Suchergebnisse

Hate speech law can be found throughout the world. But it is also the subject of numerous principled arguments, both for and against. These principles invoke a host of morally relevant features (e.g., liberty, health, autonomy, security, non-subordination, the absence of oppression, human dignity, the discovery of truth, the acquisition of knowledge, self-realization, human excellence, civic dignity, cultural diversity and choice, recognition of cultural identity, intercultural dialogue, participation in democratic self-government, being subject only to legitimate rule) and practical considerations (e.g., efficacy, the least restrictive alternative, chilling effects). The book develops and then critically examines these various principled arguments. It also attempts to de-homogenize hate speech law into different clusters of laws/regulations/codes that constrain uses of hate speech, so as to facilitate a more nuanced examination of the principled arguments.

Hate speech law can be found throughout the world. But it is also the subject of numerous principled arguments, both for and against. These principles invoke a host of morally relevant features (e.g., liberty, health, autonomy, security, non-subordination, the absence of oppression, human dignity, the discovery of truth, the acquisition of knowledge, self-realization, human excellence, civic dignity, cultural diversity and choice, recognition of cultural identity, intercultural dialogue, participation in democratic self-government, being subject only to legitimate rule) and practical considerations (e.g., efficacy, the least restrictive alternative, chilling effects). The book develops and then critically examines these various principled arguments. It also attempts to de-homogenize hate speech law into different clusters of laws/regulations/codes that constrain uses of hate speech, so as to facilitate a more nuanced examination of the principled arguments.

Hate speech law can be found throughout the world. But it is also the subject of numerous principled arguments, both for and against. These principles invoke a host of morally relevant features (e.g., liberty, health, autonomy, security, non-subordination, the absence of oppression, human dignity, the discovery of truth, the acquisition of knowledge, self-realization, human excellence, civic dignity, cultural diversity and choice, recognition of cultural identity, intercultural dialogue, participation in democratic self-government, being subject only to legitimate rule) and practical considerations (e.g., efficacy, the least restrictive alternative, chilling effects). The book develops and then critically examines these various principled arguments. It also attempts to de-homogenize hate speech law into different clusters of laws/regulations/codes that constrain uses of hate speech, so as to facilitate a more nuanced examination of the principled arguments.

Ecclesiastical responses to the fifteenth-century recession -- Path dependency on the eclesiastical estates in the sixteenth century -- The great lay landowners -- The fortunes of the gentry -- The influx of 'new' wealth -- The rise of the church leaseholder -- Diverging experiences: yeomen and smallholders

This special volume of Archaeologia Baltica includes papers from a session organised for the annual meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists which took place in Oslo in September 2011. The theme of the session was 'Life at the Frontier: The Ecological Signatures of Human Colonisation in the North', and whilst a number of papers aimed to showcase the initial results and background of the Ecology of Crusading project (funded by the European Research Council, European Union Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013] under grant agreement No. 263735; see www.ecologofcrusading.com), the aim of the session was to include a broader perspective on the environmental traces of human activity in frontier regions in the northern hemisphere.

Abstract Background Australian federal and jurisdictional governments are implementing ambitious policy initiatives intended to improve health care access and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In this qualitative study we explored Aboriginal Medical Service (AMS) staff views on factors needed to improve chronic care systems and assessed their relevance to the new policy environment. Methods Two theories informed the study: (1) 'candidacy', which explores "the ways in which people's eligibility for care is jointly negotiated between individuals and health services"; and (2) kanyini or 'holding', a Central Australian philosophy which describes the principle and obligations of nurturing and protecting others. A structured health systems assessment, locally adapted from Chronic Care Model domains, was administered via group interviews with 37 health staff in six AMSs and one government Indigenous-led health service. Data were thematically analysed. Results Staff emphasised AMS health care was different to private general practices. Consistent with kanyini , community governance and leadership, community representation among staff, and commitment to community development were important organisational features to retain and nurture both staff and patients. This was undermined, however, by constant fear of government funding for AMSs being withheld. Staff resourcing, information systems and high-level leadership were perceived to be key drivers of health care quality. On-site specialist services, managed by AMS staff, were considered an enabling strategy to increase specialist access. Candidacy theory suggests the above factors influence whether a service is 'tractable' and 'navigable' to its users. Staff also described entrenched patient discrimination in hospitals and the need to expend considerable effort to reinstate care. This suggests that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are still constructed as 'non-ideal users' and are denied from being 'held' by hospital staff. Conclusions Some new policy initiatives (workforce capacity strengthening, improving chronic care delivery systems and increasing specialist access) have potential to address barriers highlighted in this study. Few of these initiatives, however, capitalise on the unique mechanisms by which AMSs 'hold' their users and enhance their candidacy to health care. Kanyini and candidacy are promising and complementary theories for conceptualising health care access and provide a potential framework for improving systems of care.

