Fariq M N Ilahi

In praktisch alle landen van de wereld botst het feit dat een deel van de bevolking – in
intieme gedragingen, relaties of voorkeuren – gericht is op geslachtsgenoten, met het feit
dat een deel van de bevolking sterke bezwaren heeft tegen dergelijke intieme gedragingen
of relaties. Vrijwel overal ter wereld heeft het recht regels in het leven geroepen om dat
probleem te kanaliseren, vooral door de mogelijkheden voor gelijkgeslachtelijke gerichtheid te beperken, maar ook en steeds vaker door die mogelijkheden uit te breiden.
In het vergelijkende seksuelegerichtheidsrecht, gaat het om het vergelijken van al die
juridische benaderingen voor die botsende feiten.
Een uitgangspunt daarbij kan gevonden worden in de wens om recht te doen aan de
fundamentele menselijke behoefte om lief te hebben en bemind te worden. Nadat
psychologen deze behoefte zijn gaan erkennen, zijn rechters gaan spreken van een
grondrecht om relaties met anderen aan te gaan en te ontwikkelen. Dit recht heeft een
vaste plaats gekregen in de rechtspraak van belangrijke internationale en nationale
gerechtshoven. De onderzoekers stellen voor dat dit fundamentele recht voortaan aan te
duiden als ‘the right to relate’. De geleidelijke realisering van dit mensenrecht kan al
enkele decennia in vele delen van de wereld waargenomen worden in de gestage stroom
van wetten en rechterlijke uitspraken die homoseksueel gedrag uit het strafrecht halen, of
discriminatie verbieden, of gelijkgeslachtelijke partners en ouders erkennen.
Dit recht stelt bovendien nadere eisen aan wetgeving en rechtspraak. Hierboven is
betoogd dat het recht om relaties aan te gaan twee specifiekere rechten impliceert: the
right to come out, en the right to come together. Zonder mogelijkheden om uit de kast te
komen en om elkaar ergens te ontmoeten, zal the right to relate voor homomannen en
lesbische vrouwen immers een illusie blijven. Ook bevelen de onderzoekers aan om aan
het recht om relaties te ontwikkelen, ten minste vijf aspecten ontnemen waarop aanspraak
gemaakt kan worden: respect voor relaties, bescherming van relaties, erkenning van
relaties, formalisering van relaties, en erkenning van buitenlandse formalisering van
relaties.

The relationship between ICT and education is being deliberated upon for four decades with a rapid change in perspectives, most characterised as a shift of focus from the technology to learning [ CITATION Der06 \l 1043 ] . A number issues remain at the heart of the discussion namely:  understanding how learning occurs, learning with or about the technology, and the role of the teacher and professional development.  This papers address the software learning environments; which will reflect on the growing complexity of the situation and the conundrum of failure to achieve ‘lift-off.’ Key phrases for debates in the future include lifelong learning, the commonplace of ICT in society, the digital world of the young, and the digital ethical dilemmas[ CITATION Der06 \l 1043 ].

Wij, volk van Suriname, waarderen en beschermen onze biologische diversiteit, inbegrepen alle natuurlijke en culturele reserves door ze op billijke en duurzame wijze te gebruiken door de huidige en toekomstige generaties. Een nationale committering voor de Surinaamse biologische rijkdom in alle sectoren van de maatschappij zal ons helpen alle voordelen te ervaren van duurzaam beheer en wijs gebruik terwijl wij de diversiteit onderhouden en versterken van ons cultureel- en natuurlijk erfdeel”.

Public sector decentralization has become a global
phenomenon. Many countries pursue it with the stated
intention(s) of improving service delivery, enhancing
governance and accountability, increasing equity, and/or
promoting a more stable state, among others. But there are
also contraries in outcomes. There is evidence to support
both positive and negative decentralization outcomes, but
no grand generalizations beyond a very basic level emerge
as with much of the research on decentralization, results
depend on the context. Despite the level of attention that
decentralization receives, our systematic practical
knowledge about it is modest. In Suriname we have the
DLGP program that has yet to achieve fiscal and political
decentralization but it has the potential to achieve similar
results as in Puerto Alegre (Brazil). The DLGP program
can take many examples from the way the 16 areas of
Porte Alegre are being managed to sustain its
decentralization.

A non-cultural sustainable development policy contains a cultural policy that adheres to the hegemonic model of neo modernization.That is, the desire to make as much money as possible in the shortest possible time and, of course, without caring about its impact or other side effects. This also seems to be the attitude towards culture. Agenda 21 for Development is first and foremost a question that may be put as follows: ‘Is another model (of cultural policies) possible? In Suriname not only, the indigenous people are considered to have knowledge in their heritage (traditional knowledge) because the other ethnic groups also have knowledge that is part of their cultural heritage. Protection of the unique cacophony of cultural heritage of Suriname is important starting with indigenous people. The conflicts surrounding traditional knowledge resonate in the social reality of Suriname. The current legal framework does not adequately protect tradesional knowledge. There are no compulsory legal provisions for meaningful participation or consultation in decisions affecting indigenous peoples, nor is their right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) recognized. The legislation process in Suriname is rather slow. There is a limited awareness in general on indigenous people rights in Suriname, including by lawmakers. Although there is a general recognition that there are such rights, there is limited clarity what exactly those are, if and how they should be recognized legally, and how this would affect other rights such as the rights of concession holders, individual ownership rights, and rights of other etnic communities. This limited awareness, combined with long-held prejudices and discrimination against indigenous make this topic a difficult one to discuss in a constructive and structured manner. There is a persistent top-down governance attitude in Suriname, where the government and its officials often act as the know-betters towards indigenous communities and development isseus.Such attitudes again make it difficult to have constructive and meaningful discussions over topics such as community governance over territories, areas and resources. Policy reforms (should) go hand-in-hand with legal reforms,  legal reforms would obviously also need to be reflected in policy reforms and the other way around. The thesis consists of a socio-legal literature study and a norm ative framework. The conclusion can be drawn that Suriname has to create a national dialog on traditional knowledge and identity. The goals of this national dialog can be formulated as followed: 1. The Surinamese government has to establish a clear workable process to develop the laws and administrative measures and need to comply with its legal obligations and to maintain continued dialogue between the government of Suriname and its citizens.  2. The government need to create a long-term sustainable development policy plan that takes into consideration conservation of biodiversity, protection of traditional knowledge and justice for all. In this sense, development is at the heart of the culture debate. If one views culture as more than just the preservation and promotion of the arts, heritage and cultural identities, then we have to include the broad civilization concept embodied in culture as a whole way of life. That s why this thesis promotes the usage of cultural development as a fourth pillar.