text 1
test 2
text 3
text 4
Rosa Parks (Rosa Louise McCauley Parks) was born on February 14th, 1913. She is widely regarded as 'the mother of the freedom movement'. Her most famous act was to refuse to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama for a white passenger. Her refusal sparked a civil disobedience movement that propelled not only her but also Martin Luther King, Jnr. to international fame. Rosa Parks died in 2005. She was the first woman and only the second non-government official to be buried at the Capitol Rotunda.
One of the interesting things about Rosa Parks was that although she became a leading figure in the Black Civil Rights Movement in America she was not an intellectual, a radical or a preacher. She was just a normal woman who worked as a seamstress. She said she acted as a private citizen that was 'tired of giving in'. Rosa Park's protest was one that was not based on an intellectual position but a deep seated visceral feeling of injustice. Nobody needed to tell her that black and white people should be treated equally. She knew because she felt it every day of her life. She probably hadn't read Gandhi's articles about civil disobedience. She just knew that she should protest, and that she should do so in a non-violent manner. For these reasons she has gone down in history. She represents the everyman (or everywoman) who has had enough and who will no longer toe the line.
The main issue with civil disobedience is that it is breaking the law. Many intellectuals, most notably Gandhi and Martin Luther King, have propounded the theory that it is people's duty to resist unfair laws. Because something is a law it does not make it just. This is hardly a contentious issue since man makes the laws and man is fallible. Even in the area of religion, laws can be changed. They are not carved in stone. Jesus famously broke the commandment about not working on the Sabbath stating that the laws were made for man, not man for the laws.
It is those brave people who take action against unjust laws and unjust situations who are the real guardians of democracy. Sometimes the only way the will of the people will be heard by a government is through protest. Most recently this has been the case in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. For too long the people complained but their protests fell on deaf ears. Many were imprisoned and tortured for their comments. Eventually, enough was enough and mass protests ensued. This is truly the will of the people in action and represents the true meaning of the word democracy? 'demos' meaning people and 'cracy' meaning rule.
Societies and mores are evolving. The general consensus is changing about what is acceptable behavior. In the 1930s in America few whites stopped to think about the injustice of racial segregation. Now it is a given that the policy of barring black people from the amenities, facilities and educational opportunities that white people enjoy is abhorrent. The same movement can be seen in terms of the environment. Before 'nature' was morally neutral and pollution was just an inconsequential by-product of economic activity and human expansion. Now people are beginning to espouse the notion of an inherent value to natural resources such as trees. They need to be protected by the law.
Other people have articulated the idea that animals deserve to have rights to be protected against cruelty. Many regard animal liberationists as a looney fringe, but they too have made an impact on public mores. This is seen in the fact that cosmetic companies now go to great lengths to advertise the fact they do not test their products on animals.
Not all causes are just or find sympathy with a wider public. However, it is necessary that people like Rosa Parks continue to stand up and say 'enough is enough'. Civilizations are judged as much by their sensitivity to human and other rights as by their architectural and other cultural achievements.
This website is a forum for debate about issues that matter. It is the place to say 'I'm tired of giving in'. The Twenty-first Century is the age of information. It is our duty to publish information about injustice and perceived wrongs. If the cause is truly just then others will respond and act. Suffering the tyranny of injustice in silence is a crime in an age where the World Wide Web gives everyone with access to the internet a voice.
Social Injustice for Foreigners in Thailand
The civil rights movement in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in Europe and America did a lot to protect the rights of vulnerable minority groups. These groups include foreigners. In many parts of Asia foreigners are still commonly perceived with distrust, and are denied the same rights as citizens. The civil rights movement in Asia has not developed along the same lines as it did in the West. A good example of this is Thailand.
Thailand is seen by many as a paradise country. The weather is great nearly year round. The cost of living is cheap. The people are friendly. The infrastructure and medical services are on a par with many Western countries and the crime rate is low. While welcoming foreign tourists, many Thais have a hypocritical attitude to foreigners living in Thailand. Foreigners are called ‘farang’. They are viewed as a source of income. Those farang that try and integrate into Thai society are faced with a number of difficulties.
One of the most common phrases in Thai is: ‘the farang knows too much’. Those foreigners who become too aware of the scams, the scandals and the extra legal way that many communities operate are often shunned. While learning Thai opens the door to communicating with locals, it also arouses suspicion and puts many Thais on their guard.
The law does not help. A good example of this is the visa system in Thailand. Even if married to a Thai person a foreigner will still have to leave the country every 2 months to make a visa run. This is the height of bureaucratic racism. There is no point to exiting a country and then immediately re-entering. Nothing is achieved except a regular income for those involved in the ‘visa run’ business. It is a system designed to remind foreigners that they are only begrudgingly allowed to stay in the country.
Another injustice for foreigners in Thailand involves owning property and land. The law is a mess in this area. Foreigners have to buy through their spouse’s name. This leaves too much room for cheating. Foreigners not married to Thai nationals can only buy 30 year leases on land, but have permanent rights to anything they build. This is illogical. At the same time the Thai government allows Thai businesses that have minority foreign ownership to buy freehold property.
On the Thai island of Koh Tao the confusion of property law is exploited very cynically. Estate agents sell land and property to foreigners and then at whim they take the property away under the legal loophole that Koh Tao has no land titles because it was once a prison island. It is possible to get recourse in the courts, but a foreigner is always taking the risk of physical threats if they pursue their rights.
If Thailand wants to really attract foreign investment and increase tourist revenues it has to do more to protect the rights of foreigners. At the same time the police force has to be fairly paid so they spend more time upholding the law and not collecting ‘fines’