Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Ethics - Are the Human Rights without exception? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It struck me that many of teh debates on these pages concerning religion, political views, the justice system, sexuality.. e.t.c. are often discussing the limits of human rights. What I wondered is whether the human rights, as presented in the UN convention on Civil and political rights, are to be without exception. Close to all countries has signed this convention, but does people in general approve of it? Personally I think it should be respected to its fullest unless a direct contradiction occurs (Note that I am speaking about human rights, and not international law in general).

    As a reference the convention on civil and political rights is availabale here:
    http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html#Article%2024
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Basic human rights should be without exception, this of course is not to say that they are . It is necessary for those countries, imo, who have provision of such basic rights at all levels to intervene in countries that don't in order to raise the SoL in that country. Whether they have signed the treaty/charter or not. Simple for me.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    Basic human rights should be without exception, this of course is not to say that they are . It is necessary for those countries, imo, who have provision of such basic rights at all levels to intervene in countries that don't in order to raise the SoL in that country. Whether they have signed the treaty/charter or not. Simple for me.
    what do you mean with intervention? The charter does state that peace should be promoted, thus going to war is ruled out. Sanctions seems to make the situation worse rather than better. So what do you do ?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    Basic human rights should be without exception, this of course is not to say that they are . It is necessary for those countries, imo, who have provision of such basic rights at all levels to intervene in countries that don't in order to raise the SoL in that country. Whether they have signed the treaty/charter or not. Simple for me.
    What are basic human rights? I imagine freedom of speech must be one. If that right should be without exception then surely if one was so minded one could address a black man as "ni**er" . Perhaps we ought think about the idea of "without exception"
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    What are basic human rights? I imagine freedom of speech must be one. If that right should be without exception then surely if one was so minded one could address a black man as "ni**er" . Perhaps we ought think about the idea of "without exception"
    Freedom of speech was the thing that stopped me just saying yes to the question. Obviously in most cases it should be respected, but sometimes people go too far. The problem is, how far is too far?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    What are basic human rights? I imagine freedom of speech must be one. If that right should be without exception then surely if one was so minded one could address a black man as "ni**er" . Perhaps we ought think about the idea of "without exception"
    Check the link I gave you. Freedom of speech, as described in the UN charter, does not give you the right to call a black person a n******. This is a misconceptionh of what freedom of speach is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    Freedom of speech was the thing that stopped me just saying yes to the question. Obviously in most cases it should be respected, but sometimes people go too far. The problem is, how far is too far?
    From the UN charter:

    The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
    For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
    For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

    Thus freedom of speach does not mean you are allowed to say whatever you want. It is limited to the case that you are not allowed to say things violating the human righst of others. It is not a human right to have full freedom of speach. No mather how many times neo-nazi groups will claim the opposite.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    From the UN charter:

    The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
    For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
    For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

    Thus freedom of speach does not mean you are allowed to say whatever you want. It is limited to the case that you are not allowed to say things violating the human righst of others. It is not a human right to have full freedom of speach. No mather how many times neo-nazi groups will claim the opposite.
    Ah, all good then

    I was going to say orginally, human rights should be without exception so long as they don't violate the rights of other. I guess that falls under that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    Ah, all good then

    I was going to say orginally, human rights should be without exception so long as they don't violate the rights of other. I guess that falls under that.
    To be honest I did not know this until recently today when I happened to read this part of the charter by coincidence.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    To be honest I did not know this until recently today when I happened to read this part of the charter by coincidence.
    I didn't realise that they had a bit in there saying that the death peanlty was acceptable :eek:

