[RandZul'Zorander]

The idea that one could lose their human rights seems to negate the very idea of a human right. You are supposed to have human rights simply by being human, meaning unless you somehow are no longer human you still have them....if you can take them away for another reason....then they aren't really human rights...

[kumori]

forget human rights, if anyone is found guilty of any major crime (without doubt) then they should be put into the army as cannon fodder, saves us loosing good men. But yer human rights is strange one now with EU thinking everything is a human right... internet access is a human right in some countries now (I do like this one thought).

So the way it is now, I think human rights should be renamed to everything... since it nearly covered everything

[rawkus]

(Original post by kumori)
forget human rights, if anyone is found guilty of any major crime (without doubt) then they should be put into the army as cannon fodder, saves us loosing good men. But yer human rights is strange one now with EU thinking everything is a human right... internet access is a human right in some countries now (I do like this one thought).

So the way it is now, I think human rights should be renamed to everything... since it nearly covered everything

That would perhaps be a good idea in a world whereby trials were infallible and never produced miscarriages of justice and where good and bad were universal. In our country defrauding a corporation out of millions is considered a major crime but does it not seem a tad barbaric to send someone to their death for what is essentially theft? In other places, insulting 'Dear Leader' is a major crime, should they be sent as "cannon fodder".

Can you please link me to something that supports your claim that internet access is a human right please? It is just I have never heard of this before. Usually sensationalist articles that claim a prisoner successfully argued that access to porn or an ipod or whatever under human rights involve a mix of misreporting, exaggeration and highly skilled lawyers.

[kumori]

(Original post by rawkus)
That would perhaps be a good idea in a world whereby trials were infallible and never produced miscarriages of justice and where good and bad were universal. In our country defrauding a corporation out of millions is considered a major crime but does it not seem a tad barbaric to send someone to their death for what is essentially theft? In other places, insulting 'Dear Leader' is a major crime, should they be sent as "cannon fodder".

Can you please link me to something that supports your claim that internet access is a human right please? It is just I have never heard of this before. Usually sensationalist articles that claim a prisoner successfully argued that access to porn or an ipod or whatever under human rights involve a mix of misreporting, exaggeration and highly skilled lawyers.

here you go

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...-human-right-0

and it is already in effect in finland

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10461048

[namithailoveyou]

No, since human rights are absolute.

[zeropoint]

I believe some of the human rights relating to freedom and privacy may justifiably be taken away in the case of mental instability. I would also consider a "greatest good for the greatest number" situation, but can't think of any right now.

Otherwise, to deny human rights to someone for their actions is completely missing the point of human rights. I believe you are judged more on how you treat people you dislike than how you treat people you do like.