There is one choice, 1 vote for TeChNoWC's debate

Human Rights

The United Nations declaration of Human Rights is feeble, generalized and contradictory to current world policy. It sounds warm and fuzzy, but it in no way represents a free world system or even a world system that secular democratic Western society aims towards anyway (even with all the contradiction they solely employ amongst their own actualities).

Note: This post addresses the abbreviated versions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so as to not make it too long . There may be certain inconsistencies or flaws in my argument that arise due to abbreviation, that are cleared up in the original declaration. If you wish we may discuss these further in.
  • Just about every right stated bears ground for refutation
    Before I start, the major concern is primarily with the issue of restraining someone of their given rights due to circumstance eg. people convicted of a crime - whether right or wrong many of these rights are still abolished.

    1. "We are all free and equal. We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and ideas. We should all be treated in the same way."

    Treated by whom? Each other? Does this refer to courtesy? Does this refer to appropriation of dialogue? Does this refer to how we acknowledge one another?

    How can it be rationally possible to treat everyone exactly the same way? How can we expect to treat Joe Bloggs down the street the same way we would treat loved ones, our children, our husband or wife? Are we advocating Communism and suggesting that everyone be given equal portions? Are we suggesting that in all our dealings we must appropriate a level of balance between how gracious and nice we are to everyone? It's silly, too broad and general. It means nothing.

    Equality in what manner? In the same regards, this needs to be defined. Why does a black person recieve certain benefits that I do not? Is it the pursuit of legal and social equality rather than the expression of it? Is it availability or practice? Why is the prisoner not free? Why is the prisoner not equal? (Before you answer this check right number 30 - no one and for no reason). People still recieve varying civil liberties that others may not. A child does not have the liberty of being served alcohol in a pub. Is this equality?

    This is not about whether or not the child should be allowed to drink in a pub, but whether or not the set rights reflect how we conduct modern society and law. It is at odds with one another.

    2. "Don't discriminate. These rights belong to everybody, whatever our differences."

    One word - prisoner. While there is an absolution of discrimination on the grounds of 'guilty before proven innocent', once he is guilty there is a discrimination between the rights of the free man and the convicted.

    3. "The right to life. We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety."

    Death penalty. Victims of the death penalty are not given this right and to justify it is in breach of the last Right.

    4. "Slavery – past and present. Nobody has any right to make us a slave. We cannot make anyone our slave."

    Little wrong with this statement, although while slavery has been abolished in title, the rammifications of slavery are still present in instance, eg. the African American slaves when freed usually lived under a worse slave 'system' known as 'indebted' and a need for labour for money - capitalism induced slavery. While free, the choice was keep acting like a slave or starve and die, and conditions were usually worse as pre-slave owners could no longer accomodate for their employers as was custom for slavery.

    5. "Torture. Nobody has any right to hurt us or to torture us."

    The U.S, U.K, Canada, Australia, Germany and many other nations still employ torture within government organizations and miliary service. It is standard practice with set rules and procedures. This is in breach of right no. 5.

    And using the word hurt? Dumb. That means you cannot smack a child, restrain a violent man or woman, or even use any kind of force at all.

    6. "We all have the same right to use the law. I am a person just like you!"

    Foreign policy?

    And what law? International law? Law of the country? Religious law?

    7. "We are all protected by the law. The law is the same for everyone. It must treat us all fairly."

    Mostly this is enforced and practiced, for criminals, immigrants and freemen. Yet, their is no commonsense in supposing that the law treats us all 'fairly'. The law supposes to treat you according to what you deserve, not fair no matter what.

    8. "Fair treatment by fair courts. We can all ask for the law to help us when we are not treated fairly."

    Seems like a right that is generally aspired to.

    9. "Unfair detainment. Nobody has the right to put us in prison without a good reason and keep us there, or to send us away from our country."

    The same, we aim to uphold this. Yet being suspected of a crime or having the motives to commit a future crime is grounds for detainment for long periods of time, as is holding information that could threaten lives. And once released, you can be immediately reprimanded again for the same reasons. This right serves little purpose within many extreme cases.

    10. "The right to trial. If we are put on trial this should be in public. The people who try us should not let anyone tell them what to do."

    Again, this is generally enforced.

    11. "Innocent until proven guilty. Nobody should be blamed for doing something until it is proven. When people say we did a bad thing we have the right to show it is not true."

    This may sound pedantic, but I am doing so for the sake of maintaining a perfectly binding list of rights - a man who is killed on the frontline does not get stopped to defend their case before they are shot down by enemy fire. This right is not applicable to these people. Again, I am not debating the practice, I am debating the system of rights that contradicts this.

