“I am hurted by this starving child, as I had a big thorn” (Miguel Hernández)

Friday, February 1, 2013

Let’s make from the great collective injustice, the great shame of our time, the "side effects" of a system based on the absolute power of money, the main reason of our daily actions, our mobilization for a life worth for all human beings. 

“Poverty is the most terrible way of violence," said Mahatma Gandhi. 

Let’s tend our hands to the needy versus superfluous consumption and waste. 

The underdevelopment and subordination’s spiral can only be avoided with endogenous training, help and knowledge. 

It is necessary to reach the unreached, to make visible the invisible yet, because "out of sight, out of mind".

Hitherto the progress and wealth have been distributed between the closed and protected limit from the inhabitants of the prosperous village that represent only 20% of humanity. 

“Each generation of children offers the possibility of rebuilding the world from its ruin to humanity”, said Eglantyne Jebb, Founder of Save the Children, in 1919. 

Unfortunately, the Republican Party of the United States has not allowed its country to sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989. Later, in June 2002, the Bush Administration avoided any reference to the Convention in the General Assembly of the United Nations. They also refused unanimously to sign the human right to food in the Conference organized by FAO at this respect. 

In 2000 when the Objectives of the Millennium were established, the richest countries were unable to approve a fund of 40,000 million dollars in order to quickly help the neediest. This is the amount currently invested in ten days in military expenditures and arms! I will never tire of repeating this: between 25,000 and 35,000 children under five die of hunger each day while “preparing for war” costs 4 billion dollars. 

Jon Sobrino has underscored the following terrible message and we should not forget: “The most widespread way of terrorism is to kill people by starvation”. 

Yes, every hungry child should hurt us as a big thorn...


Unrestricted freedom of expression UNESCO, in Article 1 of its Constitution, establishes the need to ensure the "free flow of ideas by word and image" - and right to accurate information. 

When writing, the journalist can say whatever he wants. When describing, he must convey exactly what has happened. If he receives information, he should verify it, because if the news are not credible, the reader or listener receives biased or even false descriptions. 

I insist today on this question and I reiterate this right because in relation with video-communication on the recent demonstration in Bilbao on the moving closer the prisoners not only some journalist (whose name and media I don't like to remember) have given a completely inaccurate and misleading information but they have written nothing true on my own as well. They have invented all, following their ideological hostility and blind compliance with the instructions received. 

I did not attend the protest nor, since then, did I declare a single word in favour of amnesty. Neither did I support the demands of people who apparently attended said protest. Anyone who wants can listen to the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQvaeg80S4k) and verify that it is a shameful distortion and manipulation that has been used by fanatics who think, "If you throw enough mud, something will stick."

What they do is up to them. From my side, “Do they bark?. We go riding”. I will continue working in favour of good journalism. I will continue seeking the application of human rights within a genuinely democratic context. As Quevedo warned, 

"I must not stay silent, no matter that, 
with a finger touching the lips or brow, 
you advise silence or threaten fear." 

Right to accurate information.

Human Rights, duty of word

The full exercise of human rights will not be achieved until human beings can express themselves freely, until their voices are heard and heeded by those who exercise power in their names and on their behalf. It’s not by chance that in the UNESCO Constitution the “free flow of ideas by word and image” appears in the same article (Article I) in which education is defined as the means for achieving the supreme gift of the human species, freedom, together with its essential companion, responsibility. “Free and responsible”.

Centuries ago, a few people who were ahead of their age underscored the need to express opinions in order to live “humanly”. Quevedo’s poem is famous in that regard: “I shall not remain silent, despite your advising silence or threatening fear / with a finger touching lips or brow. / Can’t there be at least one valiant spirit? / Must we always feel what we say? / Are we never to say what we feel?”

But the majority of citizens continued to be silent subjects, passive spectators, mute and terrified witnesses of the events around them. And gave up their lives without a word.

I have been impressed by the capacity of several leaders to attempt to interpret unspoken and repressed voices and cries: “Let me listen to that deafening silence”, said President François Mitterrand.
In 1969, Professor José Luis Aranguren wrote “Intellectuals give voices to some as their spokesmen, and with their own voices they attempt to awaken the voices of others, those who are alienated and manipulated, those who in the words of Ortega aren’t conscious of their own existence which, as I have said, isn’t only their own, but rather is always entwined with the existence of all others”.

“We still have words”… repeated Fernando Buesa in the plenary sessions of the General Assembly of Alava (1983-1989). A victim of ETA, the Foundation that bears his name perpetuates his shining memory under the title “The Value of Words”. The assassins put an end to his physical existence, but we certainly have, and will always have words, his words.

Duty o word, of speakin up, to give full effect to human rights. For the transition from a culture of imposition, violence and domination to a culture of dialogue, conciliation, alliance and peace. In inspired verses, Luis García Montero has reflected the dawning of a new era of understanding and conflict resolution through dialogue: “Come to me, / in the eyes of that child who raises his hand / and asks to be heard, / and who simply places his trust in words…”.

As we grow older we tend to remain silent instead of learning to be less inhibited and to openly express what we think.

Years ago I read that “parents teach their little children to speak; and once they have grown, children teach their parents to remain silent”.

The silence of the peoples strengthens absolute power, the arbitrary acts of government leaders, and the obedient behavior of parliamentary representatives who ignore the meaning of “parlare”, who tow the party line and follow orders without any objection.

“In the times in which we live,” wrote Manuel Cruz recently in “El País”, “no one should remain silent concerning matters that affect us all”.

Today, luckily, (and I like to repeat this because it’s a basic element of the hope for change) the time for silence is over. “The crime of silence”!... because thanks to modern communications and information technologies the historical turning point from force to words is near.

Human rights, duty of word.

Concerning an Oversight and Two Surprising Interferences

1.     The King’s Televised 75th Birthday Interview:
I’m not going to comment on his statements or the interviewer’s questions, or on the observations of a series of well known personalities –women and men- from the King’s generation.

I would merely like to underscore the lack in all of those interventions of a single mention concerning the Queen. That’s surprising and, from a totally impartial perspective, inadequate and undeserved.

2.     Interference of the army in politics:
Neither am I going to comment upon the Defense Minister’s statements of 6 January 2013… but it’s obvious that the “anti-separatists” are certainly capable of out-doing the “separatists” in terms of drama, unfortunate remarks and bad-timing.

These matters can’t be resolved by force, but rather through dialogue. And by adequately reinforcing the structure of the State with the necessary Constitutional amendments.

3.     Interference of the Church in Venezuelan politics:
What is the Venezuelan Conference of Bishops doing, intervening in strictly political matters and declaring with obvious bias that it would be “morally unacceptable” not to take into account the January 10th date for swearing of the reelected president? This is a very serious intromission. This is not the Church that we the believers want.