Are unalienable human rights applicable only in certain countries?

by ROB Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:23 pm

First topic message reminder :

Oftenwrong posted this thought provoking message on another board.

oftenwrong wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
… freedom of speech is guaranteed by law…
Law should ideally be Universal, but in fact it depends where you are in the World whether an action (including speech) is legal or sanctionable. Simply crossing an international border can render something you are carrying illegal. (Try taking an apple through US Customs).

Freedom of speech is by no means a worldwide concept.

Is Oftenwrong correct? Are unalienable human rights for all, such as freedom of speech, applicable only in certain countries? Or should all humans worldwide enjoy these rights?

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:51 am

There were deep-seated intellectual anti-slavery criticisms in French and Scottish Enlightenment writing. But British abolition had more immediate origins. First of all were the English slave cases; that string of court cases which focussed on the legality of slavery in England itself. From the 1760s onwards this legal challenge had, in Granville Sharp, a resolute campaigner determined to prove the illegality of slavery in England, and to prevent the removal of Africans back to the slave colonies against their will. The culmination of his campaign was Lord Mansfield's decision in the Somerset case of 1772 which, though taking a narrow legal focus (that blacks could not legally be removed from England) had the effect of undermining slavery in England. Sharpe, personal friend to distressed Africans, and tireless campaigner on their behalf, was the first real English hero of abolition

From http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Slavery/articles/walvin.html

Not disagreeing RoC. Just another view and interesting article

by Shirina Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:34 pm

De-arm We the People, arm the minions of evil, and behold Nazism, Fascism, Idi-ism, etc.

The right to bear arms is a double-edged sword, and I do not mean that in reference to crime.

The problem with it is that, while yes, an armed populace can more easily guard against Nazism, Fascism, etc., it becomes a bloodbath should an armed populace ever decide to SUPPORT Nazism, Fascism, etc. Those who truly fight for freedom would have their hands full. It's one thing to talk of overthrowing a government that is truly tyrannical, it's quite another to talk of overthrowing a duly elected democratic government just because the opposition party didn't win the election.

I fear that the right-wingers in this country, those who cling the hardest to their guns, are gradually posing an ever greater threat to the security of this country. Membership in anti-government militias have increased by over 700% since Obama was elected and Obama received more documented death threats in his first year than any other president throughout their entire terms in office. I fear that those who scream the loudest about the right to own guns and the sanctity of liberty will be the first people to bring fascism to this nation, for can we truly say that we live in a democracy if the ELECTED government is overthrown to be replaced with a non-elected leader who represents only the will of the extreme right?

This was one of the great tragedies of Kennedy's assassination. It represented a usurpation of the people's will. Kennedy was duly elected by the American people, and Lee Harvey Oswald decided what he wanted was more important than the rest of America. There are many in this country who see the Kennedy assassination as a coup d'etat and I could see it happening on a larger scale if Obama is re-elected. If these radical militias ever found the courage to truly act, this country would plunge into religious fascism the likes of which no Western nation has seen in modern times.

Therefore, the right to bear arms is only beneficial when used responsibly, but the definition of "tyrannical" is lost on a population that has never experienced true tyranny since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The government forcing its citizens to use florescent light bulbs hardly constitutes tyranny yet the right-wingers have called it such, and with a flimsy excuse such as that, who is to say whether the right to bear arms will be used to enforce the true will of the people and not simply the will of those with the biggest guns.

by ROB Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:50 pm

Trevor,

The portion of the article you’ve posted here is fascinating. I’ve bookmarked it for more careful reading. Thank you.

Shirina,

The right to bear arms does not carry with it the right to murder or assassinate. I remember the murder/assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I remember the murder/assassination of El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. I remember the murder of Medgar Evers. I remember the murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner. I remember the murder/assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. I remember, with tears right now, the murder/assassination of Bobby, Robert Francis Kennedy, in a Los Angeles hotel.

Evil things that masquerade as humans were responsible for each of these heinous acts. Evil things still masquerade as humans us. Their weapons of choice, usually guns, are nothing but mindless mechanism chosen by evil things to wreak destruction on civilization.

Guns, however, are not the only mechanisms chosen by evil things. Nineteen evil things, motivated by a beast hiding out in an Arab emirate hotel room while the evil things he had brainwashed by proxy destroyed almost three thousand innocent souls, chose four airliners as their weapons of choice.

