If you want to be notified the next time I write something, sign up for FREE email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Aiyn, a faithful-silent reader here has suggested some time back to discuss the articles of stated by "THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS."
Aiyn said:
I am deeply moved by the pictures… Wouldnt it be wise to trigger a discussion about the hypocratic rights written in the constitution of UNited Nations. Trigger Seperate Topic on all these articles. There is need to question why we need to abide by the law and respect the law when the other parties do not even respect the rights of other people.
I fully agree!
As I know that there are so many intelligent people surfing around my blog sometimes; please consider this as an invitation for open discussion. We should remember that we might not agree, but at least, we can understand better what is what and who is who, and we leave the final judgment for each individually.
Before we start, I should caution you that when a complete list is presented, the discussion will be ineffective. We need to trigger and discuss on each of the rights, one by one. So, to start with, here is our first article to discuss (the Declaration consist of 30 articles).
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."
???? ???? ????? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????. ??? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??????.
Aiyn suggested that the discussion can be by asking ourselves and answering some of the following questions:
Do they really exist for non-europeans or non-westerners. Why is that so? Does that mean that United Nations is not a universally accepted body and does that also mean that International Court of Justice. What we call, has it been ratified by every nation to serve universal rights. If so? Is every individual living on this planet given the right to excercise his right. If not? Should we call upon people across this earth we live in to mobilise efforts to scribe a constitution and legislative body, that is universally accepted and represents every individual's right. Irrespective of its existence in any geographic location, Should this universal body be presented at a neutral location away from the influences of Nations imposing their will.
Well said. Many thanks, Aiyn to prompt this discussion.
PS. "THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS" in Arabic can be found here, all other languages here.
Print | | Digg | Stumble | delicious | Tweet | Technorati | Reddit | Yahoo | Google
{ 14 } Comments
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
Let me split each wording. I would call upon the architects of the constitution of United Nations for their attention Please.
" All human beings are born free". To what extent do we really are free in this world. I would say even before our birth we are branded and sold as commodity. The word "freedom" is packaged to us with a set of regulations.
Non-europeans and Non-westerns do not have the previlige even to have this word in the mouth. History is my witness, take the case of those native american indians, the africans and now the palestinians. Their generations were wiped out in their own home lands or deprived of their very right to exist. In today scenarios, after years plea to set free 10,000 palestinian people held in israeli prisons. We are compelled in a situation of negotiation for a freedom bargain 1:10,000. This is the value of life of Palestinian people. There is no equality in right and dignity.
Do we really have to abide by such a law, where the law maker, the legislator and the law enforcer are themselves guilty of the crime against humanity. Yes, You got it right. We are living in a world of limitations, where we are forced to abide by the rule serving the western nations interest not our interests.
There is huge outcry for 2500 americans killed in IRAQ with operation FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY of our great leaders. While our people do not acknowledge that there are 2.5 million people either killed or displaced. 2500:2.5 million that is the value of IRAQI People.
Khairut Tabiyeen.
The need for all countries to ratify this Declaration should be a priority for all citizens of the world! Here in the United States we need to talk of this as a priority versus the issue of the day, immigration.
Aiyn, I'm glad you're not my professor. This is a HARD one
I'd like to start with a little history if you don't mind. In April 1945, a group of 50 nations met from around the world to form the UN. It should be noted that the UN was the second such entity formed in the 20th century. The first, the League of Nations formed after WWII had failed in preventing WWII. They met before the war in Europe ended officially in May and in the Far East in August. Tension was in the air and hopes were high.
The charter for the UN became official in October. In that preamble it was stated, ""We the peoples of the United Nations [are] determined -.. to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small"
The reference to human rights in the preamble necessitated a committee to be set up to draw up a declaration. Thus, the Commission on Human Rights is one of the few commissions to draw its authority directly from the Charter. ( recently this committee has been replaced with a new version ) Eleanor Roosevelt was the chair of this committe and was thus in charge of pulling together the various drafts submitted by the different countries. Dr. Charles Malik of Lebanon is credited for his diplomacry at the meeting in pulling the various factions together. The commission met in January 1947 and did not complete their work in creating the UDHR until December 1948. It was decided to make it as simple and short as possible but still, with the different countries and religious factors involved, it didn't get finished overnight. It was voted on for final wording and some nations abstained from signing it, the six communist countries present as well as Saudi Arabia (surprise). It was not readdy to be presented for ratification until 1966. Today, through years of it's use, the UDHR is considered common international law and binding upon all nations. It is some of the provisions set up, such as the Universal Court of Justice (not signed by the US for instance) and others that I believe Don is referring to. It's kind of a murky thing, but predominately those in international law consider it binding in that it is universal and has precedence (This does not mean it is totally signed by all or not argued over)
My contraversial statement would be this: ARE all people born free? Free to do what? Doesn't the specific environment they are born into determine how free that infant can hope to be? OR, is this a MORAL statement (which indeed was the intent of the writers) rather than a factual statement. When the very first words create a question within themselves it might lead to questioning the very essence. PLEASE do not get me wrong, this IS the most high moral value that I believe our creator intended. But the facts on the ground just don't seem to mesh with the moral goal. I hate to get picky about it, but perhaps the word "should" might be inserted. In that way, it is a "goal" that we should be set for all to work towards. I'm probably messing where no messing is needed. I'm about as idealistic of an individual that you will ever come across but I'm really thinking about this and it just doesn't sound quite right. I think I just had a revelation. What SHOULD be isn't, once people and their meddling get in the way of what God meant to occur. So is the point that humans need to respect the fact that these rights are given to us by our common creator? I think that's what is meant.
