Suchergebnisse

Structural violence embedded in systems and institutions of society has a detrimental impact on marginalized communities. Social, economic and political inequalities, exclusion, and violent acts (i.e. hate crimes) are examples of systemically supported violence. Although there are differences and unique challenges faced by each community, many forms of structural violence share significant commonalities and connected within global historical and ongoing geopolitical inequalities. Thus, it is imperative for social justice advocacy aimed at dismantling these systems to develop a transnational intersectional analysis. This must include inclusion of the voices, struggles, lived experiences of marginalized individuals to inform an intersectional analysis that incorporates global hierarchical realities. In this community-engaged project, interviews were conducted across three distinct communities within the United States: (1)Muslims, (2) immigrant Latina women with undocumented status, and (3) LGBTQ+ persons who have experienced incarceration. The purpose of these interviews was to gain an understanding of the experiences and differences in the structural violence experienced by three unique communities as well as their commonalities and interconnections. The stories were analyzed using thematic analysis, and themes detailing the impact of structural violence on individual wellbeing were identified within the context of their intersecting identities. Furthermore, this research centered stories of resilience, community, and resistance providing a narrative not limited to being a victim of systemic violence. It analyzes the geopolitical implications particularly the role of forced migration, politics of imperialistic militarism, and racism in maintaining these brutal and inhumane conditions. Finally, it advocates an approach that decolonizes discourses that uphold inequitable systems.

In view of the importance of brand in economic life in General and business in particular as one of the most important means of promotional materials for industrial, commercial and services, where the legislature has given a lot of attention in terms of adoption of various procedural rules governing them starting from the moment of selection that mark through registration and use all that is according to a specific procedure guaranteeing the rights of their respective owners. And with the rise of the industrial revolution that allowed unprecedented growth in the number of industries which in turn reflected the large number of brands. As a result, the legislation to create a legal and judicial protection of that mark, on the one hand had to be finding shade by law, industrial and commercial entrepreneurs and service providers, so as to regulate the ownership of those marks not exploited commercially. On the other hand, the consecration of protection established by the legislation of the legislature has created a brand that specializes in guarantee protects the student registration of that mark from the arbitrariness of the Administration if the departments specialized in the registration of the mark in contravention of the provisions of the law, as well as guarantee against all attacks of the ownership and use of that mark.

Personal freedom is the essence of human life. It is not created by legislation or laws. It is rather regulated by laws to reconcile its various aspects and achieve the common good of the community. It, therefore, does not accept restrictions except those that are necessary. The freedom of people should always be maintained; it is not permissible to arrest or detain any person except in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the Jordanian legislator was keen to put in place the procedural rules of administrative detention in terms of setting clear conditions for the practice of this detention and the reasons for resorting to it in order to reduce the abuse of this exercise by the authorities and to reduce the vulnerability of individuals at risk of such a practice. It is well-known that these actions result in a restriction of personal freedom but also it is known that these measures are aimed to protect society from risks. Detainees in this type of arrest are taken without trial, and it is exercised by the executive authority under the powers granted to it by the law. If all these precautions are meant to protect personal freedom and maintain its integrity, then how can the executive authority intervene in personal freedom and exercise maximum restrictions on it and tries to repeal it, given that this type of arrest is essentially a precautionary punitive measure? However, in this sense, it is in stark violation of the principle of legality of crimes and punishments, and it violates constitutional and legal warrantees. Despite all these principles about the sanctity of personal freedoms and the warrantees against excessive use of executive detention, it should be acknowledged that it is sometimes necessary for authorities to administer such a measure. This perplexing situation makes us endeavor to study the provisions and terms governing this kind of arrest and investigate its reasons, in an attempt to state the legal basis that calls for its justification. The study also addresses the main principles governing the behavior of authorities while exercising this detention and the main effects of such a practice.