No description available.

Stigmatization and discrimination of PLWHA by some pastors and some church members are challenges and serious problems that are affecting PLWHA in the Reformed Church in Zambia and in other denominations within Zambia. The aim of this research is to explore ways of loving and embracing PLWHA who are already affected with the problem of stigma in the RCZ. The research will help deal with the problems of despising, condemning, rejecting and isolating of PLWHA by some clergy and some church members. The author seeks to develop a pastoral care model that will empower pastors and church members to love and embrace PLWHA in the church. The other aim of this research is to empower the PLWHA with the pastoral care model that has been developed so that they can be able to cope with the problem of shame, rejection and isolation caused by being stigmatized by some pastors and some church members. This research is focused on the traumatic experiences that the PLWHA go through as they continue being members of the church. Their fellowship with God and their fellow church members happen to be affected as some of them discontinue being church members. This research study explored a model of pastoral care in which the affected PLWHA have to be helped to acquire healing after trauma counselling by the pastoral caregivers who are empowered by this research. A model which has been employed in this research includes the one of the shepherding model of Charles Gerkin and of Adams which is on pastoral care as shepherding of flocks which belong to God. The word of God has been used to explore where the researcher wanted to show His love towards his people even when they are under difficulty circumstances. The research has also indicated roles of different groups and individuals who should contribute to the healing of PLWHA who are traumatized by being stigmatized by some pastors and some church members. At the end of this research study, there are concluding remarks which have led to recommendations that readers have to take note of. / Dissertation (MA(Theol))--University of Pretoria, 2010. / Practical Theology / unrestricted

Dear reader,  My aim here, in this essay, is to wonder around and embrace the unknown in the literary genre of letter writing. One of the main questions that the essay circles around is: how embracing the unknown can be a celebration, and a way to get lost, instead of it being something we fear of, like darkness? In the essay I draw bridges between the unknown, the erotic, vulnerability, the use of senses and perception, as well as pondering about the question of whether an experience can be larger than knowledge. The essay is structured in three parts: an introduction, middle part and a final part. In the introduction, the first letter, I open up the purpose of this essay and present my references. In the middle part, I dedicate five letters to the writers and researchers of my references, Rebecca Solnit, Audre Lorde, Brené Brown, Susan Sontag and Deborah Hay. The final part, the last letter, opens up the process of the performance, and how the readings for the essay have affected the doing in the performance. Described in the essay is the journey of methods that were used in the project such as reading, walking around and getting lost. Further the essay describes how dancing later on in the process appeared as a method of getting lost, embracing the unknown through bodily perception and movement. Through this essay and my performance DARK BLISS, I come to a conclusion that being with the unknown is a never-ending process, an endless journey of learning that I will continue to wonder and wander around. / <p>This work includes both a performing and a written part.</p>

Os Centros Educacionais Unificados (CEUs) reúnem um conjunto de equipamentos de educação, cultura, esporte e lazer, e configuram centralidades urbanas em muitas das áreas mais periféricas de São Paulo. A pesquisa utiliza o termo acolhimento para referir-se à intenção de muitos servidores públicos dos CEUs de entregar benefícios aos moradores dessas áreas e de estabelecer relações de diálogo e reciprocidade com eles. O acolhimento depende do modo como se dão as interações cotidianas entre usuários e funcionários, e de como estas interações são influenciadas por espaços, normas, leis e diretrizes de um modo geral. A influência de aspectos como esses sobre as interações é objeto de uma investigação etnográfica realizada entre 2010 e 2014 entre gestores, bibliotecários e usuários dos CEUs Butantã e Vila Rubi. Destaca-se a proposição de uma tipologia de influências designadas contextos extensivos, intensivos e separadores que vai além do pressuposto de que o acolhimento se efetiva exclusivamente por meio de espaços abertos e de outras formas de garantia de liberdades de ação e interação. Vale mencionar também que a pesquisa associa investigação e intervenção, pela sugestão de linhas de ação aos servidores dos CEUs e pela implementação e análise de uma reforma dos espaços da biblioteca do CEU Butantã realizada com base em minha dupla formação em antropologia e arquitetura. / The Unified Educational Centers (Centros Educacionais Unificados, or CEUs) bring together a set of educational, cultural, sports and leisure facilities in one space, and therefore, constitute urban centralities in many of the most peripheral areas of São Paulo. In this study, the term embracing is used to refer to the intention of many public servants at the CEUs to provide benefits to the inhabitants of these areas, and to establish relationships based on dialogue and reciprocity with them. Embracing depends on the way daily interactions between users and employees take place, and how spaces, norms, laws and guidelines influence these interactions in general. The influence of these aspects on interactions was the object of an ethnographic study conducted between 2010 and 2014 among managers, librarians and users of the Butantã and Vila Rubi CEUs. We highlight here the proposal of a typology of influences, designated as extensive, intensive and separating contexts. The typology proposed goes beyond the assumption that embracing occurs exclusively in open spaces and via other ways to guarantee freedom of action and interaction. It is also worth mentioning that the study associates investigation with intervention, by including suggestions on courses of action for the public servants at the CEUs, and on the implementation and analysis of a reform of the Butantã CEUs library spaces. These recommendations are based on my training in both anthropology and architecture.