Taking up on the argument by our learned friend Robin. 1. With agreement thatUN has been created in order to avoid any further conflict.
If it was an institution that people lookup on to as the supreme body where justice is imparted with out bias. Then my first question is. Why is that nations need to hold VETO Power? Why is that the whole world need to abide by a law formulated or enforced upon them by a bunch of bullies.
Donot let lack of knowledge cloud your mind. It is evident the humans are always biased so are their decisions. We are here to create a system that is based on equality.
I am looking forward to learn from Prof.Robin.
Guys,
I think you are overlooking a major point: There is no absolute in this world!
Sorry to break it to you, but the perfect society does not and will never exist no matter what we do. If all people were 100% identical, had 100% the same points of view, had 100% the same upbringing, and had 100% the same taste in food, fashion, partner, housing… then there would be a probability that we could reach a perfect society. But due to human nature it is a fact that we are all unique individuals who can never be molded into one uniform mass (there is not the slightest probability). Perfect agreement among imperfect people is utopic, so the best we can realisticly aspire for is the least imperfect society which is the least unfair and the least restrictive of freedom.
As long as there are narrow minded extremists who think that there is nothing in between right and wrong (intolerance of other people/ideas), that they alone represent the ultimate truth (arrogance/xenophobia), that accepting validity of a different point of view invalidates their own point of view (inability to accept a secular/pluralistic society), and that reaching agreement is always a win all/loose all game (stubborn inability to compromise) then even the least imperfect society is an aspiration way out of reach.
If I was a pessimist then I would wonder whether this bigoted, intolerant, fascistic world is as good as it gets, but I am not. Though we may not yet have reached 'the Darkest Hour' for humanity I still believe that there could be light at the end of the tunnel - hopefully it is not an oncoming freight train
Aiyn,
Please be a bit less xenophobic and think about your own responsibility to make your own country and the world a less imperfect place!
US Americans, Europeans and other Westerners are not the only reason why your human rights are not respected in the Middle East. Western governments, including my government, is not completely without blame, but, with a few exceptions, most of the governments in the Middle East are Middle Easterners who are violating the human rights of other Middle Easterners. Crying in your soup about the 'big bad West' is not a solution! What can YOU do to make YOUR government respect YOUR human rights?
Let me remind you that freedom of religion is a human right, but that it is a right that is violated in countries that are predominantly Muslim! The violation of the human right to have the freedom to choose any religion (or no religion) is an intolerant feature of most Muslim countries - and that you cannot blame on the Western countries!!! In several Western countries, people still have to 'fight' to keep their freedom of speech and that can be blamed on those Western governments, but the violation of freedom of speech in the Middle East cannot - that is an infringement by Middle Eastern governments!!!
Whether human rights are fair and desirable and whether those rights are enforced and respected in a fair way are two completely different subjects. Why do you think that it invalidates the UN and human rights that the UN is a more imperfect democratic forum than it should be? Isn't that a bit like blaming your car for running out of gas?
You ask "Why is that nations need to hold VETO Power?" The answer is very simple: Because leaders of large powerful nations think that hegemony and 'protection of their interests' is necessary and that their own power justifies it. Most of those leaders see democracy as a power play rather than a compromise to satisfy as many people as possible. They see a dictatorship by the majority as the only alternative to their own dictatorship by powerful minority! They are narrow minded extremists!!!!
Let me remind you that many people living in those countries that hold veto power in the UN actually do critizise the veto power. It is not just those of us who live in a country without veto power! Personally, I see abolishing the veto power completely as a much better and more democratic alternative to giving everybody veto power, because a veto is the ability to over-ride a democratic decision.
It cannot be denied that the UN is an improvement (and successor) of the League of Nations (the forum of those who 'won' WWII), so though it is a step closer to the democratic world forum it is supposed to be, it still carry some very undemocratic baggage, such as the veto power, with it.
