God given rights?

[Charles Kozierok]

The UN human rights principles are a valuable and important measure to improve things.

What's their value? Seriously. Be specific -- what value do they have? Have any countries implemented human "rights" based on this document that didn't already have them, or wouldn't have implemented them on their own?

You could attack the US Declaration of Independance with the same sort of drivel.

'All men are created equal', what a meaningless platitude, ignored by its own authors who owned slaves! Endowed by their creator? Says who? Meaningless platitude!

Yes, to the degree that they ignored slaves, those men were hypocrites. However, the rest of the document pretty fairly reflected the nation that they were trying to set up, and that they did set up.

Furthermore, nobody views the DoI as a document intended to establish any sort of standard. In contrast, Whiskey16 put forth the UN document as "universal rights as written and accepted by our global society", something that is simply not true as a matter of fact. Countries implement some or all or none of those based on their whims -- the document is not only not "universal", it is pretty much worthless.

The UN charter is guiding principles to shape, to guide, debate and policies and laws in a good direction, even if that goal is not met much of the time.

If you want to view it that way, fine. I might even agree. However, that's not how they were presented, which was that they were some sort of universal worldwide agreement on what constitutes human rights. In reality, a large percentage of the world would not only not agree with all of those things, they wouldn't agree with most of them. Take a look at the Arab world and much of eastern Asia for example -- how many of these countries even offer the basics of human rights, much less that idealistic laundry list?

 

[Craig234]

Here are two resources about what some of the improvements are the UN has helped bring about on human rights.

http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol1_2/Human.htm

http://www.un.org/un60/60ways/

From the first document, an excerpt with a bit of an overview:

It took another three years for the international community to agree on a truly revolutionary document in the field of human rights: the Universal Declaration of Human rights. The Declaration, which came into being on 10 December 1948, was the result of strenuous diplomatic and negotiating efforts carried out in Paris, where the General Assembly then met, by people like Rene Cassin (France), John Peters Humphrey (Canada), the first Director of the United Nations Human Rights Division, Charles Malik (Lebanon) and Eleanor Roosevelt (USA). The Universal Declaration did not represent a minimum common denominator of respect for human rights; on the contrary, it presented desirable standards in the attainment of human rights which were very high, almost utopian for that time, and which remain, even now, in many respects, the objectives to be attained by the nations of today. From the legal point of view, it was not a binding document but a "mere" resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Declaration, however, was to change forever governments' approaches to human rights.

And

It is clear that with the coming into force in 1976 of the International Covenants a new era in the history of human rights began. For the first time, States were bound before the international community to promote their individual citizens' rights. For the first time, they granted an international body authority to study their fidelity to promise to observe those rights. For the first time, victims of human rights violations had a means of recourse outside the jurisdiction of the authorities who were guilty of such violations.

The United Nations today looks forward to the time of universal adherence to the various human rights instruments, when all States will be subject to a comprehensive system of review of human rights observance. At the same time, it is seeking to encourage improvements in national legislation and in administrative and judicial practices related to human rights, and to convince governments to both stop violations and remedy controversial individual human rights cases

These are guiding princples and create pressure in a good direction. The first document is filled with examples of how they have helped, while there is much more to do.

While not all nations may agree to or follow the guidelines, they have value as a standard agreed to by the nations of the UN, helping to demonstrate where nations fall short. It's easy to forget how bad the situation for human rights was before these efforts; in the period the UN was formed, nations resisted any efforts by the international community on human rights issues as violations of their sovereignity.

For an analogy, it might go back to how even in the US, the very idea of a husband being able to rape his wife did not exist before about the 1950's; he simply 'had his rights' as a husband, and police and the criminal justice system were far more reluctant to provide any protection to women - those things were viewed as 'private matters' betwen couples. It was partly as there was exposure of abusive behavior that support built for changing the laws to potect people that led to the different situation today.

Similary it's far different today in terms of both the view of and pressures on nations who abuse rights, and the preventive measures, after decades of efforts.

There are people who try to improve the situation and people who are happy to excuse it in the name of some ideology, claiming 'nothing can or should be done'.

We could still have far more human rights violations and a political culture where there are no mechanisms for monitoring it, for reporting abuses, for creating pressures against the abuses, and people who defend that as 'that's just how things need to be'. That would be a tragedy. The UN has an important role to play in the world fighting for progress on improving human rights, and it's done a lot of good, and its guidelines are an important part of that effort. Without it, you'd just have nations criticizing nations.

