Do you believe in Human Rights? (1 Viewer)

[Martin]

We have our little debates about morality and we like to take on individual issues, but that's not enough to set a standard for personal freedom.

So I thought I should turn to the Declaration of Human Rights as a universal standard and find out if that's something we agree on.

The document was written in 1948, so it's not a "new thing". Read it here, it's not longer than a Cronios post:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

And if you fail to agree with particular points why don't you say why.


Interestingly, respecting human rights is not as easy as it may seem:

Only a very few countries do not commit significant human rights violations, according to Amnesty International. In their 2004 human rights report (covering 2003), the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Costa Rica are the only (mappable) countries that did not (in their opinion) violate at least some human rights significantly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Human_rights_violations

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[ReBeL]

My opinion is that establishing this charter was a waste of time, because it's not applied anywhere. We live in a Dystopia, not in an Utopia. And that results from the fact that people are not good people by nature.

 

[Seven]

My opinion is that establishing this charter was a waste of time, because it's not applied anywhere. We live in a Dystopia, not in an Utopia. And that results from the fact that people are not good people by nature.

What the hell is wrong with you?

 

[Martin]

My opinion is that establishing this charter was a waste of time, because it's not applied anywhere. We live in a Dystopia, not in an Utopia. And that results from the fact that people are not good people by nature.

You think it's a waste of time to figure out a moral standard we should all strive to live up to? Does that mean you also think it's a waste of time to have laws in a country, because people will break them anyway?

 

[Seven]

You think it's a waste of time to figure out a moral standard we should all strive to live up to? Does that mean you also think it's a waste of time to have laws in a country, because people will break them anyway?

Not to mention that the same guy believes it's just wrong to insult "The Prophet".

 

[Martin]

Maybe the prophet was wasting his time too, coming up with all those rules noone is gonna follow.

 

[ReBeL]

Ok. Let joking aside. What is the point of making a charter to force weak people (Countries) to adhere to it while strong people (Countries) don't care at all about applying it??

My prophet orders his followers to be good people. He doesn't discriminate between the rich and the poor people. His orders were applied in his era equally without any discrimination between people depending on race, color, and even religion. As long as Non-Muslims lived peacefully with Muslims, he ordered Muslims to respect them and treat them with utmost fairness.

 

[Geof]

The 1948 declaration is a nice document, very symbolic and full of good intentions... but it's not legally enforceable and therefore somewhat void of practical utility.

There are far more useful texts, obviously in national legislation/constitution, but also the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) signed in the framework of the Council of Europe (not the EU, the Council also includes the likes of Turkey, Russia, Albania etc).

This text has helped countries such as Turkey to rapidly advance towards (more) human rights, but also pushed countries like Belgium to stop undue discriminations such as the one between legal and 'natural' children.

These kinds of things sound great to me, but a global concept of human rights must take into account:
1. the relative temporal and geographic scope. (What is a right in western society is not necessarily perceived as such in a more traditional one, and might even go against the will of the 'society' as a whole).
2. A dogmatic approach: A right to education and interdiction of child labour are fine, but sometimes child/adolescent work is what keeps people alive. If the State can not replace the loss of revenue for families, how the hell are those people going to eat on a day-to-day basis?

 

[Martin]

Ok. Let joking aside. What is the point of making a charter to force weak people (Countries) to adhere to it while strong people (Countries) don't care at all about applying it??

That's not true. As the wikipedia quote says it's practically unrealistic to expect human rights to be followed. Nevertheless, there are huge differences in the world. As an enemy of the state in the UK you're likely to live much better than in North Korea.

Furthermore, your accusation doesn't make sense, because even if it were so that strong countries force weak countries to obey human rights, then that would mean the quality of life and the state of personal freedom in those weak countries would be exemplary and a great place to live. So how is that bad thing?

My prophet orders his followers to be good people. He doesn't discriminate between the rich and the poor people. His orders were applied in his era equally without any discrimination between people depending on race, color, and even religion. As long as Non-Muslims lived peacefully with Muslims, he ordered Muslims to respect them and treat them with utmost fairness.

But we're not talking about your prophet, we're talking about human rights. Do you sanction them?

 

[Martin]

The 1948 declaration is a nice document, very symbolic and full of good intentions... but it's not legally enforceable and therefore somewhat void of practical utility.

There are far more useful texts, obviously in national legislation/constitution, but also the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) signed in the framework of the Council of Europe (not the EU, the Council also includes the likes of Turkey, Russia, Albania etc).

This text has helped countries such as Turkey to rapidly advance towards (more) human rights, but also pushed countries like Belgium to stop undue discriminations such as the one between legal and 'natural' children.

Not as a legal standard, no, but as an ethical one? I mean it's the only global standard we have, is it not?

1. the relative temporal and geographic scope. (What is a right in western society is not necessarily perceived as such in a more traditional one, and might even go against the will of the 'society' as a whole).

