Pay attention, we are not looking at whether it was the right action to start military operations or who was at fault! What we are looking at is the attitude of others, our attitude, the attitude of humanity. Is it the one we want? Is our attitude in line with our desire and beliefs?

The tragic multi-month war between Russia and Ukraine, on the outrageous pretext of the expansion of NATO and the isolation of Russia, in addition to the suffering of many millions of innocent people, also woke up the cold war from hibernation by implementing new major armaments programs and the possibility of a new world conflict seems like a reasonably possible scenario of life!

Another recent example of claims by one state against another, which eventually escalated into a war conflict, concerns the Nagorno-Karabakh region between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Once again the powerful states condemned the escalation, recommended restraint and called the two sides back to the negotiating table, while on the back side Turkey was helping its friend Azerbaijan to win and the rest of humanity remained inactive. What is left in the end are many dead, even innocent children, many displaced people who burned their houses and their churches so that the next ones would not desecrate them and much hatred and much pain, which acts as an unquenchable hearth of war in the world.

So are we satisfied with how the differences between Armenia and Azerbaijan were resolved?

The tensions that have continued for many years between Greece-Turkey and Cyprus-Turkey with continuous violations, blackmail, provocations, disputes and exploitation of immigrants, how long will they continue? Many times things get to the edge of war. Shouldn't the world community decide who is right and who is wrong and ensure that what is right is finally imposed in accordance with the ideal universal law? Shouldn't every possible action be taken to avoid another war with all its negative, ugly and bad consequences?

And the same shouldn’t happen in the case of Ukraine-Russia and in any other case when two states have differences or when a state exhibits blackmailing, threatening and aggressive behavior?

Isn't war a failure to enforce justice? Isn't war itself unjust? For how long will the small states become pawns in the hands of the great powers, in the game of competition, hostility and rivalry between them?

So this is our world’s universal law? The strongest wins? The law of the jungle? Who is really right and whether a better solution could be found and imposed is none of our business?

What we are only interested in is bullying and abuse between people and not between states; Or are we interested and we just haven't achieved this yet?...

The first universal law could be…

"All states accept the borders and the freedom of the inhabitants of each region, to choose in a democratic way, their way of life and self-determination as they wish. No state has the right to blackmail and harass another state or region, otherwise the offended state will fall under the protection and responsibility of the world community to ensure the freedom of expression of its inhabitants, while the state which offends will have to face the global security force.

When there are disputes between two states, they will be resolved automatically by the universal court, in accordance with international and universal law, and these decisions must be accepted by both parties, otherwise whichever party does not accept the decision will have to face the sanctions of the world Commonwealth

Making a new beginning as humanity, forgiving the mistakes of the past and setting a new principle where all states accept common world laws, based on the principle that all states have the same rights and obligations, as belonging to a civilized world Commonwealth.

The second universal law could be…

"When in a state or region there are suspicions or indications that its people are being held hostage and captivity by an oppressive authoritarian regime, then the world community must intervene by ensuring at least the proper conduct of a fair referendum" in order to determine whether these people enjoy the basic human values of freedom and justice and the rulers have their true approval and acceptance.

In the case it is found that the people of a state do not really accept their rulers, the world community in the context of human solidarity must take all possible measures so that there is no human being on Earth who does not breathe freely, enjoying its basic human rights of freedom and justice, since in the 21st century dictatorial and tyrannical regimes must be considered unacceptable and irrational.

The reason why no decisions can be made in UN is because the 5 "big and strong" states of the UN Security Council have the right of VETO. This means that even if 192 of the 193 world’s recognized countries believe that something is unfair and that they should intervene in a situation which could turn into an armed conflict with unpredictable consequences for the world, 1 of these 5 "strong" countries is enough to cancel the wish of all the others and and justice not to be served.

With this shameful measure for the human spirit, the possibility of making decisions and enforcing them is practically from limited to non-existent. But this must stop! All the other 188 states and the billions of ordinary people on the planet must stop accepting it and demand a change of scenery.

Even when decisions are sometimes taken by the UN Security Council, they are often ignored, as was the case with decisions concerning the occupation of Cyprus by Turkish forces, but nothing was done to implement them.

But how this World Parliament could be put into practice and be reliable and have the authority, the will and the power to decide and impose the right and justice in world affairs on a large scale?

The aim is to achieve peaceful coexistence and justice in human societies. What is required is the respect of one democracy for the other, respect for the environment, good neighborliness and security, on a larger scale. The point is not to be unfair with the powerful states and not to let them strengthen for the benefit of the weak. The aim is that the small and powerless states should not be treated unfairly, that there should be no victims of innocent people, that there should be a fair distribution of wealth and that children and the weak should not fall victims to exploitation, so that human dignity should not be violated and lost.

