Understanding the clarity of Paragraph Two of Article 29 is essential, as its misinterpretation enables governments to limit or violate human rights.
The governments can abuse this paragraph's ambiguity, which emanates from a lack of Wise knowledge, impose non-law on their citizens, and deprive them of their inherited rights.

This paragraph mentions three conditions justifying the limitations of human rights:
1. Securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others: This is the primary justification and emphasises balancing individual rights with the rights of others.

2. Meeting the just requirements of morality: This addresses actions based on moral values and moral control as a restriction of human rights. "Selflessness" is an essential principle that morality demands from any human.[Please consider Point 9 of Secular Moral Values]

3. Public order and the general welfare: This addresses limitations necessary for maintaining social order, common good and collective well-being.

These three conditions are interconnected and interdependent. The flaw in one of them nullifies the others. For instance, the lack of Universal Moral Values with precise contents leads to legislation of non-law because the origin of law is morality.
Lawmakers deprived of morality cannot legislate "True Laws". The outcome of their attempts would be non-laws —no matter whether the lawmakers are appointed by a dictator or elected by the majority of people.
In the same relation, without "public order", neither lawmakers could be equipped with morality, nor an individual "has duties to the community" —as the first paragraph of Article 29 asserts.
"Public order" means everyone, according to his talent, finds his place in human society.
Governing humanity requires specific skills. Above all, a politician must have a "Talent for Extraordinary Sensitivity to Injustice(TESI)". [To know about the reasons for the obligation to have TESI for politicians, consider Volume Six: Apropos of Politics]
Occupying politics without TESI causes disorder in the human community. Thus, incompetent politicians cause "Public Disorder". In such a circumstance, the relevant question is:
How can a government —the main reason for the disorder—generate "public order"?

The existence of the intermingled concepts in the second paragraph of Article 29 is a strong reason why every word and concept used in the UDHR should be precisely defined to prevent misinterpretations.

Vague meanings of terms and concepts in the UDHR, especially point two of Article 29, give governments the best opportunity to confiscate their citizens' rights with excuses such as the security of society, public order, and general welfare.

Some examples from the "Real World" where "Real Politics" governs can fortify this argument.


Example One: Lack of TESI causes public disorder

We live together, and such a manner demands 1) we regulate our relationships. 2) We comply with the division of labour principle.
In other words, living together requires everyone to find his place in the community according to his talents and be able to exercise his skills without being disturbed by others. This process is called the "Ture Order" and "Preventive Justice".

According to the division of labour principle, a group of the human family shall regulate the family's members' relation via "Ture Order" and "Preventive Justice".
This group comprises politicians who gather in an institute in the name of the government and regulate human relationships via laws based on moral values. Also, the government is responsible for providing material and mental welfare to every member of society.
Whereas any disorder in human society leads to injustice, politicians must exercise sufficient measures to avoid disorder and injustice. Thus, they shall be very sensitive to disorder and injustice and show a rapid reaction to them. Otherwise, disorder and injustice increase in society and the government is guilty of public disorder.

In Realpolitik, the politicians, instead of having the Extraordinary Sensitivity to Injustice, have minor sensitivity to it and allow injustice and disorder to occur in society —as Sweden's government did.
A Swedish television program named "Uppdrag granskning " examined a man and his wife's business that targeted children's well-being to earn millions.
Uppdrag granskning (English name: Mission: Investigate) is a Swedish television program focusing on investigative journalism. In March 2014, that program paid attention to owners of the Preschool chain named "Hälsans Förskola".
That TV program addressed a topic angering everyone. Children between the ages of one and five, who should be well-fed, have been facing malnutrition because the owners of the chain of kindergartens have cut the children's nutrition budget as much as possible in order to make money. For instance, the children only received crispbread and water instead of a nutritious breakfast.

