How To Write A Tombstone

Winner Sunshinecup 2001



Photos: Coastal Bridge, Maasewerd

The last race of the Sunshine Cup was played in Amathous. The lap was 5.6 km long and was not 175 meters, while the data for that bad, but the ground was so rocky that it was too brutal even go with a full suspension. At 12 clock it went to a first lap and 5 laps, I was right at the start of the race take the lead and keep the tempo high, just before the first climb I overtook Thomas Litscher (SUI), which through a plate in the first downhill and fell flat in the next passage of the subsequent winner Henk Jaap Moorlag (NED). This rate, I could not follow and I tried to secure the podium, which was not so easy. Because from the second round got stuck in my fork, the lockout and I had only one rear suspension, which in this extremely rough course was not easy. But I could keep the pace and finished in third place at the end of another podium place.

So I could win the overall title of the Sunshine Cup and earn 250 ranking points. Better not be, a season opener!

Inrul:multicamera?mode=

What is a fundamental right?

Even lawyers get the answer to this question sometimes into stammering. For only shall establish a fundamental right would be something that one is given by a constitution or Basic Law is, is short-sighted. This article attempts a definition, a historical derivation and a critical look at the implementation and enjoyment of fundamental rights.


definition
A fundamental right is not a given. A fundamental right is something that one can not be taken. A fundamental right is inalienable. It is a positive and pre-state. A fundamental right exists even if it is not written down.

A fundamental right is not to the citizen in front of people or protect the citizens from criminals, but a basic right is to protect the citizens in front of the State. In particular, here are the agents of the state, meant in the form of law enforcement authorities. Sense of a fundamental right is to the criminal violence of the state to draw boundaries, to not demand their use. (*)

limit fundamental rights, the power of the state, but not the freedom of the citizen. The contrary, they constitute freedom. (*)

A fundamental right is absolute. It may not be denied, no matter who he is or what he has done. This is the essence of fundamental rights, and this must never be compromised.

The state must also in the existential Disaster still true to fundamental rights. This is exactly the case for social disorder fundamental rights have been created. to submit the constitutional duty to protect not give the State the right to the protection of the individual aufzunötigen the life of a police service, thus building a welfare police summary of law:

But. The protection must not degenerate to guard. The law also indebted to the vulnerable citizens fundamental right distance. (*)


idea Historical Foundation

state legitimacy by security
According to Thomas Hobbes is the first basic legitimacy of a state security. To this philosophical justification express a few words, people refrain from doing violence to each other. You submit to the state and set it as the guarantor of their security is a another. But the absence of private violence is not unconditional. It applies only if the state is willing and powerful to ensure the safety of the citizen. protect the state which do not have the power to have, not even the right to demand obedience. (*)

security against the guardians of the security
But: The state, which removes the fear of the citizens of each other, itself becomes an object of fear is. The Guardian of the security is a threat. The new need focuses on security from the state. Security means freedom from the state. Freedom is the second legitimacy. Your basic theorist John Locke. (*)

With Locke put differences and trade-offs between them by the state and security against the state. He designed instruments for the protection of human rights against the state: representation, separation of powers, the obligation of state power in the given natural law and positive law to the self-imposed. Give the public the right of resistance as the ultimate means of defense against the tyranny of his natural rights. (*)


Again once a "terror alert"?
It belongs in the basic course for professional revolutionaries: the act of terrorism but also the terror alert giving citizens the feeling of insecurity. The deliberate stoking of fear in the people thus makes its contribution to Entlegitimierung the liberal state and contributes to the citizens of the need for an authoritarian security guarantee to raise. The people should be freedom tired and ready for dictatorship. (*)

At the call "terror alert" the knee-jerk bark begins to tougher laws. Retention, restriction of press freedom in danger of terrorism, the Bundeswehr inside and suddenly much-needed restructuring of the intelligence services and police are just some ideas that are suggestive of an underdeveloped understanding of the law.


State attempts to restrict basic rights
The list of government attempts to restrict the fundamental rights of the citizen is long and points repeated regular-like.

Article 13 GG
Legal gun ownership is sufficient in the Federal Republic of today, already, to restrict the fundamental right of inviolability of the home or abolished.

5 Basic Law
The restriction of press freedom in "terrorist threat" is a popular perennial. And Internet censorship in China is by no means the norm.

Article 10 GG
The retention is a tool that law enforcement agencies want to love on the pretext of "fighting terrorism" to see implemented. Under current law considers the retention is unconstitutional.

Art 8 GG
recently called for a Minister of the Interior at the country level, a "discussion" on freedom of assembly. Presumably with the aim of limiting it. Freedom of assembly is a fundamental right. One limitation is of no profit to internal security, but just means a sacrifice of freedom.


Conclusion
The curtailment of fundamental rights does not begin with attempts to restrict or prohibit gun ownership. As the examples show, it begins much sooner: in everyday life. sometimes with banal and outrageous statements of policy and the fact that few citizens become more aware of their fundamental rights.
fundamental rights are obsolete if they are not perceived. they should be perceived by those to whom they were created: the citizens!


