[TheMosco]

so i just started taking law and american society this semester(high school) and we were going over the universal declaration of human rights. The teacher was asking if anyone had a problem with them, and no one really did. Then he asked more specific questions about whether or not certain actions that the US takes follow these rules. This list is supposed to be something that we as a member of the UN should strive to achieve. Are we supposed to look at these just as prima facie?

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.

So what about homosexuals being denied the right to marry under the law. Religious marriage aside, i mean strictly under the law.

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.

Do these prisoners in Cuba get the same rights we do? I have read about a political leader in Iraq that was arrested with no representation because they claimed he was a trouble maker even though he was elected by the people of the city as their representative. Guess you runs the city now? A former bath party member appointed by the US. Where are his rights?

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

What about the patriot act? Does this give the government the ability to restrict your liberties if they view you as a threat? aren't those who are prosecuted still consider as "everyone"?

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

What is the definition of torture? Is holding someone thousands of miles away in cuba in a small cell restricting them from seeing anyone or get any representation torture? Do they just mean physical torture. Is torture ever ok?

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

So should it matter if the person being prosecuted is an american or not, should he/she get the same rights as us?

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.

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.

Should military tribunals be allowed to try people in secret who are claimed to be terrorists?

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

Doesn't the patriot act allow this?

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.

That basically says you shouldn't try to do anything that would circumvent these rights. I realize that these have no legal standing in the US, but I am just trying to figure out how we can so easily disregard these rights when we, as part of the un, agreed that these rights are something that we should strive to follow.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Your teacher should have explained that the Universal Declaration is hortatory. It was never intended to be a binding document in and of itself. What is binding is the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. It's the treaty that implements parts of the Universal Declaration.

The US is a party to the Covenant, and abides by it. That's not that hard since the Covenant's standards are generally somewhat lower than US domstic Constitutional protections. There is, however, one fairly major exception. The US "reserved" on the question of execution of minors. That's permitted, but controversial. The other major reservation was one allowing affirmative action. Technically, that is racial discrimination, which is forbidden. But the US carved for itself another exception when it ratified the Covenant.

Other than that, there isn't any serious question that the US follows the standards, although you can always construe things differently if you read it as having more teeth than it actually has.

In fact, the US Constitution is far more protective -- which is deliberate. The Covenant was designed to be palatable to even quite oppressive states. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have signed on. That's always the dilemma with human rights law. If you set the standards too high, the treaty would never be ratified by the very states you want to ratify it.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your teacher should have explained that the Universal Declaration is hortatory

As i explained, i understand that the deceleration itself had no legal bindings and that we are just encouraged to follow it. But my point was that if we agree to strive for this ideal, why don't we follow it to the full degree.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
As i explained, i understand that the deceleration itself had no legal bindings and that we are just encouraged to follow it. But my point was that if we agree to strive for this ideal, why don't we follow it to the full degree.

We do. Read the Covenant.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Other than that, there isn't any serious question that the US follows the standards, although you can always construe things differently.

Please, I haven't got the time Simey. You amaze me. You are delusional.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
We do. Read the Covenant.

We don't though, i said fully but as i pointed out we seem to pick and choose how to follow a standard and i am sure there are others that can point out other examples that of how we choose to ignore it, as you did with the affirmative action statement.

n fact, the US Constitution is far more protective -- which is deliberate.

That might be so, but it seems to me this declaration is meant to extend beyond the borders of individual states and that everyone should be entitled to the same rights which is why i wonder how some people can be given rights in this country while others aren't.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
We don't though, i said fully but as i pointed out we seem to pick and choose how to follow a standard and i am sure there are others that can point out other examples that of how we choose to ignore it, as you did with the affirmative action statement.



That might be so, but it seems to me this declaration is meant to extend beyond the borders of individual states and that everyone should be entitled to the same rights which is why i wonder how some people can be given rights in this country while others aren't.

To explain further, you need to read the Covenant and not the Universal Declaration because the Covenant is more specific. For example, you mention equal marriage rights. If you look at the Covenant, you can see that the language cannot be stretched to imply that state parties have to allow gay marriage. Believe me, I'd love it if it were possible, but the treaty doesn't say that. Instead, what the Covenant is getting at is outlawing forced marriage. It's a different subject.

To take another subject: free speech. The Covenant makes clear that the kind of free speech that is internationally protected is much less extensive than is protected by the First Amendment.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
We don't though, i said fully but as i pointed out we seem to pick and choose how to follow a standard and i am sure there are others that can point out other examples that of how we choose to ignore it, as you did with the affirmative action statement.

