The Holocaust and Los Desaparecidos Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

The Holocaust and Los Desaparecidos - Essay Example In the case of Hitler, it is clear that he was responsible for the Holocaust. However, it is difficult to name the culprit for Los Desaparecidos because there are several people involved. Politically, Leopoldo Galtieri was the last president of Argentina during 1981-82 when Los Desaparecidos was active. This was the time when he ill-advisedly annexed the Falkland Islands and resigned subsequently when the British retook Falkland Islands through military action. However, he supported the coup to overthrow Isabel Peron in 1976, and steadily rose up in the military ranks ultimately becoming the Commander-in-Chief (Leopoldo Galtieri). Hitler was responsible for the extermination of six million Jews, an unparalleled action in history. He caused the deaths and mayhem of millions more in Germany and in the rest of the world. Los Desaparecidos may not equal Hitler in this regard. But Argentina had its share of horrors involving thousands of left-wing dissidents in the "dirty war" as the 1976-83 conflict came to be known. Hitler was repressive with his own people. Thousands disappeared in Argentina between 1976 and 1982. Some quote the figure as up to 30,000 people who disappeared. What happened to them There are chilling accounts of young dissidents being thrown from helicopters into rivers Certainly there are glaring differe... What happened to them There are chilling accounts of young dissidents being thrown from helicopters into rivers Certainly there are glaring differences. Hitler set the stage to conquer Europe. The dictator who ruled Argentina then, Leopoldo Galtieri, tried similar tactic when he closed the borders with Chile over a dispute involving two islands below the southern tip of South America, and annexed the Falklands Islands from the British Adolf Hitler was born on April 20th 1889 in Braunau-am-Inn, Austria. Leopoldo Galtieri was born into a working class family of Italian immigrants in Buenos Aires in 1926. Hitler served in the German army during the First World War. Galtieri was not born when World War I was fought. Hitler conquered Poland, Austria, Belgium, France, and Holland in quick succession. Galtieri had no such vision. He only closed the doors on Chile over two disputed islands (Isobel Hilton). Galtieri's military was not advanced enough for conquests. The Falkland War exposed the wide chinks in the Argentine army's armor. Hitler grew up with a poor record at school and left, before completing his tuition, with an ambition to become an artist. He continued to have troubled times as a youth and grew up hating the Jews, the Marxists, liberalism and the cosmopolitan Habsburg monarchy. Believing that fate had chosen him to avenge the humiliation of defeat by Germany in World War I, he founded the Nazi party and single-mindedly rose through its ranks using intrigue and fascinating promises to his countrymen to become the Chancellor of Germany (Adolf Hitler). Galtieri joined the Argentine military academy at 17 and graduated as an officer in 1949 from the United States School of the Americas in Panama. He drew praises from United States

Landmark Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Landmark - Case Study Example The difficulty of this issue is illustrated in the aforementioned case where Article 3 of the HRA was invoked. According to Article 3 of the HRA, "[s]o far as possible to do so, primary legislations and secondary legislation should be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights" (HRA 1998, Art 3), referring to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. By virtue of this provision, the conventional manner that statutory interpretation under the act, is therefore challenged, such that instead of giving effect to the intention of the legislators, which enacted particular statutes; statutory interpretation must now proceed in a manner that gives effect to the original intent of those who crafted the HRA provision. This shift away from the conventional procedure, therefore leads judges to stray in the grey area between judicial interpretation and law making, which endangers them of judicial vandalism and usurpation Parliament's will. ... In Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004], the House of Lords dismissed an appeal by Ahmad Ghaidan to overturn a previous decision of the Court of Appeal; which named Juan Godin-Mendoza as successor to the tenancy of the flat Godin-Mendoza lived in until the death of his partner of the same sex by interpreting the words "as his or her wife or husband" under the Rent Act 1977 to mean "as if they were his wife or husband" by virtue of Art 3 of the HRA (Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004], para. 51). The decision to dismiss the appeal was arrived at, by virtue of the judges' interpretation of Article 3 of the HRA, which was deemed appropriate in this case, with one dissenting opinion from Lord Millet (para. 102). Based on the given case, Lord Nicholls (para. 4) identified the relevant statutory provisions as paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 1 to the Rent Act 1977: 21. The surviving spouse (if any) of the original tenant, if residing in the dwelling-house immediately before the death of the original tenant, shall after the death be the statutory tenant if and so long as he or she occupies the dwelling-house as his or her residence. 22. For the purposes of this paragraph, a person who was living with the original tenant as his or her wife or husband shall be treated as the spouse of the original tenant. 31. Where paragraph 2 above does not apply, but a person who was a member of the original tenant's family was residing with him in the dwelling-house at the time of and for the period of 2 years immediately before his death then, after his death, that person or if there is more than one such person such one of them as may be decided by agreement, or in default of agreement by