http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/06/09/steven-edwards-un-rights-council-gets-cold-shoulder-from-ottawa.aspx
QuoteCanada told the United Nations Tuesday more than half of the 68 recommendations other countries say will improve Canadian human rights standards are unacceptable.
In an address to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Canada rejected outright 14 of the recommendations issued in March, and partially rejected 22.
Rejected advice touched on issues that included racial discrimination, aboriginal rights, fighting poverty, and seeking clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty overseas.
Delivering the snub, Marius Grinius, Canadian ambassador in Geneva, read from a prepared statement that said Canada had "sought to approach its review in an open and constructive manner."
In Ottawa, several human rights groups said Canada had missed an opportunity to set an example to abuser states of the way forward.
But the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch noted many of the countries handing out advice have themselves poor human rights records.
The so-called Universal Periodic Review is a key oversight component of the 47-member Council, which the UN launched in 2006 after the earlier Human Rights Commission became top-heavy with human-rights abuser states.
All 192 UN member states will have undergone their first review by 2011.
"The UN's discussion of Canada's human rights record was hard to take seriously when those doing the lecturing were serial human rights abusers like Iran, Russia, Cuba and Algeria," said Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director. "Democracies like Canada also need to be scrutinized, but not by the anti-democratic regimes of Ahmadinejad, Castro, and Putin."
But Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, argued the identities of countries making the recommendations were irrelevant if the issue was of concern in Canada.
"Our focus has to be on the message, not the messenger," he said.
Neve also said responding positively strengthens Canada's hand when seeking to persuade abuser states to change their ways.
"It's very important to be able to look at countries like Iran, Egypt or Cuba in the eye and say, 'You asked us to reform our practices, and we did. We're now expecting you to do the same,'" he said.
Still, Neve noted several of Canada's "closest friends and allies" were the source of some rejected recommendations.
Norway, Denmark and Austria, for example, were among countries encouraging Canada to adopt the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada has argued the document, launched in 2007, would allow for the re-opening of historically settled land claims.
Canada rejected as superfluous a recommendation from Egypt which, despite its record of discriminating against gays and other minorities, had called for the training of judges and prosecutors on the nature of race-based hate crimes.
On the economic front, Canada rejected related recommendations from Russia and Ghana to launch a national poverty-elimination program. Canada said provinces and territories have jurisdiction in that area.
On the death penalty, Canada rejected calls by Denmark and the Netherlands to seek clemency for Canadians facing capital punishment in all cases, including where Canada considers the "rule of law" reigns.
The Council agreed by consensus to adopt Canada's response as part of the international record, but not before Algeria, Cuba, Russia and Iran expressed additional criticism.
By contrast, the United States said Canada "sets high standards for its human rights practices."
Yeah, I gotta say, being lectured about human rights from the UN would just leave me with a "Go Fuck Yourself" response.
We're Canada. If some people here are treated badly, it's probably their fault.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 09, 2009, 08:35:38 PM
We're Canada. If some people here are treated badly, it's probably their fault.
As a quebecer, never forget that. You deserve a better language :contract:
:P
I can well imagine that this sort of nit-picking aids regimes that regularly torture dissidents and hang gays.
"But your judges don't have race-based sensitivity training - you are just as bad as us".
The UN is really an impressive organization. Where else can one find such a unique combination of stultifying bureaucracy, outrageous stupidity and sheer offensiveness?
I guess I missed the "human right" to not be poor.
QuoteMarius Grinius
How imperial.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 09:26:45 AM
I guess I missed the "human right" to not be poor.
Heh I remember back in university days having many an argument about the difference between so-called "positive" and "negative" human rights.
Again, the purpose of such always seemed to me to be basically to give comfort to abusive regimes. After all, even the advanced societies of the first world cannot provide all the "positive" rights for everyone - some people here are still poor, uneducated, etc. ...
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 09:32:39 AM
After all, even the advanced societies of the first world cannot provide all the "positive" rights for everyone - some people here are still poor, uneducated, etc. ...
Right even when you have all your rights you still have to get out there and earn your keep. The UN claims that everybody has a right to free stuff?
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 09:38:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 09:32:39 AM
After all, even the advanced societies of the first world cannot provide all the "positive" rights for everyone - some people here are still poor, uneducated, etc. ...
Right even when you have all your rights you still have to get out there and earn your keep. The UN claims that everybody has a right to free stuff?
They wouldn't put it that way, of course. :D More like "everyone has a right to a certain basic level of support, medical care and education" (my grandfather would have approved rather more of "if you don't work, you don't eat" ;) ).
