Talk: Human rights
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
That's interesting that the US should prefer the term civil rights. I think that cuts right to the heart of the US concept of 'democracy'. Civil rights are granted (and taken away) by the state. Human rights are rights that you *have* and any state (assuming that you believe states should exist) *should* recognize them.
How do human rights relate to civil rights, a phrase that Americans tend to prefer? --Robert Merkel
"civil rights" are not negative. Since the USA rejects the doctrine of positive human rights, and since some positive rights are necessary in a pseudo-democratic society, it's invented a category called "civil rights" to take up the slack.
- Human rights are rights you have through being human. Civil rights are rights you have through being a member of a society. Loosely. DJ Clayworth 18:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If your definition of "civil rights" is correct you should add it to thie article.
"Within the modern American liberal political culture"
Isn't this a little Americo-centric? What about European human rights law?
The word "liberal" may be a bit difficult to understand for non-Americans in that context. In the US, it means, grossly speaking, left-wing, but in Europe it may mean right-wing proponents of laissez-faire economics. I've included a link to disimbiguate the word. David.Monniaux 17:27, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
---
Though civil rights and human rights are regarded as interchangeable, IMO there is a clear distinction.
That is - civil rights arise from citizenship. Human rights derive from one's status as a human being.
Example - the right to vote in a United States presidential election is a civil right that should be available to all US citizens. It is not a "human right", so as a Brit I can't invoke it, even if temporarily living in the USA.
The right to freedom from servitude is a human right. It MAY be enshrined in the constitution or laws of a country, but is not dependent on that.
Well, that's my view - anyone care to comment or disagree?
I'm not sure I can add this to the article unless it's a widely held view.
Exile 15:51, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Positive / Negative
Isn't it POV to introduce the -ve / +ve distinction in rights as a statement of fact? -- Tarquin 17:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's very important to note that human rights are philosophical, legal and political.
Philosophically, it is possible to distinguish between civil rights and human rights. However, legally it is not.
Legally, the civil rights you are talking about are part of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (and are thus 1st-generation human rights).
The right to freedom from servitude (slavery)is one of very few internationally recognised laws (with genocide and piracy), with universal jurisdiction-- thus if there's slavery anywhere at anytime, any state can intervene. So it goes beyond human rights, which should still be guaranteed by the state.
The US has been very slow to ratify any human rights documents, even the ones it has drafted. BUT The United States is a party to the following human rights treaties: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime to Genocide (entry into force: 1951, US ratification: 1989), International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (entry into force: 1976, US ratification: 1992), The Convention against Torture (entry into force: 1984, US ratification: 1994) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (entry into force: 1969, US ratification: 1994).
The US has not ratified The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (entry into force: 1976), The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (entry into force: 1981) The Convention on the Rights of the Child (entry into force: 1989) or the Rome Statute for International Criminal Court (entry into force: 2002).
Thus whether the US upholds human rights is also a question of whether the US upholds its legal commitments.
Finally, the division into positive and negative rights, should be seen as a convenient tool for analysis, not an absolute division. --Mekri 08:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
...that rights arise from natural law. This theory is considered antiquated in moral philosophy.
- For those of us with training in the sciences, this statement seems to be about fashion. Antiquated is a statement which is time-relative, which is the exact opposite of a law of nature, something which is timeless, something which was true, and also something which will be true. It seems especially strange when talking about moral philosophy or ethics. If ethics are something to be dependent upon, then why shouldn't ethical statements be timeless. Ancheta Wis 07:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the division between positive and negative is both real and widely recognized, as reflected in the division of human rights into the ICCPR and ICESCR. The negative rights are central to the identity of capitalist democracies in a way that positive rights are not, as evidenced by FDR's dropping of "freedom from want" as a focus after the Brits and Australians pointed out that, if taken seriously, the ICESCR mandated the creation of a totalitarian state. And the roles are reversed for socialist countries. Regardless of the actual political tension of the Cold War, there is a real tension between the two; and the tensions between equalizing opportunities and equalizing outcomes. BanyanTree 07:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hate crimes
An anon contributor replaced the folloiwing piece, but left the old one in text:
- WAS {Conservatives in the United States often oppose hate crime laws, stating that imposing a greater penalty on an act committed in hate would thus make hating illegal. They feel this to be a direct infringement on First Amendment rights. /*This portrays hate as an important value intrinsic or important to US Conservatives, which is false.*/}
His version is reasonable, but maybe this piece is salvageable as well, although I have to agree it sounds naively. Mikkalai 03:42, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, it didn't
The UN Declaration did not introduce the idea that rights are inalienable to the public realm. That idea goes back to at least the 1776 United States Declaration of independence, which I cite as prior art.
Moreover, as Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence, and as Jefferson was a Deist rather than a believer in the Judeo-Christian God, it's not quite accurate to say that that Declaration espouses the theory that those rights come from that God. The Declaration of Independence refers to "Nature's God," which while still being an inherently religious idea leaves some room for interpretation beyond Judeo-Christian interpretation.
Finally, the statement "Humans have rights and they must be respected," at the end of the final paragraph under Hate crimes, explaining the liberal view, is redundant and tends to give the impression that this is a liberal argument and that those who oppose their view do not believe that "humans have rights and they must be respected." The sentence adds nothing factual.
170.35.224.64 18:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