We, the people of the world, by choosing option C, authorize the UN General Assembly, which is the largest gathering of the world's elected leaders and is made up of all the representatives of the billions of people on earth, and we want them to rise to the height they deserve and find a way to achieve and establish the World Parliament.

The decisions that will be made there, should not be just wishful thinking and concluding statements, but should resolve serious global issues and should be unthinkable to ignore, as it should be the most respected event on the planet, as well as their implementation, which should be self-evident and accepted by everyone.

It is not that difficult. It is not impossible for something to happen, if we really like to achieve it. We just need to find a fair numerical proportion of the participation of the peoples, in the percentage that corresponds to each one, in order to accept the participation of all countries in decision-making that concerns all of humanity. We just need to find this way of working and the voting method, which ensures that the best and fairest decisions will be made, on the crucial issues for the future of the human race.

There are many issues that need to be addressed on a global scale, otherwise the policy of each state becomes powerless and incompetent, since many of what is happening on the planet are not independent-indifferent and can lead to global interactions. These issues need to be clarified in order to be regulated, anticipated and resolved.

People should not be afraid of the word globalization, but only about the way some human minds perceive it. Only in this way, all the people of the planet, would not accept an powerful group, to decide by themselves for the salvation of the planet, but demand a World-elected Government and an Organization, similar to that of the UN (maybe the same but extremely upgraded), but with substance and real power.

The world community should create something like a World State, which will not allow its member states to quarrel with each other, but will supervise and enforce the Laws of the World. In other words, in the same way that the state of democracy operates in a state, but on a larger scale, the same should apply to the planet Earth. Let’s call it Homocracy.

So even the movements that are against globalization, instead of denying the new conditions, they should find another way of approaching the issue, not so negative, but positive conditionally. In this way, all people together would be able to demand a better way of doing things and contribute to the better realization of globalization, in their own way and not on the terms that richness would like to be, which clearly would like to be the "purpose" and not the "means".

Even the President of the USA (Donald Trump) had repeatedly expressed his intention to withdraw the US from NATO, saying he did not understand the usefulness of the North Atlantic Alliance and presented it as a "burden" for the US. Of course, then the national security advisers and high-ranking NATO officials, wanting to protect the role of the organization, assured everyone that NATO is a necessary component for the security of the West!

So when French President E. Macron later said that NATO was "brain dead" and needed to reconsider its strategy, the US president appeared offended and said, "He cannot go out and say such things about NATO."

Whether intentionally or unintentionally, NATO is becoming the number one global threat. The reason is that at the same time that it is unable to answer the question "who is the real enemy?" it continues to view Russia with suspicion and China's continued rise with particular reservations, maintaining the east-west separation and creating two dangerous poles of conflict.

But are we sure that we want to see the continuation of this fanatical competition, which leads to the America-NATO and Russia-China, East-West conflict for one more time, since World War II and the Cold War that has followed to this day, in deep freezing conditions?

On the other hand, NATO cannot provide a solution, even when there are disagreements and conflicts between its members (such as between Greece and Turkey), declaring itself incompetent and pulling its tail out, saying: "find the solution by yourselves".

The UN has been sidelined as it cannot make a decision when a member of the Security Council (with the right of veto) like Russia attacks Ukraine, while when it makes a decision like in the case of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus, it is simply ignored without consequences and ultimately there is no hope of finding a peaceful and just solution.

Probably no one cares who is right and who is wrong, except if someone belongs to the sphere of influence of the west or the east, as if they are two natural rival camps with such different interests and perceptions that it is impossible to reconcile, or at least agree that they accept common, universal, logic and fair rules. It is as if they are not on the same Earth that revolves around its axis from west to east and a point that would be visible to an observer from a spaceship that is in the west, after a few hours will appear to be in the east. It is as if they belong to different kinds of life and only one of the two can prevail on Earth.

However, in other cases, NATO may act voluntarily and spontaneously, such as in 1999 when NATO forces began bombing Serbia without the mandate or approval of the UN Security Council, in order to stop Serbian military operations against Albanians in Kosovo. The bombings caused thousands of casualties among unarmed civilians, Serbs, Kosovars and even other nationalities who happened to be in the area, and for some them NATO was forced to apologize.

But is this enough? Who decided this, based on which laws and on what evidence? To who is NATO accountable and by who is NATO ordered? Who is protected by this organism and who is persecuted? Can the view that this intervention was made to justify the reason for NATO's existence be correct?

The danger of nuclear catastrophe and the Cold War happily stopped with Mikhail Gorbachev's peaceful choice for the courageous internal disintegration of the USSR (1990), instead of dragging all of humanity into a new catastrophic war.

