UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

[Monty Cantsin]

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.


Which countries don’t hold true to this ? comments?

[SittingBull47]

too many supposedly sophisticated and civilized countries don't measure up to these standards. This is a really long list of rights, but at least it was interesting.

[Monty Cantsin]

does anyone have a list of wich countries have taken up the univeral declaration of human rights?

[monkeydust]

If it helps....the UK does not have a Bill of Rights in any form at all, other than the meager EU proposed (and not universally binding) human rights bill.


On a side note, I personally am inclined not to support most entrenched bills' of rights, for various reasons.

[Monty Cantsin]

In Australia we don’t have a Bill of Rights, but we have the right to accumulate property. All other human rights we have a “covered” under statue law and common law.

[Capitalist Imperial]

This list is trite pap.

[Osman Ghazi]

Of course it is. Respecting people!
What is this shit?
Rights for the darkies... and what's worse the chinks.
I mean honestly, who writes this crap?

Sorry, CI. I must have stole the words right out of your mouth.

[Monty Cantsin]

Capitalist Imperial, if government officials come to your house and took you alway and put you in a unfair legal system(with now chance of getting off), how would you feel?

[Nickademus]

something to know about the UDHR.... its not like the rest of international law.... its not something countries agree to abide by. all countries around the world are expected to live up to the UDHR .. but there is no enforcement mechanism.

and no country can say they live by those standards....not sweden, not canada and definately not the USA

[Monty Cantsin]

Its enforceable through, economic sanctions and diplomatic means. Also there are committees that review cases in a country. In my own country Australia you can go over the head the government and seek help from the UN. Through there are these measures state autonomy is a big wall in the way of change. But to bring down the wall would bring on much worse problems.

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 07:53 AM
Its enforceable through, economic sanctions and diplomatic means. Also there are committees that review cases in a country. In my own country Australia you can go over the head the government and seek help from the UN. Through there are these measures state autonomy is a big wall in the way of change. But to bring down the wall would bring on much worse problems.
its actually not enforceable because its not considered an international law. international laws are laws that a country has to agree to abide by (which is quite amusing .... we should try that on a national level -- dictate which laws we are willing tolive by and whichones we arejust going to ignore). many of the ideasin the UDHR are included in international laws by which there is an enforcement mechanism but not for 'violations'of the UDHR.

[Monty Cantsin]

Nickademus i know i was talking about then they agree to the udhr.

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 03:10 PM
Nickademus i know i was talking about then they agree to the udhr.
actually you can't agree to the UDHR because its not a law ... its simply a declaration ... states sayingthese are what we think are fundamental rights.

states can adopt the UDHR into their national policy but there is no way of forcing them to abide by it even once they've adopted it.

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 05:48 AM
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.


Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.



These two articles contradict each other. Food, clothing, housing etc do not exist in nature to be freely taken. They must be created out of the sweat of human effort. In order for one person to exercise their "right" to food, clothing, housing etc, another person must provide the sweat to create them. Article 25 requires someone to be enslaved which is against article 4.

This is exactly what I'm referring to in my signature. Article 4 is correct. Article 25 is an abomination. No one has any rights to the fruits of another's labor.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:21 AM
These two articles contradict each other. Food, clothing, housing etc do not exist in nature to be freely taken. They must be created out of the sweat of human effort. In order for one person to exercise their "right" to food, clothing, housing etc, another person must provide the sweat to create them. Article 25 requires someone to be enslaved which is against article 4.

This is exactly what I'm referring to in my signature. Article 4 is correct. Article 25 is an abomination. No one has any rights to the fruits of another's labor.
But the resources used for that do exist in nature to be "freely taken" by humans.

Anyway this kind of "rules" assume that people will work to give back such things to the rest of the society.

[El Che]

I move to have this excised.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

[HankMorgan]

No El Infiltr(A)do, food, clothing, housing and medical care do not exist in nature to be freely taken. Fields of crops do not plant themselves nor do they harvest themselves. Bricks don't stack themselves into buildings and fibers don't weave themselves into cloth. There must be human effort.

Somebody has to sweat before you can exercise your "right" to a free lunch. If you don't sweat for your lunch somebody else has to. That somebody else can sweat for your lunch voluntarily or involuntarily. If they work for your lunch involuntarily they are your slave. Check the definition of slave.

This gets to the first question. For ease let's substitute the word wealth for the phrase food, clothing, housing and medical care. The first question is does wealth just exist or does it have to be created?

If wealth just exists then everyone has a right to a share of it. If wealth just exists then the rich are rich because they've done something evil to steal more than their share from the poor. If wealth just exists then the role of government is to see that everyone gets their share. If wealth just exists then Robin Hood is a hero.

If wealth does NOT just exist then it must be created. If wealth does not exist then a person has rights only to the wealth they've created. The rich may be rich because the are better at creating wealth than the average (I grant that crime exists and one may be rich through theft). If wealth has to be created then it becomes possible to be rich without evil. If wealth must be created then the role of government becomes that of facilitating the creation of wealth. The role of government is to protect and encourage the process by which wealth is created. If wealth has to be created by effort then Robin Hood is a thief and our heros are the people who can figure out new ways to create wealth.

Do food, clothing, housing and medical just exist or must they be created through human effort? How one answers that question determines everything.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 27 2004, 07:22 PM
I move to have this excised.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
[QUOTE]

I completely agree. they are statements of an imperial capitalist age. It fails to acknowledge the need to respect opposing political and economic systems.
It was written by an outspoken capitalist, a Canadian lawyer.