The inaction of Swedish authorities aggravates the tragic aspect of this issue. Even though the broadcast of that program faced the reaction of other media and people, no serious action was taken by the authorities to stop the couple's business and punish them for this gross violation of the fundamental rights of children. The couple continued their occupation without any hindrance.
In April 2023, nine years after "Uppdrag granskning" revealed the couple's crime against children, the subject was brought to the media again. A newspaper on April 13, 2023, wrote:
"After Uppdrag Granskning's expose, they changed their name to Tellusgruppen. But the name is the only thing that has changed."

In the same article, you can read:
"...Dagens ETC revealed the actual situation at the preschools. "We worked with small children. Many of them had no language. They pointed to their stomachs and the food. They wanted more food, but there wasn't any more," preschool teacher Leila tells Dagens ETC."

That couple's actions and the Swedish authorities' reaction to this violation of children's rights render us a multi-aspects topic for research.
In a rich country like Sweden, deliberately starving young children is a complete injustice. The government agencies that should have reacted quickly and adequately to this injustice did not react.
This is the best proof that we can claim that those authorities have occupied positions without qualifications that require extraordinary sensitivity to injustice.
Even normal sensitivity to injustice for being a politician is not enough because injustice is like a fire that can start from a house room but can quickly take a city if ignored. For that reason, extinguishing a small fire immediately is vital for a community.
The government apparatus should react to injustice in society as quickly as the fire department to the existence of a fire in a house in the city.
Soon after receiving the alarm, we know the firefighters rush to the fire scene and try with all their strength to put it out, but it is not in the case of injustice. Government agencies aren't concerned about injustice and allow unjustness to spread and destroy society.
We must see the complicated relationship between disorder and injustice.
The presence of unwise politicians in the government, which demands wise politicians per se, is a "Disorder". Accepting this "Disorder" is the origin of "Public Disorder".
Unwise politicians are people with "insensitivity to injustice" and no morality.
Wise politicians are people with a "Talent for Extraordinary Sensitivity to Injustice" who received an education recommended by Article 26 of the UDHR and enjoy the full development of their personalities.
When politicians with "No Sensitivity to Injustice" take government, it is a disorder which causes "Public Disorder".
Order among humans is a natural continuation of dignity. Both are based on the same principle:
Since his birthday, a human enjoys sufficient possibilities to discover and exercise his talents and occupy his place in the human family or Humanity.
A baby needs love, and adults shall render him all necessary possibilities for discovering and flourishing his talents.
With love, acceptance and respect for a newborn baby's rights, we teach him the first lesson of morality. If we continue the same way, we will have an adult human with a fully evolved personality and equipped with "Developed Moral Values".
Such adults generate "public order" because all members of society are in a place according to their talents. Such citizens deserve their occupations because of their aptitudes and the education that helped their talents flourish and prepared them for those duties.

When unwise politicians without sensitivity to injustice tenure a position in society that demands extraordinary sensitivity to injustice, "Public Disorder" is guaranteed for that society.

Sweden's authorities showed no sufficient and suitable reactions to criminality increasing in Sweden for decades, so somebody who hadn't been in Sweden for twenty years —for instance— and returned to this country cannot recognise Sweden anymore.
In the last of the 80s, I predicted such a control-lost situation and warned the authorities, but nobody paid attention.

Knowledge can render us an ability to predict social and economic events.
You don't need to be a prophet to understand and forecast giving freedom to criminals and not disturbing them will cause increasing criminality to a level that you cannot fight and stop.

It is the same with foreseeing the aftermaths of giving freedom to two gree-ridden owners of preschools. Any skilled physician, psychologist, and sociologist can tell us the consequences of starving a child on his body and mind health and the long-term effects on his social life.

1. Deliberate deprivation of food during early childhood can have devastating effects on a child's physical and cognitive development, leading to long-term health consequences and diminished quality of life.
It is essential to ensure access to adequate nutrition and address the root causes of malnutrition to support children's healthy growth and development.

2. Overall, deliberate food deprivation during early childhood can have profound psychological consequences, impacting children's emotional well-being, social relationships, and cognitive development. It is essential to address both the physical and psychological needs of malnourished children through comprehensive interventions that promote access to nutritious food, supportive caregiving, and mental health support.

