Human Rights

[Coffee Mug]

The one reason that makes me grateful, for once, to be an American is the American Bill of Rights; I believe it was the most important and revolutionary creations of the US.

I'm curious to know the opinions of RevLeft users on Human Rights; the American Bill of Rights, and the method of spreading/stopping human rights throughout the world.

[lombas]

'Rights' are (yet another) ideal outside myself, forced on me under pretense of 'some ol' good cause'.

[Labor Shall Rule]

All 'human rights' laws and their enforcement are an expression of class forces. With the courts and tribunals in the hands of financial magistrates, it is useless to talk about trying war criminals, or correcting abuses against civilians, considering that it's used as a vehicle for punishing opponents, rather than as unbiased bodies of justice that throw all beasts in their cages.

Gore for example, said "thank god the Serbian people are finally free of this rat, and that he (Milosevic) will finally be subjected to international law," and he would go on to ride his bike, take solemn walks with his wife at his southern estate, while at the same time carrying out similar atrocities on Somalians, Serbs, Iraqis, and Haitians during his years as vice president.

[Sankofa]

The one reason that makes me grateful, for once, to be an American is the American Bill of Rights; I believe it was the most important and revolutionary creations of the US.



Please tell me you aren't serious. Your precious bill of "rights" was written exclusively for white men of property and no one else.

[Bright Banana Beard]

The one reason that makes me grateful, for once, to be an American is the American Bill of Rights; I believe it was the most important and revolutionary creations of the US.

I'm curious to know the opinions of RevLeft users on Human Rights; the American Bill of Rights, and the method of spreading/stopping human rights throughout the world.

I will try to enlighten you. In the America Revolution, the business are threatened because of taxes. However, only 1/3 people in the 13 colony support the revolution. Most of the founding father is just merely businessmen and in reality, only white male who owns property can vote and many of them does have slaves. They will be label terrorist if they do the revolution today. Try to know that bill of rights is never enforced nor the law enforcement enforce it.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Regardless, human rights are a good thing. Yeah, they should be respected more universally, but that's the point; they should be respected more universally. I don't think you guys really have a problem with rights in and of themselves, just how they're enforced.

[Niccolò Rossi]

*snip*

[Qwerty Dvorak]

"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 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
That particular article says that all humans are equal in rights. While this does imply that there are certain rights to which all humans are entitled, it does not follow that these rights are absolute or unqualified. Many "authorities" have, in the past, attempted to claim that certain rights are or were absolute and unqualified--most notably and commonly the right to life--but just because a certain authority (such as the UNDHR) says it doesn't mean that absolutness inheres in all or some rights.



The very idea of "human rights" as some form of sacred, untouchable, unchangeable code endowed on man from his very birth, is laughable at best. No man made law, is applicable in every circumstance and at every time because circumstances vary and times inevitably change. Whilst they may be a good idea, they are not sensible or realistic.
I think you're taking a very narrow view of rights here, namely the view expounded by the UNDHR. Documents like the UNDHR and the ECHR attempt to give legal force to the rights declared in them, but that does not mean that a right is equal to a law. Rights are things completely from the law. Though it may not seem so at times as much of the law is aimed at protecting rights, it is clear that rights can exist even where not protected by law. For example, a large amount of debate goes on in academic and administrative circles regarding whether or not a given law, or the law in general, adequately protects people's rights, or unduly infringes on people's rights. The very fact that law can infringe on human rights proves that rights and law are two separate things.

I also disagree that they are not "sensible or realistic", in fact I think they are a very good way to reconcile the ideal aims of a law or society with practical reality. One of the primary aims of most societies is to ensure the maximum amount of liberty possible for its citizens (and if it's not, it should be). Paradoxically however, a complete lack of regulation or control in a society will generally lead to chaos, to fear, violence, theft etc. It is clear that these conditions are not very compatible with any large degree of liberty. It is necessary, then, to restrict freedom to a small extent, in order to minimalize the extent to which one individual can infringe on the liberty of another (of course capitalism fails catastrophically in this regard, but we are speaking of rights generally, not just in the context of a capitalist society). However, if you just say "well we're going to restrict your freedom so you can't restrict this other guy's freedom", that's going to lead to all sorts of proportionality issues and dilemmas in practice, because "freedom" is an extremely vague and broad term. This is, in my opinion, where rights come in. Rights are essentially specific areas or types of freedoms and entitlements. These rights interact with each other, can be to very extents dependant on each other, they relate to each other and so on. So by dividing in individual's liberty into rights, it becomes much easier to regulate individual autonomy in the interests of other individuals' autonomy, and of the common good. Instead of just limiting someone's freedom for the sake of another's freedom, you can, for example, remove their right to harm another without sufficient justification, which will protect the rights of others to bodily integrity and to life.