Os Centros Educacionais Unificados (CEUs) reúnem um conjunto de equipamentos de educação, cultura, esporte e lazer, e configuram centralidades urbanas em muitas das áreas mais periféricas de São Paulo. A pesquisa utiliza o termo acolhimento para referir-se à intenção de muitos servidores públicos dos CEUs de entregar benefícios aos moradores dessas áreas e de estabelecer relações de diálogo e reciprocidade com eles. O acolhimento depende do modo como se dão as interações cotidianas entre usuários e funcionários, e de como estas interações são influenciadas por espaços, normas, leis e diretrizes de um modo geral. A influência de aspectos como esses sobre as interações é objeto de uma investigação etnográfica realizada entre 2010 e 2014 entre gestores, bibliotecários e usuários dos CEUs Butantã e Vila Rubi. Destaca-se a proposição de uma tipologia de influências designadas contextos extensivos, intensivos e separadores que vai além do pressuposto de que o acolhimento se efetiva exclusivamente por meio de espaços abertos e de outras formas de garantia de liberdades de ação e interação. Vale mencionar também que a pesquisa associa investigação e intervenção, pela sugestão de linhas de ação aos servidores dos CEUs e pela implementação e análise de uma reforma dos espaços da biblioteca do CEU Butantã realizada com base em minha dupla formação em antropologia e arquitetura. / The Unified Educational Centers (Centros Educacionais Unificados, or CEUs) bring together a set of educational, cultural, sports and leisure facilities in one space, and therefore, constitute urban centralities in many of the most peripheral areas of São Paulo. In this study, the term embracing is used to refer to the intention of many public servants at the CEUs to provide benefits to the inhabitants of these areas, and to establish relationships based on dialogue and reciprocity with them. Embracing depends on the way daily interactions between users and employees take place, and how spaces, norms, laws and guidelines influence these interactions in general. The influence of these aspects on interactions was the object of an ethnographic study conducted between 2010 and 2014 among managers, librarians and users of the Butantã and Vila Rubi CEUs. We highlight here the proposal of a typology of influences, designated as extensive, intensive and separating contexts. The typology proposed goes beyond the assumption that embracing occurs exclusively in open spaces and via other ways to guarantee freedom of action and interaction. It is also worth mentioning that the study associates investigation with intervention, by including suggestions on courses of action for the public servants at the CEUs, and on the implementation and analysis of a reform of the Butantã CEUs library spaces. These recommendations are based on my training in both anthropology and architecture.

The 1980s witnessed a judicial “rights revolution” in Canada characterized by the Supreme Court of Canada striking down both federal and provincial legislation which violated the rights guaranteed by the 1982 Charter of Rights. The lack of a similar judicial “rights revolution” in the wake of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights has largely been attributed to the structural difference between the two instruments with the latter – as a “mere” statute of the federal parliament – providing little more than a canon of construction and (unlike the Charter) not empowering the courts to engage in judicial review of legislation. Yet this view contrasts starkly with how the Bill was portrayed by the Diefenbaker government, which argued that it provided for judicial review and would “prevail” over other federal legislation. Many modern scholars have dismissed the idea that the Bill could prevail over other federal statutes as being incompatible with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. That is, a bill of rights could only prevail over legislation if incorporated into the British North America Act. As such, they argue that the Diefenbaker government could not have intended the Bill of Rights to operate as anything more than a canon of construction. However, such a view ignores the turbulence in constitutional thinking on parliamentary sovereignty in the 1930s through 1960s provoked by the Statute of Westminster. This era produced the doctrine of “self-embracing” sovereignty – in contrast to traditional “Dicey” sovereignty – where parliament could limit itself through “ordinary” legislation. The effective author of the Canadian Bill of Rights, Elmer Driedger, was an adherent of this doctrine as well as an advocate of a “purposive” approach to statutory interpretation. Driedger, thus, drafted the Bill based upon the doctrine of self-embracing sovereignty and believed it would enjoy a “purposive” interpretation by the courts, with the Bill designed to be as effective at guaranteeing rights as the Statute of Westminster was at liberating Canada from Imperial legislation.

The 1980s witnessed a judicial “rights revolution” in Canada characterized by the Supreme Court of Canada striking down both federal and provincial legislation which violated the rights guaranteed by the 1982 Charter of Rights. The lack of a similar judicial “rights revolution” in the wake of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights has largely been attributed to the structural difference between the two instruments with the latter – as a “mere” statute of the federal parliament – providing little more than a canon of construction and (unlike the Charter) not empowering the courts to engage in judicial review of legislation. Yet this view contrasts starkly with how the Bill was portrayed by the Diefenbaker government, which argued that it provided for judicial review and would “prevail” over other federal legislation. Many modern scholars have dismissed the idea that the Bill could prevail over other federal statutes as being incompatible with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. That is, a bill of rights could only prevail over legislation if incorporated into the British North America Act. As such, they argue that the Diefenbaker government could not have intended the Bill of Rights to operate as anything more than a canon of construction. However, such a view ignores the turbulence in constitutional thinking on parliamentary sovereignty in the 1930s through 1960s provoked by the Statute of Westminster. This era produced the doctrine of “self-embracing” sovereignty – in contrast to traditional “Dicey” sovereignty – where parliament could limit itself through “ordinary” legislation. The effective author of the Canadian Bill of Rights, Elmer Driedger, was an adherent of this doctrine as well as an advocate of a “purposive” approach to statutory interpretation. Driedger, thus, drafted the Bill based upon the doctrine of self-embracing sovereignty and believed it would enjoy a “purposive” interpretation by the courts, with the Bill designed to be as effective at guaranteeing rights as the Statute of Westminster was at liberating Canada from Imperial legislation.