But what is a reasonable human right regardless of society's majority opinion? If there's a forum where personal insults are standard (eg. war torn country) does that mean people shouldn't have a right to be respected (eg. freedom from persecution)?

Remember there is that tyranny of the majority lurking in the background, so a society made up of two nationality groups 90%-10% may very well consent to persecution and mistreatment of the minority. That's precisely what human rights are for, to protect those worst off.

2. A dogmatic approach: A right to education and interdiction of child labour are fine, but sometimes child/adolescent work is what keeps people alive. If the State can not replace the loss of revenue for families, how the hell are those people going to eat on a day-to-day basis?

Sure, that's perfectly fair.

 

[ReBeL]

That's not true. As the wikipedia quote says it's practically unrealistic to expect human rights to be followed. Nevertheless, there are huge differences in the world. As an enemy of the state in the UK you're likely to live much better than in North Korea.

Furthermore, your accusation doesn't make sense, because even if it were so that strong countries force weak countries to obey human rights, then that would mean the quality of life and the state of personal freedom in those weak countries would be exemplary and a great place to live. So how is that bad thing?



But we're not talking about your prophet, we're talking about human rights. Do you sanction them?

It was not me starting talking about my prophet. Anyway, you didn't understand my point of the strong and the weak countries. I meant that strong countries try to impose what suits them on the weaker countries. They don't impose things just because they respect human rights, but rather they choose what they think they will make use of on the weaker countries.

And as long as the weak country doesn't refuse their political and economical orders, they don't speak at all about the horrible violations of the human rights in these weak countries. So, the whole human rights thing is a cover for a colonial tool to interfer in the other countries' issues.

 

[Azzurri7]

It was not me starting talking about my prophet. Anyway, you didn't understand my point of the strong and the weak countries. I meant that strong countries try to impose what suits them on the weaker countries. They don't impose things just because they respect human rights, but rather they choose what they think they will make use of on the weaker countries.

And as long as the weak country doesn't refuse their political and economical orders, they don't speak at all about the horrible violations of the human rights in these weak countries. So, the whole human rights thing is a cover for a colonial tool to interfer in the other countries' issues.

Very true.

 

[Martin]

So, the whole human rights thing is a cover for a colonial tool to interfer in the other countries' issues.

But you don't have to go far (ie. Amnesty International) to find a more objective assessment of human rights in whichever country you're interested in. So it's easy enough to cast off the political agenda and find out what's what.

 

[ReBeL]

But you don't have to go far (ie. Amnesty International) to find a more objective assessment of human rights in whichever country you're interested in. So it's easy enough to cast off the political agenda and find out what's what.

Amnesty International is a useless organization that does nothing but words, words, and more words. I can write hundreds of books about the severity of the regime ruling in North Korea and the violations in Guanatanamu. But will that change anything in the real world?? Of course, not. Because Amnesty is as effective as a guy without hands or legs and has nothing but a big mouth.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

the only other option is to go and invade. what do you propose?

 

[Red]

I fail to see how the Declaration is not a good thing in principle.

Whether it is as useful as it should be, due to it's non-binding status, is a different matter altogether.

The European Convention of Human Rights (brought into UK law in 1998) has also had a broadly positive impact, and is enforceable by individuals in domestic courts, which makes it rather more useful.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

one of the reasons that people put up with human rights violations is simply because they do not know any better or they have nothing to compare it to. why are all these dictatorial countries so preoccupied with control of information? we need to send those reports to the hands of every person in north korea and every woman in the "caliphates"

 

[ReBeL]

the only other option is to go and invade. what do you propose?

This option is already used, Bes, under the fake umbrella of protecting human rights.

I fail to see how the Declaration is not a good thing in principle.

I didn't say protecting human rights is not a good thing, but establishing such a charter without having the tools to apply it practically just shows how useless it is.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

you offer no better options

 

[Martin]

Amnesty International is a useless organization that does nothing but words, words, and more words. I can write hundreds of books about the severity of the regime ruling in North Korea and the violations in Guanatanamu. But will that change anything in the real world?? Of course, not. Because Amnesty is as effective as a guy without hands or legs and has nothing but a big mouth.

There are lots of non political organizations around the world that strive for some particular cause without political backing. Clearly, they're never gonna be as effective as someone who can say "do this or we blow up your country", but on the other hand they're much less prone to corruption of the principles they're committed to. In fact, show me a political power that whose ideology and practice is the enforcement of human rights. There doesn't seem to be one, does there? So Amnesty International and the like (Greenpeace, the Red Cross etc) are pretty much the best we have. Really all they can do is write letters and hold campaigns whose aim is to raise an alarm about what's actually happening out there. Chances are without Amnesty International there would even more human rights abuse, cause we'd be less exposed to it and the political pressures against it would be weaker.

You think it would be a better world if they didn't exist?