• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Do you like this? Should all countries follow every article of this?


  • Total voters
    33

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Do you agree with this?

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
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.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.

Article 14

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in their country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
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.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Things start getting weird around Article 21. Also, nothing about guns? I have no right to defend my property against thieves?

Frankly, I hate this list. If you go by this, you have these rights and no other rights, not to mention the fact that many of them go too far.
 
Do you agree with this?



Things start getting weird around Article 21. Also, nothing about guns? I have no right to defend my property against thieves?

Frankly, I hate this list. If you go by this, you have these rights and no other rights, not to mention the fact that many of them go too far.

This whole list is worthless. It is a simply a "declaration" (read no legal impact) and it was done by the UN General Assembly (which means it has no legal authority).

They could put down anything really, since it has no impact on anything really, and we can all then feel good about promoting "human rights."
 
I know that it means nothing. I'm just asking if you agree with it.
 
''This whole list is worthless. It is a simply a "declaration"''

It is a world standard, which is used in human rights negotiations. It is essentially what negotiators aim towards.
 
''This whole list is worthless. It is a simply a "declaration"''

It is a world standard, which is used in human rights negotiations. It is essentially what negotiators aim towards.
I dislike their aim.
 
a wonderful document expressing the hopes for mankind
here is an article from the Chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights
she also happened to be an amazing former first lady; she had reason to be proud of this accomplishment:
The Promise of Human Rights

and to answer the OP's question, YES, i agree with this, heartily
 
''This whole list is worthless. It is a simply a "declaration"''

It is a world standard, which is used in human rights negotiations. It is essentially what negotiators aim towards.

...which is a nice way to say "this document has no legal authority."
 
''I dislike their aim.''

Why would anybody dislike aiming to have a certain standard of human rights protection, all over the world...
 
as stated by the Chair of the body which undertook the document's writing:
If the Declaration were accepted by the General Assembly the next autumn, it would carry moral weight, but it would not carry any legal weight.
 
''...which is a nice way to say "this document has no legal authority." ''

The idea is to guide countries around the world. It is not possible to force countries to include it in their consitutions, but if they dont they will receive continuing pressure to do so.
 
No. To much of it is left open to "interpretation" to say the least. Some parts are just to socialist for lack of a better word.
 
I voted yes as I didnt see any reason what so ever to vote no, al though i admit i read it kind of fast

of course a country would need more laws, rules, bills a constitution etc but this is a great "foundation" IMO

can anyone tell me what they dont like? why would you vote no.
 
...which is a nice way to say "this document has no legal authority."

Not true, actually. Though these right may not be binding like the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are, but they still have "legal authority" in the sense that this declaration will contribution to international peremptory norms as to what makes up human rights, and thus what makes up a human rights violation. That is particularly important because human rights offenders are subject to universal jurisdiction, meaning they can be arrested and tried in any court even if there would otherwise be no jurisdictional ties to that country (for example, Pinochet was tried in Spain for human rights crimes he, an Argentinian, committed in Argentina against Argentinians, with no ties to Spanish jurisdiction at all, apart from the universal cognizability of his crimes). Thus, this declaration could theoretically see similar human rights crimes arising out of workers refusing to give their employees vacation time, and things like that.
 
I voted yes as I didnt see any reason what so ever to vote no, al though i admit i read it kind of fast

of course a country would need more laws, rules, bills a constitution etc but this is a great "foundation" IMO

can anyone tell me what they dont like? why would you vote no.

Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.


Hell no.

Article 23

3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.


Don't need the government to decide how much I need to make etc to support my family. Don't need the government stealing from me to provide for others.

Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.


See above.

Need I go on?

I want less government, not a nanny state.
 
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.


Hell no.

Article 23

3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.


Don't need the government to decide how much I need to make etc to support my family. Don't need the government stealing from me to provide for others.

Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.


See above.

Need I go on?

