Page 1 of 1
Human rights
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:20 pm
by Dissident.1996
I've read human rights rules and I haven't seen any problem or bad rule in it . but why do some countries can reverse it and Human rights organizations don't take any action toward them ?
For example America used very first nuclear bombs against Japan .
Or Israeil is attacking Palestinian people and kill many civilians and seized a part of their land .
Or some countries oppress their people and kill dissidents but Human rights organization still gets in term with them .
And dictatorship still lasts .
And many other examples . If human rights organization is not for situations like this then what is this organization based for ? Is it made for special purposes ?
Re: Human rights
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:24 pm
by Dissident.1996
Sorry I wrongly made two topics . please answer here if you have any . Thanks
Re: Human rights
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:01 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Human rights are only aspirations of the wise and carefully minded. But there is no basis for enforcing these rules.
The powerful act as they chose and pretend to support human rights, but abuse their power to their own ends.
Re: Human rights
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:33 pm
by Dissident.1996
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Human rights are only aspirations of the wise and carefully minded. But there is no basis for enforcing these rules.
The powerful act as they chose and pretend to support human rights, but abuse their power to their own ends.
Why not ? It's called "HUMAN RIGHTS RULES" . There are rules in societies and every citizen is supposed to follow them . actually we should say he's "forced" to follow or he'll be punished . when we talk about rules we can't pick them optionally .
We could say "HUMAN RIGHTS
SUGGESTIONS" if its optional only .
Re: Human rights
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:03 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Dissident.1996 wrote:Hobbes' Choice wrote:Human rights are only aspirations of the wise and carefully minded. But there is no basis for enforcing these rules.
The powerful act as they chose and pretend to support human rights, but abuse their power to their own ends.
Why not ? It's called "HUMAN RIGHTS RULES" . There are rules in societies and every citizen is supposed to follow them . actually we should say he's "forced" to follow or he'll be punished . when we talk about rules we can't pick them optionally .
We could say "HUMAN RIGHTS
SUGGESTIONS" if its optional only .
Law and the enforcement of laws are two different things.
Re: Human rights
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2015 4:06 am
by Impenitent
rights come from the end of a gun
-Imp
Re: Human rights
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2015 7:34 am
by Dissident.1996
Impenitent wrote:rights come from the end of a gun
-Imp
Sometimes ...
Re: Human rights
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2015 10:25 am
by Hobbes' Choice
Dissident.1996 wrote:Impenitent wrote:rights come from the end of a gun
-Imp
Sometimes ...
It's a good first step that the UN has introduced these Human Rights, but scant provision has been made to enforce them. All the UN has the power to do is to 'name and shame', with resolutions. Israel is in breach of UN resolutions, but without another country enforcing the rules, Israel is able to flout those resolutions.
In the end country x can say to country y - why should I comply with UN resolutions whilst you do not.
Sadly with the advent of more terrorism, Western nations feel more able to bend their own rules, and to tear up their own human rights legislation as we are now seeing in the UK.
Re: Human rights
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 2:27 pm
by HexHammer
Rights < politics
Re: Human rights
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 5:31 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
There is a difference between intra-national rights and inter-national rights.
When the British Parliament wrote the Bill of Rights, it was done within a clearly definable jurisdiction, and thus had legal standing.
Such a Bill has statutory protection, and breaches of those rights can be brought to trial in any British Court.
However, the UN's charter is not written into law by a standing authority, and has no muscle. Signatories to the charter are only morally bound by their word, and have not entered into a legally binding framework.