AbstractIntroductionIt is good practice to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews, but it is not clear how best to involve them.AimTo describe and reflect on the stakeholder involvement within an update of a Cochrane review of physical rehabilitation after stroke.MethodsA stakeholder group, comprising 15 stroke survivors, carers, and physiotherapists from across the United Kingdom, were recruited and contributed throughout the process of the review. A framework was used to describe when and how stakeholders were involved. Stakeholders provided feedback on their involvement after meetings. An amended version of a validated patient engagement tool was used to collect reflections on the stakeholder involvement process.ResultsFive stakeholder meetings were held throughout the review process, supplemented by additional communication. Several changes were made to the review structure, analyses, and wording as a direct result of the stakeholder involvement. Stakeholders and researchers agreed that stakeholders' contributions were taken seriously and influenced the review. Stakeholders felt that they were given the chance to share their views and that information was shared well before, during, and after each meeting to help them to contribute knowledgeably in the process. Stakeholder reflections highlighted a number of key lessons relating to stakeholder involvement, including process of reflection and feedback, use of remote/virtual meetings, need for adequate time and funding, tensions experienced by clinicians, and recruitment considerations.ConclusionsWe describe and reflect on stakeholder involvement in a systematic review and explores practical ways to support meaningful engagement during systematic review production. Our experience supports the view that coproducing reviews with stakeholders can make systematic reviews more relevant and meaningful. Our approach and experiences can be used to inform future review coproduction, supporting development of useful reviews that will improve clinical practice.

Environmental epigenetics is a fast-growing field of scientific research attracting interest from key stakeholders in Indigenous health internationally, including researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and advocacy organisations. It is the study of how various external factors, including food, stress, and toxins, alter genetic expression, and could be biologically passed down to children (and potentially grandchildren). This article explores the growing interest in epigenetics in Indigenous health and social policy fields in Australia and identifies the key implications and challenges for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The authors advocate for the urgent development of epigenetic research guidelines in Australia and beyond that centre Indigenous sovereignty.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. ; Objective: To synthesise client perceptions of the unique characteristics and value of care provided in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) compared to mainstream/general practitioner services, and implications for improving access to quality, appropriate primary health care for Indigenous Australians. Method: Standardised systematic review methods with modification informed by ethical and methodological considerations in research involving Indigenous Australians. Results: Perceived unique valued characteristics of ACCHOs were: 1) accessibility, facilitated by ACCHOs welcoming social spaces and additional services; 2) culturally safe care; and 3) appropriate care, responsive to holistic needs. Conclusion: Provider‐client relationships characterised by shared understanding of clients' needs, Indigenous staff, and relationships between clients who share the same culture, are central to ACCHO clients' perceptions of ACCHOs' unique value. The client perceptions provide insights about how ACCHOs address socio‐economic factors that contribute to high levels of chronic disease in Indigenous communities, why mainstream PHC provider care cannot substitute for ACCHO care, and how to improve accessibility and quality of care in mainstream providers. Implications for public health: To increase utilisation of PHC services in Indigenous Australian communities, and help close the gaps between the health status of Indigenous and non‐Indigenous Australians, Indigenous community leaders and Australian governments should prioritise implementing effective initiatives to support quality health care provision by ACCHOs.

AbstractBackgroundGiven the colonial connotations of the term "stakeholder", its continued use may be perceived as disrespectful to Indigenous Peoples. While several groups have introduced alternative terms, each has its own limitations. The objective of this article is to introduce "interest‐holders" as an alternative term to "stakeholders" and describe the discussions underpinning the adoption of the new term by the MuSE Consortium.MethodsThe MuSE Consortium is an international network of over 160 individuals with interest and expertise in different aspects relevant to engagement in research. Members of MuSE explored alternative terms and considered their respective merits and limitations. The deliberations considered the literature on the topic and the results of two consultations with the wider MuSE membership on the alternative terms.ResultsWe define "interest‐holders" as groups with legitimate interests in the health issue under consideration. The interests arise and draw their legitimacy from the fact that people from these groups are responsible for or affected by health‐related decisions that can be informed by research evidence.ConclusionAs groups other than the MuSE Consortium have started to adopt "interest‐holders," we hope its use will reduce confusion related to the multitude of terms used and convey the intended meaning without any negative connotations.