Instead, we have a negotiated, broadly accepted set of principles as a goal that allows for pointing out when nations fall short of it.

Some might think it's just a coincidence that following such measures, even in the US there has been more progress on women's rights, the civil rights movement changed a century of discrimination in the law, that the way was paved for addressing discrimination against gays for the history of our country (and longer), and that there are improvements globally in countless areas (but see the document for examples).

It's not coincidence - these efforts help lead to the progress. They create a cycle of positive change, where improving in one area helps make clear the need in another.

Save234

 

[Craig234]

Furthermore, nobody views the DoI as a document intended to establish any sort of standard. In contrast, Whiskey16 put forth the UN document as "universal rights as written and accepted by our global society", something that is simply not true as a matter of fact. Countries implement some or all or none of those based on their whims -- the document is not only not "universal", it is pretty much worthless.

Of course the DoI was set up as a standard - most directly for how the US was to set up its government, and even then there was an awareness the US was an experiment that had applicability to the world for progress. There's a reason France sent us a big statue symbolizing the US's leadership on this progress in the 19th century.

The statements in the Declaration were meant to be universal - 'endowed by their creator' did not mean only Americans.

What Whisky said is 'factually accurate' - in that just as the US sets a policy by passing it by the appropriate majority means it's US policy, this globally negotiated agreement on human rights principles, voted for by the appropriate majorities of nations, makes it UN policy.

It doesn't matter not every nation agrees any more than not every member of Congress agreeing to a vote that passes. If the US government violates a constitutional right - and it has many times - that doesn't invalidate the constitution. What's factually inaccurate, as the first document I linked in the previous post clearly shows, is your statement that it's pretty much worthless.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What Whisky said is 'factually accurate' - in that just as the US sets a policy by passing it by the appropriate majority means it's US policy, this globally negotiated agreement on human rights principles, voted for by the appropriate majorities of nations, makes it UN policy.

They key, nay defining difference, being that a policy put into effect by the US Congress has behind it the force of law, and a policy created by the UN has behind it the force of a lot of hot air.

 

[Craig234]

I see I wasted my time providing the information you requested. Your comments imply you did not look at it.

By the way, on the point that your tomato throwing could just as easily be done to the Declaration of Independence, that does not have any force of law, either.

By your pedantic criticsm, the Declaration of Independence is just "hot air" also.

The UN human rights efforts are vcery important and change laws in many countries.

 

[Moonbeam]

I see I wasted my time providing the information you requested. Your comments imply you did not look at it.

By the way, on the point that your tomato throwing could just as easily be done to the Declaration of Independence, that does not have any force of law, either.

By your pedantic criticsm, the Declaration of Independence is just "hot air" also.

The UN human rights efforts are vcery important and change laws in many countries.

UN law does nothing. I mentioned, I think that the Pope has no army and that is all that folk who live by force care about. It is the truth that we have inalienable rights that cause moral evolution. Without an innate sense of conscious and capacity to love there would be no Declaration of Anything. You can argue with CK forever and claim that he is wrongs but to see the matter from a different perspective makes your points and his both valid for me. It is the Will of Man that the Will of God be done for in Heaven they are one and the same.

Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth,
as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
forever and ever.
Amen.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Clearly no one has watched the video I posted....

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I see I wasted my time providing the information you requested. Your comments imply you did not look at it.

I didn't look at it, because it's not relevant. I am not making the argument that the UN declaration isn't a nice laundry list of how things would be in the ideal world. I am making the argument that it's not, as it was originally presented, "the contemporary universal rights as written and accepted by our global society".

There is no such thing as a "global society", there are no agreed upon universal rights, and the UN is a toothless bureaucracy whose membership makes a mockery of it on an ongoing basis. I really couldn't care less about the UN's declarations of anything whatsoever -- this country is not and should not be governed by anyone but its own people.

 

[Retro Rob]

I didn't look at it, because it's not relevant. I am not making the argument that the UN declaration isn't a nice laundry list of how things would be in the ideal world. I am making the argument that it's not, as it was originally presented, "the contemporary universal rights as written and accepted by our global society".

There is no such thing as a "global society", there are no agreed upon universal rights, and the UN is a toothless bureaucracy whose membership makes a mockery of it on an ongoing basis. I really couldn't care less about the UN's declarations of anything whatsoever -- this country is not and should not be governed by anyone but its own people.