Theoretically, the West, as an adversary, should recognize the goodwill movement and show generosity from the favorable victorious position found, without battle and without blood, using this natural victory of the freedom of the people against the oppressive communist model, for the approach of the two parties and the mitigation of disputes. Unfortunately, the West continued through NATO with the same suspicion to maintain the Cold War climate.

And world leaders, instead of calling on both the Russians and the Chinese to participate in a universal alliance-agreement, in a world organization that will be far above NATO with the participation of the already friendly fellow human beings of Russia and China in an alliance against evil and injustice, they remain inactive, listening to NATO advice. However, Russia and China have not shown any hostility, at least to Western countries. Of course, when confronted with hostility from the powerful countries of the West, it is natural for them to respond in the same way. So, the expansion of NATO was used as the reason for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The NATO-Russia Council (NRC), set up in 2002 to bring the Western military alliance closer together with Moscow, has made no progress because it continues to suspend its operations due to strained relations between the two sides.

Is it not the right of an ordinary person to be able to know what the real problem is? We must not know what the terms of cooperation are and who does not accept what? Where are the negotiations stuck and why does the cooperation stop?

Instead of the ordinary person understanding who is good and who is bad, who is the enemy and who is the friend, or if there are no good and bad, but only people who respect the law and others who only look their interests, instead of the common man understanding these, under the pretext of secret conversations he hears only accusations and threats from one side and the other.

The West keeps saying "We believe the dialogue should continue but the ball is in Moscow's court" and Russia says "We are tired of the West's tricks". On the one hand, the US claims Russia's electronic interference in the US elections and President Biden characterizes President Putin as a murderer (before the Russian invasion of Ukraine), and on the other hand, Russia accuses NATO of continuing to expand its military presence in countries bordering Russia, which have traditionally belonged to its sphere of influence and so it feels threatened.

But as long as it seems that this tactic of NATO and the "West" continues to attract all countries into its ranks, leaving out Russia and China, and as long as Russia feels cramped and surrounded by hostile states, every country in the middle will pay the bill.

For example, Ukraine, where no one defended its independence, no one counted on the free will of its citizens, they just made them clash with each other to choose Russia or the West! Is it necessary for a state if it chooses to leave Russian influence, to join NATO's Western influence, or could it choose its freedom and obedience only to the universal rules of justice and equal world security?

Only a global constitution could ensure that no state or organization would intervene in another state or in a dispute between states, even under the guise of aid, unless there was a prior United Nations decision based on verified information and commonly accepted , rational and fair universal laws.

Only a UN, as a world parliament, could ensure and enforce world order, having at its disposal a world security force that intervenes only on a global mandate, when world laws are violated or when decisions of the world parliament are ignored.

The existing structures of NATO could also be used in this role, so that it does not disintegrate "from where it was formed", since the need to continue its existence is highly questionable, as long as the administrative affiliation of the organization changes, its name, its composition, its dogma, its purpose, its structure and its way of thinking.

Perhaps at some point the armies of the countries will not even be needed, except in the extent of their contribution to the global security and peace force, and the funds that could be saved by limiting the national armies could be channeled into the global search for human health, for the sciences and perhaps for the realization of extraterrestrial travel, so that we can really get to know the universe in which we live.

When a person with a serious incurable disease, no longer has quality time in his life but only pain and fears.

When an elderly person can't walk, has incontinence, can't take care of himself, needs someone by his side all the time for support, feels shame and loses his dignity without enjoying anything in life.

When a doctor diagnoses that there is no cure and that in the limited time frame towards the end of a person the "journey" will be constantly worsening to the point of torture, while the patient himself feels that and does not want to live anymore?

What happens when even his-her loved ones can't bear to see him being tortured anymore?

In such cases a deadly medicine which may be given to a wo-man and under these circumstances, will not violate the Hippocratic oath, inasmuch as it will neither be prescribed by the doctor, nor given lightly by him to anyone who asks for it, but will be the result of respecting a conscious choice and fulfilling the human desire to be able to end an unbearable life.

We can't forcefully save those people who don't want to be saved, because if I save a person with my own data, I may help him survive but he feels unhappy and feels like he's living a torture, a daily nightmare of "constantly waiting for death" and then it is not really salvation, but excruciating torture.

In this case, euthanasia should be called euzoia. We were born without wanting it, without being asked and we lived not as we would like, but struggling to do as we want. At least shouldn’t we be able to choose, under reasonable conditions, to end our lives as we wish? With dignity?

Life is a gift from God and a right of every human being, not an obligation. Otherwise there shouldn't be heroes in this world, there shouldn't be people who sacrifice themselves for their beliefs and the common good. I don't want others to decide for my life!