Your question is not bad as such, but I think a better question would be "What would make the UN more fair and democratic?" and then a follow up question about "How can we influence our own politicians to work toward a less imperfect UN?"
The UN is (still) far from perfect as a democratic world forum, but I think that working for an evolution towards a less imperfet UN is a much better, peaceful, and less bloody alternative to a world-wide revolution. That is, of course, unless you or somebody else can convince me that there is a better alternative than the 'UN option'! Should we all be forced to submit to Islam? Should we all be forced to submit to the government of the USA? ..Denmark? ..Iran? ..Zimbabwe? What do you think?
I have to disagree with this. Humans are not equal in rights. There are humans and there are the fruit cases.
I think people of the east are less Xenophobic, tolerant and accepting and respectful than the west. Anyways. I have presented a case study of comparison of value of life of a britisher or american with the an african or asian or chineese. what ever you call.
O Haitham,
It should be 2500 Terrorists killed against 2.5 million iraqi people.
"a dictatorship by the majority as the only alternative to their own dictatorship by powerful minority"
Troops of 90,000 terrorise around 30 million IRAQI People, and 1.3 billion people around the globe.
It is interesting to see that our Countries who break the rule and abstain people from their own right. Return back to the same rule as it suits them. Isn't it a mockery of the Legal System. If it is so. Why should any nation abide by these rules or legislations formulated by some bullies.
I am talking about the great America
Aiyn,
I wasn't presenting an arguement when I wrote the first paragraph, I was stating a fact of desired purpose. The history I offered was only offered to state what the UN's goals were, their mission statement so to speak. Any organization has a "mission statement". Even religion has a "mission". Societies have missions (individual to their own cultural desires and needs) Shoot, even parents have a mission!! The United Nations was set up as an umbrella organization whose supposed goal was to create a forum in which all nations could come together and work out their various difficulties with each other. It is NOT perfect, I totally agree on that one. It is a "lofty ideal" and anytime you get a group of HUMANS together there are going to be problems. I do not think it should be disbanded whatsoever, but as Thomas stated above, it's effectiveness depends upon its members AND it's governing rules.
I think we might be on a slight tangent away from the first article when we veer to the veto power but let me just state a few facts so that we're all on the same page. When you refer to the veto power, you are referring to the Security Council which is the body of the UN given the power to enforce the charter. They are SUPPOSED to play by the rules, ie, the UDHR is supposed to be the common internationally accepted law which governs their decision making. The security council has five permanent members, France, Great Britain, the Russian Federation (formerly USSR), the US, and the People's Republic of China (mainland China ). In addition to permanent members there are 10 rotating members based on geographical locality who serve two year terms. ONLY the permanent members have veto power which is where the inequity lies. One single veto by a permanent member can nullify a resolution. Is this fair? No, of course not. It gives these five permanent members power over everyone else. I believe that is the point you are trying to get me to and I am in full agreement with you. But to make the arguement that member countries do not need to abide by the rules because the controling permanent members do not also does not make sense. It's the old, "He did it first" arguement. My intent is to say this, each nation must individually take the high road, otherwise we will have anarchy and NO ONE wins. I will be the first to tell you that my own country is the biggest hypocrit on earth. But this does not mean I want another nation to become like us, NO!! I want other nations to do the "right thing" It's all wishful thinking on my part, but the Palestinians in particular DO have the high road in this moral equivalency contest and that is WHY they have the support of so many other nations around the world. That the UN has not acted on behalf of the Palestinians is the problem. So another point I think you're trying to get me to is that the UN is an irrelevent helpful body to their cause and therefor why bother. Well, I don't know, they can walk away if they want. But the fact remains, for this moment in history it's the only game in town. Has the UN treated the Palestinians in a just manner? NO!! Has the US been able to manipulate the UN to favor Israel? YES!! What is the answer? I DON'T know. But I do know one thing, remove the power of the US to manipulate the situation with their one-sided support and there's definitely a better chance of finding a solution But I also think there are other entities which have also failed in this area, i.e. the Arab League. Now I'm really getting off topic, so if you don't mind, I'm going to turn my attention back to Article 1 because it is the mission statement of what the world SHOULD be.