    In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    I didn't realise that they had a bit in there saying that the death peanlty was acceptable :eek:
    Hmm, they do say they dissaprove with it, but they did not put it in as a condition for signing the convention. I think these are one of those parts of the UN where you are pragmatic rather than idealistic. Basicly they recognise that it will be very difficult to get countries to agree to it so they prioritize the other articles. Also, remember that this charter was written just after WW2 and people didnt really want to give up the right to execute some of the Nazi leaders...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Hmm, they do say they dissaprove with it, but they did not put it in as a condition for signing the convention. I think these are one of those parts of the UN where you are pragmatic rather than idealistic. Basicly they recognise that it will be very difficult to get countries to agree to it so they prioritize the other articles. Also, remember that this charter was written just after WW2 and people didnt really want to give up the right to execute some of the Nazi leaders...
    Ah well, can't have everything I supose. It's just that the death peanlty is just about the only area I refuse to budge on. Hell will freeze over before I support it being used on anybody.

    And at least they make the point that under 18s SHOULD NOT be executed, ever.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    I didn't realise that they had a bit in there saying that the death peanlty was acceptable :eek:
    They did put this bit in:

    "Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant"

    I think they are simply saying that they can accept that countries with capital punishment join in agreementto the rest of the charter, but they do not want this charter to be used as an excuse for not abolishing capital punishment.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    Ah well, can't have everything I supose. It's just that the death peanlty is just about the only area I refuse to budge on. Hell will freeze over before I support it being used on anybody.

    And at least they make the point that under 18s SHOULD NOT be executed, ever.
    Its a bt difficult actually. I agree that death penalty should be avoided. But what about people such as Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Husein and Bin Laden ? It becomes a bit weird to put them in a prision were they will enyoy full human rights while the people they surpressed are starving to death.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Its a bt difficult actually. I agree that death penalty should be avoided. But what about people such as Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Husein and Bin Laden ? It becomes a bit weird to put them in a prision were they will enyoy full human rights while the people they surpressed are starving to death.
    Even with people like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, I would still say no. If you kill them in battle or trying to capture them, then so be it, but once they are in prision and basically put out of action, I'd be against it just on principle.

    I guess if the Iraqi people want to have Saddam killed, then that's up to them though. I could understand why they might want that in their position. But if it was up to me, I wouldn't.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    Even with people like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, I would still say no. If you kill them in battle or trying to capture them, then so be it, but once they are in prision and basically put out of action, I'd be against it just on principle.

    I guess if the Iraqi people want to have Saddam killed, then that's up to them though. I could understand why they might want that in their position. But if it was up to me, I wouldn't.
    Well I guess rotting in some little cell is about as bad as having yoru head chopped off. You would run the risk of loyalists trying to set them free though...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Well I guess rotting in some little cell is about as bad as having yoru head chopped off. You would run the risk of loyalists trying to set them free though...
    Yeah, I guess if you killed him it might bring some closure to the whole affair. The idea still makes me feel uncomfortable though, even if he is a complete *******- like I said, the one principle that I refuse to budge on.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    Yeah, I guess if you killed him it might bring some closure to the whole affair. The idea still makes me feel uncomfortable though, even if he is a complete *******- like I said, the one principle that I refuse to budge on.
    Personally I feel stronger about Racism and Nazism being unnacceptable. I dont really mind that much if some ******* who really deserves it gets a death sentence, but I am pretty touchy when it comes to discrimination due to ethnicity or religion.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Personally I feel stronger about Racism and Nazism being unnacceptable. I dont really mind that much if some ******* who really deserves it gets a death sentence, but I am pretty touchy when it comes to discrimination due to ethnicity or religion.
    That's another one of my sore points, along with homophobia. I'm basically one of those liberal, fluffy, why-the-hell-can't-we-all-just-get-along types
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    That's another one of my sore points, along with homophobia. I'm basically one of those liberal, fluffy, why-the-hell-can't-we-all-just-get-along types
    Well, I got mobbed as a kid so I have a bit more sceptical attitude towards people. As long as people leave me alone to live my own life with a handful of people I get along with I dont really mind if everyone else hate my guts. I cant stand it when people get excluded or picked down at simply for being different though...
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.