Sources:

(*) Josef Isensee, the basic right to safety - protection duties of the liberal constitutional state, Berlin, 1983, ISBN 3-11-009816-4

and

Federal Agency for Civic Education

Diagrams For Pirate Shipsdiagrams Of Pirate Ships

Lorenzo Veracini, Israel and Settler Society

The struggle between Israel and the Palestinians is not unique. Lorenco Veracini argues that the conflict is best understood in terms of colonialism. Like South Africa, the United States, Australia, Israel is also a settler society. The author who is a postdoctoral fellow at the Australian National University in Canberra, challenges two important myths: firstly, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict defies comparative approaches; and secondly that the struggle for liberation is mainly based in nationality and religion and therefore different to typical colonial conflicts. On the contrary, Israel and Settler Society approaches this conflict by utilizing a colonial framework of interpretation and a number of comprehensive test cases.” The book documents and analyses the colonial endeavour of the Zionist enterprise which were already described in 1983 by Baruch Kimmerling in Zionism and Territory and by Gershon Shafir´s Land, Labor, and the Origins of the Israeli-Palesinian Conflict, which regarded Zionism as a form of “European overseas expansion in a frontier region”. Immediately, one question arises: If Israel is a colonial settler society, where is then the colonial motherland?

The author strongly emphasizes that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be seen in the light of Franz Fanon´s The Wretched ot the Earth. Fanon insistes that the true enemy of the colonized is the European settler. Israel and Palestine in the years of the second Intifada resonates dangerously with this logic, writes Veracini. Fanon´s capacity was “to encapsulate the intimate nature of the relationship between colonizer and colonized”. The disappearence of a postcolonial horizon, despite the internationally sanctioned dealings of Madrid, Oslo, Wye River Plantation, and Camp David-II consituted a crucial turning-point. When the possibility of disengaging from Israel´s colonial oppression became postponed into an indefinite future, a colonial phenomenology began increasingely to inform relationships, so the author.

Besides Introduction and Conclusion the book has three chapters: the Geography of Unitlateral Separation; the Troubles of Decolonization, and Founding Violence and Settler Societies. Lorenzo Veracini compares former settler states like South Africa, Australia, and Algeria with the Zionist colonisation of Palestine. In chapter two he appraises increasing occurrence of references to apartheid in relation to Israel/Palestine and assesses a developing practice of exclusion through a comparision with South Africa´s policies during the apartheid era. In chapter three he proposes a comparative analysis of two conflicts in which a settler project supported by a colonial power reluctant to relinquish control over an area deemed strategically and ideologically essential was and is opposed to a nationalist movement struggeling for independence. This chapter analyses Israeli responses to the Al-Aqsa-Intifada by comparing them with the repressive strategies developed by the Forth French Republic to deal with the Algerian war of decolonization. In chapter four the author addresses the evolution of history writing and debates in two very different contexts: Israel and Australia. Two themes emerge as central: the final acknowledgement of the dispossession of the original inhabitants, and the defective legitimacy of the institutions of the state until a settlement with the occupied is reached.

1948 was a fateful year for the colonial histories of Israel/Palestine and South Africa. Both societies share a particular preoccupation about demography. As A. D. Smith has pointed out in his work Chosen people: Sacred Sources of National Identity that both Zionism and Afrikaner nationalism have insisted on indigenous absence, on a “land without a people”, or the emptiness of the South African frontier, arguing that the indigenous people had entered the geographic space identified by the colonized project only at some late historical stage. The author mentions also the differences between South Africa and Israel/Palestine regarding the attitude and influence of the international community. “It was ultimately US policy that largely determined the timing and outcome of the conflict in South Africa, just as it was US power that shaped the Oslo process, and supervised its demise.” Does Veracini really think that? Israel is not a banana republic. The influence between the US and Israel is vica versa.

The author is aware of the fact that a comparative approach should take the obvious differences between Algeria in the 1950s and the current situation in Israel/Palestine into account. In France in the 1950s there was a strong and organized opposition to colonialism, in contrast to the apathy that characterizes Israel´s peace movement and the political Zionist left. Veracini hints to more similarities like the war of decolonization in Algeria and the Cold War on the one hand, and the second Intifada and the post-9/11 global “war on terror” on the other. Some historical analogies between the French and the Zionsit colonial enterprise leads the reader astray. The French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza-Strip cannot be compared. The first was a military desaster for France while the last one was decided unilaterally out of demographical considerations. Some other comparisions are also ahistoric and superficial.

Veracini argues that in Australia and Israel history and political perceptions are rewritten. Both governments are convinced that they are proposing “generous offers” to their Aboritinal and Palestinian counterparts. As a result, a resolution to the conflict tends to fade into an indefinite future. Until 1988 a systematic historiography on the origions of the State of Israel did not exist. Until 1977 the intellectual debate was hegemonized by the Mapai, the Zionist Social Democratic Party. The so-called New Historians from the left-wing Zionist and non-Zionist parties presented dissenting interpretations of the dominant Zionist narrative. They challenged the “founding myths” which surrounded the establishment of the State of Israel. This debate is still going on in Israel and Australia what the Aboritinal are concerned. Both states have finally failed to become a state of all its citicens. They have remained in many ways the state of a colonial project, so the author.

Progress in Israel/Palestine can only come about through a shift in US sensitivities which brought change in French Algeria and apartheid South Africa., writes Veracini. The Middle East may wait for the end of the global “war on terror” to see some positive developments. “´America´s last taboo` (Edward Said L. W.), the unquestioning and automatic US support for Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories, could then be seen as an outcome of a settler consciousness appeased by `frontier` images of a poineering enterprise (as well as by the influence exercised by the Zionist lobby in Washington).” Despite the “tremendously influential factor” the “Israel lobby” (Mearsheimer/Walt) has, the author regards the “settler-determined constituency and the availibility of a settler world-view” more important that can help explain US support for the Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories. Neither the current “unilateral Bantustanization” nor “the stabilization of a number of Bantustans will not bring the confrontation to an end”. Lorenzo Veracini opens a long forgotten persective to look at the longest regional conflict in International Relations. His view could help to understand the neocolonial dynamics in the Middle East and beyond. For the West a rather unconventional viewpoint.