UN rights council gets cold shoulder from Ottawa

[saskganesh]

the idea behind these new "rights" is to make support for "political rights" meaningful. in other words, liberty is great, but if you are hungry, cold, stupid and diseased in an otherwise free society, liberty isn't that useful.

  They are just that: human rights not 'the secret of human happiness and prosperity'.

I'll opt with door B. Human rights, All of them, are indeed the secret of human happiness and prosperity.

I would say they are a necessary but not sufficient condition.

fair enough. some people will still make bad choices that make themselves unhappy.

[saskganesh]

the idea behind these new "rights" is to make support for "political rights" meaningful. in other words, liberty is great, but if you are hungry, cold, stupid and diseased in an otherwise free society, liberty isn't that useful.

  They are just that: human rights not 'the secret of human happiness and prosperity'.

I'll opt with door B. Human rights, All of them, are indeed the secret of human happiness and prosperity.

The problem is that making the goal sufficiently utopian puts it out of reach of most states.

It is reasonably easy for a poor government to avoid killing dissidents - they merely have to stop doing it. Much more difficult for them to create the sort of social ritches that can support the modern welfare state. The two are not concerns of the same kind.

it's a process. rights evolve. utopian? cheap food, clean water and basic education/health are not expensive. $3000 baby strollers/$3 million weapons systems are expensive though. its really an issue of priorities.

[viper37]

of course, this means that Montreal will be occupied by the Russians. I don't know if you want  that.

The guys that give a new meaning to gay clubbing?

It's funny that in many Euro countries you can't club seals but it's always open season on gays.  Go figure.

[Berkut]

I love the argument that basically comes down to the claim that a socialist welfare state is a fundamental human right.

[Malthus]

the idea behind these new "rights" is to make support for "political rights" meaningful. in other words, liberty is great, but if you are hungry, cold, stupid and diseased in an otherwise free society, liberty isn't that useful.

  They are just that: human rights not 'the secret of human happiness and prosperity'.

I'll opt with door B. Human rights, All of them, are indeed the secret of human happiness and prosperity.

The problem is that making the goal sufficiently utopian puts it out of reach of most states.

It is reasonably easy for a poor government to avoid killing dissidents - they merely have to stop doing it. Much more difficult for them to create the sort of social ritches that can support the modern welfare state. The two are not concerns of the same kind.

it's a process. rights evolve. utopian? cheap food, clean water and basic education/health are not expensive. $3000 baby strollers/$3 million weapons systems are expensive though. its really an issue of priorities.

It's $2,000 baby strollers - gotta get that right. 

Anyway, "utopian" in terms of third world nations, many of whom lack the resources and infrastructure to provide "cheap food, clean water and basic education/health care" to their citizens, no matter how they prioritize matters; it would require a degree of redistribution and social control which would, in turn, no doubt require something in the way of "$3 million waepons systems" to enforce, if it was possible at all.

[DGuller]

The problem with this approach is that it leaves no room to criticize countries which hang gays and torture dissidents. Sure, they are violating "rights", but what is a "right" anyway? Could be anything.

And what exactly is wrong with such an interpretation?  Indeed almost anything can be a right if we all agree to it.  I always considered the concept of "natural rights" to be religious in nature.

[Berkut]

The problem with this approach is that it leaves no room to criticize countries which hang gays and torture dissidents. Sure, they are violating "rights", but what is a "right" anyway? Could be anything.

And what exactly is wrong with such an interpretation?  Indeed almost anything can be a right if we all agree to it.  I always considered the concept of "natural rights" to be religious in nature.

I think he stated what the problem was - if human rights are whatever two people say they are, then the term becomes largely meaningless. Who cares if you are a human rights abuser, everyone is, since it is impossible to actually NOT be an abuser, since there will always be someone who thinks *something* is an abuse of human rights, like not getting an Ivy league education or something.

I think the concept of "natural" rights might be a construct, but it is a supremely useful construct. That we should ditch it is a terrible idea.

[Malthus]

The problem with this approach is that it leaves no room to criticize countries which hang gays and torture dissidents. Sure, they are violating "rights", but what is a "right" anyway? Could be anything.

And what exactly is wrong with such an interpretation?  Indeed almost anything can be a right if we all agree to it.  I always considered the concept of "natural rights" to be religious in nature.

If "human rights" are indeed meaningless, we might as well stop worrying about them.

Though why not use them to denote repugnance for those who rape, torture and murder in the name of the government? That is at least useful.

The attitude that such actions are repugnant may be religious in origin as you say, but that doesn't make it wrong: I think atheists can agree that raping, torturing etc. is a bad thing, and repugnant. 

[Valmy]

it's a process. rights evolve. utopian? cheap food, clean water and basic education/health are not expensive. $3000 baby strollers/$3 million weapons systems are expensive though. its really an issue of priorities.

I don't see how something being good to have, essential for life even, and not expensive (and thats a bunch of bullshit anyway since providing the things you listed are incredibly expensive) makes them a human right.

Making sure all people have clean food, clean water, and basic education and health care is a good priority to have but I fail to see how they are human rights.  Failing to provide those things is not a human rights violation or we would essentially be labeling countries human rights violators simply for being poor.  That is total crap.

[Berkut]

Holy shit, don't even stick that quote under my name!

[Valmy]

Holy shit, don't even stick that quote under my name!

Whoops sorry.

[Malthus]

Holy shit, don't even stick that quote under my name!

I read the quote and I was thinking "that doesn't sound like something Berkut would say ... " 

[saskganesh]

I love the argument that basically comes down to the claim that a socialist welfare state is a fundamental human right.

if publically-funded education and sanitation is socialist welfare, go for it.

[DGuller]

Making sure all people have clean food, clean water, and basic education and health care is a good priority to have but I fail to see how they are human rights.  Failing to provide those things is not a human rights violation or we would essentially be labeling countries human rights violators simply for being poor.  That is total crap.

Rights don't have to be absolute, they can be conditional.  Having people starving in a poor country is certainly less offensive to one's sensibilities than having people starve in a very rich country.  The former just comes with the territory, while the latter is the result of criminal indifference.

[Warspite]

So what you guys are saying is that a law that, say, forbids women from having an education, is not infringing upon any rights?