The Seventieth Anniversary Of The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.

Yeah, a lot of people, in this country at least, aren't even aware of it. But the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was conceived of in 1948 "...as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance..."

In three years, of course, it will be its 70th anniversary.

Yeah, the document was originally conceived as a binding document, on all those countries that signed it, so that people could use its rights no matter where they were in the world. Unfortunately that never came to pass (c'est dommage, as the French would say). But it has kind of a semi-binding status, as a kind of common standard for all peoples. It also is widely used and referred to by international human rights watchdog groups, like Amnesty International.

Here, you can read it for yourselves: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/


:sunny: :sunny: :sunny:

 

It all sounds harmless on the surface, but "Human Rights" as defined by the United Nations has to do with rights given to you by government. Since these rights were granted by the government, they can also be taken away by the government. It's different from the unalienable, individual rights a person is born with. Human rights are to be a form of global rights granted by a governmental authority to replace unalienable rights. It's all about redefining the meaning of rights under the guise of international peace and harmony.

 

The UN Declaration of human rights literally starts with "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family."

 

Notice it says by 'progressive measures' and NOT by conservative measures.

 

a document which makes a great deal of sense, which many nations, including the most powerful, are extremely hypicritical about.
still undoubtedly some sort of a step, for it to have been set down in words. much as can be said of the magna charta.

i've read several times, and its absolutely lovely. it has very little to do with what is actually practiced by nations individually, nor by consensus between them,
but it would certainly be a wonderful great idea if it were. if ideological prejudice and just plain greed, didn't get in the way of its application.
if some international agency could have the teeth to actually enforce it, uniformly and impartially, upon even, and especially, those nations most powerful and influential.

first of course, we need to not destroy a natural environment capable of sustaining our existence as a species, without that, there would be no 'human' to have rights or otherwise.
but the very next thing, is for people to be otherwise left the hell alone, to think their own thoughts, dream their own dreams, and believe their own beliefs.

it is precisely the soverignty of nations, and its usurpation by economic interests, which is in the most thorough and direct conflict with it.
not inhierently perhaps, but certainly in readily observable actual practice.

still it is a sensible goal, to seek ways to harness the energy of nations, interests and egos, to it.

 

Only shame is that it's far from universally applied.