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 09:26:45 AM
I guess I missed the "human right" to not be poor.
it's a process. those pesky people are always claiming more and more rights.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 09:50:00 AM
it's a process. those pesky people are always claiming more and more rights.
But that is not a right, that is being entitled to be given things at others expense.
A free public education is a great thing and in every country's own interests to provide but it is hardly some sort of human right. It is, after all, not free and requires the consent of the people to vote in funding for it (or a decision by whoever is calling the shots in a non-democratic system). If they decide not to vote funding that is hardly equivalent to taking away somebody's rights. They had no right to other's money.
Canada is the Ottoman Empire of our time.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 09:56:05 AM
Canada is the Ottoman Empire of our time.
The sick man of North America?
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 09:57:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 09:56:05 AM
Canada is the Ottoman Empire of our time.
The sick man of North America?
I was thinking about the Armenians.
Actually, I wasn't really thinking at all. I need moar coffee.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 09:54:41 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 09:50:00 AM
it's a process. those pesky people are always claiming more and more rights.
But that is not a right, that is being entitled to be given things at others expense.
A free public education is a great thing and in every country's own interests to provide but it is hardly some sort of human right. It is, after all, not free and requires the consent of the people to vote in funding for it (or a decision by whoever is calling the shots in a non-democratic system). If they decide not to vote funding that is hardly equivalent to taking away somebody's rights. They had no right to other's money.
It's a right if everyone agrees its a right. There's no universal, unalterable definition of what is a human right and what isn't. I think if you ask most western citizens they's say that free primary education is a human right.
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2009, 10:52:26 AM
I think if you ask most western citizens they's say that free primary education is a human right.
It just shows if you provide something to people for free they come to see it as their due rather than a gift from society. Disgusting.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 10:57:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2009, 10:52:26 AM
I think if you ask most western citizens they's say that free primary education is a human right.
It just shows if you provide something to people for free they come to see it as their due rather than a gift from society. Disgusting.
Absolutely Rush. Ditto.
I am just glad it is now no longer just the US in the West ignoring the human rights concerns raised by international organizations.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 11:09:30 AM
I am just glad it is now no longer just the US in the West ignoring the human rights concerns raised by international organizations.
In Canada it's a combination of the Conservative government and a general scepticism over the Aboriginal Peoples treay (where the only holdouts are - surprise! - the countries with significant aboriginal populations).
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2009, 10:52:26 AM
It's a right if everyone agrees its a right. There's no universal, unalterable definition of what is a human right and what isn't. I think if you ask most western citizens they's say that free primary education is a human right.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:19:49 AM
Sure, they are violating "rights", but what is a "right" anyway? Could be anything.
I've a right to high priced fashion.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 09:56:05 AM
Canada is the Ottoman Empire of our time.
May it disintegrate! :pope:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on June 10, 2009, 11:29:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 09:56:05 AM
Canada is the Ottoman Empire of our time.
May it disintegrate! :pope:
G.
of course, this means that Montreal will be occupied by the Russians. I don't know if you want that.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 10:57:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2009, 10:52:26 AM
I think if you ask most western citizens they's say that free primary education is a human right.
It just shows if you provide something to people for free they come to see it as their due rather than a gift from society. Disgusting.
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.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:34:33 AM
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.
That is true.
What does that have to do with anything? Is liberty and freedom and rights supposed to be the cure all solution for every single problem? Liberty doesn't feed people, make them smart, nor does it cure disease. It also is unlikely to turn shit into gold, water into wine, or explain the meaning of life. They are just that: human rights not 'the secret of human happiness and prosperity'.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 10:57:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2009, 10:52:26 AM
I think if you ask most western citizens they's say that free primary education is a human right.
It just shows if you provide something to people for free they come to see it as their due rather than a gift from society. Disgusting.
How is something that is paid for with tax dollars "free" In Canada if you pay taxes, you are helping to pay for education, health care, and crappy helicopters we don't need, oh and the Olympics (Coz lord knows they don't have any money to pay for their own stupid games :rolleyes: ) or raises in politician's salaries.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 10, 2009, 11:37:54 AM
How is something that is paid for with tax dollars "free" In Canada if you pay taxes, you are helping to pay for education, health care, and crappy helicopters we don't need, oh and the Olympics (Coz lord knows they don't have any money to pay for their own stupid games :rolleyes: ) or raises in politician's salaries.
Well it isn't really free. That was sort of my whole point. You are taking money from people to provide it and it is a good and noble thing as well as in the best interests of a society to do so.
But getting that is a great boon not a human right, sort of like health care or unemployment welfare or pensions or anything else.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 11:37:33 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:34:33 AM
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.
That is true.
What does that have to do with anything? Is liberty and freedom and rights supposed to be the cure all solution for every single problem? Liberty doesn't feed people, make them smart, nor does it cure disease. It also is unlikely to turn shit into gold, water into wine, or explain the meaning of life. They are just that: human rights not 'the secret of human happiness and prosperity'.
No but it DOES make those things easier to work towards. If you are too scared of warlords coming to your house to rape your children after cutting your arms off because you are vaguely different from the people doing the pillaging, you might not be so motivated to job hunt, buy nice things.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 10, 2009, 11:40:58 AM
No but it DOES make those things easier to work towards. If you are too scared of warlords coming to your house to rape your children after cutting your arms off because you are vaguely different from the people doing the pillaging, you might not be so motivated to job hunt, buy nice things.
Yes but you can have human rights without those things. There are countries in the word that have respect for human rights that have grinding poverty. By this entitlement definition they, in fact, do not have respect for human rights because they have no eliminated poverty and educated everybody and that simply is not so.
Those are great goals but they are not human rights.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 11:37:33 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:34:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 10, 2009, 11:40:58 AM
No but it DOES make those things easier to work towards. If you are too scared of warlords coming to your house to rape your children after cutting your arms off because you are vaguely different from the people doing the pillaging, you might not be so motivated to job hunt, buy nice things.
Yes but you can have human rights without those things. There are countries in the word that have respect for human rights that have grinding poverty. By this entitlement definition they, in fact, do not have respect for human rights because they have no eliminated poverty and educated everybody and that simply is not so.
Those are great goals but they are not human rights.
those societies have rights, but I'd argue those rights are basically meaningless.
it's stupid to have choices when you can't make them. it's like the old soviet constitution
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:44:07 AM
I'll opt with door B. Human rights, All of them, are indeed the secret of human happiness and prosperity.
Many people have all of those "rights" and they aren't necessarily happy. Also I think you could make an easy case that a stupid person could be happy (and likely similar cases for the other afflictions you noted).
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:44:07 AM
I'll opt with door B. Human rights, All of them, are indeed the secret of human happiness and prosperity.
I always thought they were the rights and freedoms that all people were entitled to have as part of their human dignity. It never occured to me that, in fact, they are whatever makes people happy and prosperous.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:44:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 11:37:33 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:34:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:48:59 AM
The problem is that making the goal sufficiently utopian puts it out of reach of most states.
Although, perhaps that is the point. Keep states from resting on their laurels.
Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2009, 11:50:37 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:48:59 AM
The problem is that making the goal sufficiently utopian puts it out of reach of most states.
Although, perhaps that is the point. Keep states from resting on their laurels.
I suspect most states view it in the opposite light, which would tend to explain why this notion of "rights" is popular in places like Egypt and Iran.
It makes "rights" into a sort of gigantic
tu quoque argument aimed against the West. Iran may be a "human rights abuser", but then, so is Canada.
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:54:00 AM
I suspect most states view it in the opposite light, which would tend to explain why this notion of "rights" is popular in places like Egypt and Iran.
It makes "rights" into a sort of gigantic tu quoque argument aimed against the West. Iran may be a "human rights abuser", but then, so is Canada.
Bingo.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 11:48:16 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:44:07 AM
I'll opt with door B. Human rights, All of them, are indeed the secret of human happiness and prosperity.
I always thought they were the rights and freedoms that all people were entitled to have as part of their human dignity. It never occured to me that, in fact, they are whatever makes people happy and prosperous.
You are mixing up cause and effect.
These rights to basic dignity (regardless of social status) are a big part of the possibility of prosperity & happiness. They are not prosperity and happiness. They open the door so that it becomes a possibilty. Many people who have far more rights (aristocrats/moneyed types in our time) than others often still FAIL at happiness & prosperity. You have to make those things for yourself. The kind of rights I'm talking about are the ones that enable you to feel you can try to succeed. You still may fail. shit happens.
But if you have no choices. Freedom is a moot point.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 11:55:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:54:00 AM
I suspect most states view it in the opposite light, which would tend to explain why this notion of "rights" is popular in places like Egypt and Iran.
It makes "rights" into a sort of gigantic tu quoque argument aimed against the West. Iran may be a "human rights abuser", but then, so is Canada.
Bingo.
It's a retarded strawman argument though and any country or person who doesn't get that it's just schoolyard are too/ am nots is not worthy of their freedoms.
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:54:00 AM
I suspect most states view it in the opposite light, which would tend to explain why this notion of "rights" is popular in places like Egypt and Iran.
It makes "rights" into a sort of gigantic tu quoque argument aimed against the West. Iran may be a "human rights abuser", but then, so is Canada.
Sure but then states like Canada and the US have a vested interest in not defining "rights" in a way that make them look bad as well. Besides, the Egyptian-Iranian use sounds silly to me as I don't really see how they can be like "We don't really guarantee any rights to our citizens, but you're just as bad Canada as although there might be freedom and liberty in your country, you haven't eliminated poverty."
Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2009, 12:01:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:54:00 AM
I suspect most states view it in the opposite light, which would tend to explain why this notion of "rights" is popular in places like Egypt and Iran.
It makes "rights" into a sort of gigantic tu quoque argument aimed against the West. Iran may be a "human rights abuser", but then, so is Canada.
Sure but then states like Canada and the US have a vested interest in not defining "rights" in a way that make them look bad as well. Besides, the Egyptian-Iranian use sounds silly to me as I don't really see how they can be like "We don't really guarantee any rights to our citizens, but you're just as bad Canada as although there might be freedom and liberty in your country, you haven't eliminated poverty."
:yes: see they'd be laughed off Languish.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:44:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 11:37:33 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:34:33 AM
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.
On the economic front, Canada rejected related recommendations from Russia and Ghana to launch a national poverty-elimination program. Canada said provinces and territories have jurisdiction in that area.
Sheesh... as if Canada doesn't have support and programs in place already. Now they're being told by nations like Russia, which is heading back to their bad old days, how to reduce poverty and treat their citizens. Good going by Canada to reject this mishmash of ideology and ideas.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:44:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 11:37:33 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:34:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:48:59 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:44:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 11:37:33 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:34:33 AM
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.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:30:29 AM
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.
I love the argument that basically comes down to the claim that a socialist welfare state is a fundamental human right.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 01:02:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:48:59 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:44:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 11:37:33 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:34:33 AM
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. :D
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:19:49 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2009, 01:19:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:19:49 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2009, 01:19:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:19:49 AM
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.
Quote from: saskganesh
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.
Holy shit, don't even stick that quote under my name!
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 01:35:20 PM
Holy shit, don't even stick that quote under my name!
Whoops sorry.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 01:35:20 PM
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 ... " :D
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 01:09:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 01:31:31 PM
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.
So what you guys are saying is that a law that, say, forbids women from having an education, is not infringing upon any rights?
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 01:36:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 01:35:20 PM
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 ... " :D
hehe, not exactly. Me and Valmy pretty much see eye to eye on this one.
Basic human rights have nothing to do with economic conditions. You can be poor, starving, unhealthy, and disease-ridden, but still have your human rights intact.
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".
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2009, 01:38:18 PM
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.
So people in rich countries have rights depending upon how much wealth can be farmed? Bullshit.
In any case while I agree basically with what you are saying I fail to see what that has to do with human rights. You do not have a right to anything simply because the society can afford to give it to you and you really really need it.
Quote from: Warspite on June 10, 2009, 01:40:35 PM
So what you guys are saying is that a law that, say, forbids women from having an education, is not infringing upon any rights?
I suppose I should be clear.
You do not have a right to a free education provided by the state, though that is something that should be provided whenever possible.
Being disciminated against based on gender is something totally different.
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2009, 01:38:18 PM
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.
Why can't it be criminally indifferent without it being a violation of human rights though?
Does everything bad HAVE to be a violation of human rights?
Quote from: Warspite on June 10, 2009, 01:40:35 PM
So what you guys are saying is that a law that, say, forbids women from having an education, is not infringing upon any rights?
I think we are saying exactly the opposite - the right to equal treatment under the law regardless of gender is certainly, IMO, a fundamental human right.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 01:40:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 01:36:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 01:35:20 PM
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 ... " :D
hehe, not exactly. Me and Valmy pretty much see eye to eye on this one.
Basic human rights have nothing to do with economic conditions. You can be poor, starving, unhealthy, and disease-ridden, but still have your human rights intact.
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".
Yeah, I'm on the same team on this issue.
Quote from: Warspite on June 10, 2009, 01:40:35 PM
So what you guys are saying is that a law that, say, forbids women from having an education, is not infringing upon any rights?
The opposite. A law that discriminates would be a violation.
A state whithout the means to pay for an education for anyone would not be in "violation" - it would merely be poor.
The difference (and the difference generally between "positive" and "negative" rights) is that "negative" rights are rights to have the government
not do something
to you, while "positive" rights are the rights to have the government do something
for you.
The latter tend to cost money and thus the richer the society, the more "rights". The former tend to be free, and even the most destitute pauper can refrain from torturing dissidents, hanging gays - or passing laws forbidding girls from going to school.