Call your representative and have him/her propose a bill before congress binding the US to this declaration. Urge them to push the bill through, and we'll see how it turns out. If that doesn't work, start a national drive to do the same. If the people want it bad enough, it just might happen.

Good luck.

[Millennium]

Name any nation which follows the full Declaration; I daresay that nobody does. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", and all that.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
To explain further, you need to read the Covenant and not the Universal Declaration because the Covenant is more specific. For example, you mention equal marriage rights. If you look at the Covenant, you can see that the language cannot be stretched to imply that state parties have to allow gay marriage. Believe me, I'd love it if it were possible, but the treaty doesn't say that. Instead, what the Covenant is getting at is outlawing forced marriage. It's a different subject.

I understand that it doesn't say that they have to allow gay marriage, it says that "human beings" should be given the same rights under the law, and be that statement it would seem logical that the gay marriage should be legal.

Call your representative and have him/her propose a bill before congress binding the US to this declaration. Urge them to push the bill through, and we'll see how it turns out. If that doesn't work, start a national drive to do the same. If the people want it bad enough, it just might happen.

Should i even have to? We live in the land of the free and we agreed to strive toward this ideal yet we disregard it. I mean everyone tried to be all patriotic but they seem to ignore these freedoms that are supposed to make this country so great. It seems like common sense to me that everyone should have these freedoms.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Name any nation which follows the full Declaration; I daresay that nobody does. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", and all that.

Are you saying that i should be quiet because no one else follows it or are you just pointing out that no one follows it?

It would seem to me that it doesn't matter that no one else follows it, we should extend the freedoms that we so deeply cherish.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
Should i even have to?

Yes, because that's how things get done here.

Didn't your teacher tell you about how laws get made and, and how the Constitution gets amended? This is a Law and American Society class you're in, and your teacher is instead spending class time getting you all riled up about how we don't follow the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

How about this - when at least 95% of UN member states value/protect rights equally or better than the US, then we can discuss this further.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
It would seem to me that it doesn't matter that no one else follows it

Well then, it's not quite "universal" then, is it?

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Yes, because that's how things get done here.

Didn't your teacher tell you about how laws get made and, and how the Constitution gets amended? This is a Law and American Society class you're in, and your teacher is instead spending class time getting you all riled up about how we don't follow the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

How about this - when at least 95% of UN member states value/protect rights equally or better than the US, then we can discuss this further.

I think you are spinning what i said, or maybe i didn't explain it well enough. Obviously i know how laws work and how laws get made, what I am saying is that if we are a land based on liberties and freedom, why isn't this stuff common sense?

Well then, it's not quite "universal" then, is it?

Again you are spinning. We agree to strive for a common goal based on freedom, and then we don't fully execute to our ability. Again, we shouldn't have to look at what others are doing, it shouldn't' matter that it even has the word "universal" in it,we agreed that these freedoms are an ideal we should reach.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Well then, it's not quite "universal" then, is it?

The United States should lead by example. Our founders had much higher hopes for their new nation. Unfortunately we have become despotic.

despot
\Des"pot\, n. [F. despote, LL. despotus, fr. Gr. despo`ths master, lord, the second part of which is akin to po`sis husband, and L. potens. See Potent.] 1. A master; a lord; especially, an absolute or irresponsible ruler or sovereign.

note: I'm not going to defend this opinion. If disagree I don't care.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
I think you are spinning what i said, or maybe i didn't explain it well enough. Obviously i know how laws work and how laws get made, what I am saying is that if we are a land based on liberties and freedom, why isn't this stuff common sense?

Because what may be common sense to you may not be to the other 300 million people who live in the nation. What should be freedoms to you may not be to everyone else. Some may want the freedom to have sex with 10-year-olds - just because it's in the name of 'freedom' doesn't mean it is, or should be, legal and accepted. Hence, we submit such issues to the people and see if legislation can pass to codify such freedoms into law.

Again you are spinning. We agree to strive for a common goal based on freedom, and then we don't fully execute to our ability. Again, we shouldn't have to look at what others are doing, it shouldn't' matter that it even has the word "universal" in it,we agreed that these freedoms are an ideal we should reach.

I'm not spinning. You are praising and recommending a document adopted by the United Nations, yet you feel that only one nation should be bound by it - the US.