When we focus on the mindless mechanisms rather than the evil things that use the mindless mechanisms for evil, we miss the point. We need to focus upon removing from evil things their ability to use any mindless mechanisms to wreak evil upon our world.

Colin Powell, a soldier familiar with firearms, chose not to run for President of the United States in 1996. During an interview with BaBa WaWa, aka Barbara Waters, Powell said that his wife did not want him to run. I think Powell’s wife was afraid, but not of guns, for she had lived with a soldier for decades. I think she was afraid of the evil things that, thirteen years later, on 20 January 2009, began focusing their evil on the forty-fourth President of the United States.

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:17 pm

Quote Shirina

The right to bear arms is a double-edged sword, and I do not mean that in reference to crime.

I do not know facts and figures you quote, but I do know that was an excellent Posting.

by Shirina Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:38 pm

I do not know facts and figures you quote, but I do know that was an excellent Posting.

Hello, Trevor. If you're interested, here's a bit of preliminary reading on this subject including verification of the facts I quoted:

The election of President Barack Obama in 2008 triggered an explosion in the number of militias and so-called patriot groups in the United States, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported in its annual tally of such anti-government organizations. There were 149 militias and patriot groups when Obama took office, compared to more than 1,200 today — an increase of 755 percent, the nonprofit civil rights organization reported.

The center also reports a steady rise in the number of hate groups in America — from 604 in 2000, to more than 1,000 last year. Those include anti-gay groups, anti-Muslim groups, black separatists and "Christian Identity" groups, which hold racist and anti-Semitic views that overlap with neo-Nazi beliefs.

LINK

Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President's Secret Service. Some threats to Mr Obama, whose Secret Service codename is Renegade, have been publicised, including an alleged plot by white supremacists in Tennessee late last year to rob a gun store, shoot 88 black people, decapitate another 14 and then assassinate the first black president in American history.

LINK

WASHINGTON – Threats against a new president historically spike right after an election, but from Maine to Idaho law enforcement officials are seeing more against Barack Obama than ever before. The Secret Service would not comment or provide the number of cases they are investigating. But since the Nov. 4 election, law enforcement officials have seen more potentially threatening writings, Internet postings and other activity directed at Obama than has been seen with any past president-elect, said officials aware of the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity because the issue of a president’s security is so sensitive.

LINK

I also know that earlier this month you asked Ivan about using my posts for personal study. I think I may have given you the go-ahead before, but if I haven't, then feel free to use them. I would only ask that you not "publish" them anywhere else (like on another forum) unless it is used as a quote.

Thanks!

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:06 pm

Shirina. Your post. Thanks. My personal interest has been in ancient Mesopotamian history, especially in relation to the 'history' related in the Bible and the background, previous Codes, health regulations and customs which were in operation prior to/during/and after the 10 commandments etc. and how these have affected the 'writings' of the Bible.

Your comments have been helpful in understanding the USA, if anyone can ever understand it. Smile

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:07 pm

There's rather more to worry about in the Mesopotamian history during the 21st. Century, which affects everyone still alive.

by ROB Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:56 pm

Regarding bearing arms, food for thought:

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Concealed Gun Permits Deter Violence
Morgan O. Reynolds – February 1, 1997

Do [concealed carry] laws make us safer?

Texas is a good case study.

Through the first eight months of 1996, Houston murder rates were down 18 percent from the previous year. Dallas murder rates fell 25 percent from the previous year.

[University of Chicago economist] John Lott and his graduate assistant David Mustard are the first social scientists to scientifically study the impact of concealed carry permits.

... Lott and Mustard used data from all three thousand counties in the United States between 1977 and 1992. Concealed handgun laws... reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent, and severe assault by 7 percent. The Lott-Mustard statistical models are sophisticated and account for many differences among counties...

... there would have been 1600 fewer murders, 4200 hundred fewer rapes, and 60,000 fewer severe assaults if [concealed carry laws] had prevailed throughout the country in 1992.

... the national reduction in violent crime is worth $6.6 billion... for a net social gain of $6.2 billion.

Morgan Reynolds is director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis

Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://heartland.org/policy-documents/concealed-gun-permits-deter-violence

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Packing pistols: Is Texas safer with more licensed to carry?

by DAVE FEHLING
KHOU 11 News
Posted on July 11, 2011 at 2:27 PM

HOUSTON

... Does it do good or harm to have thousands of Texans legally carrying concealed handguns?

