Human Rights Discussion

[Sotiris]

Which do you consider to be human rights? What constitutes human rights? What is the state of human rights around the world currently? Do you think that human rights should be based on the consesnsus of opinion of the people in a given country?

[Disneyphile]

Do you think that human rights should be based on the consesnsus of opinion of the people in a given country?

The US founding fathers didn't think so. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." So, our rights were given to us by our Creator, not something that we have to vote up or down. To the extent that we've gotten away from that concept, we've introduced a lot of problems in our country.

[milojthatch]

Do you think that human rights should be based on the consesnsus of opinion of the people in a given country?

The US founding fathers didn't think so. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." So, our rights were given to us by our Creator, not something that we have to vote up or down. To the extent that we've gotten away from that concept, we've introduced a lot of problems in our country.

Let's not forget that those same men also didn't see slaves as human. Most of them anyway. Just making sure that point is noted.

I think "human rights" are God-given. However, where I differ from most with that believe is I strongly believe in the concept, "where much is given, much is expected." I don't believe that such "rights" are your forever no matter what you do. I think people, through the actions they take, can in fact forfeit at least many of the, shall we say nicer "rights." I'm thinking about the Bill of Rights. There isn't a "right" in there that can't be taken away through mis-use. Really I see these kinds of "rights" like in the US Constitution as more "privilege" then "right."

What I do see as "rights" is whatever a human being needs to survive and be healthy and what ever preserves your basic human dignity. In that way, I see being able to access water a human right. I see access to basic foods as a human right. Being able to breathe clean air is a human right, so I believe smoking laws preserve that right. I see basic shelter and clothing as a human right. I see access to medical care a human right, so yes, I believe in the ideals of the Health Care Law as preserving human rights. Laws that protect basic human dignity and make sure people don't treat you as anything but human are human rights. Things like these are "human rights." Everything else that has nothing to do with staying alive and health ad keep ones dignity and basic needs to serves those conditions, is a privilege, and can be lost through mis-use.

I guess basic human rights are common sense.

[Elladorine]

I guess basic human rights are common sense.

And unfortunately, common sense is so rare these days that it's a super power.

[Jules]

Do you think that human rights should be based on the consesnsus of opinion of the people in a given country?

I can see this is a reference to today's referendum. Is divorce considered a human right?

[Sotiris]

I can see this is a reference to today's referendum. Is divorce considered a human right?

Some may consider that it is. That's why I also asked which ones do you consider to be human rights.

[Goliath]

Human rights are most certainly not 'God-given'. If they were, why are so many people in the world who have no rights at all? Did God pass them over? Does he like only certain people? And if human rights, as written down in the US Bill of Rights, are 'God-given', does that mean God was doing sloppy work, because it was amended an additional 18 times? If human rights are 'God-given', how come they get so easily taken away, by our governments and others?

For the biggest part of history, most people didn't have any human rights at all. People could be used as slaves, for instance. People were not allowed the right to have a say in their country's governance. Democracy as we know it is only some 100 years old. Lots of people throughout history had no human rights because we colonized their countries and surpressed them. If human rights are really 'God-given', why did he wait for tens of thousands of years to give them to us?

Human rights are a set of values and rules that we, amongst each other, have decided upon. We put them down in the UN Human Rights Treaty, which almost all countries ratified after WW II. But that doesn't mean that human rights are not violated everywhere in the world. In large parts of the world, people have no right to decide over their own bodies or lives. In Nicaragua, abortion is illegal in all cases (even when rape is involved; even when the mother's life is at risk). In Saudi-Arabia, women have no right to dress like they want or to go out by themselves (they need to always be accompanied by a male family member). In large parts of the world, homosexuals have no rights; in some countries it's even punishable by law to be one. I hear in Malta, people can't even have a legal divorce; their human rights are being trampled by the Catholic church.

Or, to say it better:

<object width="560" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/9ivYN ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/9ivYN ... 1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>


There are no such thing as 'rights'. We made them up. All we ever had are privileges. And if you follow the news even superficially, you'll notice the list getting shorter and shorter every year.

To the extent that we've gotten away from that concept, we've introduced a lot of problems in our country

Is this code language to say we shouldn't have had the 1964 Civil Rights Act or Roe v. Wade?

[Jules]

Some may consider that it is. That's why I also asked which ones do you consider to be human rights.

If it is a right, then it's one that can be abused. God knows how many men or women take advantage of divorce to leave their wife/husband in favour of another person. Is that fair?

[Sotiris]

If it is a right, then it's one that can be abused.

Just because people may abuse a right does not mean it's OK for us to deprive all of them of it. For example, if some people get married for financial reasons or because one member is in need of a green card or because they are running a scam of some sort, that does not mean we need to ban marriage. So if someone wants a divorce for the wrong reasons e.g. so that they can just receive alimony checks, that does not mean that we need to ban divorce.

God knows how many men or women take advantage of divorce to leave their wife/husband in favour of another person. Is that fair?

.

But if one wants to leave their spouse then they will do it anyway. Banning divorce won't make them change their mind or make them work on their marriage harder. It will just make it more difficult for both parties to move on. If they wanted to work on their marriage they would go to a marriage counselor or try to work things out themselves. For someone to want a divorce it means that their mind is made up.

