Visuomenės pokyčių analizė, Demokratija ir valdymas, Socialinė politika, Ekonominė politika

Boguslavas Gruževskis: „Mūsų šimtmečio pabaiga: socialinis demografinis matymas, arba Už ką aukojo savo gyvybę XX a. Lietuvos didvyriai“

Tiesos.lt redakcija   2017 m. birželio 30 d. 10:36

6     

    

Boguslavas Gruževskis: „Mūsų šimtmečio pabaiga: socialinis demografinis matymas, arba Už ką aukojo savo gyvybę XX a. Lietuvos didvyriai“

Ką apie mūsų politikų požiūrį į piliečius ir į valstybę sako šiuolaikinės Lietuvos socialiniai parametrai, ypač palyginti su atitinkamais kitų Europos Sąjungos šalių ar tarpukario Respublika duomenimis?

Kviečiame susipažinti su prof. Boguslavo Gruževskio, Darbo rinkos tyrimų instituto direktoriaus, įžvalgomis, išsakytomis pranešime „Mūsų šimtmečio pabaiga: socialinis demografinis matymas, arba Už ką aukojo savo gyvybę XX a. Lietuvos didvyriai“, perskaitytame Adolfo Damušio politinių studijų dienų konferencijoje „Mūsų šimtmetis: tauta demokratinės valstybės kūrybos ir griovimo kryžkelėse“, vykusioje birželio 16–17 dienomis Vilniuje, Lietuvos nacionalinėje Martyno Mažvydo bibliotekoje. 

Reportažo autorius – Ryšard Maceikianec (pogon.lt)

* * *

Kiti šios konferencijos pranešimai:

Adolfo Damušio politinių studijų dienų konferencija Nacionalinėje bibliotekoje: įžanginiai žodžiai

Dr. Augustinas Idzelis: „Dr. Adolfas Damušis – rezistentas ir istorijos gynėjas“

Kęstutis Girnius: „Nelaukta tauta“

Vidmantas Valiušaitis: „Lietuvos XX a. istorinės dramos mazgas – 1940–1941-ieji“

Alvydas Jokubaitis. Dabartinių reformatorių problema: jie nežino, ką daro

Vytautas Sinica. „Savi šaudė į savus“? Kas rašo Lietuvos istoriją?

Vytautas Radžvilas: „Katalikybė ir politinė laisvė“ (papildyta diskusija)

 

P. S. Tiesos.lt siūlo skaitytojams remtis Lietuvos Katalikų Bažnyčios Kronikos platintojų patirtimi: Perskaitęs nusiųsk nuorodą kitam.

  • Google+

Parašyk komentarą 

Vardas
Tiesos.lt primena, kad už komentaro turinį atsako autorius, ir pasilieka teisę šalinti su straipsnio tema nesusijusius, asmens orumą žeminančius, apmokėtus ir propagandinius komentarus.                   
Kraunami komentarai...

Komentarai

Nauji reiškiniai       2017-06-30 21:34

,kurie gal dar niekur neatsispindi,tai provincijoje žmonės išeina iš įmonių ne dėl mažos algos,o tiesiog jaučia vieną šešėlinę nišą,niekur neapskaitomą.Daug žmonių pradeda savo verslus,versliukus ir dirba didesne dalimi nelegaliai,-mūrininkai,santechnikai,tinkuotojai,statybininkai…Gal ne viskas taip blogai?

Marginalas       2017-06-30 15:17

Nesuvokdami aukojo gyvybes už svetimus globalius interesus, kurie dar nebuvo visai aiškūs ir patiems tų interesų subjektams.
Tačiau per “komunizmo griuvimą” jau sąmoningai visus apmovė su “laisve ir nepriklausomybe” - tada planuojamos šviesios pasaulinio konclagerio ateities kontūrai jau buvo aiškūs. Aiškumas atsirado supratus naudą iš “naujųjų technologijų” paplitus emailams. Tuo pat metu tapo aišku ir tai, kad didžiausias pasipriešinimas kils iš abraomizmo. Tai tik rodo, kad tariamas abraomistinis “religinis pavergimas” iš tikrųjų ir yra laisvės kelias (“pažinsite tiesą...”)

Siautėja       2017-06-30 11:34

valstybinė šiukšlių išvežimo monopolija.

Family Watch International 3       2017-06-30 11:34

.Please take note of the countries listed below that voted in favor of CSE, those against, and those that abstained. Please consider thanking your government if they voted against CSE, or lobbying them to change their position if they voted in favor of it. You may want to encourage them to watch “The War on Children: The Comprehensive Sexuality Education Agenda” to help them understand how toxic CSE truly is to children.

