If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
the only one that should be added to the list is the right to renounce the rights set out, as and when i see fit.........otherwise i have been given no choice.
Well that's definitely contradictory. How can you have the right to give up your rights? That would render your own choice somewhat...contradictory.
now you are just getting caught up in the semantics, i am against the whole thing of having a formally defined set of rules that I have no say in...........if there has to be some kind of list, there should also be the choice to opt out.........that is moral autonomy, i am repeating myself now.
Have you tried reading the link provided in the initial post? It explains the point pretty adequately.
No. That's exactly what it isn't. I'm talking about the logical principles behind rights and choice.
What would be your alternative?
That's what I was trying to say :thumb:
well what did we do before 1948?.........i'm sure people had the rights to decide what they wanted, they just didn't need to be told it's something that's implicit in nature, and by clearly defining it it's like a straightjacket one-fits-all policy..........moral autonomy does exist to some degree, of course society has rules, just lately there are far too many.......including those that override human rights, so what is the point?......
my alternative would be to go back to a pre-1948 style of doing things.........people forget this rigid formula is a fairly recent idea, the world isn't gonna fall apart without the universal declaration of human rights you know.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
I know it might have been abused but I still stand by something that starts
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Slavery. Attempts to wipe out religions and ethnic groups. Empires. Jail and even execution without trial. Etc.
i agree it does sound noble, but it doesn't instantly fix all the problems in the world, in fact most things carried on exactly the same as before, it's just a nice bit of legislation that ovverrides popular sovereignty, something very underrated these days........
and slavery was abolished before the UDHR, that's my point we inherently knew it was wrong, we didn't need some declaration to tell us that........religious and ethnic groups are still being targeted, america still thinks of itself as an empire, as for execution without trial are you telling me this was commonplace in 1947?
the world didn't change drastically just because some piece of paper was signed....life in 1947 and 1949 was not worlds apart........humans being more civilised towards each other is not a result of UDHR, more at the horror at what we'd been doing to each other in the war. and shock horror, terrible things still do happen........
That wasn't the point. It was a safeguard against the future. In many ways it has made the world a better place.
Anyway, I'm off to enjoy my freedom by getting lashed and painting the town red (not literally as that's illegal).
The problem that is being highlighted is that the concept of human rights has been cynically exploited by Western powers, so that rather than protecting the rights of the people of other societies (where many suspect that there is a strategic geopolitical reason to intervene), the concept is invoked as justification for attacking the state and the people.
We've certainly seen that our own legal system is prepared to put the interest of the state first and to exxempt it from the European Human Rights Act, where that suits the political masters.
If they were being used as a concept to attack us, I suspect we would be less keen on them.
Michael Howard is already saying that if the Tories come into power the Human Rights Act is at risk....... because it gives rights to the people that he using in his political campaign.
They do, when looked at through the authors lens appear to be something of a duoble edged sword.
how (i notice you ignored the rest of my counter argument)? the whole idea is we learn from our mistakes or we don't.........you can't attribute the progress of mankind to a bit of paper.
Conservative Party - News
I'd have thought his own party would report what he meant.
What you are talking about there is chaos though, there has to be limits other wise [in extremis] someone could claim the right to kill.
Do you disagree with the rights which the UN mandates? Do you disagree with the rights which the European Court mandates?
What other rights would you like?
I am saying rights should not be defined for individuals without consent, as it provides a framework states can use to violate sovereignty, with a convenient pretext........if i feel hard done by i should be able to go to the courts and appeal to have a certain right, most of the UDHR is common sense why do we need it spelled out for us?........yes someone could claim the right to kill, but i doubt the courts would grant it to them.......i dont think it would be chaotic, it would just mean governments can't claim to be protecting the rights of humans anywhere without the consent of the persons concerned e.g. the iraqi people didn't ask u.s. to invade, the u.s. assumed it was their moral duty to bring freedom and democracy, or at least that is their justification of it...........don't be surprised if you see this excuse being used in the future, turned off and on to legalise atrocities that otherwise have no legality.........i'm sure things weren't that bad in 1947, and i don't think horrific human rights violations have been avoided because of the legislation, that would not have been avoided anyways.........
I think you're mixing up two points here. The declaration for human rights may be used as part of a country's justification for example, for invading another country - if you're going to take Iraq as an example then Bush may have said that the Iraqis were suffering human rights abuses but that doesn't make the declaration for human rights the reason that people have died. It's Bush using everything he can to appeal to people's sympathies and gain support. It's got sod all to do with the legitimacy of the declaration.
As for your point about the media, the problem there is exactly that - with the MEDIA, not with the existence of human rights. Organisations like Amnesty International, Ockenden and STAR fight constantly for the upholding of human rights in the genocide you have spoken about; just because you don't hear about their work as much as Bush fannying about with WMD's doesn't make the existence of a human rights declaration any less valid.
But you are suggesting that you should have the "right" to determine your own rights. Therefore the court could not intervene. If they did then that would in itself be an infringment of this right.
wow getting all complicated and all...i can see your point Apollo...maybe the makers of the original draft of human rights had good intentions...the world was just receeding from the bloodiest war in history...i think there was a need to protect individuals at the time...maybe their way of going about it was wrong but i don't think at the time it was a deliberate ploy so countries further generations down the line could abuse...i just think the countries today have siezed it and manipulated it themselves...
no, only to determine if you require a certain right, then you could claim it, to have it declared for you is where the problem lies........
:yes:
although it is an amazing co-incidence that the states manipulating the rights are the same ones who drew them up.......
:eek2:
hmm... :chin: DAMN AMERICANS BIG CONSPIRACY!!! :shocking:
yes i mean who really knows what the intentions were, maybe just a grand coincidence...........my point is only very few states or people for that matter were actually involved in drafting the UDHR, so then for it to be universally binding is very wrong........
not conspiracy - co-incidence
no....really.....
sure i believe ya
*hides under table anxiously with gas mask on in case monkey man nukes the earth in the name of human rights*
I may be being stupid here but I'm not really seeing how this makes sense - force is NOT necessarily justified to impose it - that was never said. That's something people have decided is right; 'people' being power hungry idiots who need an excuse to cover up their greed and a way of propounding their Christianity. America would not have been completely fucked when it came out there were no WMD's, because there would have been nobody for it to answer to, except the UN, and there's not a lot the UN could do against a superpower given the fact that the UN has no army of its own and would have to borrow one from other countries, all of which wouldn't comply because they'd be scared of being the next country for our favourite superpower to pick on.
ETA: I think the people who voted Bush in in the first place are so blinded by his patriotism and religious faith that they'd still have supported him when there were no WMD's anyway - exactly as it worked out. Bush is the laughing stock of the majority of the world and "America" is slowly becoming a synonym for "stupid". Don't think they've got off unscathed. Certainly not to the extent they should have been ass-kicked for their actions, but they've suffered a blow.
As for the issue of consent, I don't think there are many people out there who would rather it wasn't their right not to be tortured, or to eat, or be educated.
Look at it this way: if someone didn't turn a ambulance on and tried to make it go to rescue a dying child, nobody would say that the ambulance was crap and the reason for the death of the child. It wasn't being used properly; it's the driver that's crap.