... in data compiled by the Texas Department of Safety, people licensed to carry guns accounted for only about 1 percent of people convicted of "deadly conduct." They accounted for an even smaller percentage of convictions of other violent felonies. In all, the state data shows that of the 65,561 people convicted in Texas in 2009 of felonies of all kinds, 101 were also holders of concealed handgun licenses.

One researcher told KHOU 11 News that there is no measurable evidence that having CHLs puts innocent people at risk of being shot, accidentally or otherwise.

"I don’t know of a single academic study by anyone that’s found an increase in accidental shootings," [said] John Lott, economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime."

Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/125366903.html

by ROB Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:37 am

Trevor,

Back to the sub-topic, the unalienable human right to freedom/liberty.

You’ve stated that perhaps rulers, those in charge, should not be forced to recognize the unalienable human rights of those over whom they have ruler-ship.

Should slave traders, slave ship captains, have been forced by the Royal navy to recognize the unalienable human rights of those over whom they had ruler-ship? Should the Royal Navy instead have realized that slave traders were of a different culture wherein it was acceptable and actually expected that slave traders would take ruler-ship over captured West Africans that they purchased from West African rulers?

Remember that the law of the seas, even today, is that the captain of the ship is the law aboard ship.

by trevorw2539 Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:41 am

by oftenwrong Yesterday at 11:07 pm

There's rather more to worry about in the Mesopotamian history during the 21st. Century, which affects everyone still alive.

The Middle East we have today was shaped by Mesopotamian history. The movement of external tribes into the area, the destruction of others tribes, enforced dispersed of peoples from their own land.
Current state if Israel occupies land they were 'ejected' from millenia ago, although there have always been enclaves of Jews in Palestine. Sometimes tolerated and sometimes not, by the Arabs.
History shapes the future, for good or bad. Sometimes if we understand the past we can understand the present.

Don't you have any interests outside the daily grind of living. 'All work and no play.......'.

by trevorw2539 Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:19 am

RoC. quote.

the captain of the ship is the law aboard ship.

Every captain is captain and law in his vessel. He is also under Admiralty orders.
You and I will have to agree to differ. I see the trouble caused in History by one nation trying to force it's beliefs/culture on another. So in religion.

While humans have inalienable rights how do you justify the loss of the right of a human life (soldiers, civilians, childs) to secure the rights a Muslim woman to education.

I'm not God.

by witchfinder Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:07 pm

Today ( tue 27th march ) in Wales, a young man by the name of Liam Stacey was sent to prison for 56 days by a court for posting racially offensive comments on twitter.

The case surrounds the footballer ( soccer player ) Fabrice Muamba, who colapsed and almost died on the field during a match between Tottenham and Bolton for whom Muamba plays.

The young welshman made several racially offensive and insensetive comments which attracted various complaints to police forces accross both Wales and England, subsequently Liam Stacey was arrested.

Some people use "Free Speech" as a smoke screen to hide behind, an excuse to spew out vile and bigoted language or statements, they say that its their opinion, and that they have a right to their opinion.

Personaly I am absolutely delighted that this young man was jailed, and apparently he was taken away in handcuffs crying at the thought of going to prison - it serves him right.

There are some nations and some people who believe that this is taking things too far, some would argue that this young man has a right to say what he believes - but then I guess there were those who thought persecuting Jews in the 1930s in Germany or segregating black people in the 1950s in America was right.

We do learn eventualy what is right and what is wrong, its just a pitty that sometimes it takes time.

by ROB Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:08 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:

RoC. quote.

the captain of the ship is the law aboard ship.
Every captain is captain and law in his vessel. He is also under Admiralty orders.

Trevor,

My inquiry is not theoretical. My inquiry is intertwined with the fabric of our two interlocking histories, that of the United States, and that of the United Kingdom from which the US emerged and from which the US “won” (not exactly) its independence.

The Royal Navy, shortly after Parliament of the United Kingdom passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807 on 25 March 1807, established the West Africa Squad, which between 1808 and 1860 seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard slave ships, categorizing slave trader ships as pirates. Some of these slave trader ships had American captains. This is historical fact.

I’ve asked two specific questions about these historical facts:

Should slave traders, slave ship captains, have been forced by the Royal navy to recognize the unalienable human rights of those over whom they had ruler-ship?
Should the Royal Navy instead have realized that slave traders were of a different culture wherein it was acceptable and actually expected that slave traders would take ruler-ship over captured West Africans that they purchased from West African rulers?

