Human Rights (and Wrongs)

My fingers smell of Red Bull, and Aftershock and something else I can't decide on, I've had no sleep hardly and I'm at work, how could this not be too highbrow for this time.

We certainly do not have the human right to access to alka seltzer if that's what you mean. My scorn for your hangover can only be truly appreciated if you look at the other threads on hangovers, my unbreakableness and the fact that I don't get 'em.

Not getting hangovers is your loss Pete. Without evil how can we truly know good? And similarly without a hangover how can we truly appreciate drunkenness?

I normally don't get them unless I don't get enough sleep, and cos I'm working 9-5 every day I have to sacrifice my health to pray at the altar of going out. No pain killers work for me, I've not got a headache, I just feel like I'm falling. The blue aftershock is weird, so very weird. Its no 80% czech absinth but it does the trick.

Just remembered a quote from Ol' Blue Eyes. "I feel sorry for people who don't drink, when they wake up in the morning thats the best they're going to feel all day". It works for not getting hangovers aswell. What a quote though.

Well as a soon to be qualified Human Rights lawyer, I suppose I ought to say no. :-)

Ultimately it's "just" a declaration, it's not directly legally enforceable by the citizens of any country in the world.

Okay, so the UK have got the Human Rights Act 1998, but even this carries an element of dilution. You've got your so-called inviolable rights, such as the right to life, and the right not to be tortured. These are rights which can never be taken away.

Then you have your intermediary rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to privacy, but the Act incorporates a number of provisos under which the State has the right to legitimately infringe these rights.

So ultimately I'd say that such a declaration is essential for any responsible and legitimate society, but its overall effect will never be as far reaching as the words lead us to believe, so perhaps it is irresponsible after all!

I would like to know more, from a legal stanfpoint , about the right to self detrimantion.

(I don't know either)

I always found the Right To Life interesting, because couched in it is a complete disregard to the right to death. This ties in with tortue of course since if we are being tortured - by our own body - then we ware breaking our inviolable right to be free from torture. The only way to escape it may be suicide (or euthenasia) which seems to run contrary to our right to life.

And these are the basic ones which even I don't have too much of a problem with.

Anthony I am not normally a spelling pedant and I am probably just being thick but what on earth is that word.

i am exhausted self -determination

Self-determination of waht. This is unclear. Religion, sexuality, what you want to do with your life. It all seems a bit wishy washy. It seems difficult to insist I have the inalianable right to be an astronaut. Equalkly even with things like religion and belief systems there are an awful lot of local laws which restrict this (I assume Satanism doesn't go down a bomb in certain states of the US). Ditto sexuality up to a point. Now I would agree that this is wrong, but is it a right.

On the other hand I have the right to hold my own beliefs merely by the fact that my beliefs are private and inviolable by outsiders.

to be a nation state Pete. Its in the charter. I wanted to provoke a discussion on nationilsim and human rights.

Sorry, not trying to be obtuse Anthony, but I'm still not quite there. Is it saying that anyone has the right to set up a nation state, or does there need to be a certain set of criteria used before that can happen. Or is it merely access to a voice in government (ie a vote - again difficult to enforce) or is it as you suggest that if you feel you are a distinct nationality you have a right to a state. Hence leading to stuff like Israel and problems in Macedonia to name just a few.

Well that is my biggest problem with the charter is that this loose "right to self detrimanation" How does this happen ? How donations exsist ? Is the concept of "nation" valid at all ?

It does seem to be a very starnge part of a declaration on human rights. I would maybe understand it if it refered to a state of mind - ie you have no right to be persecuted because you are of a particular ethnic background. But then to imply that all ethnic or national backgrounds therefore deserve an autonomous state - with land - is taking it a stage too far and leads to, as you say, the hell of nationalism.

it's nonsense, this whole notion that nations or organizations can grant these rights or even ordain them. this is the beauty of the american bill of rights, they are not rights granted but limitations on government. i can't imagine the UN ever limiting bureaucratic power as they have on more than one occasion attempted to usurp the american constitution. but then something like 30% of americans believe they have too much freedom of speech so maybe that is their audience.

The entite edifice of the UN unfortunately has no enforcement power that is not filtered by power structures, most signifiantly that of the US. If you are a Kuwaiti you have the right to self- determination, however hard it is to define. If you are a Palestinian you do not. If you are an official enemy like Saddam Hussein or Milosevic you are a War Criminal, if you are Henry Kissinger you are a sage, free to give after dinner speaches to the rich and famous. Who decides? Essentially the US. To give one relatively minor but recent example, its bombing of a Pharmacutical plant in Kaurtoum following the Embassy bombs in East Africa was illegal state sponsored terrorism. But why bother even to state it as such(as of course nobody did.)They have the biggest guns and the most money, they can do as they wish. The US is also opposing the establishment of an International criminal court, precisely because it retains the right to act illegally.

Why does the general public endorse this story about a conjoined head - not capable of independent life - being removed her life support while this story about a brain damaged woman - not capable of independent life - being removed from her life support subject to so much wailing and gnashing of the teeth?