Just a quick question: What reason was the UN (the League of Nations being its predecessor) even brought back into existence?

I am sincerely interested in your opinion.

 

[sandorski]

I didn't look at it, because it's not relevant. I am not making the argument that the UN declaration isn't a nice laundry list of how things would be in the ideal world. I am making the argument that it's not, as it was originally presented, "the contemporary universal rights as written and accepted by our global society".

There is no such thing as a "global society", there are no agreed upon universal rights, and the UN is a toothless bureaucracy whose membership makes a mockery of it on an ongoing basis. I really couldn't care less about the UN's declarations of anything whatsoever -- this country is not and should not be governed by anyone but its own people.

IMO, this is an antiquated position. We have outgrown the Nation as the pinnacle of power/authority. The UN, NATO, and other organizations are merely the first attempts of creating a new level of Government that inevitably will be established. There are just too many issues that plague all of us that a Nation based system is incapable of addressing. Nuclear Weapons, Pollution, and Trade are the most obvious issues that will only become more in need of such a supranational Government.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

IMO, this is an antiquated position.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

A governmental system has to be based on common goals and values. I do not share goals and values with all people in this country, but it's a lot closer than compared to those in other countries. I am not interested in being governed in any way by an organization influenced by the governments of countries like Russia, Iran and China. Frankly, I don't even want to be governed by those in charge of most European countries - if I did, I'd move there.

Choice is good. Uniformity is bad.

 

[sandorski]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

A governmental system has to be based on common goals and values. I do not share goals and values with all people in this country, but it's a lot closer than compared to those in other countries. I am not interested in being governed in any way by an organization influenced by the governments of countries like Russia, Iran and China. Frankly, I don't even want to be governed by those in charge of most European countries - if I did, I'd move there.

Choice is good. Uniformity is bad.

You already have Uniformity and Choice. Uniformity on the National level, Choice amongst States and Municipalities. A supranational Government wouldn't change much, it would just take jurisdiction on those issues that don't fit within National borders.

It's not that Nations would cease to exist, they would simply not be the pinnacle of Power. They would be similar to a State/Provincial Government, having to answer to a higher authority on certain things.

It is a bad thing. The issues that supercede National borders are not being addressed adequately and their negative affects are piling up.

 

[Craig234]

I didn't look at it, because it's not relevant. I am not making the argument that the UN declaration isn't a nice laundry list of how things would be in the ideal world. I am making the argument that it's not, as it was originally presented, "the contemporary universal rights as written and accepted by our global society".

There is no such thing as a "global society", there are no agreed upon universal rights, and the UN is a toothless bureaucracy whose membership makes a mockery of it on an ongoing basis. I really couldn't care less about the UN's declarations of anything whatsoever -- this country is not and should not be governed by anyone but its own people.

You're just ranting nonsense and ideology, not discussing.

The point was already addressed about what it means for the UN to adopt a mesaure by its majority vote. You ignored the correction to your babbling about 'universal' - which happens to also apply the Declaration of Independence's assertion about the rights it claims for people being universal.

You say the information is not relevant - it answers what you asked for, a long list of specific areas that the UN human rights efforts have made specific improvements.

It's relevant - it's your rants and ignoring the facts that aren't relevant.

You just parroting a rant agianst the UN and ignoring the information is not a discussion, it's like talking to a wall and a waste of my time.

So I'll stop wasting my time with you on it. You can rant your ideology to yourself.

 

[Craig234]

Moonbeam the topic is not "UN Law". My statement you quoted is that the UN has influenced and pressured nations to obtain changes to THEIR laws.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's not that Nations would cease to exist, they would simply not be the pinnacle of Power. They would be similar to a State/Provincial Government, having to answer to a higher authority on certain things.

I understand the concept, I simply see no way of doing it that I would find acceptable.

So I'll stop wasting my time with you on it. You can rant your ideology to yourself.

My position is no more or less ideological than yours. Just different.

Once again, my objection is to the notion that any UN declaration truly represents some sort of consensus on human rights. I'm not going to respect anything on human rights coming from a body where one of the veto powers murders political prisoners for their organs.

An opinion doesn't become "ranting" just because you dislike it. Since you appear to be incapable of discussing this matter without losing your temper and resorting to personal attacks, yes, it would perhaps be best if you stopped "wasting your time".

 

[Whiskey16]

In contrast, Whiskey16 put forth the UN document as "universal rights as written and accepted by our global society", something that is simply not true as a matter of fact.