Based upon your words, I’ve concluded that your answers to these two specific questions are as follows:

No.
Yes.

Thus, I muss conclude that you take the position that slavery is legal if the ruler of that jurisdiction (in this case, captains of slave ships) says that slavery is legal, and that (1) no person should oppose slavery in any jurisdiction in which the ruler thereof says that slavery is legal, and (2) no person should take action to free a slave that is enslaved in a jurisdiction in which the ruler thereof says that slavery is illegal.

I also must conclude that you take the position that the unalienable human right to liberty/freedom does not exist. Instead, the ruler of each jurisdiction throughout the world can choose to grant or deny freedom/liberty to any person living within that ruler’s jurisdiction.

Your nation, the United Kingdom, is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, Article 3 of which states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”, and Article 4 of which states “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms” (Copyright © United Nations 2012. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/).

I must also conclude that you take the position that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an illegal document, and that, by signing this illegal document, the United Kingdom has committed an illegal act.

trevorw2539 wrote:
I see the trouble caused in History by one nation trying to force it's beliefs/culture on another.

I see the fact that had not the Royal Navy forced its beliefs and cultures upon slave trader captains and crews, one hundred fifty thousand human souls would have joined millions of others in the Middle Passage and slavery in America.

I must conclude that you see the Royal Navy as criminals for freeing one hundred fifty thousand human souls from slavery, a position I cannot endorse and with which I cannot abide.

This is not theory. This is historical fact. None of the one hundred fifty thousand human souls rescued from slavery by the West Africa Squad were theories. All of those precious human souls were your fellow humans.

trevorw2539 wrote:
While humans have inalienable rights how do you justify the loss of the right of a human life (soldiers, civilians, childs) to secure the rights a Muslim woman to education.

How do you justify tolerating evil things forcing women to wear upside down trash baskets over their heads and draperies over their bodies every time they venture out into public? How do you justify evil males being allowed to rape, torture, maim, and kill females at will with no consequences?

trevorw2539 wrote:
I'm not God.

You need not be God to cringe at atrocities; you need not be God to do all that you can do to eliminate atrocities from the lives of precious human souls.

by ROB Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:12 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Simply crossing an international border can render something you are carrying illegal. (Try taking an apple through US Customs).

Try to smuggle an orange into Arizona.

by Shirina Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:35 pm

I have to sit on the fence in regards to this issue since I can see both sides of the argument as being legitimate. For me, it's all a matter of extremes.

If, for instance, Hitler had not embarked upon a world war and instead ONLY committed the Holocaust within Germany's borders, I would argue that a full-on military invasion of Nazi Germany would be perfectly justified. It doesn't matter if the majority of the population believes that Jews should be rounded up and murdered. Some beliefs are so heinous as to assault the sensibilities and moral fiber of every civilization - including the Nazis themselves (which is why they took such great pains to hide the Holocaust). In circumstances like that, forcing a nation to abandon a particular belief system is not only acceptable but necessary.

On the other hand, if the only issue is Hitler's fascism, then no, I do not believe for a minute that any other nation should invade in order to bring democracy to the German people - especially when it's quite clear that a large number of people are quite enthralled with the man. We should not be telling Germany how to run itself whether they adopt fascism, socialism, plutocracy, democracy, monarchy, or a military junta.

by trevorw2539 Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:22 pm

RoC.

The conclusions you have made have come from the fact that I simply pointed out that Captains were under the Admiralty. How you come to your conclusions from that bewilders me. It seems to me that you put the interpretation you want on people's words.

As to justifying anything. I didn't. Remember? I'm not God. I simply asked a question.

If you read my posts some time ago I think I mentioned the UDHR and my only reservation was how you enact that by 'forcing' tyrants to accept it.

We , USA/UK etc. invaded Aghanistan to dismantle AlQaeda and remove the Taliban. We have done neither. Both are still very much alive. We have freed the women as you said not long ago. I think I asked - for how long. To which you replied - we've given them the chance.

The women of North Africa would love the chance to live and bring up their children. But we haven't invaded there. We haven't stopped the rape and killing.

Afghanistan was a reaction to 9/11. Justified. I'll grant you. Successful. Judge for yourselves.

Okay. Now we can withdraw while the Taliban take over again, and Al Qaeda move back from Yemen etc. .

A recent NATO report said that there is widespread collusion between the insurgents and the Afghan Army and police.

