Council of Europe Report Includes Data on Destruction of Heritage in Kosovo

______________________________

In Strasbourg, Marija Obradović, member of National Assembly delegation and of the Culture Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (CoE) (PACE), said that Serbia couldn’t allow the adoption of a CoE resolution that doesn’t include data on a decade that saw more than 150 Serbian Orthodox churches destroyed in Kosovo. She noted, according to a release from the Serbian National Assembly, “We insisted that the draft report include facts about the destruction of Serbian cultural heritage, especially of those buildings not damaged in the pogrom in Kosovo from March 2004. I informed the members of the committee that 34 Orthodox churches and other cultural and religious buildings were damaged in that event alone”. Obradović remarked that Serbia’s opinion was received well by the other members of the committee, and by the rapporteur, especially considering that more than a few of those buildings had UNESCO protection, and that many were constructed in the Middle Ages, concluding, “The adoption of a resolution on this is expected early next year, and we’ll monitor closely its creation until then”. On Friday, the Committee on Culture, Science, Education, and Media of the PACE discussed a preliminary report on cultural heritage in crisis and post-conflict situations, included in the fourth part of the plenary session.

3 October 2014

B92

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society.php?yyyy=2014&mm=10&dd=03&nav_id=91790

Advertisement

2 August 2014. They Weren’t “Ukrainians” Then… They’re NOT “Ukrainians” Now

Habitants de la Petite Russie (Inhabitants of Little Russia)

S Markaert

1844

From:

Adolphe-François Pannemaker, Illustrations de Moeurs, usages et costumes de tous les peuples du monde (Illustrations of Manners, Customs, and Costumes of All Peoples of the World) (Bruxelles BELGIUM, 1844)

______________________________

The word “Ukrainian” wasn’t in common usage in 1844 (of course, Uniate fanatics dig up and quote isolated and atypical instances of “Ukrainian”, but they don’t count)… in short, the concept didn’t exist in general circulation! To use the word “Ukrainian” for any situation or person prior to the late 19th century is an ignorant and obsequious anachronism, adopted to please and/or placate a loud political pressure group. It’s not truthful, so, decent people should avoid such a usage. In fact, until 1948, there was no “Ukrainian Catholic rite” in Roman documents… it was the “Ritus Rutheniensis”, that is, “the Russian (Catholic) Rite”. I got that from a 1948 official Roman publication that I saw in Dunwoodie in the 70s. Don’t fall for the loud Uniate propaganda… it doesn’t correspond to the facts… that goes for such things as the so-called 1930s “Genocide” as well (there was none… the UN and PACE agree with the Russian position that it wasn’t genocide, it was part of the tragedy surrounding Collectivisation). You should know that the Uniate fascists weren’t part of all that… they were in Poland, and none of them suffered one bit… indeed, they were willing hangsmen and bully boys for the White Poles (they burned Orthodox churches in the Kresy at the behest of the Poles… fancy that)! Do remember that when you hear their rants and accusations…

My thanks to the Cabinet member who turned me on to this resource.

BMD

Euthanasia: A Right to Die

______________________________

Ten years ago, the Netherlands legalised active euthanasia, becoming the world’s first country to do so. However, debates continue to run deep on the moral and ethical aspects of helping people end their lives, even if they suffer from incurable illnesses. Euthanasia is normally divided into passive and active, the former meaning that a patient completely rejects treatment, which isn’t prohibited by law except in a handful of countries, with politicians, doctors, and human rights advocates unanimous in their view that any person’s free to decide whether or not to accept treatment or medication. As for active euthanasia, only the Netherlands, Belgium and two US states, Oregon and California, allow it.

In 2005, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe strongly condemned active euthanasia. However, rapid progress in health sciences and a shift in moral values may prompt it to review its stance in the future. More and more people are beginning to see euthanasia as a more humane way of relieving a person from unbearable sufferings rather than prolonging those sufferings by forcing such patients to live. If society accepts euthanasia, this means it would also have to change its view of medical ethics. All doctors begin their careers by taking the Hippocratic Oath, swearing that they will give no deadly medicine to anyone even if the patient asks for it, nor shall they suggest such to anyone through their counsel.

Aleksandr Saversky, President of the Russian Patients Rights Protection League, thinks that a commission of physicians and relatives must be set up in each individual case for an ultimate decision that must also have the approval of an executive, for example, a governor. He said, “Thereby, we’ll assert that we have done everything possible for the person experiencing terrible suffering and that we can’t do more. Only then, can we consider euthanasia as a last resort. If a patient can press the button himself, we should give it to him. If not, several people should press the button simultaneously so that none of them could blame the other. However, there must be no doctors among those people”. Dmitri Aivazian, a lawyer with the Patients Rights Protection League, echoed that there can’t be any uniform euthanasia rules, each such case is unique; we must approach each one individually.

1 April 2012

Anastasia Pershkina

Voice of Russia World Service

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_04_01/70296215/