Some are driven to suicide. Suicide usually under violent circumstances since there are no other options. The right to end one's life is not recognized. He must live as long as possible. To exhaust all possibilities even if he is tyrannized and feels that he is being humiliated and wants the earth to open and swallow him. How many more people must be tortured, and for how long, until we can find the right conditions under which an alternative solution could be created?

How many families must be destroyed, to support their seriously ill elderly parents or members, who do not even want this life? Even if the children feel sorry and if they wanted to help what could they do? Kill their own parents and then risk being accused of murder?

How many people must be condemned by devoting their lives to the care of a human being, who can be like a sick plant and which if could speak say "have pity on me, help me die".

How many people must be tortured unwillingly to live without wanting it!

How many times does someone have to enter the hospital without the hope of getting better and even occupying a bed, which is not available by someone else who wants to live, consuming financial funds for the non-existent treatment, or the involuntary maintenance of his life.

And finally this society wants to save those who do not want to be saved, or cannot be saved and cannot save those who try to reach out, those who struggle daily with diseases, with lack of money, with lack of work, with the lack of security and with the lack of justice.

One of those who benefited from the law, was the Afghan who had thrown 23-year-old Spyridoula from a cliff (8 meters high) in Corfu in 2013, had been arrested, had been sentenced to 10 years, had been imprisoned and in 2015 was released from prison and went to Germany where he raped and brutally killed 19-year-old Maria Ladenburger, whose life was a promise of offering to humanity.

In August 2015, 67-year-old Manolis Oikonomou was tortured to death in Hydra by three people who also were released under the favorable provisions of the law, as happened with the murderer of 27-year-old Theodoros Papadopoulos. Unfortunately if someone continues to search will find thousands of released convicts for crimes and other tragic examples.

read more...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Maria_Ladenburger

https://www.kathimerini.gr/politics/561397642/enas-poly-kakos-nomos/

https://eleftherostypos.gr/ellada/o-aimatobamenos-nomos-paraskeyopoyloy/

https://www.protothema.gr/greece/article/1137464/nomos-paraskeuopoulou-17000-apofulakiseis-tin-periodo-2015-2019/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4004480/Pictured-Afghan-migrant-17-modelled-gangsta-rappers-raped-murdered-EU-official-s-daughter-met-work-refugees.html

Even the Association of Prosecutors in Greece had expressed its objections pointing out that: "These regulations are equivalent to annulment of judicial decisions and negate the general and specific preventive effect of the imposed penalty" as seen here … Πηγή: iefimerida.gr - https://www.iefimerida.gr/news/450059/stoiheia-sok-pano-apo-12000-kratoymenoi-ehoyn-apofylakistei-me-ton-nomo-paraskeyopoyloy

Journalists from all over the world worked together to uncover one of the worst realities in our lives. So they managed with difficulty, anxiety and risk, even for their lives, to reveal the PANAMA… PAPERS.

The leak of the names of the "Panama Archives" caused great concern to the "powerful" and the rich of the whole planet, as among the names were many heads of states, many businessmen, bankers, public officials, journalists, footballers, singers, actors and even rich people from illegal activities of common criminal law. And all these millionaires hid their income in the tax heavens, in order to avoid taxation and the contribution to the common good, but also to hide amounts that could not justify their possession by legal means.

One of the leading journalists in the shocking revelations of the Panama Papers scandals, the Maltese Daphne Garuana Galizzia, was brutally murdered in Malta, apparently as an example.

But people have shown that in the name of liberty and justice they do not even count death. A few days after her assassination, new revelations, new names of kings, prime ministers, presidents, companies, millionaires hiding their precious treasures in financial paradises, as pirates once hid their booty boxes in secret places, in some remote deserted islands and drew maps so they could find them again. Millions of such new "maps" were leaked after the continuation of the investigation of the global network of journalists (ICIJ) and this time they were named "PARADISE PAPERS".

Such is the power of people, that a man alone could change the course of the whole world! One alone could discover or invent something so important that would help or even save all the people on earth, while another, with a wrong pull of the trigger, could deprive the world of the previous man/woman, or with the wrong push of a button, could destroy humanity and the entire planet. After all, destroying is much easier than creating! You do not need special skills to kill a human "diamond", even a human "garbage" can do it.

This was the tragic result of the revelations. Instead of making people in every corner of the globe rise up and take the immoral ones with stones, the murders of journalists continued. They who were doing their sacred work, wanting to make the world a little better were hunted. One after another, journalists investigating global corruption were tragically killed, including 27-year-old Ján Kuciak, who was found dead with his unfortunate partner in their Bratislava apartment and sweet Victoria Marinova who was first raped and then brutally murdered in Bulgaria, but also many others around the world, most tragically of all the Saudi Jamal Kasogi, who was cut into pieces while he was alive in Saudi Arabia's Consulate in Istanbul and his dismembered body was scattered and never found!