3. Deliberate deprivation of food during early childhood can increase the risk of antisocial behaviour by undermining children's social development, self-esteem, and emotional well-being.
Abusing children and deliberately depriving them of food susceptible the kids to anti-social manners in their adulthood. However, it doesn't mean every child can be anti-social, but there is a risk that we in Sweden will have a group of anti-social persons in future because we exposed children to mal-treatment.


Paying attention to all aspects of the physical, psychological, and social consequences of children's malnutrition is out of the agenda of this article's main subject, which is the UDHR's second paragraph of Article 29. Still, any specialist will recommend us:
It is essential to address the root causes of malnutrition and provide comprehensive support to affected children and their families to mitigate the risk of long-term social consequences. Early intervention, access to nutritious food, and supportive environments are critical in promoting positive social outcomes for malnourished children.

The fact is that the allegations against Hälsans Förskola (now Tellusgruppen) made by the media have not been proven in any court, and the company denies any wrongdoing —as you can expect.
No judicial authority intervened in the potential violation of children's rights. No prosecutor pursued these charges, and no request for judicial proceedings was issued.
The media covered the topic for a few days in 2014, and then it was forgotten. Nine years later, it became another piece of news again.
The problem is the dormancy of the Swedish judicial system, which is also rooted in a "culture of indifference to injustice" among Swedish authorities who do not respond appropriately to unjustness, as if they have no responsibility for the fate of Swedish society.

Greed is an insatiable wolf in the human mind that imposes the behaviour of a predatory wolf on a greedy person and turns a man into a wolf to his fellow humans —as a Latin proverb says: "Homo homini lupus est".
Greed works well, and greed-ridden persons have laws on their side because humans' jungly minds accept greed-ridden persons' hegemony.

The story of Narges Moshiri and Bijan Fahimi and their method for accumulating wealth is not new. It happened during human history and will repeat in the future unless we pass from an actual unwise atmosphere to a wise one via understanding and exercising the UDHR.

Despite Swedish media revealing and the children's parents' protests, the greed-ridden couple's capital soars, increasing their influence on Sweden's society.
The man, Bijan Fahimi, is already active in politics at a high level.
Such a moralless man who violates children's rights to food has the potential to participate —directly or indirectly— in legislation laws which limit Sweden's citizens' rights with misinterpretation of Point Two of Article 29.

I cannot investigate where Bijan Fahimi invested millions of Kronor earned from children's suffering. Still, another greed-ridden Sweden institute, SEB Bank, teaches us a lesson and lets us go to the second example.


Example Two: The devastation of five villages in Germany

The destruction of five villages in Germany for coal mining in 2023 with SEB Bank's capital and the executive of a German Company raises significant concerns about the potential for governments to abuse human rights in the name of the "collective good" or "common good".

Was it merely a "collective good" reason behind those villages' destruction, or did the interests of a bank from Sweden and a big company from Germany cause many families to lose their property?
You can find the answer to this question in Volume Six of my work. [Click here to see that part of the book]

The German government defended the decision, arguing that the expansion of the mine was necessary to secure Germany's energy supplies. However, critics pointed out that Germany had committed to phasing out coal by 2038 and that destroying the villages was unnecessary.
The legal basis for destroying the villages was a 2016 law allowing for the expropriation of property for "important public interests."
The " Enteignungsgesetz " is referred to in German, which translates to the "Law on Expropriation for Public Purposes" in English.

The destruction of the five villages in Germany is a stark reminder of the potential for governments to abuse human rights in the name of economic development or other perceived "public interests." It is essential to be vigilant in defending human rights and to ensure that they are not used to justify the forced displacement of people or the destruction of their homes.
Arbitrary interpretation of this paragraph of Article 29 causes the approval of the non-laws that deprive people of their rights.
Is there anything in this paragraph that allows the adoption of such a non-law?
The answer is: No! Not at all.
There is nothing in Article 29 which permits the violation of human rights. The only reason for abusing this paragraph is our ignorance of the meanings of the UDHR concepts.
We buy non-laws instead of "True Laws". Thus, the governments sell them to us.