    2. "The right to privacy. Nobody should try to harm our good name. Nobody has the right to come into our home, open our letters or bother us or our family without a good reason."

    We may try to enforce this but we are not as definitive as this statement would suggest. The 'good reason' clause protects the government should it practice invasion of privacy (as it most certainly does), which is the kind of relativity that may just save alot of these points from induced 'absolute' scrutiny.

    13. "Freedom to move. We all have the right to go where we want in our own country and to travel as we wish."

    Prisoner.

    14. "The right to asylum. If we are frightened of being badly treated in our own country, we all have the right to run away to another country to be safe."

    This right is not always available. Again think prisoners, think foreign policy and immigration laws.

    15. "The right to a nationality. We all have the right to belong to a country."

    Then if a person was a citizen of a particular country and only one country at this moment in time, then it would be unlawful to deny them their citizenry for fear of taking away their right to nationalism under any circumstance whatsoever. This is not enforced.

    16. "Marriage and family. Every grown-up has the right to marry and have a family if they want to. Men and women have the same rights when they are married, and when they are separated."

    What? Read the last sentenced. Its almost suggesting right there and then that we have the right to marry while we are still married. And what of gay marriage? It is still illegal in many countries within the UN.

    17. "Your own things. Everyone has the right to own things or share them. Nobody should take our things from us without a good reason."

    This statement is plausible considering it is enforced, and the 'good reason' clause protects it from extenuating deviants.

    18. "Freedom of thought. We all have the right to believe in what we want to believe, to have a religion, or to change it if we want."

    True within most democratic UN nations.

    19. "Free to say what you want. We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people."

    America employs this policy but within my country, Australia, freedom of speech is not a clause within the Constitution. You are not entitled to say particular things that would incriminate you. Within the freedom of speech clause saying something that would incriminate you only makes you liable should you actually commit the crime, whereas without it you are liable even if you don't.

    20. "Meet where you like. We all have the right to meet our friends and to work together in peace to defend our rights. Nobody can make us join a group if we don't want to."

    Bull. "Trespassers will be prosecuted". Private property and policies that restrict access to facilities - I can't walk into an RSL club with a hat on, but a woman can - and another example of legal inequality and discrimination. I want to wear a hat, I don't care if I don't have a vagina.

    21. "The right to democracy. We all have the right to take part in the government of our country. Every grown-up should be allowed to choose their own leaders."

    And what of UN countries that do not wish to pursue a democratic political system?

    22. "The right to social security. We all have the right to affordable housing, medicine, education, and child care, enough money to live on and medical help if we are ill or old."

    This is true within my own country but I believe that the American system does not entitle all people to welfare.

    23. "Workers' rights. Every grown-up has the right to do a job, to a fair wage for their work, and to join a trade union."

    This statement I find little fault with.

    24. "The right to play. We all have the right to rest from work and to relax."

    And who enforces this? People can be worked as often as is required. It is a standard but not a law.

    25. "A bed and some food. We all have the right to a good life. Mothers and children, people who are old, unemployed or disabled, and all people have the right to be cared for."

    The right to a good life - what a statement. How does one externally define what a good life is and when this right has been taken away? Does a prisoner have a good life? He may do - so the statement means nothing and bears no entitlements. It does not suppose that you must have a good life, its just available to you, and their is no definition as to what is needed for a good life so availability equates to zilch. The right does suppose three things, which we do have a right for, that may be involved in what needs to be available - that is care, a bed and food. Welfare does not, by law, state that people need these, it simply (if at all) entitles people to money.

    26. "The right to education. Education is a right. Primary school should be free. We should learn about the United Nations and how to get on with others. Our parents can choose what we learn."

    This statement contradicts itself. If parents can choose what we learn then they could choose that we learn nothing, which breaches the right in itself.

    27. "Culture and copyright. Copyright is a special law that protects one's own artistic creations and writings; others cannot make copies without permission. We all have the right to our own way of life and to enjoy the good things that "art," science and learning bring."

    This statement I also find little fault with.

    28. "A free and fair world. There must be proper order so we can all enjoy rights and freedoms in our own country and all over the world."

    Free and fair, again, not entitled to everyone and rationally impossible to entitle to all people.

    29. "Our responsibilities. We have a duty to other people, and we should protect their rights and freedoms."

    A right to be able to fufill our responsibilities to others. Little fault with this statement, that I can find.

    30. "Nobody can take away these rights and freedoms from us."

    Now here is the big hitter. You cannot take away another's rights, all stated above, under any circumstance. To confine, to torture, to disavow marriage, to discriminate, to show inequalities.

    Our society contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    Voted for by TeChNoWC.
    View 6 comments
  • :

 

None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →