Human rights groups have criticized the election by the United Nations General Assembly of several countries with questionable rights' records to the UN Human Rights Council. Of the 18 countries elected Monday to the Geneva-based body, human rights advocates say only about a third are qualified. Read full article
Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Gabon, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela ... claim the right to exercise judgement over the human rights of individuals, organisations and governments of other nations.
Arguably, hundreds of others are no better but do not claim to be so.
Though there are no nations where human rights are (or, probably, can be) 100%, why is it that the only ones approaching this are the greater Western democracies?
Can it be that 'human nature' militates against 'acceptable' behaviour, and that, as population and resource pressures get worse over time, NO nation will be sufficiently ethical to judge others on behalf of the world community?
Can it be that nations - when the going gets REALLY tough - forgo human rights in order to ensure survival of the state and some semblance of stability?
So, the real question is ... are 'human rights' the most fundamental bottom line for societies around the world?
If the answer is 'No', then perhaps we should allow the pariah states - the likes of Venezuela - to sit in judgement of others.
@1 There are no such things as “human rights”. Take a look at some of the so-called “human rights”. Let's take a look at the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Let's test your “human rights”. Select a 20-storey building. Go up to the roof. Jump off. Three opportunities. Tell the air about your right to life, or your arms as you flap frantically or, perhaps, shout to that hard pavement. Not one will agree that you have a right to life. In fact, they'll probably ignore you.
Let's try another one.
Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruelty, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Personally, I would consider it “cruel” to keep me locked in a cell or prison. It would be inhuman AND degrading if I couldn't go to the pub when I wanted.
On to the next.
Article 13: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
So one-way streets are illegal. I can't be told not to drive on a cycle path.
Article 17: (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Notice that it doesn't say that you have to be able to afford to buy it. I want a house. Where is it? (Actually, I already have one!)
And so it goes on. These are not “human” rights. They are civil or civic rights. Rights that your society grants you if you act in a reasonable way in that society.
And what is argieland doing on the Human Rights Council? In the most blatant and internationally recognisable way, it is denying rights to the Falkland Islanders. It doesn't even recognise that they exist.
That Human rights forum would be taken seriously if they kicked out the USA out of there. UK, they don't matter anyway, no one thinks of them as a “human rights” country really.
If USA is part of this human rights charade may death sentences will move up to a higher status as well, are the people who kill Muslims for oil considered humans?or is killing Muslims a sport for USA, we all know everyone of those terrorists get their money and weapons from mossad, MI6 and CIA. If anyone disputes that is because their IQ is lower then a feces tart.
Human Rights stands up in court in England and allows Abu Quatada to go free, walk the streets, indulge in anti-Western rhetoric in public, and (allegedly) wage a gun & bomb 'religious war' on countries like Britain ... because the law in England/Wales allows him the liberty to do this.
The alternative would be to deport him to Jordan, where there is a risk that a court case against him might involve evidence possibly 'obtained by torture'.
No-one says it would involve such evidence, no-one even says he goes on trial if he is deported to Jordan, but he might
... that is enough for him to be released to wander the streets of the UK.
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIvory Coast, Ethiopia, Gabon, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela ... claim the right to exercise judgement over the human rights of individuals, organisations and governments of other nations.
Nov 14th, 2012 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Arguably, hundreds of others are no better but do not claim to be so.
Though there are no nations where human rights are (or, probably, can be) 100%, why is it that the only ones approaching this are the greater Western democracies?
Can it be that 'human nature' militates against 'acceptable' behaviour, and that, as population and resource pressures get worse over time, NO nation will be sufficiently ethical to judge others on behalf of the world community?
Can it be that nations - when the going gets REALLY tough - forgo human rights in order to ensure survival of the state and some semblance of stability?
So, the real question is ... are 'human rights' the most fundamental bottom line for societies around the world?
If the answer is 'No', then perhaps we should allow the pariah states - the likes of Venezuela - to sit in judgement of others.
@1 There are no such things as “human rights”. Take a look at some of the so-called “human rights”. Let's take a look at the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Nov 14th, 2012 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Let's test your “human rights”. Select a 20-storey building. Go up to the roof. Jump off. Three opportunities. Tell the air about your right to life, or your arms as you flap frantically or, perhaps, shout to that hard pavement. Not one will agree that you have a right to life. In fact, they'll probably ignore you.
Let's try another one.
Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruelty, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Personally, I would consider it “cruel” to keep me locked in a cell or prison. It would be inhuman AND degrading if I couldn't go to the pub when I wanted.
On to the next.
Article 13: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
So one-way streets are illegal. I can't be told not to drive on a cycle path.
Article 17: (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Notice that it doesn't say that you have to be able to afford to buy it. I want a house. Where is it? (Actually, I already have one!)
And so it goes on. These are not “human” rights. They are civil or civic rights. Rights that your society grants you if you act in a reasonable way in that society.
And what is argieland doing on the Human Rights Council? In the most blatant and internationally recognisable way, it is denying rights to the Falkland Islanders. It doesn't even recognise that they exist.
So let's start by booting argieland off!
That Human rights forum would be taken seriously if they kicked out the USA out of there. UK, they don't matter anyway, no one thinks of them as a “human rights” country really.
Nov 14th, 2012 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The 47-member Human Rights Council is often the target of criticism for its focus on Israel”
Nov 14th, 2012 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By who? Israel?!
Who deserves the seat? Britain? Let's have the Iraqis and the Chagossians ruling on that!
Nov 14th, 2012 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If USA is part of this human rights charade may death sentences will move up to a higher status as well, are the people who kill Muslims for oil considered humans?or is killing Muslims a sport for USA, we all know everyone of those terrorists get their money and weapons from mossad, MI6 and CIA. If anyone disputes that is because their IQ is lower then a feces tart.
Nov 15th, 2012 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#3
Nov 15th, 2012 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Human Rights stands up in court in England and allows Abu Quatada to go free, walk the streets, indulge in anti-Western rhetoric in public, and (allegedly) wage a gun & bomb 'religious war' on countries like Britain ... because the law in England/Wales allows him the liberty to do this.
The alternative would be to deport him to Jordan, where there is a risk that a court case against him might involve evidence possibly 'obtained by torture'.
No-one says it would involve such evidence, no-one even says he goes on trial if he is deported to Jordan, but he might
... that is enough for him to be released to wander the streets of the UK.
Now THAT'S Human Rights!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!