- Justice is a pillar of society and consequently has unbridled power.
- When a lack of precaution, which the BBC calls ‘A perversion of justice’ in the aforementioned videos about Liam Allan – the word abject – is used, then you arrive at consequences the impact of which is incalculable
- We have a constitutional state, a civilised, highly developed country, but in an individual case you come to the conclusion that the life of a person and his environment is being shattered by the justice system.
- The moral compass, in the context of this website, means that standard-bearers and those with social status see reality as it really is, unambiguously, in line with the values of the rule of law, justice, ethics and conscience.
Example - The pfd below, an article from De Standaard of Friday 24 January 2020 page 10:
- “Several researchers, including a Nobel Prize winner, have revealed on Twitter and elsewhere that their papers contain erroneous data”.
You’d better be open about the errors in your research’.
‘Je kunt maar beter open zijn over de fouten in je onderzoek’
The article is clear and straightforward. The how and why of what happened is explained. All the elements are explained.
The Nobel Prize winner in chemistry says in the caption of the photo in the article: ‘I didn’t do my job properly’.
On the website of Royal Society of Chemistry there are words of praise:
… ‘it has been universally, and rightly, praised as a model of integrity and responsibility’.
The explanation under the heading: ‘Crisis communication?’ in the article is to-the-point:
‘The study in question, published in May 2019 in the top trade journal Science, was not replicable – and therefore worthless.’
No one can understand how a sworn person in administration and justice and related entities in society, stupidly does the opposite of what they are supposed to do. The consequences and impact on a human being by someone who has you in his power is something for which there are no words.
The case of Liam Allan, which has already been explained, and the hyperlink to the video about what happened to Ricky Jakson are exemplary.
Two examples of what cannot happen unless society and the judiciary go terribly wrong.
The other side of justice: you get into a legal bubble as a result of systemic errors and there it goes wrong again.
You cannot be the scapegoat for something that is not there, or be labelled the bad guy, when those characteristics cannot be found.
- Justitie is een pijler in de samenleving en beschikt bijgevolg over ongebreidelde macht.
- Wanneer gebrek aan voorzorg, een werkwijze die de BBC in voornoemde video’s nopens Liam Allan ‘A perversion of justice’ noemt – het woord abject wordt gebruikt – dan kom je tot gevolgen waar de impact niet van te overzien is.
- We hebben een rechtsstaat, een beschaafd, hoog ontwikkeld land, doch in een individuele casus kom je tot de vaststelling dat het leven van een mens en zijn omgeving door justitie verbrijzeld wordt.
- Het moreel kompas betekent in de context van deze website, dat vaandeldragers en zij met maatschappelijke status de werkelijkheid zien zoals ze werkelijk is, onomfloerst, in het reine met waarden die de rechtstaat, justitie, de ethiek en het geweten in zijn vaandel draagt.
Voorbeeld
- Onderstaande pfd, een artikel uit De Standaard van vrijdag 24 januari 2020 pagina 10:
- “Meerdere vorsers, onder wie een nobelprijswinnaar, hebben onder meer op Twitter bekendgemaakt dat hun papers foutieve data bevatten“.
‘Je kunt maar beter open zijn over de fouten in je onderzoek’
Het artikel is helder en duidelijk. Er wordt uitgelegd: het hoe en waarom van wat er gebeurd is. Alle elementen worden toegelicht.
De nobelprijswinnaar chemie zegt in het bijschrift van de foto in het artikel: ‘ik heb mijn werk niet goed gedaan’.
Op de website van de Royal Society of Chemistry staan er lovende woorden:
… ‘it has been universally, and rightly, praised as a model of integrity and responsibility.’
De toelichting onder het kopje : ‘Crisiscommunicatie?’ in het artikel is to-the-point:
‘De studie in kwestie, in mei 2019 gepubliceerd in het topvaktijdschrift Science, was niet repliceerbaar – en dus waardeloos.’
Niemand kan begrijpen dat een beëdigd persoon in administratie en justitie en aanverwante entiteiten in de samenleving, domweg het omgekeerde doet van wat hij hoort te doen. De gevolgen en de impact op een mens door iemand die je in zijn macht heeft, is iets waar er geen woorden voor zijn.
De reeds toegelichte casus Liam Allan en voornoemde hyperlink naar de video nopens wat Ricky Jakson overkomen is, zijn exemplarisch.
Twee voorbeelden van wat niet kan gebeuren, tenzij het vreselijk mank loopt in de samenleving en bij justitie.
De keerzijde van justitie: je komt als gevolg van systeemfouten in een juridische bubbel én daar loopt het nogmaals helemaal fout.
Je kunt niet de zondebok zijn voor iets die er niet is, of het label krijgen van de slechterik, wanneer die karakteristieken niet te terug te vinden zijn.
Your conscience is your moral compass. Take care of it. Use it. Trust it.
In general, a “moral compass” refers to an individual’s internal guidance system that helps them differentiate between right and wrong, make ethical decisions, and determine their actions and behaviors. Here are some key points that may be relevant to the concept of a moral compass:
Personal values: A moral compass is shaped by an individual’s personal values, which are their fundamental beliefs about what is important, right, and just. These values may be influenced by various factors, such as cultural, religious, familial, or individual beliefs.
Ethical principles: A moral compass may be guided by ethical principles, such as honesty, integrity, fairness, respect, and compassion. These principles serve as guidelines for making moral judgments and decisions.
Conscience: A moral compass may involve an individual’s conscience, which is their inner voice that alerts them to the moral implications of their actions and behaviors. Conscience can evoke feelings of guilt, shame, or pride based on how well an action aligns with an individual’s moral values.
Contextual considerations: A moral compass takes into account the specific context of a situation, including the consequences of actions, the rights and well-being of others, and the broader societal impact of decisions. It recognizes that moral dilemmas can be complex and that the right course of action may depend on the situation.
Self-reflection and introspection: Developing a moral compass requires self-reflection and introspection, as individuals need to critically evaluate their beliefs, values, and actions. This involves being open to feedback, considering diverse perspectives, and continuously learning and growing in moral reasoning.
Action-oriented: A moral compass is not just about abstract moral reasoning but also about taking action based on one’s ethical principles. It involves behaving in a manner that aligns with one’s moral values and principles, even in challenging situations.
Fallibility: A moral compass acknowledges that individuals are fallible and may make mistakes in moral judgment and actions. It requires humility and the willingness to learn from errors and make amends when necessary.
It’s important to note that different individuals may have different moral compasses based on their unique experiences, beliefs, and perspectives. The concept of a moral compass is subjective and can vary across cultures, religions, and philosophical systems.
Anonymous – The Story of Aaron Swartz Full Documentary
7 sep. 2014
This film follows the story of programming prodigy and information activist Aaron Swartz. From Swartz’s help in the development of the basic internet protocol RSS to his co-founding of Reddit, his fingerprints are all over the internet. But it was Swartz’s groundbreaking work in social justice and political organizing combined with his aggressive approach to information access that ensnared him in a two-year legal nightmare. It was a battle that ended with the taking of his own life at the age of 26. Aaron’s story touched a nerve with people far beyond the online communities in which he was a celebrity. This film is a personal story about what we lose when we are tone deaf about technology and its relationship to our civil liberties.