Nowhere have I stated such an accomplishment of rights have been achieved by global society.

Your proclaimed revision for what I did not say as not a 'truth' nor 'fact' is an intentionally argumentative misrepresentation that is hampering this discussion.

For the sake of adequate discourse and of this forum's mission to achieve honest discussion, I would appreciate a recantation by yourself with your recognition of what I have already clarified and presented - days ago and directly to you - in this thread:

It may be easy for you to be so dismissive of anything that involves the United Nations, particularly questionable for dismissing the above, "THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations."
..
Over millennia of our varying civilisations have developed into a global society, that declaration has become the universal base standard of expectations.
..
In the body of the UN, certainly not all states have achieved and practiced those intentions, yet that may not negate what we as a global society have all drafted as a principled and moral goal for universal rights.

I expect you to recognise the context, validity, and meaning of those already presented underlined points.

 

[Craig234]

My position is no more or less ideological than yours. Just different.

Wrong. My position is based on what actually works, supported by facts. You are merely parroting ideology - it's a discusion form of masturbation, where you have zero concern about the actual victims of human rights abuses and what helps them, you merely throw tomatoes at the people who actually help things and take satisfaction with yourself.

Once again, my objection is to the notion that any UN declaration truly represents some sort of consensus on human rights. I'm not going to respect anything on human rights coming from a body where one of the veto powers murders political prisoners for their organs.

It's been addressed. You ignore the answer. That's not discussion.

An opinion doesn't become "ranting" just because you dislike it. Since you appear to be incapable of discussing this matter without losing your temper and resorting to personal attacks, yes, it would perhaps be best if you stopped "wasting your time".

It's not ranting because I dislike it. There are all kinds of opinions I dislike that are not ranting.

It's ranting because it's you attacking with a dogmatic screed against the UN parroted, ignoring the facts, refusing to read the answers to questions you ask. You're one of those people who just parrots your established ideology AT someone and doesn't listen to a word being said, you aren't responding, you aren't discussing, you're ranting a speech.

Charles: the UN human rights chartes is trash
Craig: No, it's an important and useful standard asserting rights nations should follow
Charles: Name some specific things the UN human rights effort has done
Craig: Here's a lot of informationon that to answer your question
Charles: (Repeat cut and past anti-UN Rant, including points that were answered)
Craig: It was a waste of time answering you, your answer shows you didn't even read
Charles: I didn't read the answer to the question I asked because it's not relevant. (Repeat the anti-UN rant speech)

I haven't lost my temper nor have I made any personal attacks.

The reason I will stop wasting my time is that you are ranting, not discussing. But I am correcting the reason why I should stop wasting my time from the dishonest straw men.

The UN's human rights efforts are very important. I can point to millions of people who have a better human rights situation because of those efforts.

What good does your tomato-throwing ranting do?

Craig, I have presented my points reasonably and considerately. You have now accused me of "ranting", "parroting", "masturbation" and so forth. I have not responded in kind. Either stop the personal attacks, or I will stop them for you. --ck

 

[Craig234]

Nowhere have I stated such an accomplishment of rights have been achieved by global society.

Your proclaimed revision for what I did not say as not a 'truth' nor 'fact' is an intentionally argumentative misrepresentation that is hampering this discussion.

For the sake of adequate discourse and of this forum's mission to achieve honest discussion, I would appreciate a recantation by yourself with your recognition of what I have already clarified and presented - days ago and directly to you - in this thread:

I expect you to recognise the context, validity, and meaning of those already presented underlined points.

Exactly. Charles misrepresents what you say, and argues against his straw man. You point out it's a straw man, I pointed out it's a straw man, he ignores it and repeats it.

He almost never hears the corrections. One time, he did - after I made the correction and he ignored it, someone else said the same thing and he heard it. Once.

He's off on a tangent about the UN human rights declaration not being agreed to and followed by everyone, and therefore he calls it trash and 'hot air'.

That was corrected and refuted and he just completely ignored the corrections and repeats the same thing he said before.

Clearly, no vote in the US has any merit unless every member of Congress votes for it. clearly, any vote taken by a state who had slaves is illegitimate.

He has no conception of how you improve things in our imperfect world, in the UN.

One more post with personal attacks and you'll be taking a break from the DC. --ck

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Your proclaimed revision for what I did not say as not a 'truth' nor 'fact' is an intentionally argumentative misrepresentation that is hampering this discussion.

