Human Rights and National Sovereignty

[Yeah_Baby]

The Afghanistan rape thread got me thinking. And I think this quote make an interesting point:

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Basic human rights are not Western. They're universal.

While HPLovecraft's point is true (imo), I think that the International System is at a crossroads of sorts. We pay lip service to the universality of human rights, and yet on the other hand the same organization that declared the univerality of human rights (The UN) values national sovereignty. And national intrests of the members of Security Council and the General Assembly often prevent multilateral action, weither it be peace keeping or peace making. So CP I ask you the question, do you belive in the universality of human rights, even in the context of a post modern age? If so who do you suggest about the sancity of national borders and the realist leanings of self motivating intrests over a moral right?

[Tower]

Human rights should be, however in a sovereign nation where these rights were not built such as Canada, they really are more difficult for the UN to enforce. However this exercise would also cost money and I'm not sure if they would want to foot that bill when there isn't much return but free human suffering.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Tower

Human rights should be, however in a sovereign nation where these rights were not built such as Canada, they really are more difficult for the UN to enforce. However this exercise would also cost money and I'm not sure if they would want to foot that bill when there isn't much return but free human suffering.

I wouldn't necessarily say that human rights are "built" into the Canadian fabric. When you look our record of social problems and structural inequalities are we really that much better? Monetary issues aside, do we have the moral right?

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I wouldn't necessarily say that human rights are "built" into the Canadian fabric. When you look our record of social problems and structural inequalities are we really that much better? Monetary issues aside, do we have the moral right?

In Canada if you don't know your rights then you don't have them... But now I am moving towards derailing and I don't want to do that... Canadian human rights are built into Canada's common law jurisdiction. However If a human Being wants out of any social structure they should be able and assisted if required.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Tower

However If a human Being wants out of any social structure they should be able and assisted if required.

With what mechanism?

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

With what mechanism?

The most peaceful way possible. No lost lives. The mechanism? Stealth!! It is extremely touchy subject obviously, but no loss of any life is preferred. How to enact? Wow... that one is hard to plan. Save a person on step at a time.

[octothorp]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any society that has been able to ensure all of those universal rights for all of its citizens. I see the universal rights as something that we should strive toward, not something that we should enforce at all costs (especially when it comes to the rights of individuals in other countries). On the one hand, it's very tempting to look at a country like Afghanistan and say, 'we gave them democracy, looking out for their own best interests is up to them; you can lead a horse to water, etc.' But ultimately, beliefs and customs are the biggest hindrance to human rights (beliefs and customs that are, in some interpretations, protected by the declaration of human rights). It's easy for us to say that clearly one man's right to live or a woman's right to security is more important than another individual's right to follow their religion, but most religious texts (not surprisingly) disagree. It would not surprise me to learn that there are women in Afghanistan who see preserving a strong Sharia law as more important than their own individual right to security. History is full of groups who have chosen to restrict their own freedoms out of religious duty.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any society that has been able to ensure all of those universal rights for all of its citizens. I see the universal rights as something that we should strive toward, not something that we should enforce at all costs (especially when it comes to the rights of individuals in other countries). On the one hand, it's very tempting to look at a country like Afghanistan and say, 'we gave them democracy, looking out for their own best interests is up to them; you can lead a horse to water, etc.' But ultimately, beliefs and customs are the biggest hindrance to human rights (beliefs and customs that are, in some interpretations, protected by the declaration of human rights). It's easy for us to say that clearly one man's right to live or a woman's right to security is more important than another individual's right to follow their religion, but most religious texts (not surprisingly) disagree. It would not surprise me to learn that there are women in Afghanistan who see preserving a strong Sharia law as more important than their own individual right to security. History is full of groups who have chosen to restrict their own freedoms out of religious duty.

Very well thought out. I think it's pretty much impossible to change a nations beliefs and customs a specially one so intertwined in Religion. However what about in situations were Sharia Law is concerned and you are asked to help an individual and not the society.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Tower

Very well thought out. I think it's pretty much impossible to change a nations beliefs and customs a specially one so intertwined in Religion. However what about in situations were Sharia Law is concerned and you are asked to help an individual and not the society.