I want less government, not a nanny state.

yes please go on because like i said its an awesome "start" and "foundation" but of course you would need more laws, rules,bills etc.

you read it and you think the worse, free loaders, endless taxes, to much government which is why you would need more what I said

I read it and see a perfect way to provide equal rights for all with no unfair discrimination

like i said its a great start and the additional things that need added are just some doses of reality here and there.
 
Last edited:
...a perfect way to provide equal rights for all with no unfair discrimination...
I do not think such is possible.
 
I do not think such is possible.

dont see why? unless your definition of equal "rights" is different than mine?

of course there are extremes if someone says their "pursuit of happiness" is clubbing babies with puppies while kicking baby seals, or rapping kids while assulting old ladies then yes I guess they will be discriminated against but in general equal rights with no discrimination should be easy

lots of people unfortunate want to discriminate and just dont admit it
 
Well I would think that all of the positive rights in this declaration of rights violates articles 1 and 4, which guarantee liberty and freedom from enslavement. If we are forced to be nice, then aren't we being denied a liberty?
 
yes please go on because like i said its an awesome "start" and "foundation" but of course you would need more laws, rules,bills etc.

The last thing I want. So you see why I think it is ridicules.

you read it and you think the worse, free loads, endless taxes, to much government which is why you would need more what I said

Look around at the world today. It is the natural progression of a socialist society.

I read it and see a perfect way to provide equal rights for all with no unfair discrimination

I have no problem with the equal rights sections.

Please don't try to tell me the burden of taking care of my family is that of the state, it's not. All the later part of this thing does is make it so no one except the state will take responsabuility for bad life choices. So those who have are forced through theft to take care of the have nots.

I like charity and give as much as I can. When it is forced through government, it is nothing more than stealing.

like i said its a great start and the additional things that need added or just some doeses of reality here and there.

The Constitution the US has right now does a pretty good job without all the extra crap of this thing.
 
Yes, the article about equal pay for equal work is pretty vague. It allows government intrusions that really ignore why people are getting paid differently. For example, Thomas Sowell states the proposition that women are paid less in general because they have less experience due to pregnancies requiring that they take time off of work. Any company hiring a woman takes a risk that they will lose that production at some point. As such, men have less risk and will be paid more.
 
As I read it, this document lists things in a "X has the right to this" manner.

I prefer the "The powers that be will not infringe on X's right to this" method.

I also prefer the thinking that any rights not specifically listed as being denied (like, for example, the right to murder someone) are by default allowed.

And other such things that I don't have the proper words to describe at this time.
 
The last thing I want. So you see why I think it is ridicules.

I said rules and bills and laws on top of what is stated here not in [/QUOTE]general

Look around at the world today. It is the natural progression of a socialist society.

ok, if its done properly and within reason theres nothing wrong with it, the trick is keeping it in that working, SELF SUSTAINING window. Much easier said than done.



I have no problem with the equal rights sections.

Please don't try to tell me the burden of taking care of my family is that of the state, it's not. All the later part of this thing does is make it so no one except the state will take responsabuility for bad life choices. So those who have are forced through theft to take care of the have nots

no one said it is the burden of the state to take care of your family thats why it would need more rules, not "endless" responsibility but occasional responsibility i have no problem with at all and see your last part about have nots is just drastic dramatization. It has to be done in moderation.

I like charity and give as much as I can. When it is forced through government, it is nothing more than stealing.

so your against all taxes then?



The Constitution the US has right now does a pretty good job without all the extra crap of this thing.

no one said it didnt LOL but it can be improved on
 
so your against all taxes then?

Let me introduce you to a little thing called social contract theory.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract]Social contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
As I read it, this document lists things in a "X has the right to this" manner.

I prefer the "The powers that be will not infringe on X's right to this" method.

I also prefer the thinking that any rights not specifically listed as being denied (like, for example, the right to murder someone) are by default allowed.


And other such things that I don't have the proper words to describe at this time.

i have no problem with that
 
Back
Top Bottom