This discussion raises a question: Couldn't the writers of the UDHR define the terms and concepts of that declaration and prevent their misinterpreting and abuse?

Such work required the writing of several book volumes. Such work should have been done before or after writing that declaration, but it was not done.
If anyone wants to understand the second part of Article 29, he should read the six volumes of my books. Naturally, what I explained in more than 1400 pages could not be expressed in 56 words of Point Two of Article 29.
As a declaration, the UDHR did not have the capacity for more explanations. Still, by emphasising education, that document made the necessary recommendations for better understanding and implementing its concepts.
Unfortunately, the educational recommendations of the UDHR were not taken seriously.


Ordinary people are always the losers

You don't expect me to believe what Hälsans Förskola (now Tellusgruppen) did in Sweden was in favour of Swedish society and the "common good" or RWE AG dig for coal in people's properties in Germany for "meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society" as asserted in Paragraph Two of Article 29.
The owners of Tellusgruppen, SEB Bank, and RWE AG think only about money-making, and the principle of "Profit's Authenticity" is their sole principle.
They have no moral scruples and share this trait with the top politicians. Who dares to claim this collection tries "meeting the just requirements of morality"?
Greed-ridden companies, banks and politicians are a minority, and their prey —or ordinary humans— are the majority. The best way to impose the minority's will on the majority is "law", and the misinterpretation of Article 29 second paragraph is an opportunity for them.
"Law" and "Rule of Law" are good excuses to deprive ordinary humans of their rights.
The parents of abused children cannot take Swedish preschool owners to court because the law says so.
SEB Bank and RWE AG can destroy five villages in Germany and expropriate families' homes because the law allows them to do it.
The majority's vote and tax money turn against ordinary citizens in Realpolitik, and people are always losers.
Those incompetent politicians who are elected by people in an alleged democracy like Germany legislated the "Enteignungsgesetz" (Expropriation Act) of 2016 that permitted the Judges of the court who are fed by people to find the complaints of the villagers unfounded and issued the eviction decree in favour of RWE AG company, and the policemen who were hired with the nation's money to establish security were ordered to evict them from the villages by force if the people resisted.
The legal basis for destroying the villages was a 2016 law allowing for the expropriation of property for "important public interests."
The German government defended the decision, arguing that the expansion of the mine was necessary to secure Germany's energy supplies.

Politicians in Realpolitik are short-sighted because they are not wise and cannot predict events.
A group of people without proper education enter an occupation which demands a fully developed personality.
They cannot see Reality and don't know their mission is to see Reality as it is and change it into Truth. [Please consider "The Odd Relationship of Reality with Truth"]
Such uneducated and incompetent persons are condemned to make big mistakes and put them in the bill of people.
Politicians, for their ignorance and immorality, are obliged to be crisis-makers. Thus, human society is the crisis-dweller because we always have crises.
Any crisis is an opportunity for greed-ridden people or Capitalists to increase their wealth despite other humans' predicaments. For instance, according to the Oxfam report —on 29 October 2014— the number of billionaires doubled during the financial crisis of 2007–2008, and inequality spiralled out of control.

In every economic crisis, governments start supporting banks with people's tax money to save banks from bankruptcy and the collapse of the country's economy. Of course, an economic crisis is highly complex, and studying its aspects is outside our discussion topic. Still, we must know governments, especially during periods of economic growth, prioritise short-term gains over long-term stability. This focus on immediate economic prosperity might lead to policies that loosen regulations, potentially sowing the seeds for future crises.
Critics argue that governments often start to deregulate financial activities during periods of economic prosperity, and deregulation can contribute to economic crises.
If preventive laws are ignored or repealed, it may create an environment where financial institutions engage in riskier behaviours, as seen in the Great Depression.

The deregulated financial activities allow financial institutions to take excessive risks without moral hazards because they know it belongs to them if they earn more money. If they lose, the government will rush to save them with taxpayers' money.
Thus, knowing that they could be bailed out, financial institutions might take excessive risks, assuming they won't bear the full consequences of their actions.
Can you imagine a better deal for a capitalist?

Copyright 2023 © MAP OF WAY