COUNTRIES THAT VOTED AGAINST CSE:
Bangladesh, Burundi, China, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Nigeria, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirate, Togo (Togo also abstained in one of the CSE votes)

COUNTRIES THAT VOTED FOR CSE:
Albania, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Croatia, EL Salvador, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom

COUNTRIES THAT ABSTAINED:
Bolivia, Ecuador, Togo (also voted against CSE in one of two votes), United States

Family Watch will shortly announce major new findings showing that CSE programs are ineffective. This will be an excellent tool to use to change governments’ positions on CSE in future negotiations.

To recap: life and the family were winners in Geneva this time. Sadly, because of the inclusion of CSE in two resolutions, children were the biggest losers.

Please take the time to thank nations for doing the right thing and discouraging those who are doing the wrong thing by clicking here. Certainly, protecting the family is worth just a couple of minutes of your time.

Sincerely,

SHARON SLATER,
FWI PRESIDENT

Family Watch International 2       2017-06-30 11:32


Here is how nations voted on the final family resolution:

Voted for Family Resolution: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, China, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nigeria, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela

 


Voted Against Family Resolution: Albania, Belgium, Croatia, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States

Abstained: Brazil, Georgia, Hungary, Panama, Republic of Korea

The 19 nations in red voted in favor of the “various forms of the family” amendment. Then when their amendment was defeated, all but two of these countries (Ecuador and South Africa) refused to vote for the final resolution by either voting against or abstaining.

You will also note that Hungary voted in favor of the hostile amendment and then abstained from voting for the overall resolution. This is surprising in light of the statement at the recent Budapest Family Summit where their minister stated that Hungary would be speaking out internationally more strongly for the family.

And there was no better way to do that than to vote for this resolution. Last year Hungary cosponsored the 2016 family resolution, but only after it was adopted. Now they are on record as opposing it. Hungary likely abstained due to the enormous political pressure within the EU for countries to vote against the family resolution.

Hungary did vote on the side of pro-family countries against two other hostile amendments that were also defeated that sought to change “the family” to “families” both in the title of the resolution and in one of the paragraphs. Hungary likely felt freer to vote as they wanted to on those amendments since they were offered by individual countries and not the EU as a whole.

A fourth amendment recognizing that violence against older persons can also happen “within families” was accepted by the cosponsors, likely as a compromise.

Pro-family advocates had been hopeful that the U.S. under the new Trump administration would support the family resolution, but their hopes were in vain. At an earlier NGO meeting, the U.S. delegation declared that under Trump they would still be moving ahead with their LGBT agenda. This was disappointing news for the large number of U.S. social conservatives who voted to elect Trump.

But in the end, despite the opposition, the family won. This was another major victory for the international pro-family movement, the fourth time a family protection resolution has been adopted at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Please take the time to sign the two letters we have provided for you to encourage nations to keep voting to protect the family, and for those that did not, to encourage them to do so in the future.

On two other critical issues, how did children and life fare at the 35th session of the Human Rights Council session?
On the life issue and on comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) in a resolution to prevent violence against women, the U.S. delegation under Trump did a very good thing. The United States disassociated from a very contentious abortion provision expressing a very strong pro-life position stating,


 


“The United States believes that women should have equal access to reproductive health care. We remain committed to the commitments laid out in the Beijing Declaration and the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action. As has been made clear over many years, there was international consensus that these documents do not create new international rights, including any right to abortion. The United States fully supports the principle of voluntary choice regarding maternal and child health and family planning. We do not recognize abortion as a method of family planning, nor do we support abortion in our reproductive health assistance.”

In the same statement, the U.S. representative said with regard to CSE:

“The United States notes that the term ‘comprehensive sexuality education,’ has been rejected by the UN General Assembly, and underscores the importance of any sex education being appropriate for the age of the recipients.”

On the other hand, in another HRC resolution on preventing discrimination against women, the U.S. abstained on a vote to delete the reference to comprehensive sexuality education. That amendment lost by eight votes.

So the U.S. spoke out against CSE in one resolution and abstained from voting on it in another.

We greatly regret that both votes to delete comprehensive sexuality education failed. This is a big loss for children.

 

Family Watch International 1       2017-06-30 11:26

 

 

http://www.familywatchinternational.org
June 29, 2017

SHARON SLATER | PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

 

UN ALERT:  “The Family” Wins! Children Lose! Abortion Pushed Back!

 

Dear Friend of the Family,

The recent closing of the 35th Session of the UN Human Rights Council marked another major and historic win for the institution of the family at the United Nations!

Thank you to all who signed the letter to UN missions urging nations to vote for the UN protection of the family resolution.


 


Despite coming under heavy attack at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), this year’s resolution on the protection of the family passed by a wide margin. The count was 30 States voting in favor, 12 against, and five abstentions. There are 47 Member States on the Council.

