IPO Forum - Human Rights

[Delfos]

Which should be the human rights, or what do you understand about human rights?
Discuss about the current listed and why they should or shouldn't appear there.

* rights disapproved by the current administration.
**Justification: Only a constitutional law of each nation can dictate what is just or what is not.

Gathered List:
01-right of Liberty (too vague?)
Liberty is vague, but should be part of this list, as a mark of civilized societies, it already implies 'freedom of conscience', we should describe this kind of rights as vague, as a guide of rights to come in the future. Although, suppressed by other elementary rights, such as the right to freedom of though and whatever, the prohibition of slavery and other restraining actions.

02-right of Freedom of Conscience
Suppressed by a more elementary right.

03-right to Dignity
From the moment you are born to the moment you die, you have the right to live in dignity. This means that any human has the same dignity as any other, and every human must respect someone else's dignity, because if we are disgraced by someone else, that someone is taking our right to be a respectful human being.

04-right to Privacy
Some say even the righteous governments have to violate privacy for the security of the nation. Because of this and other issues, we are willing to suppress this right from the human rights bill.

05-right to Life
Probably one of the most important rights of this bill. This right means that nobody can take anyone else's life away without justification. This justification can only be applied by national constitutional laws.
(Against the will of many delfian protesters and politicians, this point will allow the death penalty and the right to bear arms of some of the nations, but this rights must be in their constitution to proove the justification asked as national constitutional law.)

06-right of Choice
This right prevents any human to suppress any other's will without justification**. Any human has the right to choose their future, their path, their appearance, their sexual partner, their supporting club, among many other choices. Although, suppressed by the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

07-right to Property *
Many of the governments think this right can only be implied by a national constitution. Some countries give their own property to their civilians. If you think this right shouldn't be silenced, please protest.

08-right to Food
Suppressed by a more elementary right.

09-right to Water
Suppressed by a more elementary right.

10-right to Shelter
Being almost impossible to be controlled, the government cannot be forced to give shelter to anyone. As expressed by the Ipod of Cantr, if nature allows, people may not have shelter. So it will be very difficult to impose this right.

11-right to Justice
Suppressed for the right to a fair trial. (19)

12-right to Health-care
Protest against taking away this right if you feel that, if the person doesn't have access to health care, governmental/national entities must intervene and give the requested Health Care.

13-right to Vote (suppressed by right 06?)
Suppressed by a more elementary right.

14-right to Bear Arms *
Suppressed for Right of Protection (17)

15-right of Self-Defense (suppress right 14?)
Suppressed for Right of Protection (17)

16-right of Choice of Path (suppressed by right 06?)
Suppressed by a more elementary right.

17-right of Protection (suppress right 15?)
Protest against taking away this right if you feel that, if the person doesn't have protection against human or other entities, humans must be protected by the government and/or national security entities as a right.

18-right for Food and Water.
As basic properties of survival. A government or collective cannot hide or remove such resources from their population, this will prevent the illicit property of goods during any natural or human-made events that causes starving or dries.

19-right for a Fair Trial
Every human has the right for a fair trial, including the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case.

20-prohibition of torture
This prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". There are no exceptions or limitations on this right.
This provision usually applies, apart from torture, to cases of severe police violence and poor conditions in detention.
Also this, if violated, violates the 'right to dignity'.

21-prohibition of slavery
This prohibits slavery and forced labour, but excepted from this prohibitions are conscription, national service, prison labour, service exacted in cases of emergency or calamity, and "normal civic obligations".

22-no punishment without law
Prohibits the retrospective criminalisation of acts and omissions. No person may be punished for an act that was not a criminal offence at the time of its commission. The article states that a criminal offence is one under either national or international law, which would permit a party to prosecute someone for a crime which was not illegal under their domestic law at the time, so long as it was prohibited by (possibly customary) international law. This also prohibits a heavier penalty being imposed than was applicable at the time when the criminal act was committed.

23-right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
This provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are in accordance with law and necessary in a civilized society.

24-prohibition of discrimination
This prohibition is broad in some ways, and narrow in others. On the one hand, the article protects against discrimination based on any of a wide range of grounds. The article provides a list of such grounds, including sex, race, colour, language, religion and several other criteria, and most significantly providing that this list is non-exhaustive.