[Coffee Mug]

I will try to enlighten you. In the America Revolution, the business are threatened because of taxes. However, only 1/3 people in the 13 colony support the revolution. Most of the founding father is just merely businessmen and in reality, only white male who owns property can vote and many of them does have slaves. They will be label terrorist if they do the revolution today. Try to know that bill of rights is never enforced nor the law enforcement enforce it.

I think the majority of us are aware that the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta were never intended for what they eventually molded into; yet, is this not a good thing?
That the people were able to distinguish the flaws within only applying these rights to white males who own properties - to all of the nations people?


I view Human Rights as a very good thing; yet I am aware that worldwide culture varies and may counteract or contradict our Western interpretation of Human Rights
- A consensus must be reached; perhaps, a common ground which we all can agree are Rights which apply to all of ManKind.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'm a bit unsure about the whole issue of rights - sometimes I feel that the concept of a "right" does not make any sense, because a "right" is ultimately something which has been made up by society - no-one can say where "rights" come from, in the sense that they don't exist as physical entities, and they are not constant - the idea that certain "rights" exist in actually a very recent concept, when one considers the full scope of human history.

"Rights" could even be considered dangerous in that they rest on the idea that it is possible to have a morality which is universally applicable. If we speak of everyone having the "right" to life, then it follows that it is never moral to kill someone, even if doing so could improve the general welfare of the community, or, yield net utility, in the language of utilitarianism.

I favour utilitarianism as a superior system of ethics - we should do whatever results in the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Sometimes we find that a "rights" based approach and a utilitarian conception yield the same conclusions - I don't believe in a "right" to free speech, but I still believe that free speech is important, and would fight to defend it, because allowing free speech makes for a better society.




I view Human Rights as a very good thing; yet I am aware that worldwide culture varies and may counteract or contradict our Western interpretation of Human Rights - A consensus must be reached; perhaps, a common ground which we all can agree are Rights which apply to all of ManKind.

We should, however, avoid any kind of cultural relativism which provides an excuse for obscene practices such as genital mutilation on the grounds that they are part of the "traditions" of a cultural group. We should aspire to a system of ethics which respects the ability of all humans to decide what happens to their own bodies - this is by no means a "western" idea (especially when you consider how "western" governments have treated their own citizens, and those living in countries under their control) it is instead something which applies to all human beings.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I think the majority of us are aware that the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta were never intended for what they eventually molded into; yet, is this not a good thing?
Injustice still exist on the richest nation. So no it not good enough, just because you are protected doesn't mean you entitled to be fair with other.


That the people were able to distinguish the flaws within only applying these rights to white males who own properties - to all of the nations people?
This doesnt apply to what we want, we have sticked system of two party & mass media propaganda-controlled that kept telling us what we should admired, I admire the dream & ideas of the bill of rights, yes, it is great, but the reality show it does not take it seriously. There is the dream version and non-dream version, and we both agree that the dream version is very wonderful for mankind.


I view Human Rights as a very good thing; yet I am aware that worldwide culture varies and may counteract or contradict our Western interpretation of Human Rights
- A consensus must be reached; perhaps, a common ground which we all can agree are Rights which apply to all of ManKind.
There is some common ground for human rights, but for unique it is vary in each community that it should be recongized that we are not equal in the mind as we thought we are. For example, being naked in public city get you in prison, but in some local community, if your old enough, then you can. I belive we should embrace freedom without damaging other's right or injustice will still exist. But there is no perfect system but we can try to be it.