Perhaps we can turn our attention now to invading Syria, Tibet, Burma, Zimbabe, North Korea, North Africa and countless other states that need 'freeing'. Forgot China - now that would be something.

Neither the USA or UK are the worlds policemen. Neither the USA or UK are paragons of virtue.

I finish with this.

I believe in the UDHR. I do not believe you can force anyone to do anything. The inquisition tried it, the Taliban are trying it. All you can do is beat people into submission by superior force. But be sure they will take revenge at some stage. That is human nature.

I will make no further comment:silent:

by astra Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:58 pm

In countries not too far from the UK shores (1 arguably is less than 100 miles!!) the human rights of either of two "men" standing in the town sqare is determined by which one holds the Kalashnikov!

It used to be - who had the biggest muscles and the biggest stick, then it all came to the number of followers you had to hold your argument.

Nowadays it is not who holds the red button, but who is in the most secure arieated building!

by trevorw2539 Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:35 pm

by astra Today at 9:58 pm

In countries not too far from the UK shores (1 arguably is less than 100 miles!!) the human rights of either of two "men" standing in the town sqare is determined by which one holds the Kalashnikov!

Was it an Irishman who once said 'the only winner is the one still standing alone when the shooting dies down.'

Wisdom supreme

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:24 pm

"....if the only issue is Hitler's fascism, then no, I do not believe for a minute that any other nation should invade in order to bring democracy to the German people...."

Herr Hitler was democratically elected, as apparently was Assad of Syria, but does that give them authority to kill anyone that disagrees with them?

by ROB Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:13 am

Shirina wrote:
I have to sit on the fence in regards to this issue since I can see both sides of the argument as being legitimate. For me, it's all a matter of extremes.

There is no fence upon which to sit insofar as this sub-topic, the unalienable human right to freedom/liberty, is concerned. Either the Royal Navy and its West Africa Squad were criminals engaged in illegal activity, or the Royal Navy and its West Africa Squad were legitimate authorities, bringing liberty and justice to one hundred fifty thousand precious human soul by intercepting and boarding approximately one thousand six hundred pirate slave ships and presumably taking into custody one thousand six hundred pirate slaver crews.

Shirina wrote:
If... Hitler had… ONLY committed the Holocaust within Germany's borders, I would argue that a full-on military invasion of Nazi Germany would be perfectly justified.

Exactly. The Royal Navy from 1808 through 1860, the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, British Army, Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Air Force, Australian Army, Royal New Zealand Navy, Royal New Zealand Air Force, New Zealand Army, Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force, Canadian Army from 1939 through 1945, joined by the United States Navy, the United States Marine Corps, the United States Army, and the United States Army Air Corps from 1941 through 1945.

Either these were all criminals, or they were not all criminals.

Shirina wrote:
It doesn't matter if the majority of the population believes that Jews should be rounded up and murdered. Some beliefs are so heinous as to assault the sensibilities and moral fiber of every civilization - including the Nazis themselves (which is why they took such great pains to hide the Holocaust). In circumstances like that, forcing a nation to abandon a particular belief system is not only acceptable but necessary.

Exactly.

Shirina wrote:
On the other hand, if the only issue is Hitler's fascism, then no, I do not believe for a minute that any other nation should invade in order to bring democracy to the German people…

The term “fascism” appears in no document related to unalienable human rights. However, there are unalienable human rights routinely violated by fascist regimes.

by ROB Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:13 am

trevorw2539 wrote:
RoC.

The conclusions you have made have come from the fact that I simply pointed out that Captains were under the Admiralty.

The conclusions I have made come from your implied “No” and “Yes” to two specific questions. Given your words, my inference that you indeed answered “No” and “Yes” is necessary.

trevorw2539 wrote:
It seems to me that you put the interpretation you want on people's words.

I’ve interpreted nothing. I’ve necessarily inferred that you’ve answered “No” and “Yes” to two specific questions.

trevorw2539 wrote:
As to justifying anything. I didn't. Remember? I'm not God. I simply asked a question.

To the best of my knowledge, I’ve not used the words “justifying” or “justify.”

trevorw2539 wrote:
If you read my posts some time ago I think I mentioned the UDHR and my only reservation was how you enact that by 'forcing' tyrants to accept it.