With these few objections accepted I think on the whole these represent excellent intl. goals to strive for.

[Osman Ghazi]

But wealth is not created by one man alone.
Sure, fields do not plant themselves, but more often than not, they are not planted by the people who own them either. They are planted by the workers. So basically, everyone does some work for it, (even the owner) but the owner gets the biggest cut. The problem with the way you are looking at it is that you downplay the role of the worker's in creating wealth.

Also, without food, shelter. clothing, etc a human will die. So what is the difference between denying them a meal or blowing their brains out? Either way the direct cause is death.

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 27 2004, 04:58 PM
Also, without food, shelter. clothing, etc a human will die. So what is the difference between denying them a meal or blowing their brains out? Either way the direct cause is death.
Osman Ghazi, nobody is being denied anything. Hunger does NOT create the right to make another human being a slave.

Turn it around. Osman Ghazi, I'm hungry so you must now go work for me. Are you just going to stand there and deny me my rights as human being? I have a right to your efforts. Where is my lunch?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I think this "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is a load of shit. I think it should be named, "The Universal Requirements of Nations that America Will not Declare Pre-emptive War on", or the "Universal Declaration of Capitalism".


I move to have this excised.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Capitalism see?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 07:43 PM
No El Infiltr(A)do, food, clothing, housing and medical care do not exist in nature to be freely taken. Fields of crops do not plant themselves nor do they harvest themselves. Bricks don't stack themselves into buildings and fibers don't weave themselves into cloth. There must be human effort.

Somebody has to sweat before you can exercise your "right" to a free lunch. If you don't sweat for your lunch somebody else has to. That somebody else can sweat for your lunch voluntarily or involuntarily. If they work for your lunch involuntarily they are your slave. Check the definition of slave.
When did I denied that? All I said was that it wasn't just that people "invents" natural things, they modify them. Such "declarations of human rights" should assume that those who benefit from such "declarations" do give back that "modification" to society.


This gets to the first question. For ease let's substitute the word wealth for the phrase food, clothing, housing and medical care. The first question is does wealth just exist or does it have to be created?

If wealth just exists then everyone has a right to a share of it. If wealth just exists then the rich are rich because they've done something evil to steal more than their share from the poor. If wealth just exists then the role of government is to see that everyone gets their share. If wealth just exists then Robin Hood is a hero.

If wealth does NOT just exist then it must be created. If wealth does not exist then a person has rights only to the wealth they've created. The rich may be rich because the are better at creating wealth than the average (I grant that crime exists and one may be rich through theft). If wealth has to be created then it becomes possible to be rich without evil. If wealth must be created then the role of government becomes that of facilitating the creation of wealth. The role of government is to protect and encourage the process by which wealth is created. If wealth has to be created by effort then Robin Hood is a thief and our heros are the people who can figure out new ways to create wealth.

Do food, clothing, housing and medical just exist or must they be created through human effort? How one answers that question determines everything.

So when does a rich person "sweat" for "wealth"? Your argument is simple: let's use the reality of economics and claim that capitalism is the only "realist" answer. Because, after all, capitalists work all day long and those lazy idiots never produce wealth, and are only hired to make the capitalist feel he is making charity! Wow. I thought "leftists" wanted a revolution because they recognized that those capitalists enslaved the poor workers so that they produce wealth, which then they take out and pay them the minimal number they can. Obviously I don't live in the "real world".

Maybe it is because I don't live in "America"???

Or is it because I have a different view than most people? :rolleyes:


Capitalism see?

It depends on what can be considered "property".

Overall, it has some capitalist and conservative ideas such as this:


The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

The will of the people contradicts the authority of government.

But Articles 23 and 24 are "pretty good".

[Osman Ghazi]

What the hell do you mean that no one is being denied anything? You want to deny people food, shelter, clothing etc. Or am I missing the point of your post? You say that they don't have a right to these things but without them they will die, so you might as well take away their right to life while your at it.


Turn it around. Osman Ghazi, I'm hungry so you must now go work for me. Are you just going to stand there and deny me my rights as human being? I have a right to your efforts. Where is my lunch?

No one is proposing a free lunch.

Why don;t you turn it around. You are poor and don't have a job and you have no money to buy any of the necessities of life. But will I give you anything? No because that would be a free lunch. "Get a job you fuckin' bum! What, you can't? Then go fuck yourself". So now your dead. I consider that a much worse outcome than the one you presented.

[HankMorgan]

Osman Ghazi, you can have article 4 OR you can have article 25 but you cannot have them both. They contradict each other. I choose article 4 and reject article 25. You choose article 25 and reject article 4.

You do see how the two articles contradict each other?

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 28 2004, 05:43 PM
Why don;t you turn it around. You are poor and don't have a job and you have no money to buy any of the necessities of life. But will I give you anything? No because that would be a free lunch. "Get a job you fuckin' bum! What, you can't? Then go fuck yourself". So now your dead. I consider that a much worse outcome than the one you presented.
The bum can work for himself or you can work for the bum. Those are the two choices.

Which one represents freedom? What about article 4 and slavery? Think man.

[HankMorgan]

Sorry about the multiple posts.

Here is a little on charity. If you see a person with no job and an empty belly then by all means buy them a lunch. This is a good and charitible thing to do. The key to charity is it has to be voluntary. If we are forced by law or articles of "Human Rights" then it is no longer voluntary and therefore no longer charity. We become instead slaves.

Charity is good. Slavery is bad. Article 25 appears to be charity but it's slavery. Why? Because it is involuntary.