Our nation was founded a century and a half before the UN, and is based on the Constitution. As society changes, amendments to this constitution can be made. But again, these changes are not going to occur overnight because you and your teacher want them to in the name of 'common sense'. A great many others have to feel the same as you, and they need to be willing to elect officals who will go to Washington and represent their views and wishes.

I admire your idealism. Just realize that there are 300 million other people in this nation who may or may not not feel the same way.

[TheMosco]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by spacefreak:
Because what may be common sense to you may not be to the other 300 million people who live in the nation. What should be freedoms to you may not be to everyone else. Some may want the freedom to have sex with 10-year-olds - just because it's in the name of 'freedom' doesn't mean it is, or should be, legal and accepted. Hence, we submit such issues to the people and see if legislation can pass to codify such freedoms into law.[/QUOTE ]

But I am not talking having sex with 10 year olds, i am talking about for example, "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". That seems like common sense to me based on the supposed values of our nation. I am strictly talking about the freedoms proposed in that declaration, and none of them are talking about 10 years having sex.

I'm not spinning. You are praising and recommending a document adopted by the United Nations, yet you feel that only one nation should be bound by it - the US.

i didn't say other nations should not be bound by it, i said that it doesn't matter if other nations follow it or not, we(as in the US) agreed to it and therefore should try to reach the ideals set in the declaration.

Our nation was founded a century and a half before the UN, and is based on the Constitution. As society changes, amendments to this constitution can be made. But again, these changes are not going to occur overnight because you and your teacher want them to in the name of 'common sense'. A great many others have to feel the same as you, and they need to be willing to elect officals who will go to Washington and represent their views and wishes.

I never said that my teacher believed they should be followed, we never even finished going over it all and he didn't give his opinion at all, he had us give our opinion.

[thunderous_funker]

So the answer to the thread's question is:

Nope.

But no one else does either.

As a species, we're almost as good at thinking up beautiful ideas as we are at excusing ourselves from living up to them.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

But no one else does either.

two wrongs don't make a right though, or in this case many wrongs.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
two wrongs don't make a right though, or in this case many wrongs.

I never claimed otherwise. I'm just pointing out that our power of imagination is probably surpassed by our power of rationalization.

Should we strive to abide by such principles? Absolutely. We should also get more exercise and eat more fiber.

I think you got defensive responses because you singled out the US with your thoughtful introspection.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think you got defensive responses because you singled out the US with your thoughtful introspection.

Thats a good point, I should have widened the scope, but being american, i know more about current american issues than i do issues of other nations. I didn't meant to specifically single out the US and say how bad it was.

the only thing i can think of off the top of my head relating to other countries would be our support of dictators who imprison and kill political and social activists, but i have a feeling i would get more "defensive responses".

[Millennium]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
i didn't say other nations should not be bound by it, i said that it doesn't matter if other nations follow it or not, we(as in the US) agreed to it and therefore should try to reach the ideals set in the declaration.

Should we?

Keep in mind, the document has been changed in the years since it was agreed to. There are some things on there which many people don't consider to be legitimate rights. Indeed, practically everyone who's read the thing has at least one gripe with it.

There's also the matter of definitions. What you consider to be a satisfactory implementation of one right may not be satisfactory to another. "Free speech" may be the most common point of controversy; there are some -like me- who believe that this right should be total, absolute, and sacrosanct, while there are others who wouldn't consider "free speech" to be satisfactory until certain forms of speech (hate speech being the most common example) are restricted or outright banned, because they believe these to be infringing on other rights (mostly rights which people like me don't consider legitimate).

The point is, the UDHR is impossible to implement to everyone's satisfaction. Even were I to form my own nation which I said complied with the entire document, there would be people out there who would argue that my nation did not in fact comply, and give very detailed and rational arguments for that claim.

[thunderous_funker]

Well, you could fire up the old ICC debate.
I think its the same thing. The US not only choses not to join the ICC, but works to undermine it. Not because the ideals are not good, but because the details are messy and we can't take chances that it would interfere with business as usual.

At least other nations are willing to work towards the ideal represented by the ICC. The US not only rejects it, but fights against it.

There. That should get things going.

[saab95]

One wonders what, in that Universal Declaration, allows for the free trade among others.

[itai195]

Uh oh, I do believe t_f is baiting you...



There should be a version of that smiley with a carrot on a string instead.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by saab95:
One wonders what, in that Universal Declaration, allows for the free trade among others.

