MSCList - Human Rights Declaration

Human Rights Declaration

Facts, fiction and thoughts

During August '98, the MSCL list received a series of posts from a former member from England concerning the UN declaration on human rights. I've taken extracts from those posts, and commented on them here - rather than on the list, as this would tend to monopolise discussion. This is how each entry works (and you'll find it easiest to use tables and a colour monitor; sorry).

a r t i c l e #	Text of the declaration
	My response to that
	Spin from Amnesty International
	My response to that
	Further comment from the former listie
	My response to that

A word in advance. Don't take these comments as a criticism of the spirit of the charter; that's not how they're intended. Take it as a rough-and-ready primer to the loopholes, gaps and inherent absurdities of the charter. And there are plenty of those...

a r t i c l e 1	"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights"
	You have the same rights as everyone else in the world, because you are a human being. These rights are inalienable - they cannot be taken away from you. Every individual, no matter who they are or where they live, should be treated with dignity.
	So what is the concurrent responsibility to go with that right? Because every right is dependent on a responsibility, otherwise that right is meaningless. As I see it, the responsibility is to act in a manner that gives these basic human rights and respects to all other people. And no matter what, they're entitled to be not shot at, enslaved, mutilated or otherwise abused.
	The age of consent for gay men is 2 years higher than it is for consenting heteros.
	Ah, this is true but it's such of a red herring. It is not the people that are being treated differently, but the acts they choose to perform. At a biological level, the acts are fundamentally different. As the items in this declaration are meant to be universal, they must not impinge on moral judgements, as this would break their universality. So, the moral judgement falls slap outside the scope of this article.
	A black man coming home from the pub, drunk but peaceful, will encounter police harrassment, whereas a white middle class girl can lie screaming in the road and they won't bother her.
	Based, I note, on a random sample of one and stereotypical behaviour. Neither of which are firm grounds on which to hold people liable.

Footnote: The above does not encourage discrimination against gays of any kind. It is intended only to point out the problems of the charter.

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

2 "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind"

This is the point that makes it a Universal declaration. However, I'm not convinced that this is a right, as I can't find a responsibility to go with it.

You should not suffer discrimination, or be deprived of any of your rights because of your race, colour, sex, language or political opinions. When it comes to respect for your basic rights, it should not matter what country you were born in, what social class you belong to, or how rich or poor you are. Everyone should enjoy all the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This is all fine, but so far all we've got is to treat people with basic dignity. This article says that everyone should be treated with basic dignity. Now, there are 28 articles still to come...

In my country, women who report a rape are guilty until proven innocent.

Assumed guilty of what, exactly? Is there reputable evidence to back this up? And does this compromise the people's basic dignity any more than the original offence?

Young black men aree questioned by the police just for walking down the street.

In the same way that young white men aren't? You should take a look round Codsall one Friday night. Race isn't an issue. Age is.
More importantly, how do either of these examples contravene the original statement, that human rights principles apply to all, equally?

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

3 "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person"

Given the universality in part 2, this bars any denial of liberty in any way. So, there can be no executions of anyone, no detentions in any form - so no prisons - and no arrests. Now, in a perfect world, this would be the case. This isn't a perfect world. Ordinary people commit crimes against both morals and this code. Yet under this article, the rest of us can do diddly squatt about it. It's a recipe for blatant and total anarchy!

We all have the right to live in freedom and safety. No one should be arbitrarily killed, or deprived of their liberty without good reason.

Ah, a little moral equivocation here. Suddenly, it becomes OK to remove the liberty of people who have done something that is seen as a "good reason". Who defines that good reason? General Ricardo Tatr in his powerhouse at the head of the banana republic? President Slutski in his White House? The chairman of Amnesty? The womin on the top deck of the Clapham omnibus?

Steven Laurence. RIP.

Lawrence was a 17 year old, killed in 1993. A public inquiry into the police handling of this case has run since April this year, as no-one was actually convicted of his murder. The chief police officer involved admitted that there were racist elements within his force.
Of course, under the anarchic terms of this article, such a failure to convict is a success for the human rights charter.

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

4 "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude"

With the logical responsibility to prevent such slave trading.

Human beings must not be owned, bought or sold. No one has the right to enslave anyone else. Slavery is a crime.

Well, the last sentence sticks in the craw a little, as it impinges on the individual nation's internal affairs.

