The Landlord

at
Categories
Tags

 

 

 

This is the fourth in a series of four discussions that will lead you through formulating a community intervention step by step. Read the scenario and then answer the questions by replying to the thread. Be mindful to integrate course material and reading throughout your answer. Netting et al. (2023) chapters can help with this activity: 2, 10, 11, & 12.

Part 4: The Landlord

When they discuss the concept of oppression and the target population, Yolanda asks, with some distaste in her voice, “I wonder who owns those buildings?” They realize they need to discover who owns the deplorable buildings. After all, someone should begin to advocate for residents’ needs and see if basic repairs can be done. Tamara quickly googles the city tax office and finds that the owner is a prominent minister of a large suburban church.

After Harry, Yolanda, Derrick, and Tamara have acquired and analyzed this tax information, they approach the agency’s most experienced community organizer, who slowly shakes his head while telling the new workers the agency’s history with the landlord. He says that the minister was approached by agency staff a couple of years ago about making repairs. The minister said that he was “doing God’s will” by providing housing for “God’s unfortunates.” The community organizer relayed that the discussion was polite and that it was suggested to the minister, in a non-threatening way, that it would be a good idea to make basic repairs because the city might otherwise condemn the building. The minister explained that he really did not want to put any more money into the apartments because that would be a bad investment, and rather than wasting more money, he would close them down. But he feels that closing down the apartments would be a terrible loss for the people living there and for the community.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What is your reaction to this information? What race or ethnic dimensions should be considered? What are the possible human rights violations?

2. Name one approach to community change that the social workers should consider employing. Also, name two tactics that would align with the approach you identified.

3. Next steps: What might you do now that you have this background information? (Detail a specific and comprehensive plan based on course readings and discussions).

4.Outline a detailed recruitment plan for a community meeting, including the best place, best time, and additional details.

5. Develop at least two slogans to be used at an event equating the issues experienced by the barrio residents with human rights violations.

5. Identify at least one (1) outcome evaluation measure that could be appropriate to use to evaluate the usefulness of the community meeting.

Sample Solution

First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have r

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.
Hi, how can I help?