It's a direct quote from post #183. You claimed, and again I quote, that the UN charter was "the contemporary universal rights as written and accepted by our global society". And that is false, because there is no such thing as "global society" and no universal acceptance of that declaration. It may be the consensus of a number of nations who chose to vote for it, but that's about it. And many of them don't even make an effort to follow it.

I expect you to recognise the context, validity, and meaning of those already presented underlined points.

Well, prepare to be disappointed. I utterly reject your claims. They can claim the document is whatever they want, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly. Charles misrepresents what you say, and argues against his straw man. You point out it's a straw man, I pointed out it's a straw man, he ignores it and repeats it.

He almost never hears the corrections. One time, he did - after I made the correction and he ignored it, someone else said the same thing and he heard it. Once.

He's off on a tangent about the UN human rights declaration not being agreed to and followed by everyone, and therefore he calls it trash and 'hot air'.

That was corrected and refuted and he just completely ignored the corrections and repeats the same thing he said before.

Clearly, no vote in the US has any merit unless every member of Congress votes for it. clearly, any vote taken by a state who had slaves is illegitimate.

He has no conception of how you improve things in our imperfect world, in the UN.

Can you guys give a situation where the UN Declaration of Human Rights has been used to overcome human rights abuses?

 

[Craig234]

Can you guys give a situation where the UN Declaration of Human Rights has been used to overcome human rights abuses?

See my link posted a few posts back.

It has a long history of improvements to human rights laws and policies that helped.

 

[Craig234]

Predictable, Charles, criticize your argument and it's a 'personal attack' where moderator action is threatened. There was no personal attack.

It's not good form in how to discsuss an issue to ask a question and then when your question is answered, not read it and call it "irrelevant".

And then repeat the same arguments that the unread answer to your question has already disproven. That's not discussing an issue.

To paraphrase you, an opinion doesn't become a "personal attack" because you don't like it.

And I wouldn't call threats and baseless attacks such as 'losing your temper' reasonable or considerate.

But it is ironic, again.

 

[Whiskey16]

It's a direct quote from post #183.

Argumentatively, you cherry pick but a single line, and one that you misrepresent as you refuse to recognise the context as it was presented within.

I followed up with concise clarification against your disruptively semantic argumentation that 'acceptance' of a published DECLARATION of INTENT must equate to universal practice of those ideals. Others have chimed with external reports support in correcting your misrepresentation, but in your ideologue ranting against anything that may involve the United Nations, you care not to adequately discuss the specifics. On this page, I again repeated my days old and direct clarification to you, but you continue to flippantly ignore the content and language of the progressing discussion at hand, all to maintain your misrepresentation of a much earlier and single line by me.

Charles, vacantly, you are arguing against recorded social global events with only that of nonsensical ideology. To further this discussion, I will continue to support my position with external citations to demonstrate the globally evolving sentiment of aspiring to achieve practiced and laudable universal rights. Despite this thread's title, no such notion and drafting of such rights came about magically from some ether, rather from interaction, participation and recognition within our global society:

You claimed, and again I quote, that the UN charter was "the contemporary universal rights as written and accepted by our global society".

First, I never mentioned a thing upon the Charter, I entered into this discussion [1] the United Nations - Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Your error of poor comprehension and misrepresentation.

In a thread entitled 'God given rights,' I countered that societies formulate morals and out of which may relegate a dogmatic doctrine -- not vice-versa. I then contributed into this discussion a globalised set of moral standards and rights that were drafted by members of our global society and intended as goals for all to eventually achieve -- not as having already universally achieved as you continue to argumentatively mischaracterise me to have said:

History of the Document

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, was the result of the experience of the Second World War. With the end of that war, and the creation of the United Nations, the international community vowed never again to allow atrocities like those of that conflict happen again. World leaders decided to complement the UN Charter with a road map to guarantee the rights of every individual everywhere.

Yes, Charles, that did happen.

And that is false, because there is no such thing as "global society"...

In an argument against contemporary reality, says you.

Into the start of the 20th century, with the great advancements in communication and transportation, unlike never before a great global social change began upon once fairly isolated communities of states and even within those states. This brings us all to where as we have now, none are free from the influence nor compounding reactions to actions and interactions between us all.

With the diplomatic, participatory, and continuity failure of the League of Nations, post-WWII states of this world recognised the need for and founded the far more representative, comprehensive, and lasting United Nations. Global trade, entertainment, communication, travel, etc., compounded at ever increasing rates that all certainly denies your stubbornly ideological stance of denial against the presence of our "global society."

