I don't usually get many responses to my philosophical questions, but I've gotta ask this anyhow. There have been seemingly endless debates lately about "rights" in this country and that other one down south:
-Smokers' rights (other thread, and the inspiration for this question)
-Gay rights
-Health care rights
-Right to die (or kill a vegetable -- Terri Schiavo)
-Prisoners' rights (Guantanamo Bay prisoners)
It goes on and on and it's driving me nuts. Quite frankly, I don't believe there IS such a thing as "fundamental human rights." In my opinion, humans are no different from lions & tigers & bears, except for the fact that we seem to believe we're fundamentally better...perhaps "divine" in some religions. The "fundamental" rights that are argued in front of the courts are nothing more than words on a piece of paper. Our Charter of Rights does not apply in (e.g.) China, so how can they be "human rights?" -- They're simply Canadian rights, and then only because they're written down. Besides that, how can something be "fundamental" if it's constantly changing? Does anybody here believe that our interpretation of "human rights" will be the same in 100 years as it is now? Not bloody likely.
I am thankful that we've got the Charter of Rights as something to protect *certain* aspects of my safety and security. That said, I'm tired of it being used to "invent" rights every time someone disagrees with someone else! If you keep using something like that to invent frivilous rights, then it detracts from its real value, which is to protect our life, security, and freedom of thought. I think I might be an anarchist...at least after a beer or two.
[/rant]
|