The meaning that some people wanted to pass on, is that in order to become a star of journalism, one has to tell the news which will not bother the kings of wealth, while the real stars, the right and incorruptible journalists, went out unprotected. But it is a great pity that some people risk everything and sacrifice themselves to reveal the truth and in the end nothing substantial "comes out" of all this and no one is corrected.

The ICIJ recently revealed and the "PANDORA PAPERS" one of the largest lists that once again demonstrates the dimensions of global corruption. "So what, another list!" one could say!

How many more "PAPERS" must be revealed and how many journalists must be sacrificed, so that some measures can finally be taken. But by whom? Once again it becomes clear that there is no universal justice. Because no matter how fair all the states of the world are, if there is even a small spot on the planet (like the tax haven of the Cayman Islands) that remains out of control and outside the rules of law, then there will find refuge, the injustice of the whole world.

If there was anyone who could and should once again intervene in such global issues, it would be the UN with it’s organs, the International Court of Justice and the International Monetary Fund, but once again they are absent and once again stood below the circumstances.

COMMENTS No8 ARE THE SAME WITH QUESTION No7 (look at “MORE” previous question) AND CONTINUE HERE …

In Greece, journalists Socrates Giolias and George Karaivaz were murdered outside their homes. From the deadly ambushes they set them up, they received both dozens of shots and bullets, so that the killers make sure that they will shut their mouths forever.

The killers unfortunately remain unarrested and organized crime is not endangered by their reporting.

Only we are in danger of never learning what we should have learned, in order for this world to get a little cleaner and instead we learn things that we don’t need and that make our minds sleepy and lazy.

The UN, shocked by the global scale of the phenomenon, decided to act. So they established with the decision of the general assembly of the organization, as a world day to end the impunity of crimes against journalists, on November 2 of each year!

But what will we do? We will wait every year for this day to celebrate the memory of the unjustly killed heroes of our time or every day we will fight with them for a better today and for a better tomorrow?

...................................................................................................

Another example of "unpleasant" revelations is the case of 26-year-old journalist Roman Protasevich, who was traveling from Athens to the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, when his plane was forced to land in Minsk, where he was arrested.

Greece strongly condemned the act of "state hijacking" on the flight Ryanair FR 4978, which operated the route Athens-Vilnius, forcing it to land in Minsk, Belarus, endangering and temporarily put hostage a total of 171 passengers, in order to catch a journalist who publicly opposed the President for 17 years of Belarus, Lukashenko.

The charges against him included organizing mass demonstrations, disrupting public order and inciting hatred, for expressing his views and transmitting-spreading the violent repression of protests against the President of Belarus, on suspicion of falsified election result and allegations of arbitrary arrests, torture and ill-treatment.

The course of events has shown that the suspicions and the information must have been well-founded.

But what is the intervention of the world community. Where is the protection of freedom of expression and freedom of the press? Isn't that our issue? Is it a problem of the Belarusians and the world community has no reason to intervene? Let them solve it themselves and let a few thousand people be killed?

If a president abuses his office and turns the Republic into a Monarchy, then who will help the people who may have been deceived or may suffer or fear, if not the rest of humanity by ensuring at least the fairness and integrity of the electoral process?

How can this happen..

Uncontrolled cultivation, production and distribution of drugs must be illegal. The drug lords must cease to exist and must stop getting incredibly rich and getting extremely and dangerously illegal

Maybe special licenses should be given for the cultivation, distribution and use of drugs, with strict conditions, but above all with very good information of the population from childhood and help of people who become addicted.

At the time of the Prohibition, (ban on the production, importation, transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages) alcohol drinkers were also illegal and imprisoned, but this is no longer the case. Fortunately, not everyone was ruined by the drink.

If one wants to live his/her own life as a lie, if one wants to commit suicide, if one wants to live addicted, imprisoned in a cell he makes for himself, he will do it. He can find many ways…

On the other hand, medical research could be continued with these substances that have been banned for many years, with which alternative treatments for some diseases could possibly be discovered and some people to benefit from a proper and reasonable use.

Mankind cannot save those who do not want to be saved. We are not even capable to save those who want to be saved. Everyone should have the right to self-determination even if it is self-destructive, as long as he does not destroy others around him.

For example, on the issue of immigration, various groups began to form, depending on the common interests of the states, which did not follow the EU decisions. They followed their own policy, especially in matters concerning refugees and immigrants from Muslim countries, forming like this smaller unions of states and erecting fences between states, instead of common policy and confrontation. This is not called union but separation.

Even on the issue of solidarity, there are many gaps between North and South, poor and rich, strong and weak. This is not called union but separation.

