Freethought & Rationalism Archive

meritocrat · 04-16-2003, 03:41 AM

Which Articles do you personally concur with?

Quote:

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.

Agree.

Quote:

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.

Agree.

Quote:

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Agree.

Quote:

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Agree.

Quote:

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Agree.

Quote:

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Not sure about this one. If I'm an American citizen should I have legal rights in Canada?

Quote:

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.

Agree.

Quote:

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.

Agree.

Quote:

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Agree.

Quote:

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.

Agree.

Quote:

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.

Disagree. So why isn't France (for example) being indicted for violating the human rights of French criminals if this is the case?

Quote:

(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.

Agree.

Quote:

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.

I agree to an extent. Though as a libertarian, I'm in the minority amongst other libertarians who feel that libel and slander should be legal.

Quote:

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Agree.

Quote:

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Agree.

Quote:

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

Agree.

Quote:

(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.

Agree.

Quote:

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

Agree.

Quote:

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Agree.

Quote:

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.

Agree.

Quote:

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

Agree.

Quote:

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Quote:

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

Agree.

Quote:

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Agree.

Quote:

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.

Agree.

Quote:

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.

Agree.

Quote:

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.

Agree on both points.

Quote:

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

Agree. Democracy may be the tyranny of the majority, but that's another argument.

Quote:

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

Agree, but why should public services exist?

Quote:

(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.

Why state that liberal democracy should be paramount? Disagree.

Quote:

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.

Disagree.

Quote:

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.

I'm not sure about protection against unemployment, but agree with the other aspects.

Quote:

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

Agree.

Quote:

(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.

I'm not sure about 'social protection' yet I concur with the other points.

Quote:

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

Agree.

Quote:

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

Agree.

Quote:

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.

Why should a government provide this? Agree.

Quote:

(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.

Agree, if social protection is necessary.

Quote:

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.

Disagree.

Quote:

(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.

Strongly agree.

Quote:

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Agree.

Quote:

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.

Agree.

Quote:

(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.

Not sure.

Quote:

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.

Agree.

Quote:

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

Agree.

Quote:

(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.

Again, why is democracy stated as being superior?

Quote:

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Agree.

Quote:

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.

Agree.

Psycho Economist · 04-16-2003, 06:14 AM

I'm not going to give a play-by-play of whether I agree or disagree with specific provisions. I've done that before and it wasn't terribly entertaining. And I'm not here to take issue with you on matters where we simply disagree. There are, however, some positions you take that I don't understand.

Quote:

Originally posted by meritocrat:

Quote:

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Not sure about this one. If I'm an American citizen should I have legal rights in Canada?

How do you mean your question? I doubt they mean to say everyone has legal rights everywhere simultaneously. I think they mean this proposition to imply, "If you are in Canada, you are to be treated with the same rights, responsibilities and protections as any Canadian. With certain, reasonable exceptions."

To that end:

We drafted resident aliens during Vietnam.
An American who committed vandalism in Singapore was subjected to state-inflicted, public corporal punishment.
If a Turkish man is murdered in Germany, it's still a crime even though he's not a citizen.
But, a Briton visiting Japan cannot take part in elections there because he is not a citizen.

Quote:

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.

Disagree. So why isn't France (for example) being indicted for violating the human rights of French criminals if this is the case?

First, why do you disagree? Is it the implicit requirement of public defense for the indigent?

Second, there is no legal mechanism to enforce the provisions of the UNDHR and Amnesty Internationl has bigger fish to fry.

Quote:

Article 21.
(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.

Why state that liberal democracy should be paramount? Disagree.

How are regular elections, universal sufferage and secret balloting elements of "liberal" democracy? Why do you disagree with them? Electoral college aside, are these same principles not instituted in our own constitution? How does making government less representative accomplish libertarian objectives?

Quote:

Article 29.
(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.

Again, why is democracy stated as being superior?

How is saying, "We consider it axiomatic that democratic governments are more free than governments that are not controlled by the people governed," the same as saying, "Democracy is better"? You're the one equating conduciveness to freedom to superiority.

Do you think there could be such a thing as a libertarian dictatorship? That such a government could last?

meritocrat · 04-16-2003, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist

How do you mean your question? I doubt they mean to say everyone has legal rights everywhere simultaneously. I think they mean this proposition to imply, "If you are in Canada, you are to be treated with the same rights, responsibilities and protections as any Canadian. With certain, reasonable exceptions."

