UN rights council gets cold shoulder from Ottawa

[MadImmortalMan]

Respecting human rights is done by omission. Violating them is done by commission.

[DisturbedPervert]

I think a worthy precondition to a life with dignity is a regular blowjob. Does that make it a human right?

Give me fellatio or give me death.

[Berkut]

They are rights because we decide they are worthwhile preconditions for having a life with dignity.

I think a worthy precondition to a life with dignity is a regular blowjob. Does that make it a human right?

we have to decide. as a virile male, I am very sympathetic. now all we have to do is get more agreement from our peers.

So you define a human right as anything some critical mass (defined by....whatever) decides is good to have?

So in fact you would argue that a blowjob *could be* a human right?

[ulmont]

So you define a human right as anything some critical mass (defined by....whatever) decides is good to have?

Sure, why not, that's how constitutional rights work:

in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.

[Berkut]

So you define a human right as anything some critical mass (defined by....whatever) decides is good to have?

Sure, why not, that's how constitutional rights work:

in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.

But that isn't what your quote says.

[crazy canuck]

I don't like this idea that "human rights" becomes a proxy term for political positions. It is a cheap rhetorical trick used to label those who do not agree with you as a "human rights abuser".

This is the single most important vexing issue confronting Human Rights Tribunals today.  They have mutated terribly from what they were first intended to be.  They have gone from a mechanism to ensure equal treatment to a mechanism of advocating super priority for certain groups.

[Berkut]

I don't like this idea that "human rights" becomes a proxy term for political positions. It is a cheap rhetorical trick used to label those who do not agree with you as a "human rights abuser".

This is the single most important vexing issue confronting Human Rights Tribunals today.  They have mutated terribly from what they were first intended to be.  They have gone from a mechanism to ensure equal treatment to a mechanism of advocating super priority for certain groups.

Indeed. "Human rights" to many simply means socialism - the idea that you cannot have a state that respects human rights unless it engages in large scale wealth re-distribution.

[Admiral Yi]

So you define a human right as anything some critical mass (defined by....whatever) decides is good to have?

Sure, why not, that's how constitutional rights work:

in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.

I think Berkut's concern is more when the majority starts running wild with what their *own* "rights" are.

[ulmont]

I think Berkut's concern is more when the majority starts running wild with what their *own* "rights" are.

Isn't that just voting?

[Admiral Yi]

Isn't that just voting?

We vote for plenty of things that we don't enshrine in the Constitution.

[Berkut]

Isn't that just voting?

We vote for plenty of things that we don't enshrine in the Constitution.

Indeed - and that is just my point.

The entire purpose of this watering down of "human rights" is, to some extent, the effort to hijack the term to be used in simply political disagreements.

Why does something have the be a violation of human rights to have any merit? It is ludicrous.

What is more ludicrous is the idea that if you don't vote for Proposition XYZ to funnel more cash to poor mothers with crippled babies, you are a abuser of human rights.

[Valmy]

They are rights because we decide they are worthwhile preconditions for having a life with dignity. if you think that's total crap that's just wonderful.

a lot of these good things are not expensive. a lot of our current mess is very expensive. for example, if you subsidize farmers not to grow commodities for export, but to maintain green edges around waterways instead, you save money on water purification,  nutrient runoff cleanups, flood controls and habitat restoration.

I think it is total crap that those things are considered human rights yes.  I most assuredly do not have the right to be given things or have the right to be forced to provide them, even if I agree those things should be provided or taken.

[Malthus]

Isn't that just voting?

We vote for plenty of things that we don't enshrine in the Constitution.

Indeed - and that is just my point.

The entire purpose of this watering down of "human rights" is, to some extent, the effort to hijack the term to be used in simply political disagreements.

Why does something have the be a violation of human rights to have any merit? It is ludicrous.

What is more ludicrous is the idea that if you don't vote for Proposition XYZ to funnel more cash to poor mothers with crippled babies, you are a abuser of human rights.

I'm not sure of what to call this process, but I see it at work all the time.

Everyone agrees that X is terrible - where "X" is "abuse of human rights", "racism", "genocide" or whatever. It is terrible because there are actual, concrete examples and people can see for themselves that it is terrible.

Then along comes someone who points out that X isn't really all that easy to define - Y is *sort of* like X, shouldn't it be included? Everyone also agrees that avoiding Y is a good and worthy goal ...

Pretty soon, someone out there is demanding that A, B and C ought *also* to be included in the definition of X. Seems sort of spoil-sportish to deny them ... only problem is, A, B & C really have nothing in common with X, other than that someone thinks that avoiding them is a good and worthy goal.

So eventually X (whatever it is) loses all meaning and coherence:  me being denied the right to a government paid car is some sort of 'human rights violation', or some ethnic group denied funding for a library is now "cultural genocide"*.


*Actual example!

[Berkut]

Yeah, we have had this same discussion over that very word in fact - genocide.

And torture.

[crazy canuck]

Respecting human rights is done by omission. Violating them is done by commission.

Not quite true.  You can also violate human rights by ommission by failing to properly accomodate a disadvantaged group.  An example of this is the failure to renovate to provide reasonable access for people with disabilities.