Especially with Greece, which is the difficult border of Europe and constantly has to deal with an aggressive and threatening neighbor, irrationally assertive, simply because they can due to power, since they have six times the territory and eight times the population of Greece, the critical moment when one would expect to see solidarity, the moral duty of helping each other, the obligation that the members of a group have to support and strengthen each other, what one sees is that interests prevail. The individual commercial relations of the states with Turkey appear to be the first priority. Even if it involves weapons systems in an aggressive state overarmed that can use them against allies, justice comes second and bulling between states doesn't count. As long as trade relations are not disrupted. This is not called union but separation.

Unfortunately, Greece is not the exception, since the affected Italy also felt helpless during the covid pandemic.

If there really were friendly fraternal relations between the member states, perhaps the British, those certainly European friends, might not have decided to leave the EU which they decided with a cold heart.

Even in the event that someone is finally acquitted by a court of law, an apology can and must be made, all the necessary clarifications must be given and all the necessary actions must be taken to restore the person's reputation.

We are human and we make mistakes, the point is to be able to correct them and not repeat them, but also learn to forgive those who deserve our forgiveness.

The Statue of Liberty, this World Heritage Monument placed at the entrance of New York Harbor and officially unveiled in October 1886 to a standing ovation of the public for 15 minutes, welcomed more than 12 million immigrants (the European ancestors of Americans) holding in her upraised right hand a torch to enlighten the world and in her left a plaque inscribed with the date "July 4, 1776", (USA Independence Day).

The giant steel statue (its height without the base is 46.5 meters, while with the base 93) which is a gift from France to the United States, shows us what great things can be created with friendship and cooperation of the nations. It was created with money collected from small donations, from all the French and European immigrants who felt and became Americans. There must not have been a person of the time, who did not give even a few cents to build the Statue of Liberty, since the rich were not so willing to finance its construction.

It was especially encouraging for people all over the world to know that Freedom exists and is not just a dream, but a common human desire, since there was no people who had not fought for their freedom, while at the same time the struggle of the enslaved Greeks continued for liberation from the Ottomans with the slogan "Freedom or Death".

In a free society, however, something more is needed, for people to live in peace and to be able to look ahead and progress, and this first sign of civilization is...

In a free society, however, something more is needed, for people to live in peace and to be able to look ahead and progress, and this necessary condition is Justice.

So if we wished to create a second statue, equal to that of Liberty, this would have to be the statue of Justice, and a suitable place for it would be on the divided and long-suffering great island of Cyprus, which is near and between Europe, Asia and Africa!

A woman too, with a piece of cloth tied in front of her eyes so that she does not see and her judgment is influenced by looks or appearance or by any likes and dislikes, ready to weigh with the scale she holds (the same scale which all humans are gifted and carry within us to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil) the actions of men and to render the rewards and punishments due to each one, having in her other hand a naked sword, not to slaughter anyone but so that no one dares to question her.

So seeing the statue of Justice, we and our descendants will have the opportunity to remember and not forget the real values in human life, the ones we should strive for, the ones we should achieve in our lives in order to rise and improve, the ones we must follow to be able to live better and not lose our way following other temporary and insignificant goods, repeating mistakes of the past.

Socrates, the first philosopher, was sentenced to death by a "rigged" trial and a falsified court decision. Leaving he said to the Athenians "Now it is time to leave, I to die and you to live. Which of us goes to a better place, no one knows but God." He had a clear conscience, the others?

Although his disciples begged him to escape, he preferred to drink the poison and die in prison, rather than break the laws of his country, sacrificing himself to show the true meaning and value of Justice, in relation to the rendering of Justice by human courts. Such is the value of Justice that a just death is better than an unjust life!

About 2.400 years had to pass and in 2012 the trial of Socrates was repeated in modern Athens, by well-known lawyers and judges, using the laws of that time, and he was finally acquitted, justified!

It is the duty of men to bring the administration of justice by human courts (the laws and their application) to the measure of humans's sense of justice.

The supreme judges should be elected by the strengthened majority of Parliament and not appointed by the respective government and the respective prime minister or president or governor.

Judicial evaluation processes should be improved so that the best are elected to sit in the highest courts and exercise the sacred function of this power.

I believe that Justice should be strengthened immediately and to the fullest. Financially, in human resources in infrastructure, in advanced electronic recording processes and in everything else it needs, in order to reach the level it deserves, as one of the main powers and forces of humanity. It is unacceptable that in trade and economic transactions the procedures run the fast track, while the procedures for the administration of justice remain stationary.

Protection must also be ensured from the interference of powerful political and economic actors, who may seek to influence court decisions for their own benefit, sometimes wanting to advance the outcome of the trial aiming at a desired outcome and at other times by creating obstacles.