Family Watch International is grateful for the cross-regional group of countries who sponsored the resolution: Bangladesh, Belarus, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, El Salvador, Mauritania, Morocco, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Uganda. Egypt and the Russian Federation, among others, provided strong leadership and vision for this resolution.

Click here to sign two letters—a thank you letter to the countries that supported the family resolution and a letter expressing displeasure to the countries that voted against it or abstained.

The U.S. vote against the family resolution (along with 11 other nations) revealed a troubling anti-family position by the Trump administration. In addition, five countries abstained from the vote, which brought the total number of countries that refused to vote in favor of the family to 17. (Click here to watch the webcast or read the transcription of the debate and vote on the resolution.)

Annie Franklin, who represented Family Watch at the HRC, reported that the U.S. delegation was aggressive in pushing the LGBT agenda, insisting (unsuccessfully) on the inclusion of same-sex couples in the text of the resolution.

For the U.S. to insist on having same-sex couples listed in this resolution seemed strangely out of step with the purpose of a resolution that simply sought to promote the important role of the family in society, and in particular, the role played by many families in the lives of older persons. This resolution should not have been controversial.

Yet 17 out of 47 nations couldn’t support the resolution.

So what was the big problem?

Western countries were angry that the resolution didn’t promote the LGBT agenda. It is now commonplace at almost every UN negotiation, regardless of the topic, for the discussion to devolve into debates over the LGBT agenda and abortion.

Long before nations started legalizing same-sex marriage, we warned that wherever same-sex unions or same-sex marriage gain legal recognition, it would be considered bigoted or discriminatory to promote the family. We warned back then that it would soon be highly controversial and possibly illegal to promote the traditional family at all.

And now, here we are.

In an attempt to force all countries to recognize same-sex marriage and other controversial unions and family structures, Malta, on behalf of the EU, proposed a hostile amendment to the family resolution seeking to force all governments to recognize “various forms of the family.” But, in what was a great victory for the resolution sponsors, and especially for children, the hostile amendment was voted down.

 


Rekomenduojame

Algimantas Rusteika. Dinozauro prisiminimai apie ateitį

Vidmanto Valiušaičio replika apie Tomo Venclovos logiką ·

Vyskupas Jonas Kauneckas: Matoma neteisybė padarė kovotoju

Geroji Žolinės Naujiena: Palaiminta įtikėjusi!

Andrius Švarplys. Šiame techno-totalitariniame pasaulyje arba esi kritiškas, arba esi vergas

Vytautas Radžvilas apie Jono Noreikos atminimo lentos sunaikinimą

Vytautas Sinica. Miliūtės „Teisės žinoti“ apžvalga

Petras Plumpa. Laisvė ieško gyvenimo tikslo

Šiaulių valdininkų patyčios iš miestelėnų: iškirs ne 108, o 103 liepas ir pavadins tai „komp­ro­mi­su“

Liudvikas Jakimavičius. Patogus ir saugus diskursas

Gitanas Nausėda: sprendimus dėl istorinių asmenybių įamžinimo turi priimti ne merai

Iš propagandos frontų. Marius Ivaškevičius: „Aš asmeniškai renkuosi Tiesą“

Vladimiras Laučius. Sušimašinta Lietuva

Vytautas Radžvilas. Apie vienašališkas „dekonstrukcijas“ ir keistas Eurasia Daily bei lrt.lt sąsajas

Valdas Vasiliauskas. Ar Lietuva turi sostinę?

Linas V. Medelis. Sąmokslo teorija: kaip skęsta Lietuva

Vidmantas Valiušaitis. Kai istorikai ima bijoti faktų

Vitalijus Karakorskis: „Tai yra valstybės šantažas“

Rasa Čepaitienė. Pasaka apie vieną mažą raidelę

Robertas Grigas: „Quo vadis, Lietuva?“

Simonas Jazavita. Apie Prezidentus ir Antano Smetonos paminklą Vilniuje

Darius Alekna. Tai kas ten sakė, kad ne vieta buvo pagrindinis LEU sunaikinimo motyvas?

Andrius Švarplys. Politinis sentimentalumas yra amoralus ir antidemokratinis – jis išreiškia ne užuojautą, o politinį interesą

Geroji Naujiena. Palaiminti, kurie Jam sugrįžtant budės

Popiežiaus interviu italų dienraščiui: Europa, migracija, ekologija

Povilas Urbšys. Tai – elementarus vaivorykštinis fašizmas

Vykintas Vaitkevičius. Iš miego pakilusi Gedimino pilies kalno kariuomenė

Vidmantas Valiušaitis. Nėra to blogo, kas neišeitų į gera

Į laisvę“ studijų savaitgalis „Quo vadis, Lietuva?“

Robertas Grigas. Ar esame gėlininkų tauta?

Daugiau

Saitai

© 2012 tiesos.lt. Svetainės turinį galima platinti įdėjus veikiančią nuorodą.