[Delfos]

to discuss about the rights of protection, or in this case, of self-defense, it can be universal, as in every human can defend himself, from words or physical aggression, even if he's being jailed for example, if that is joint with the right to bear arms, he will have the right to shoot a policeman. And that's why right to bear arms should be excluded. Any human has the right to defend himself, while being arrest, if not physical, then verbal defense, and to carry on to trial/court, he will have the right to defend himself. If he is attack by another human, he will have the right to defend himself, if he is attacked by un-human, he will have the right to defend himself, although, he must not have the right to kill another human, because this other human has the right to live, and fire-arms will deny this right to this other human. Here I'm defending two rights:
Right to Live
Right of Self-Defense

but if nations have bearing arms as a right of their own, i don't see any problem.

[Pachamama]

I think we should have basic and universal rights here only.
So the right to bear arms is not a human right but one that should be in the jurisdiction of governments.
The same goes for the rights number 4 7 11 12 13. These are a governmental issue I believe.
This is a complicated matter.
The rights for food, water and shelter are - in my opinion- universal rights however common sense must be used.
These rights may be endangered  by natural disasters and a government may not be able to restore them within time.
I think the most important parts are that we will have to define limits to those rights using common sense on what can be done to ensure them and what can not be done.
Also we should not hammer down those issues solid but should review them on a case to case base.
A government can not be held responsible for going against the right to water if a natural or man made disaster has poisoned the water.
But the government can be held responsible if the do nothing to correct the situation despite being able to do so.
The right to water also - as an example- means that no government may withhold drinking water from parts of it's population for political or ethnic reasons.
These are just examples.
This will take some discussion.

[Delfos]

The rights for food, water and shelter are - in my opinion- universal rights however common sense must be used.
These rights may be endangered  by natural disasters and a government may not be able to restore them within time.

I see what you mean, but these are rights that any human or government cannot hold from it's peers. As in, if a population is experiencing dry, or dehydration, the government cannot hold, hide or destroy water resources. Same goes for the food. This would cause death or disease among the population, and is a clear violation of the right for dignity and life.

[Cantr]

I believe our human rights should follow a Hobbsian model, that being that the government exists primarily to defend the lives of its people and, having done that, can essentially do whatever it wants.  It sounds tyrannical, but it actually guarantees that they will be protected from poverty, that they will not be executed unless they are a criminal, that they will not be deprived of aid in a disaster situation and that their homes will be protected by an army in times of war.  Further rights should be the choice of the government.

[Pachamama]

I don't know much about political models.
But what Cantr said sound good also I believe the more intelligent people here will find some loopholes in this.
If anyone can provide me with a link for a quick study of such models I would be grateful.
It should in my opinion be BASIC human rights, guidelines on which everyone builds and expands on within there own governments and to a degree they think acceptable.

[Cantr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes

It's a wikipedia article, yes, but it should give you a general idea of what his political philosophy was.  As for the exact political model, I couldn't find a link to it and, come to think of it, I'm not sure if Hobbes actually developed it himself, I just know someone developed it using his principals and named it after him.  But the impact on our debate is the same; the government exists to protect the people, nothing more, nothing less.

[Union]

Remove the right to vote, as this is not a humanitarian but rather a political right.

[Khem]

2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11

we agree with in full and believe should be represented.

[Delfos]

I agree with the Loyan delegate, but as expressed after that right, don't you think it's suppressed by a more vague right, as the right of choice? Or do you think it is too vague?

Delegate from Cantr, i would like to see your proposal in topics or constitutional points so that most anyone can understand and agree with. I'm looking forward since i actually like your proposal.

[Cantr]

I'll apply Hobbes' philosophy to the constitutional rights presented.