Unfortunately, the field of justice is full of windows, wide open, half open or slightly open, from where powerful law firms find the power to intervene in the operation way, using every possible means, legitimate or unfair, to ensure the victory of their client. Sometimes they find a way to intervene in the selection of jurors, sometimes even in the selection of the judge, while some would not hesitate to use professional false witnesses.

Unfortunately many times the outcome of a certain trial can be different, depending on which judge is sitting in the courtroom. That means, each judge can adjudicate a case in a personal way, as if the Divine Trial could have many different views.

Unfortunately the mechanisms of justice cannot control possible well-funded (professional) witnesses, since there are no electronic systems to cross-check their reliability and solvency.

Unfortunately, many witnesses are afraid to testify in court, because the witness protection process has not yet evolved and automated and the result is that many prosecution witnesses of criminal organizations or powerful illegals are found dead one after the other, when they do not simply give in to blackmail.

Unfortunately, many honest Judges are blackmailed and feared for their lives, and while they should be the most protected people on the planet, there are not a few who have been sacrificed in the performance of their duties.

Finally, I believe that justice must have a say in serious social issues, through its elected representatives.

At this point Cosmovote wishes to pay tribute, honor and glory to the unbreakable and incorruptible judges who come first to our minds and all the others who passed from this world, giving hope to all the rest of us, that there can be justice on Earth. In their memory we pray so that they are forever, eternal and bright examples for the next ones.

Anastasios_Polyzoidis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasios_Polyzoidis

Georgios_Tertsetis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgios_Tertsetis

Giovanni_Falcone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Falcone

Paolo_Borsellino https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Borsellino

White-Blank votes will count when the number of people who uses them will be newsworthy and could not be ignored.

People do not have a voice to speak and the only case they are trying to be heard is through elections. Then they try to send some messages and on that day voters must be given the opportunity, at least once every four years, to say what they really want.

Unfortunately even then, the words we have learned to use are too few and they do not make good sense. Green, Blue or Red party is a very small vocabulary.

Don’t we have to consider that we have grown up, that we have matured and that we have to learn other words too, so that we can express what we really want?

When none of the parties and their leading figures, inspire confidence in the voter that they are ready and able to take over the government of his country, then what should he vote for?

Shouldn’t the voters have this option and the people the opportunity to express their concern or dissatisfaction, even if they never want to use it? But if they do shouldn’t we know what would happen?

WHITE and BLANK must become ONE UNIVERSAL WORD easy to understand meaning.

On election days or rather nights, there are no losers, there are not even winners, there is only the verdict of the people and we must respectfully try to listen to it, decode it and interpret its will and possible fears.

In order to make this happen, the meaning and the importance of the White vote for the citizens and politicians should be clarified and all the people should know and agree that the White Ballot clearly means only one thing, and that’s it "I do not want any of the candidate parties to rule alone" and also to find out what could happen if a large percentage of voters voted White!

For example, if there is no autonomy of the first party and White gets a lot of votes (more than the party that would ally with the first to form a coalition government) or even for the extreme scenario that the White vote would get more than the first party! (Even then they would be counted together with the invalid ones?)

At least in these cases, politicians and citizens should agree that all parties should govern together, forming a government of national unity based on simple proportional representation, in order to look for possible mistakes, better positions and to work together to improve the system.

Only in this way the White Vote will finally be able to play the role for which it was established and the work for which it was intended.

The decisions we make determine our lives. The point is to find how we can make the best decisions we can.

And the best decisions are the ones that are accepted by majority. That means by voting, with democracy and not by monarchy or oligarchy or tyranny, regimes that were tried and did not prevail.

But since it is not possible for everyone to vote for everything, we vote once every 4 years and we choose "theoretically" the best among us, so that they can implement a specific program and make these decisions, through a smaller model of proportional voting and again through the majority.

But these presuppose the existence of consciousness and the freedom of its expression.

However, at the level of elected leaders while voting in the parliament, the voice of conscience does not exist or rather is not heard. What is heard is the position of the party president, who determines the line of the party and under the excuse of party discipline and unity, along with the threat of deletion or other consequences, everyone agrees. Sometimes the parliament members are not even informed what they are voting for, an assurance from the competent minister is enough to convince them to vote.

Unfortunately, the political parties that are not an integral part of the functioning of Democracy do not function democratically! Democracy could function without parties, simply by electing the best individual representatives.

Just because someone belongs to a party does not mean that they have to agree with the party on everything and that when they disagree they should be treated as a foreign body or as a deserter.

Nowadays, the image of the infallible party has been created and politicians have confused "making the right decision" with "being able to vote for what we want" apparently under the illusion that they are infallible.