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 01:11:02 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 01:02:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:48:59 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:44:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 11:37:33 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 11:34:33 AM
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. :D
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.
disagree. some third world countries are actually doing that right now, and doing that quite well.
Malawi for example is saving $120 million dollars a year in food imports, because they have a $60 million non-GMO farm aid program, that has turned that country into a food exporter.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 01:51:56 PM
disagree. some third world countries are actually doing that right now, and doing that quite well.
Malawi for example is saving $120 million dollars a year in food imports, because they have a $60 million non-GMO farm aid program, that has turned that country into a food exporter.
Some 3rd world nations are doing better than others. It does not mean, IMHO, that those who are
not doing better are by definition "human rights abusers" for the crime of being poor.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 01:31:31 PM
Quote from: saskganesh
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.
... That is total crap.
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.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 01:31:31 PM
Quote from: saskganesh
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.
... That is total crap.
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.
...and unless you do these things, you are a human rights abuser?
Planting grass along streams and slavery. Clearly the same thing.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 02:00:57 PM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 01:54:52 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 01:51:56 PM
disagree. some third world countries are actually doing that right now, and doing that quite well.
Malawi for example is saving $120 million dollars a year in food imports, because they have a $60 million non-GMO farm aid program, that has turned that country into a food exporter.
Some 3rd world nations are doing better than others. It does not mean, IMHO, that those who are not doing better are by definition "human rights abusers" for the crime of being poor.
sure. but that's not really my argument. I am actually more concerned about real people here.
I was responding to:
QuoteAnyway, "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.
which I did. for example.
but IF a government has it in their ability to provide these kind of services at low cost to their citizens, but won't implement them, then I guess they could be called "human rights abusers" for giving their people shitty lives. really though, I would prefer to call them simply "bad governments." the 3W is full of them, and some ironically, as we well know, are on the UN human rights body
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 02:06:29 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 01:31:31 PM
Quote from: saskganesh
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.
... That is total crap.
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.
...and unless you do these things, you are a human rights abuser?
Planting grass along streams and slavery. Clearly the same thing.
clearly. you'll have to tell me the difference sometime.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 02:07:28 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 02:00:57 PM
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.
Respecting human rights is done by omission. Violating them is done by commission.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 02:07:28 PM
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.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 02:15:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 02:07:28 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 02:00:57 PM
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?
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 02:29:52 PM
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:
Quote from: William Rehnquistin the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.
Quote from: ulmont on June 10, 2009, 02:33:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 02:29:52 PM
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:
Quote from: William Rehnquistin 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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 01:40:42 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2009, 02:47:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 01:40:42 PM
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.
Quote from: ulmont on June 10, 2009, 02:33:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 02:29:52 PM
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:
Quote from: William Rehnquistin 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2009, 03:02:55 PM
I think Berkut's concern is more when the majority starts running wild with what their *own* "rights" are.
Isn't that just voting?
Quote from: ulmont on June 10, 2009, 03:03:31 PM
Isn't that just voting?
We vote for plenty of things that we don't enshrine in the Constitution.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2009, 03:09:43 PM
Quote from: ulmont on June 10, 2009, 03:03:31 PM
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.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 10, 2009, 02:00:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 03:12:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2009, 03:09:43 PM
Quote from: ulmont on June 10, 2009, 03:03:31 PM
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!
Yeah, we have had this same discussion over that very word in fact - genocide.
And torture.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 10, 2009, 02:17:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 03:30:03 PM
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!
This is why I told Berkut this is the biggest probem Human Rights Tribunals are facing. I think Human Rights are very important. I think it is appalling that anyone should be denied employment because of something unrelated to their ability to do the job and only related to their skin colour, sex, religion etc.
But that meaning is being lost as people subvert the phrase "Human Rights" for their own political purposes. Now, when I mention Human Rights people roll their eyes and sigh because they have in mind examples like the one you cited rather then having in mind the very fundamental rights which we would all agree are important.
Speaking of employment and discrimination, there was a shareholder's resolution on the Walmart proxy statement that Walmart should not disciminate against transgender applicants. I ended up not voting, but how would y'all have voted?
Human rights is a joke. It didn't have to be but it is. Film at 11.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2009, 04:04:07 PM
Speaking of employment and discrimination, there was a shareholder's resolution on the Walmart proxy statement that Walmart should not disciminate against transgender applicants. I ended up not voting, but how would y'all have voted?
I can't see that having transgendered greeters would worsen the experience of shopping at Walmart - you
already have to brave the 500 pound tattooed ladies. :D