The 1980s witnessed a judicial “rights revolution” in Canada characterized by the Supreme Court of Canada striking down both federal and provincial legislation which violated the rights guaranteed by the 1982 Charter of Rights. The lack of a similar judicial “rights revolution” in the wake of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights has largely been attributed to the structural difference between the two instruments with the latter – as a “mere” statute of the federal parliament – providing little more than a canon of construction and (unlike the Charter) not empowering the courts to engage in judicial review of legislation. Yet this view contrasts starkly with how the Bill was portrayed by the Diefenbaker government, which argued that it provided for judicial review and would “prevail” over other federal legislation. Many modern scholars have dismissed the idea that the Bill could prevail over other federal statutes as being incompatible with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. That is, a bill of rights could only prevail over legislation if incorporated into the British North America Act. As such, they argue that the Diefenbaker government could not have intended the Bill of Rights to operate as anything more than a canon of construction. However, such a view ignores the turbulence in constitutional thinking on parliamentary sovereignty in the 1930s through 1960s provoked by the Statute of Westminster. This era produced the doctrine of “self-embracing” sovereignty – in contrast to traditional “Dicey” sovereignty – where parliament could limit itself through “ordinary” legislation. The effective author of the Canadian Bill of Rights, Elmer Driedger, was an adherent of this doctrine as well as an advocate of a “purposive” approach to statutory interpretation. Driedger, thus, drafted the Bill based upon the doctrine of self-embracing sovereignty and believed it would enjoy a “purposive” interpretation by the courts, with the Bill designed to be as effective at guaranteeing rights as the Statute of Westminster was at liberating Canada from Imperial legislation.

The 1980s witnessed a judicial “rights revolution” in Canada characterized by the Supreme Court of Canada striking down both federal and provincial legislation which violated the rights guaranteed by the 1982 Charter of Rights. The lack of a similar judicial “rights revolution” in the wake of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights has largely been attributed to the structural difference between the two instruments with the latter – as a “mere” statute of the federal parliament – providing little more than a canon of construction and (unlike the Charter) not empowering the courts to engage in judicial review of legislation. Yet this view contrasts starkly with how the Bill was portrayed by the Diefenbaker government, which argued that it provided for judicial review and would “prevail” over other federal legislation. Many modern scholars have dismissed the idea that the Bill could prevail over other federal statutes as being incompatible with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. That is, a bill of rights could only prevail over legislation if incorporated into the British North America Act. As such, they argue that the Diefenbaker government could not have intended the Bill of Rights to operate as anything more than a canon of construction. However, such a view ignores the turbulence in constitutional thinking on parliamentary sovereignty in the 1930s through 1960s provoked by the Statute of Westminster. This era produced the doctrine of “self-embracing” sovereignty – in contrast to traditional “Dicey” sovereignty – where parliament could limit itself through “ordinary” legislation. The effective author of the Canadian Bill of Rights, Elmer Driedger, was an adherent of this doctrine as well as an advocate of a “purposive” approach to statutory interpretation. Driedger, thus, drafted the Bill based upon the doctrine of self-embracing sovereignty and believed it would enjoy a “purposive” interpretation by the courts, with the Bill designed to be as effective at guaranteeing rights as the Statute of Westminster was at liberating Canada from Imperial legislation.

The thesis in question is titled “Readjusting Orthodoxy”. It constitutes a discourse in UK constitutional law although legal theoretic, historical, politicial, philosophical, and EU-related complementary themes are also present. It is founded upon, and driven by, two fundamental, inter-related premises. First, that it is the orthodox reading of the UK Constitution which best describes and explains the present constitutional arrangement: the UK Parliament is a sovereign institution sitting at the apex of the UK Constitution and vested with the right to make and unmake any law whatsoever. In the second place, that, notwithstanding the above, this very reading of the UK Constitution is currently deficient in terms of internal cohesion, is plagued by ingrained anachronistic dogmas and enjoys only a limited adaptability. From these premises emerges a third proposition; namely, that the UK constitutional discourse as a whole would stand to lose greatly should alternative constitutional theories that are less suited to describe and explain the current constitutional arrangement replace the orthodox reading of the Constitution by exploiting these conspicuous drawbacks. Thus, the present treatise argues that the orthodox reading should after critical evaluation be readjusted in the various ways to be proposed so as to be rendered coherent, consistent, impervious to the numerous challenges it currently faces and, ultimately, capable of continuing to offer the canonical account of the ever-changing UK Constitution.