Slave trader captains were tyrants violating the unalienable human rights of millions of precious human souls. Your implied answers lead to the necessary conclusion that you take the position that the Royal Navy were acting illegally in intercepting and boarding one thousand six hundred slave ships on the high seas and freeing one hundred fifty thousand precious human souls.

trevorw2539 wrote:
We , USA/UK etc. invaded Aghanistan to dismantle AlQaeda and remove the Taliban.

al qaida violated the unalienable human rights of nearly three thousand precious human souls on 11 September 2001 alone. taliban enslaved, tortured, raped, maimed, and murdered countless Afghan women.

trevorw2539 wrote:
We have done neither.

We have done both. Afghan women no longer wear upside down trash cans and draperies in public. Osama Who Swims With Fishes no longer sits in safety godfathering the extermination of precious human souls.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Both are still very much alive.

Both are very much weakened.

trevorw2539 wrote:
We have freed the women as you said not long ago. I think I asked - for how long.

Forever. Unalienable human rights are not “time sensitive.” Unalienable human rights carry no “expiration date.”

trevorw2539 wrote:
The women of North Africa would love the chance to live and bring up their children. But we haven't invaded there. We haven't stopped the rape and killing.

The Royal Navy from 1808 through 1860 did everything it knew how to do to free one hundred thousand precious human souls, We in 2012 should do everything we know how to do to stop the rapes and murders of precious human souls.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Perhaps we can turn our attention now to invading Syria, Tibet, Burma, Zimbabe, North Korea, North Africa and countless other states that need 'freeing'. Forgot China - now that would be something.

Perhaps. Insofar as I’m concerned, all those mentioned are proper targets for invasion, including China. But China has been invaded from within, by Hong Kong, and it is slowly evolving into a country in which unalienable human rights are protected rather than disparaged.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Neither the USA or UK are the worlds policemen.

Was the Royal Navy 1808-1860 the world’s policemen? That argument falls on deaf ears when directed to me.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Neither the USA or UK are paragons of virtue.

So should decent people wait until they are “paragons of virtue” before doin what’s right? I hope not, because I know of but a handful of people who were or are “paragons of virtue”, and there is fa more evil that abounds in the world than Mother Teresa could have handled in her lifetime.

trevorw2539 wrote:
I believe in the UDHR.

Then you believe this:

Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Copyright © United Nations 2012. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Please explain the discrepancy I perceive between your position that the Royal navy acted illegally in intercepting one thousand six hundrd slave ships and freeing one hundred fifty thousand precious human souls and your statement “I believe in the UDHR”

trevorw2539 wrote:
I do not believe you can force anyone to do anything.

From 1808-1860, the Royal Navy forced one thousand six hundred slave ship captains to do something.

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:57 am

The only comment I make is that you have taken half statements, giving them a different meaning to the completed statement, and commented on those. You have made your own inferences based on your opinions. I am not going to comment on your individual preferences in interpretation.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/139/the-usa-and-human-rights#HumanRightsWithintheUnitedStates

by ROB Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:59 am

trevorw2539 wrote:
The only comment I make is that you have taken half statements, giving them a different meaning to the completed statement, and commented on those. You have made your own inferences based on your opinions. I am not going to comment on your individual preferences in interpretation.

I’ve asked two specific questions:

Should slave traders, slave ship captains, have been forced by the Royal navy to recognize the unalienable human rights of those over whom they had ruler-ship?
Should the Royal Navy instead have realized that slave traders were of a different culture wherein it was acceptable and actually expected that slave traders would take ruler-ship over captured West Africans that they purchased from West African rulers?

You answered as follows:

trevorw2539 wrote:
Every captain is captain and law in his vessel. He is also under Admiralty orders.
You and I will have to agree to differ. I see the trouble caused in History by one nation trying to force it's beliefs/culture on another. So in religion.

While humans have inalienable rights how do you justify the loss of the right of a human life (soldiers, civilians, childs) to secure the rights a Muslim woman to education.

I'm not God.

Note the two questions and your answer, “Every captain is captain and law in his vessel. He is also under Admiralty orders.” You compellingly imply, and I necessarily infer and conclude from your own words, that your two answers to the two questions which you’ve been asked, are as follows:

No.
Yes.

In accordance with your compellingly implied answers, I gave reached logical conclusions as to your position.

I’ve also requested that you resolve the perceived (by me) discrepancy between your two implied answers and Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I await your response to my request.

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:45 am

RoC.