Who says it's the duty of any state to legally recognise foreigners?

Quote:

First, why do you disagree? Is it the implicit requirement of public defense for the indigent?

Second, there is no legal mechanism to enforce the provisions of the UND

I'm no expert in law, nonethless I fail to see how the French system of being guilty before innocence is proven is 'lesser' than English common law (, i.e. being innocent before being proved guilty).

Quote:

]How are regular elections, universal sufferage and secret balloting elements of "liberal" democracy? Why do you disagree with them? Electoral college aside, are these same principles not instituted in our own constitution? How does making government less representative accomplish libertarian objectives?

Find a political dictionary, look up the term 'liberal democracy' and see that periodic elections are an inherent part of that system.

Quote:

How is saying, "We consider it axiomatic that democratic governments are more free than governments that are not controlled by the people governed," the same as saying, "Democracy is better"? You're the one equating conduciveness to freedom to superiority.

Do you think there could be such a thing as a libertarian dictatorship? That such a government could last? [/B]

I disagree. It gives an assumption that democracy must always be championed.

seanie · 04-16-2003, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by meritocrat
I'm no expert in law, nonethless I fail to see how the French system of being guilty before innocence is proven is 'lesser' than English common law (, i.e. being innocent before being proved guilty).

That's a misconception about the French legal system. Under French law you are presumed innocent.

meritocrat · 04-16-2003, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Do you think there could be such a thing as a libertarian dictatorship? That such a government could last?

It depends. If an autocracy provided its citizens with social (and perhaps economic) freedoms, then maybe a 'libertarian dictatorship' could work.

A libertarian state that is a liberal democracy is only 'greater' than a 'libertarian dictatorship' as the rights of the people are safeguarded. In an autocracy, what's stopping an autocrat from removing people's rights?

Ice · 04-16-2003, 08:12 AM

Psycho Economist:

Quote:

An American who committed vandalism in Singapore was subjected to state-inflicted, public corporal punishment.

It was not public. It was done in the prison.

seanie · 04-16-2003, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by meritocrat
Not true. It's the reverse in France and most other continental nations.

The notion of innocent until proven guilty is only widely practiced in areas which have legal systems based on English common law.

No.

In the 14th century perhaps.

But in France, and the rest of the continent, innocence is presumed (with certain exceptions that can also exist within the English legal system).

In France that's been enshrined in the constitution since the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man.

However the nature of the French legal sytem results in situations where that presumption is weakened. As an inquisitorial sytem, with the investigating judge seeking to determine the actual facts of the case, there is a duty on the accused to cooperate in that process that doesn't exist within the English legal tradition.

Consequently failure to cooperate can result in punishment, althought the presumption of innocence on the original charge, in principle at least, is maintained.

That, coupled with an absence of Habeas Corpus, could certainly be seen as a deficiency of the French legal system.

But to claim that under French law you're guilty until proven innocent it a gross misconception.

Ut · 04-16-2003, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seanie
But to claim that under French law you're guilty until proven innocent it a gross misconception.

I'm not an expert on these matters, but I'm quite sure France couldn't have been admitted in the European Union if its judicial system didn't presume innocence (just like Turkey can't join as long as it keeps the death penalty)

Psycho Economist · 04-16-2003, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ice
It was not public. It was done in the prison.

You win. My bad.

Ion · 04-16-2003, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by meritocrat

...
I'm no expert in law, nonethless I fail to see how the French system of being guilty before innocence is proven is 'lesser' than English common law (, i.e. being innocent before being proved guilty).
...

I see a common myth in English speaking countries that claims the French system considers one being guilty before innocence is proven.

I am not French, but I lived in France for eleven years and I observed this not to be true:
in France one is innocent before guilt is proved.

From a U.S. history book, 'A History of Western Society' by John McKay, Bennett Hill and John Buckler, I read in page 704:

"The National Assembly in France moved forward. On August 27, 1789, it issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which stated, "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights." The declaration also maintained that mankind's natural rights are "liberty, property, security and resistence to oppression" and that "every man is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty."."

Historically, "every man is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty." generated with the Declaration of the Rights of Man in France, in 1789, and spread worldwide until today.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.