Yes, that's exactly the issue. We have a constitution that protects the rights of minority groups and ensures that the democratic system will not allow the many to compromise the rights of the few. And Afghanistan has a similar constitution, but it seems as though it's not viewed as a sacred document the way ours is.
I think our law is structured where if a someone can prove that their rights are being trampled in their home country, they'll be given refugee status in Canada (assuming they can get here). Being raped by your husband and having no recourse would probably count. But there are probably millions, if not tens of millions of people worldwide who are in this or similar situations regarding their rights. Helping all of them just individually isn't an option.

[RedHot25]

Of interest to this thread.

United Nations
Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRMain.aspx

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique process which involves a review of the human rights records of all 192 UN Member States once every four years. The UPR is a State-driven process, under the auspices of the Human Rights Council, which provides the opportunity for each State to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfil their human rights obligations. As one of the main features of the Council, the UPR is designed to ensure equal treatment for every country when their human rights situations are assessed.
The UPR was created through the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006.

Country listings - http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR...mentation.aspx

Canada - http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR...ASession4.aspx

[FlamesAddiction]

Human rights are only promoted and protected by western countries (or any countries for that matter) when it makes economic sense. We have no problem turning a blind eye to human rights issues as long as they allow our companies to do business with them and supply us with cheap labour and/or resources to maintain our lifestyles

Looking at human history and not just the past 50 years, human rights were barely an issue at all. There is nothing about human society that makes me think the past 50 years aren't a fad in what is actually a pretty brutal history for our species. Even today, I'd say well less than half the people alive live in a country that places a priority on human rights.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Human rights are only promoted and protected by western countries (or any countries for that matter) when it makes economic sense. We have no problem turning a blind eye to human rights issues as long as they allow our companies to do business with them and supply us with cheap labour and/or resources to maintain our lifestyles

Looking at human history and not just the past 50 years, human rights were barely an issue at all. There is nothing about human society that makes me think the past 50 years aren't a fad in what is actually a pretty brutal history for our species. Even today, I'd say well less than half the people alive live in a country that places a priority on human rights.

I would take it one step further and say most if not all the global population live in a country that place a true value on human rights. Is that harsh? Yeah it is. But in a world where states act based on a power maximizing scheme, the value even in the west isn't on human rights at all. It is on that states self interest.

[Tower]

I have been thinking about this concept here all day. However I am here to help and if people don't want it of course they do not need it.
In this scenario there is a perception here that a person is abused and has no "right" to refuse. They may complain they may discuss secretly or outright that they have rights. They do, whether they are just "rights" or they "feel unjust" but refuse to remedy what happens in this system. Instead they take what benefits they can get and remain as nothing will change. Their freedom if wanted requires to completely separate themselves from the system. You so not require the benefits you are given as the cost is too high. Freedom is illusive and if you are not proactive it will be lost to you. Asking the powers for any benefit will only real you back in to a "slave trap" to such wills. Cease using such benefits (what ever they may be) But how can this be accomplished?

Freedom or Rights are a concept and must be defended. If you consider yourself to be free then you have a duty to protect and defend this concept. If you just talk about it or bitch about it that is your "right". One should rather stop being a slave if they feel like one and do something meaningful by first creating and defending freedom not just for themselves but for offspring and you and others to follow.
One must accept responsibility and take on the duty to defend life, freedom to act and property.

This also pertains to Canada.

Tower

[Daradon]

I've always thought admission to the UN should depend on a countries attitude towards human rights and basic principles that we've deemed universal.

Don't forget, many of these countries that violate human rights, have signed treaties for them.

Why should a country get international help, or have voting rights on key issues if they can't even agree on how to treat their own people?

Course, this is all a very simplistic way of looking at it, and enforcing it would be very tough, I'm just kind of tired of helping people (or being part of a country that helps people) that don't even want to help themselves.

[Yeah_Baby]

I kind of figured this thread would be more interesting. This is far to civil. Quick someone post jail bait!