...and no universal acceptance of that declaration. It may be the consensus of a number of nations who chose to vote for it, but that's about it.

A global foundation as a starting place. Yet you have demonstrated to be so ideologically dismissive as to deny such published ideals -- particularly attached to the United Nations -- as having any worth. An interacting society brings pressure for change. Not immediate for all, to be sure. There will always be those who are so anti-social and individualistic as to go their own way. But over time, the reaction against he socially defining grain returns greater consequences, and thereby a greater pressure to adequately act and participate.

The Foundation of International Human Rights Law

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is generally agreed to be the foundation of international human rights law. Adopted in 1948, the UDHR has inspired a rich body of legally binding international human rights treaties. It continues to be an inspiration to us all whether in addressing injustices, in times of conflicts, in societies suffering repression, and in our efforts towards achieving universal enjoyment of human rights.

It represents the universal recognition that basic rights and fundamental freedoms are inherent to all human beings, inalienable and equally applicable to everyone, and that every one of us is born free and equal in dignity and rights. Whatever our nationality, place of residence, gender, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status, the international community on December 10 1948 made a commitment to upholding dignity and justice for all of us.


Foundation for Our Common Future

Over the years, the commitment has been translated into law, whether in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles, regional agreements and domestic law, through which human rights are expressed and guaranteed. Indeed, the UDHR has inspired more than 80 international human rights treaties and declarations, a great number of regional human rights conventions, domestic human rights bills, and constitutional provisions, which together constitute a comprehensive legally binding system for the promotion and protection of human rights.

Building on the achievements of the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force in 1976. The two Covenants have developed most of the rights already enshrined in the UDHR, making them effectively binding on States that have ratified them.

Zero change has occurred, eh? That has been part of your argument, Charles.

And many of them don't even make an effort to follow it.

No kidding, eh? Our sky is often blue too. Well, as I have supported -- over 60 years ago that declaration was drafted as a 'road map,' an aspirational guide of rights, as per the theme of this thread.

Well, prepare to be disappointed. I utterly reject your claims.

Yes, without reasonable support, you do.

 

[Whiskey16]

Can you guys give a situation where the UN Declaration of Human Rights has been used to overcome human rights abuses?

That document is not a law nor treaty, therefore it can not and has not directly accomplished what you question. Its drafting was that of a principled intention.

My previous post addressed the history of that 1940's declaration and what it provided as a foundation to the progress of international laws, many of which have been applied in influencing international and domestic policy, legislation, action, court cases through to that of litigated punishment.

Contrary to Charles' contrarian position , here are some decent starting points supporting practical change that has occurred since the advent of such internationally legislated rights:

How Do I Find Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals?

International law and domestic human rights litigation in Africa

Business: obligations under international human rights law

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Argumentatively, you cherry pick but a single line, and one that you misrepresent as you refuse to recognise the context as it was presented within.

"Argumentatively"? Well, it's an argument. I don't think I'm misrepresenting it at all, but since I've specifically referenced your post, anyone who wishes can go back, read the whole thing, and decide for themselves.

Charles, vacantly, you are arguing against recorded social global events with only that of nonsensical ideology.

I'm not arguing against any events. I'm arguing against your claim of their significance. This thread is about where rights come from, and many people are saying they are what society agrees that they are. The heart of that point is supported by the fact that societies are different around the world, and thus, so are societal norms. It's fine for a bunch of nations to get together and say they think that human rights includes everything on a particular list, but that doesn't mean that the list actually represents the rights that everyone agrees on.

Or, put another way, if the rights listed in that document were truly as universal as claimed, there would arguably be no real need for it. The fact that you and Craig are saying it is being used to change various nations underlines my point that societies are different and there's no universal agreement.

Zero change has occurred, eh? That has been part of your argument, Charles.

No, it hasn't. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that I am not talking at all about whether or not that document has influenced human rights policy in any given nation. (And as an aside, correlation does not imply causation.)

Yes, without reasonable support, you do.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Again, if rights come from society then rights derive from societal norms and are a function thereof. I can't accept the notion of a "global society" when I compare the typical attitudes of people and governments in countries as diverse as Sweden, USA, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China and Somalia, which all have completely different societies and thus different ideas about what are and are not human rights.

Maybe someday we really will have universal acceptance of a codified standard of human rights, but we're currently very, very far from that.