I think it's ridiculous, for a supposedly civilized country such as Malta to have yet to legalize divorce. I find it absurd and I do think it's a clear violation of human rights. Having the state or government dictate how you live your life or impedes on your freedom and your freedom of choice, is no short than criminal.

[Jules]

To me, it just feels difficult to let go of what I'm used to. Malta is a tiny country, and because of this we suffered (and still suffer, a bit) from the closed village mentality. That mentality was responsible for some rather embarrassing mishaps in the past, e.g. my father told me how in the 1970s a group of local film-makers made a television series called "Il-Madonna taċ-Ċoqqa", which aired on the national television station. In it, a female character apparently cheats on her husband or does something otherwise immoral. The actress who played that character wound up insulted and persecuted on the streets for being a "whore" or whatever. Real people actually attacked her verbally and sent anonymous letters and I think even death threats, because they were seemingly under the impression that what they saw on TV really happened.

The woman, along with her family, had to leave Malta for Australia. The situation became that unbearable. The behaviour of everybody who harassed her leads me to wonder (seriously) what IQ they had. But I can see the same thing that happened here occur in, say, some obscure village in Albania (that is purely an example). A village, that, like Malta, is cut off from the main population.

God, I've rambled ... I think I've gone out of point.

Anyway, similarly it has to be understood that the introduction of divorce in Malta is challenging to us as a population that has significant Catholic roots. I still don't think divorce is the way to go in a relationship. Presently, it's impossible for me to view divorce positively.

[CJ]

Ahem.... I believe this topic is for human rights, not a loophole to continue the divorce topic. I have already stated earlier in another thread, that continuing a discussion from a closed thread is circumventing moderation. In other words, it is not allowed. If the subject of divorce continues in this thread, this thread will be locked too. Those of you who were warned earlier are now on extremely thin ice. I suggest you stop before you earn yourself a suspension or worse.

[Sotiris]

To me, it just feels difficult to let go of what I'm used to. Malta is a tiny country, and because of this we suffered (and still suffer, a bit) from the closed village mentality. That mentality was responsible for some rather embarrassing mishaps in the past, e.g. my father told me how in the 1970s a group of local film-makers made a television series called "Il-Madonna taċ-Ċoqqa", which aired on the national television station. In it, a female character apparently cheats on her husband or does something otherwise immoral. The actress who played that character wound up insulted and persecuted on the streets for being a "whore" or whatever. Real people actually attacked her verbally and sent anonymous letters and I think even death threats, because they were seemingly under the impression that what they saw on TV really happened.

The woman, along with her family, had to leave Malta for Australia. The situation became that unbearable. The behaviour of everybody who harassed her leads me to wonder (seriously) what IQ they had. But I can see the same thing that happened here occur in, say, some obscure village in Albania (that is purely an example). A village, that, like Malta, is cut off from the main population.

I don't understand. You're saying that you get that this type of mentality is barbaric, unacceptable, and stupid but you still want to protect the "values" that breed this sort of behavior and mentality?

[Sotiris]

Ahem.... I believe this topic is for human rights, not a loophole to continue the divorce topic. I have already stated earlier in another thread, that continuing a discussion from a closed thread is circumventing moderation. In other words, it is not allowed. If the subject of divorce continues in this thread, this thread will be locked too. Those of you who were warned earlier are now on extremely thin ice. I suggest you stop before you earn yourself a suspension or worse.

I don't understand why we can't discuss it since a poster brought it up and it does fall under the general "human rights" topic. Of course, any discussion is going to be civilized and we're not going to remain just on this sub-topic. So, because of a previous locked thread and inappropriate behavior, it means that the subject of divorce is never to be discussed or mentioned in UD again?

[CJ]

Yes, Sotiris, until the other thread is sorted out and unlocked the subject of divorce is off limits. This is a hot button issue at the moment, and a cooling off period is needed before any civil discussion can occur. I am sorry the actions of a few have ruined it for everyone. If the subject had been dropped instead of dragged into other threads, the other thread would have reopened in a few days, but now it looks like this is going to take longer to happen.

You are free to discuss any other human right.

[Sotiris]

Yes, Sotiris, until the other thread is sorted out and unlocked the subject of divorce is off limits. This is a hot button issue at the moment, and a cooling off period is needed before any civil discussion can occur. I am sorry the actions of a few have ruined it for everyone. If the subject had been dropped instead of dragged into other threads, the other thread would have reopened in a few days, but now it looks like this is going to take longer to happen.

You are free to discuss any other human right.

That's fine then. Thanks for taking the time to explain the reasons behind your decision.

[Sotiris]

Do you think that abortion is a human right?

[Jules]

Absolutely not.

[Sotiris]

Absolutely not.

Why not? Care to elaborate or provide us with some arguments?

[Jules]

I'm not in the mood. I feel exhausted after all that has happened these last two days. I've spent an entirely unproductive day obsessively at my computer and I feel like I want to throw something at Goliath if I could.

Nope. Not up to it.

[Sotiris]

I'm not in the mood. I feel exhausted after all that has happened these last two days. I've spent an entirely unproductive day obsessively at my computer and I feel like I want to throw something at Goliath if I could.

Nope. Not up to it.

OK, then.