You may infer what I 'compellingly imply' if you wish. I really have no interest in debating 200 year old history purely for the sake of argument. And that it really is all about.

by bobby Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:22 am

Why is it Roc, that you only ever you talk about slavery, that consists of the slavery suffered by your ancestors, Why is it you never mention the slavery that has gone on for centuries, almost every nation on the planet has at some time been enslaved by someone else, but you never mention them. I remember pointing this out to you before, but you failed to give a response.
I see you are at your old tricks again Roc, asking for answers whilst being unprepared to give them yourself.
History shows us that the slave trade in Africa pales into insignificance when compared to other nations history, You only have to look at Egypt and Rome to see just how insignificant African slavery was. The British where enslaved by the Romans, yet never a mention from you.

Up until this point, it's a just-about acceptable post that details strong opinions on historical points and directs those opinions at someone with opposing ones. It's a little unpleasant, but it's okay (although I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end). From here onwards, the post was deeply offensive and personal, and I saw fit to delete it. bobby, let's not let this happen again.

Free speech is a good thing. Abuse of it is a real shame.

by Shirina Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:47 pm

Herr Hitler was democratically elected, as apparently was Assad of Syria, but does that give them authority to kill anyone that disagrees with them?

Hitler was democratically elected to the position of Chancellor. Germany had an odd system of government whereby the Chancellor and the President shared power. The president at the time was Paul von Hindenburg, and only upon his death, and the suspicious Reichstag fire, did Hitler abolish the presidency and become a full-fledged fascist dictator.

It is very unlikely that the German people voted to elect a dictator. They were electing a Chancellor.

Even so, a democratically elected politician does not have the right to murder those he simply disagrees with. In a truly free society, that politician would be arrested, tried, and sentenced like an ordinary criminal ... as the Nazis were at Nuremberg.

by ROB Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:43 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
RoC.

You may infer what I 'compellingly imply' if you wish.

My limitation in inference is required by the compelling nature of your implication; thus, I may necessarily infer only that which you compellingly imply.

trevorw2539 wrote:
I really have no interest in debating 200 year old history…

The Royal Navy’s interception of one thousand six hundred slave ships and liberation of one hundred fifty thousand precious human souls are not debatable items; they are independently verifiable and verified, documented facts.

I await your resolution of the perceived (by me) discrepancy between your answer to the two questions and your stated belief in the Universal Declaration of Human Right’s Articles 2, 3, and 4.

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:17 pm

My limitation in inference is required by the compelling nature of your implication; thus, I may necessarily infer only that which you compellingly imply.

Feel free to do so.

by ROB Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:48 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
My limitation in inference is required by the compelling nature of your implication; thus, I may necessarily infer only that which you compellingly imply.[/color]
Feel free to do so.

I cannot feel free to do so when the compelling nature of your implication requires that I do so.

I still await your resolution of the perceived (by me) discrepancy between your answer to the two questions and your stated belief in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, specifically, Articles 2, 3, and 4 thereof.

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:59 pm

RoC. I will not reply. So you are wasting your time.

I learnt much from a very simple, but very wise, man. One of those things was this. When a discussion becomes an argument, walk away. And that is what I choose to do. The very fact that you keep pursuing it justifies my action.

And that is my last word on the subject.

by ROB Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:09 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
RoC. I will not reply. So you are wasting your time.

Thus, after three sincere requests from me to do so, you choose to not resolve the discrepancy you have presented.

by **astradt1** Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:17 pm

Strange Roc how you have still failed to respond on the post about the unalienable rights of North American Indians which were brutally taken away by Americans (USV) ....

But then again it their plight does not fit with your obsession with the US Constitution as being the be all and end all of rights.....

Astradt 1asked Roc to consider the following.....
Now can you turn your attention to US colonialism, which you seem to think never happened!. The original British colonies on the north american continent were just thirteen colonies at the time of independence with much of the rest of the continent owned and occupied by 'Native American Indians' but much of that land is now owned by them? What is the population level of Native American Indians today?