"01-right of Liberty"
This is far too vague, but almost certainly denied by a Hobbesian constitution.  According to Hobbes, the government can dictate your career, your family, your address, and whatever else it wants about your life except its length.
"02-right of Freedom of Conscience"
I'll need an exact definition of what, precisely, you mean by this before I can apply Hobbes' philosophy to it, but I doubt this would be upheld by Hobbes.  If the government says it is wrong, it is wrong, if they say it is right, it is right.  It is only when the government does not have a public opinion on a subject that a conscience is even needed by a citizen.  This is a blessing, really, in that nothing is ever really your fault; you were following orders.
"03-right to Dignity"
I don't think Hobbes would support this at all, but I myself am inclined to offer it to some degree...if the government wants to refer to its population as "human resources", fine, but if the government wants to abduct young girls to facilitate the sick sexual pleasures of their oligarchs...surely, we must protect the rights of those young girls.
"04-right to Privacy"
Denied, so as to help protect the next right.
"05-right to Life"
Guaranteed at any cost.  This right is paramount to all others, and when it is threatened, either through unlawful execution, poverty, disease, or any other source of lethal peril, then and only then do the people have a right to revolt against their rulers.
"06-right of Choice"
Denied.  Life is far easier when there are no decisions to be made, anyway.
"07-right to Property"
Denied.
"08-right to Food"
Guaranteed in order to protect number five.  This does not mean, however, that the government is under obligation to give this out for free, only that they are required to provide some method of obtaining food, even if that method is hard labor.
"09-right to Water"
Same as right to food, above.
"10-right to Shelter"
This one depends on climate.  If the climate (and the ferocity of local fauna) is such that no threat to life is present by sleeping without it, than it is not necessary.  If the climate does threaten life, then shelter must be provided along the same rules as water and food.  If the climate is life-threatening only during some times of the year, then only during those times of the year must shelter be provided.  Note that life-threatening does not mean that there is a certainty or even a probability of death, it merely means that, without shelter, some citizens will surely be killed.
"11-right to Justice"
Define.  If, by this, you mean a right to fair trial and what not, than it is denied.  If, by this, you mean a right not to be executed without having broken any laws, than it is guaranteed.  This is where Hobbes' philosophy stumbles a bit.  If you have not broken any laws, but have been framed for doing so, might you not be executed and the real killer only discovered later?  I would suggest not allowing an execution until a full investigation has been completed.  Imprisoning a suspect is, of course, not a violation of basic human rights, so long as the prison does not carry a good chance of killing the inmates.
"12-right to Health-care"
Guaranteed in the case of life-threatening or crippling diseases.
"13-right to Vote"
Denied.
"14-right to Bear Arms"
Denied.
"15-right of Self-Defense"
Denied.  The government is there to do it for you.
"16-right of Choice of Path"
Denied.
"17-right of Protection"
Again, the government is there to do this job.

[Delfos]

It's a tree then, Right to Live is the main body and all the others derive from it, and i totally agree with most of the ones you said, but i cannot define any right, since this is a general approach and i did not made up such rights. Only the Right of Self-Defense to suppress the Right to Bear Arms.

03-right to Dignity"
I don't think Hobbes would support this at all, but I myself am inclined to offer it to some degree...if the government wants to refer to its population as "human resources", fine, but if the government wants to abduct young girls to facilitate the sick sexual pleasures of their oligarchs...surely, we must protect the rights of those young girls.

Right to Dignity goes further, goes to any action of human being, you cannot destroy the dignity of a person. In example, Saddam died without dignity, with all the insults between other provocations, I also think death by hanging doesn't show dignity, but that's another discussion, because that would include the Right to Live, and for me it is against Death Penalty. So dignity goes for any stage of human life.

ooc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
I don't want anything as elaborated than this, we need a general human rights so we can move on to other.

[Khem]

we believe the Right of choice should far exceed the right too life. if you choose to die of your own means then so be it, it is your choice. i will not stand by as we turn all member nations into nanny states.

[Delfos]

since the right to live is your own, you can put an end to it by your own, you can't be penalized for violating your own right, unless you violate someone else. The Right of Choice is too ambiguous, what are the limits of this? Is this to be held politically, culturally, socially, economically, what?

[Xyrael]

The Illuminate concurs with the Cantr delegate on all points except his stressing of the Right of Life.

"05-right to Life"
Guaranteed at any cost.  This right is paramount to all others, and when it is threatened, either through unlawful execution, poverty, disease, or any other source of lethal peril, then and only then do the people have a right to revolt against their rulers.

The Empire strongly believes that at any point when a man damages the Right to Life of another, that his Right is forfeit pending trial.