Like most English people, I assumed that slavery had been abolished in my country well over a century ago. It took a Ruth Rendell novel to show me how wrong I was. Many Brits who have been living as ex-pats in places like South Africa return to this country with black girls who they have bought for a few dollars. By some loophole in the law, they bring them in as family members.

This is where the problem arises. If the immigrants are not bona fide family members, then their entry into the UK is unlawful. And someone should be punished for it; as it's reasonable to assume that the kid didn't know the English law, and the ex-pat did, then that's who needs to spend some time in Wormwood Scrubs. And that's before considering what they do to the "relative" they've brought in.

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

5 "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"

I smell a value judgement at work here. What, exactly, is cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment? For instance, a country may think that caning people who vandalise other people's property is an acceptable method of deterring others from following that example. Another country may think that such corporal punishment is cruel. This article is either for guidance in framing individual country's laws, or part of a process of imposing a certain value set on all areas of the world.

Torture is forbidden at all times and in all circumstances. No one should suffer treatment or punishment that is cruel or that makes them feel less than human. These rules apply everywhere - in police stations, prisons, on the streets, in peacetime or during a war.

This is a logical consequence of article 2.

Tell that to English victims of police brutality, or to certain psychiatric patients who have had everything taken away from them.

The latter sounds like the excesses of Stalinist Russia. The former sounds like Chapter And Verse are required. And it singularly fails to address the cultural problem I noted above.

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

6 "Everyone has a right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law"

As I interpret that, that obliges national governments to enshrine the principles of this declaration in their national law, and to apply them equally to their own citizens and those of other countries.

Every human being has the right to be treated as a person in the eyes of the law. We must all be granted the rights and bear the obligations accorded to every person by the law.

This spins out the obligation to treat everyone in the country as a full citizen, which pretty much does away with the concept of citizenship. Again, in a perfect world, this is an appealing concept; however, this isn't a perfect world. There has been, and will be, hell to pay if it appears that some people are receiving benefits from the state without (appearing to) pay their fair share. Rationing by citizenship is one method, and one that won't damage the ruling powers as much as rationing by (say) ability to pay.

This remind's me of [another listie's] remarks about the often disgraceful treatment of women who report rape/sexual assault.

Prosecution authorities are obliged to take such a report seriously. They're failing in their duties if they don't. But the due process of law (fair trials and such) must take place, and be seen to take place. Now, there may be those who believe that quizzing such womyn about their past is irrelevant to the case in hand (for the judge to decide), or degrading treatment (in violation of article 5). There can be no hard-and-fast rule about this, as there will be different circumstances in each case.

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

7 "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law"

A point that's already been covered in previous articles. Article 6 says that people are entitled to the protection of the law pertaining to this declaration. Article 2 says that anything stemming from this declaration shall be applied equally to all people. Which kinda makes this statement redundant by duplication.

You have the right to be treated by law in the same way as everyone else. You have the same right to be protected by the laws of your country as anyone else.

Again, this is a corollary of articles 2 and 6.

There are, of course, 23 other articles. However, the person posting them stopped after these seven.

front local mscl music news sport

mail me

This page updated August 22, 1998

a r t i c l e 2	"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind"
	This is the point that makes it a Universal declaration. However, I'm not convinced that this is a right, as I can't find a responsibility to go with it.
	You should not suffer discrimination, or be deprived of any of your rights because of your race, colour, sex, language or political opinions. When it comes to respect for your basic rights, it should not matter what country you were born in, what social class you belong to, or how rich or poor you are. Everyone should enjoy all the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
	This is all fine, but so far all we've got is to treat people with basic dignity. This article says that everyone should be treated with basic dignity. Now, there are 28 articles still to come...
	In my country, women who report a rape are guilty until proven innocent.
	Assumed guilty of what, exactly? Is there reputable evidence to back this up? And does this compromise the people's basic dignity any more than the original offence?
	Young black men aree questioned by the police just for walking down the street.
	In the same way that young white men aren't? You should take a look round Codsall one Friday night. Race isn't an issue. Age is. More importantly, how do either of these examples contravene the original statement, that human rights principles apply to all, equally?