I hope you are not suggesting that free trade trumps human rights.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
I hope you are not suggesting that free trade trumps human rights.

Depends on which humans you're talking about.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Depends on which humans you're talking about.

Fvkin' A!

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

How about this - when at least 95% of UN member states value/protect rights equally or better than the US, then we can discuss this further.

I'd hate to break this to you. But were at 95%.

There only a handful of countries who treak human rights worse than the US. And most of those are on our hitlist.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I'd hate to break this to you. But were at 95%.

There only a handful of countries who treak human rights worse than the US. And most of those are on our hitlist.

Where did you get that statistic? Did you just pull it out of your ass?

Freedomhouse has the most widely respected list here and here. Sadly, the number of free countries is still in a minority, although the trend has been getting better.

[macvillage.net]

[Removed by force]

[Millennium]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I'd hate to break this to you. But were at 95%.

There only a handful of countries who treak human rights worse than the US. And most of those are on our hitlist.

Sources, please?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
- States where homosexuals can't get health insurance
- States where homosexuals can't even help society by adopting a child

You are right there are states where gay couples can't adopt, although normally, individuals can adopt. However, there are very few countries where gay people are not subject to some form of unequal treatment. You said above that 95% of the world has more rights than the US does. I assure you that in the case of gay rights, that is certainly not the case. The US isn't in the lead, but legally and certainly culturally, it is one of the better places for a gay person to live.

There is no US state that I am aware of that prevents gay people from getting health insurance. I have no idea how you came up with that.

In any case, you seem to have taken the argument to an extreme. Nobody said that the US was "number 1." All that has been said in this thread is that Americans enjoy rights more than most people in the world. Freedom House correctly says that the US is in the handful of countries with the most civil liberties. They don't attempt to order countries beyond that. They don't care who is "number 1" or "number 10." All they are worried about are the basic indicita of a free society. That very much tracks with adherence to the principles of the Universal Declaration, and certainly conforms to the legal requirements of the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which are the subject of the thread.

And I take it your 95% statistic was made up.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
[Removed by force]

Now what does that mean? The post I responded to has vanished!

[swrate]

You will find many sites on the web who defend the human rights and therefore expose the problems.
If we were really respecting human rights, they would be no violence, no war, no oppression, no kids working on this planet, no hunger etc...

[swrate]

]also, the US is often one of the only nations not to sign.... for example the right every human has to food and water.
I read the stats (countries signing about different rights) on a site a while ago could not find it, will look again.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by swrate:
You will find many sites on the web who defend the human rights and therefore expose the problems.
If we were really respecting human rights, they would be no violence, no war, no oppression, no kids working on this planet, no hunger etc...

On this planet? Isn't that going just a little too far?

What are "human rights"? Do you really thing that the US government's alleged disrespect for human rights is what causes violence, hunger, child labor, and war?

"Right to food and water": I'm not so sure I'd call that a basic human right. If you earn it, then certainly you have a right to it. Simply for breathing? I'm not so sure. Whence does this right derive?

[swrate]

Originally posted by Millennium:
On this planet? Isn't that going just a little too far?

What are "human rights"? Do you really thing that the US government's alleged disrespect for human rights is what causes violence, hunger, child labor, and war?

"Right to food and water": I'm not so sure I'd call that a basic human right. If you earn it, then certainly you have a right to it. Simply for breathing? I'm not so sure. Whence does this right derive?

1. the US is not responsible, its a race most populations are into.
child labor also produces US products

2. imo food and water are a right. especially for children
not all "adults" have the possibility to work

3. do you expect children to work for their food and their water?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
[i]"Right to food and water": I'm not so sure I'd call that a basic human right. If you earn it, then certainly you have a right to it. Simply for breathing? I'm not so sure. Whence does this right derive?

Um. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness? Sound familiar?

The right to Life implies the right to food and water. The fact that we've decided to barter with such necessities says much about our basic ruthlessness and greed.

And how do we determine which people "earn" access to food and water and which don't?

People being denied access to food and water are akin to denying people access to sunlight.

Even if I had wealth and power enough to block out the sun to everyone except those I deemed had "earned" it, would that be right?

Sadly enough, it would be legal.

[Sven G]

... And I'd add that the concept of human rights is also rather meaningless without the practice of human solidarity: sadly, we can see this in today's society, where generalized solidarity seems to be a rather rare thing, in the "everyday life" more and more based on superficiality and egoism...