But is anyone infallible? Does anyone claim perfection? Mistakes are for humans and they are the actions that the smart ones do not do again but the idiots repeat.

The parties claim that if the first party does not have the autonomy needed to vote for what it wants and if it cannot pass a bill (a law draft), then there is a risk that the government will fall.

So under the pretext of not leading to anarchy and chaos, the law of enhanced proportional representation is applied, to favor the first party with more MPs so that it can carry out its work undisturbed. This is where non-elected MPs are appointed while the elected are rejected.

But how can a government lose a majority in parliament? Proportionality doesn’t change!

That is like, if in a family a father proposes something that the rest of the family does not want and in the end this is not done, then the father should disappear!?

If a government is not autonomous and proposes a proper bill that has been approved by the people it will not be voted on? Who will not vote for what the people have chosen? And citizens cannot judge? There will be no elections again?

But if it is autonomous and proposes a wrong bill, what will happen?

Unfortunately, the simple analogy, that is the true choices of the citizens in conjunction with the vote of conscience are not considered as a solution, because it is supposed to be like governing by an elected minority, which will determine by completing the required number of votes to pass (approve) the bills.

Here we are constantly discussing party power, party prestige, party collaborations and we continue to believe that everyone agrees with everything and there is no talk of differentiation and the conscience of the elected MPs.

To the mind of a man who in his life has not found any other man who agrees with him on everything, this sounds scary. Even with dear friends and relatives there is always the opposite view.

This totality of the parties' disciplinary agreement on all issues is terrifying because it brings to mind other periods in history where the opposite view was feared and could even lead to death. Some call today's Republic… Elected Monarchy.

At best this system that has been imposed on our lives, the impersonal political parties (political companies) looks like party oligarchy.

But one could say that nothing different can be done from what is already being done! Suppose then, that the enhanced proportional system has its advantages in the occasion that a leading party has a clear lead and stands out from the other candidates in order not to be blackmailed by a minority.

But what happens when even with this premium electoral system a party cannot form an autonomous government?

Again, the leader of the first party is called upon to work with one or more party leaders to form a government! Again, however, the election is not proportional and based on voting, but based on the desire, the will, the judgment and the interests of one, instead of two, instead of three people parties.

Why, at least in this case, should not depend on the real desire of the electorate, since in this case, it seems that the people do not distinguish one extremely suitable for the leadership of the country in relation to the rest!

So why is he called upon to form a government with some other minority parties, who are probably just thirsty for power, as long as they outnumber the rival party and just make it useless?

After the appointment of MPs we also have the appointment of government parties. How is it that in this case the parties cooperate, while when they are not under the pressure of their small percentage they cannot let their members cooperate to achieve the best possible result?

And yet this has happened many times in the past when no party has achieved autonomy and when there has been a need to achieve a serious goal.

Then solidarity appears, Ecumenical governments are formed, governments of cooperation and wide acceptance in which all the party political formations of the country participate.

But the selfish gene of the parties wants everything to be its own. Only when they risk getting nothing, they manage to cooperate.

It would be great if we lived in a perfect world and in all future electoral contests there would be suitable personalities and political figures for all the citizens of the world to inspire confidence, to deserve their vote and to gain the autonomy they so desire.

But perfection does not exist and if it exists it is only in what we mean, when we say in different languages God, Θεός, Dieu, Allah …

Parties urgently need to understand that they must accept democracy within themselves, respect for diversity, the conscience and belief of the people, abandon the arrogant behavior of the infallible, seek the best solution and cooperate with each other.

When in an emergency-unpredictable situation you cannot convince of the necessity and just of measures and decisions, so that they are consciously accepted, you must impose them with fear and punishment. But the unjust measures or those that do not convince the people, bring denial, anger, outburst, uprising.

At least when there is public opinion, this is an indication of fairness and a consolation that comes from respecting the opinion of many. Otherwise it seems like arbitrariness, like a latent democracy.

A person's beliefs are not a joke, they are the person himself. Only when convinced, someone is obedient and cooperates. Anyone can respect fair laws, but not the opinion of governments that think they are expressing the public opinion.

The procedures should be modernized and done electronically, like direct-urgent referendums, to cost less, to have ease, transparency and to ensure the integrity of the process. As it happens with paying taxes and online shopping, so that it is done quickly, there is cross-check of data and fraud is prevented, so the investigation of the desire of the people could be ensured!

Democracy must become an evolving and self-improving system, otherwise it will end up like a museum, like Acropolis and Parthenon that you can only imagine the glory and the beauty they once had. Even the issue of elections, those with paper ballots must end and be modernized. Let us not forget that in ancient Athens the secret ballots were done with shells (fragments of pottery) but fortunately things evolved and we reached the electronic age.