a r t i c l e 3	"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person"
	Given the universality in part 2, this bars any denial of liberty in any way. So, there can be no executions of anyone, no detentions in any form - so no prisons - and no arrests. Now, in a perfect world, this would be the case. This isn't a perfect world. Ordinary people commit crimes against both morals and this code. Yet under this article, the rest of us can do diddly squatt about it. It's a recipe for blatant and total anarchy!
	We all have the right to live in freedom and safety. No one should be arbitrarily killed, or deprived of their liberty without good reason.
	Ah, a little moral equivocation here. Suddenly, it becomes OK to remove the liberty of people who have done something that is seen as a "good reason". Who defines that good reason? General Ricardo Tatr in his powerhouse at the head of the banana republic? President Slutski in his White House? The chairman of Amnesty? The womin on the top deck of the Clapham omnibus?
	Steven Laurence. RIP.
	Lawrence was a 17 year old, killed in 1993. A public inquiry into the police handling of this case has run since April this year, as no-one was actually convicted of his murder. The chief police officer involved admitted that there were racist elements within his force. Of course, under the anarchic terms of this article, such a failure to convict is a success for the human rights charter.

a r t i c l e 4	"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude"
	With the logical responsibility to prevent such slave trading.
	Human beings must not be owned, bought or sold. No one has the right to enslave anyone else. Slavery is a crime.
	Well, the last sentence sticks in the craw a little, as it impinges on the individual nation's internal affairs.
	Like most English people, I assumed that slavery had been abolished in my country well over a century ago. It took a Ruth Rendell novel to show me how wrong I was. Many Brits who have been living as ex-pats in places like South Africa return to this country with black girls who they have bought for a few dollars. By some loophole in the law, they bring them in as family members.
	This is where the problem arises. If the immigrants are not bona fide family members, then their entry into the UK is unlawful. And someone should be punished for it; as it's reasonable to assume that the kid didn't know the English law, and the ex-pat did, then that's who needs to spend some time in Wormwood Scrubs. And that's before considering what they do to the "relative" they've brought in.

a r t i c l e 5	"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"
	I smell a value judgement at work here. What, exactly, is cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment? For instance, a country may think that caning people who vandalise other people's property is an acceptable method of deterring others from following that example. Another country may think that such corporal punishment is cruel. This article is either for guidance in framing individual country's laws, or part of a process of imposing a certain value set on all areas of the world.
	Torture is forbidden at all times and in all circumstances. No one should suffer treatment or punishment that is cruel or that makes them feel less than human. These rules apply everywhere - in police stations, prisons, on the streets, in peacetime or during a war.
	This is a logical consequence of article 2.
	Tell that to English victims of police brutality, or to certain psychiatric patients who have had everything taken away from them.
	The latter sounds like the excesses of Stalinist Russia. The former sounds like Chapter And Verse are required. And it singularly fails to address the cultural problem I noted above.

a r t i c l e 6	"Everyone has a right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law"
	As I interpret that, that obliges national governments to enshrine the principles of this declaration in their national law, and to apply them equally to their own citizens and those of other countries.
	Every human being has the right to be treated as a person in the eyes of the law. We must all be granted the rights and bear the obligations accorded to every person by the law.
	This spins out the obligation to treat everyone in the country as a full citizen, which pretty much does away with the concept of citizenship. Again, in a perfect world, this is an appealing concept; however, this isn't a perfect world. There has been, and will be, hell to pay if it appears that some people are receiving benefits from the state without (appearing to) pay their fair share. Rationing by citizenship is one method, and one that won't damage the ruling powers as much as rationing by (say) ability to pay.
	This remind's me of [another listie's] remarks about the often disgraceful treatment of women who report rape/sexual assault.
	Prosecution authorities are obliged to take such a report seriously. They're failing in their duties if they don't. But the due process of law (fair trials and such) must take place, and be seen to take place. Now, there may be those who believe that quizzing such womyn about their past is irrelevant to the case in hand (for the judge to decide), or degrading treatment (in violation of article 5). There can be no hard-and-fast rule about this, as there will be different circumstances in each case.

a r t i c l e 7	"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law"
	A point that's already been covered in previous articles. Article 6 says that people are entitled to the protection of the law pertaining to this declaration. Article 2 says that anything stemming from this declaration shall be applied equally to all people. Which kinda makes this statement redundant by duplication.
	You have the right to be treated by law in the same way as everyone else. You have the same right to be protected by the laws of your country as anyone else.
	Again, this is a corollary of articles 2 and 6.