Are you still searching Wiki for the answer?

by bobby Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:36 pm

astradt, to ask Roc to explain anything acurately, all you will get is reams and reams of trash, its a good job the Internet doesn't use paper, as he would rid us of a forest a day. I have been asking him for ages to give an explanation re a photo he placed on a post of an apparent hanging black woman, yet despite my many requests he has failed to respond. This is someone who thinks he is fit to moderate other. My oppinion is otherwise.

by **Ivan** Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:05 am

I am still awaiting a response to, what is that photo of a hanging woman all about, you know the one you posted with the rest of the pornography you posted on another thread..

bobby. Rock has certainly posted some graphic material showing the horrors of Nazi concentration camps and yes, a hanging black woman. However, he hasn’t posted anything pornographic, that is sexually explicit material, which would be illegal on a public forum.

by ROB Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:46 am

Topic: Unalienable Human Right to Freedom of Thought/Speech/Expression

Questions:

Is freedom of thought/speech/expression an unalienable human right? (Yes – No - Not sure)
If freedom of thought/speech/expression is an unalienable human right, is it an unalienable human right throughout the inhabited word? (Yes – No - Not sure)
If freedom of thought/speech/expression is an unalienable human right, do people who enjoy this right have an obligation to do everything they can do to spread freedom of thought/speech/expression to people who do not enjoy this right? (Yes – No - Not sure)
If freedom of thought/speech/expression is not an unalienable human right, what is it?
If freedom of thought/speech/expression is not an unalienable human right, do governments have the right to grant freedom of thought/speech/expression to some and deny freedom of thought/speech/expression to others? (Yes – No - Not sure)

Relevant documents and speeches (portions):

BILL OF RIGHTS [1689]
An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons… declare: That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament…

Retrieved 28 March 2012 from https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/post?t=428&mode=reply
The United States Constitution, Amendment 1, ratified 15 December 1791

Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations General Assembly, resolution 217 A (III), 10 December 1948

PREAMBLE: Whereas… the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech… has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people…

Copyright © United Nations 2012. Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Terms and Conditions of Use of United Nations Web Sites

The use of this web site constitutes agreement with the following terms and conditions:

(a) The United Nations maintains this web site (the “Site”) as a courtesy to those who may choose to access the Site (“Users”). The information presented herein is for informative purposes only. The United Nations grants permission to Users to visit the Site and to download and copy the information, documents and materials (collectively, “Materials”) from the Site for the User’s personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell or redistribute them or to compile or create derivative works therefrom, subject to the terms and conditions outlined below, and also subject to more specific restrictions that may apply to specific Material within this Site.

Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/terms/
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
PART I OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression…

Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/page-1.html

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:10 am

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society

Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/page-1.html

I have no comment to make. Thought I'd just post the above.

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:53 pm

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

UDHR 29 Para 2 Copyright © United Nations 2012. Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

No comment. Thought I'd just post it

by ROB Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:17 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/page-1.html

Here’s another emphasis:

__________________________________________________________________________________________

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/page-1.html

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Several questions:

What are “reasonable limits”?
What does “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” mean?
To what degree does “only” limit this limitation?
Given these limitations, in Canada, is freedom/liberty an unalienable right secured/guaranteed unto all by the Canadian Constitution?
Given these limitations, in Canada, is freedom of thought/speech/expression an unalienable right secured/guaranteed unto all by the Canadian Constitution?

trevorw2539 wrote:
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

UDHR 29 Para 2 Copyright © United Nations 2012. Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Here’s that same excerpt with a certain emphasis:

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, Paragraph 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Copyright © United Nations 2012. Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Here’s another excerpt from Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Copyright © United Nations 2012. Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Several questions:

How does “only” limit “limitations as are determined by law?”
How does “solely for the purpose of” limit “limitations as are determined by law?”
How are “securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others” and “meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare” defined?
How does “in a democratic society” impact “securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others” and “meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare” defined?
How does “without distinction of any kind, such as… national… origin” impact “limitations… solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others” and “limitations… solely for the purpose of… meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society?”
How does “no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs” impact “limitations… solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others” and “limitations… solely for the purpose of… meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society?”
What effect do these limitations have upon the unalienable nature of the human rights defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

by oftenwrong Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:16 pm

"What effect do these limitations have upon the unalienable nature of the human rights defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?"

Should be quite interesting trying to describe unalienable human rights to the Border Guards as you cross into Somalia, or Yemen, Zimbabwe, Syria, Gaza, Myanmar, and a few dozen other places in the world.

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:27 pm

RoC.

Several questions?

How long has it taken you to work out those. All because I point out something that you have ignored all this time. Rights have conditions attached. The emphasis I made was only to point this out. The other emphasis is your own choice/preference. And not in any charter.

Finished.

by ROB Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:45 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
RoC.

Several questions?

How long has it taken you to work out those.

I’ll answer your question after you’ve answered at least some of the questions I’ve asked in such a fashion that no inferences are necessary on my part.

I await at least some of your answers.

by Sponsored content