice to humanity.  Instead of dwelling on the complexities of the concept, let's focus on practical actions. It's crucial to prioritize self-care, allocate time for personal fulfilment, and extend support to others. Every effort, no matter how small, contributes to positive change. #internationalJusticeDay #JusticeForSelf #EveryEffortCounts

I'm not one to make public comments that may be construed as "political" and some may say that what follows is, but they would be mistaken. What follows is the call of a watchman in the dark hours of the night! To my friends in the United States and Canada... In these challenging times, when the very essence of personal freedom and democratic governance is under scrutiny, we must remember who the guardians of liberty are, and of our indispensable role in ensuring a free society, stays free! The principles once fought for remain the bedrock of a just society. Yet, as we observe the world today, we see the dark clouds of tyranny and complacency threatening to erode these fundamental rights. It is not merely external forces we must guard against but the erosion from within, where the seduction of convenience and the guise of security, chip away at our liberties. In an age dominated by information and technology, the sanctity of individual privacy and the freedom of expression stand at a crossroads. The digital arena, while a marvel of human innovation, must not become a domain where rights are traded for convenience. Let the spirit of reason guide our actions and the flame of liberty illuminate our path. The echoes of freedoms "given by a creator and not by a king" (whether that be a Head of State or a CEO) still resonate! This is not a call to arms but a clarion call to defend our freedoms against the subtle encroachments of today, through the full and active participation of regular people! Whether it's the overreach of governmental powers or the invasive practices of corporate entities, the price of liberty remains eternal vigilance. As citizens and stewards of these hard-won freedoms, it is your duty to engage, question, and hold accountable those in power. Democracy thrives not in complacency but in the active involvement and collective effort of its people. Let us not be idle spectators but passionate participants in shaping a future that honors the legacy of liberty! The "cloud of witnesses", those that sacrificed for freedom, look down on us all today, and call for us to rise to the occasion, to ensure that the liberties we hold dear are passed on to future generations! Not in the form of stories of the past but as living, breathing rights that underscore the very essence of humanity! **Inspired by the speeches of Patrick Henry and the writings of Thomas Paine.

The debate on the limits of freedom of speech, especially in the context of protecting vulnerable sectors, is multifaceted and deeply philosophical, touching on legal, ethical, and social dimensions. Let’s explore key arguments surrounding the balance between upholding free speech and the necessity of safeguarding those who may be disproportionately harmed by unrestricted expressions. https://lnkd.in/gchWu3yY