The very first words of Article one are "All persons are born free" This is simply not true as a fact. It is a "moral" statement offered as a goal. In a perfect world, these words would be true. These words are different than "all men are created equal" which unfortunately are also untrue words. Let me explain before anyone jumps down my throat. I personally believe all humans are born "unique" and it is the equality and the acceptance of the "uniqueness" which should be stated rather than their mere equality. But no individual is a world unto himself. Each individual is also a part of a family, a local society, perhaps a state, and since nations were created (they were not always a fact) also a member of a nation. The problem arises between the rights of an individual vs. the rights of the society. Further up the food chain you have the rights of nations who are a part of the whole of civilization. In the "uniqueness" we therefor have diversity. Diversity is not a problem, but rather an asset. It is the differences which provide for personal growth and learning. By virtue of facts on the ground, equality is an impossibility. One must remember that the world is always in a flux, and is never static. Rather than freedom of the individual being born free we should be tweeking the words slightly to "each individual should have the freedom of opportunity". In otherwords, the benefits should be available to all. This is a moral GOAL rather than a fact. And it is towards that goal that all human kind should be working. A few words later Article 1 states, "and should act towards one another in the spirit of brotherhood" This is the "action" which should be taken in order to "enforce" the statement of freedom. That mankind does NOT always act in this manner does not mean that we should throw out the goal because others are not behaving in this manner. On the contrary, it should be our goal as individuals and as nations to continue to strive towards this goal because if you believe as I do that all action should be driven by "conscience" then one should always attempt to take the high road. Please don't misunderstand me here. This is my ideal that I am offering, not a rule I am attempting to enforce. I think when we get into the specific articles following Article 1 the real contraversy will come into play.
Aiyn, PS: when I stated "I'm glad you're not my professor" I was actually paying you a complement because I think the discussion you have provoked is a very challenging one, thus my description of "HARD" Good professors provoke good discussions, so please don't take me wrong, I was in an indirect manner thanking you for making me put on my rusty thinking cap. Great topic in other words. Also if I might add to my above plea for other nations to do the right thing, my first plea goes to my own country to do the "right thing" It has been doing wrong in MANY areas of the world for a LONG time. Why have we not signed onto the Court?
Well, only an ignoramous would say it is because the court is not fair. My country is the soul-super power at the moment and has a nasty appetite for the resources of other nations. But as I said before, history is NOT static. The US will be judged by history, as well as it is judged by other nations currently, and it will certainly not come out squeeky clean, not even close. If we only followed the words we espouse it would all be great. My country is a hypocrit and I hope you know that I know that. Also, the words given in Article 1 comes directly from the Enlightenment of Europe and is therfor a "western" ideal in it's historical genesis. How can Western universal ideals be forced on all? Well, you've got a point. But on the other hand how can some nations say that these are Western ideals being forced upon them and then come to the West and ask for help throwing the words in their face. Either they are universal or they are not. If not, then we all need to stay COMPLETELY self-sufficient within our own borders, this goes for EVERYONE, or stop griping about the rules being "Western" (UDHR). Point: Do we all accept the first article or not? If not, then what is your solution? We all need to come to some kind of agreement and I thought that was what the UDHR was all about. Once we accept it as our own guideline, then at least we have common grounds. The only thing I can come to this with is my own nationality but not ALL Americans are the same, each and every human being is "unique". Do we agree?
Robin et al. For me it doesnt matter who you are or which ethnicity you belong to. People raise their voices time and again against the attrocities. Having knocked all other possibilities where people have given them a very rough time. They resort to the means by which they make an impact or make their voice heard.
For those sitting in the seats of power. Have a very bad ear and often it serves their personal interests. And unfortunately, the media of this world from CNN to …blah blah they are controlled to suit the political motives.
PS: Thanks for the compliment unfortunately in the western world researchers doesnt encourage people like me.Who speak the truth.
To all the readers. I might have got the idea to initiate a discussion on these article of UN. But, my sincere thanks for Haitham. A very patient ear and time that he has lent to discuss this issue using this medium and addressing global audiences.
To my knowledge( it is limited ofcourse w r t blogging) this is the only blog on the internet, which presents the truth and facilitates a platform to discuss.
Thanks again Haitham.
{ 5 } Trackbacks
Aiyn, a faithful-silent reader here has suggested some time back to discuss the articles of stated by ?THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.? Aiyn said: I am deeply moved bRead the rest
Article 1: Declaration of Human Rights On July 10th, 2006, from Sabbah's Blog
Article 1: Declaration of Human Rights From Sabbah's Blog. Posted in Politics July 10th, 2006 |
????? ???????piercings and tattoosChappelles show, Tupac Skit.Ten Things Without Thinkingthe passing of the dana pearl diverTook some pics of the dust stormNo Entry for AmericansArticle 1: Declaration of Human RightsRoopa Needs Your HelpSilveroo in Sydney
Ù?Ù?Ù?سة اÙ?أرÙ?اÙ?piercings and tattoosChappelles show, Tupac Skit.Ten Things Without Thinkingthe passing of the dana pearl diverTook some pics of the dust stormNo Entry for AmericansArticle 1: Declaration of Human RightsRoopa Needs Your Help
Post a Comment