Did Anyone Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declar.'n of Human Rights?

Great Debates
1

Did anyone celebrate the 50-yr. anniversary of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Actual that is a trick question, because the event happened in 1998. Very few people in the US knew about it and very few media sources in the US even reported it.

*A LITTLE BACKGROUND:*The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted on behalf of all peoples everywhere in 1948. Former-First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt is said to have been instrumental in its formation and adoption. It is also said to have been brought about partly by the preceeding Nazi atrocities–when many people claimed they shouldn’t have prosecuted the Nazis because they broke no existing international code.

It is a very unique Bill of Rights. Meant for the whole world, it includes the usual free expression and freedom of religion. Along with the usual political and criminal due process rights.

But then it goes on to add, for the first time in history, basic cultural, economic, and social rights. Everyone is guaranteed a home, a job, decent wages–supplimented with government assistance if necessary. Medical care is to be made freely available to everyone everywhere. Education is to be made free to all classes–elementary education to be compulsory.

The original purpose of this document is interesting. It was meant as a legally binding, legally active document that any person anywhere in the world could call upon if he felt his rights were violated.

That never happened. Most countries–like the United States–opted instead for it as a kind of model or ideal to strive for. But not anything binding in our or anyone else’s courts–although quite literally, that is what was originally supposed to happen.

Also, of note is that the document itself requires that everyone should be made aware of it and everyone should be educated about it to foster a better understanding of human rights. Here you can use this same link again to the UN’s website to see it. I would highly recommend reading it all the way thru when you get the chance. You will find it interesting if nothing else. As I said, it was written in 1948.

BTW, I once heard a man at the comm. college I went to claim that the right to gay marriages can be found in this document too. Hmmm…

TTFN:D

2

As part of a research project on the conferences that led to the creation of the UN after WW2, I printed a copy of the Declaration. I still have it on my bookshelf somewhere. It’s an interesting historical artifact.

3

I find this document poorly worded, and to diminish true human rights by putting them in the same category as priviledges. Furthermore, I find the idea of telling sovereign nations what to do as rather presumptuous. Rights are about what other people can’t do, not what they must do.

4

**

It probably wasn’t reported because nobody really cared. The UDofHR are just a bunch of words worth less then the paper they are printed on. And I’m not saying that because I disagree with everything written in the declaration. The document just doesn’t have much signifigance.

**

A worthless piece of paper that has not helped anyone in the past 50 years. Did the people of the Soviet Union have the rights laid out in the document? Do the people of the United States? What happens to nations which refuse to abide by the UDofHR?

**

Which is one reason I’m glad we have our own bill or rights. Housing certainly isn’t a right.

**

You have a cite for this?

**

Being as the document has no teeth I don’t think we need to worry.

Marc

5

I don’t have a cite, but I know the story well. The US does that often. We get all gungho about a treaty, then we never ratify it. It will be hard to find a cite, because as you pointed out few people care. But certainly if I ever find one, I’ll put it here first chance I get.

As far as housing and the like not being a right. What could be more basic than things liking housing and food. That’s my humble opinion in any event. :slight_smile:

6

Actually, I’ve a poster printed for this 50th anniversary pinned on a door on my left.

And I definitely believe that " 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" is a right, not a priveledge.
Actually, food and shelter are in my opinion much more basic rights than for instance the right to vote. Who care if you can vote, if you aren’t even able to feed yourself? Who, having to choose with food and shelter and no right to vote and no food and no shelter but the right to vote (assuming there’s a vote before you die from starvation, that is), would choose the later?
By the way, several of these social rights are constitutionnal rights, here. Though the issue never arise, a law totally suppressing both unemployment benefits and social security would most probably be unconstitutionnal . I guess the poster who said the document mix real rights and priviledge has only the US constitution, and the US conception of “rights” in mind.
This has been a permanent issue between the east and the west during the cold war. When western countries pointed at the lack of civil rights in USSR and China, such countries would respond (and IMO, rightly so), that the said western coutries didn’t even guaranteed basic necessities of life. Stressing a right to a due process of law without any guarantee that one will receive food or medical care if needed is putting the cart before the horses. We’re talking basically about the right to live, here. Having a right to free speech without a right to live makes no sense.

The fact that a country is happy with a constitution which guarantee civil rights but don’t care about the right to receive food if needed seems objectively weird to me. The right to vote, to a due process of law and to free speech without the right not to die from starvation, cold or curable disease? :rolleyes: Please, give me a break…
Of course, our western and affluent societies wouldn’t leave someone starve. But if you’re going this way, they wouldn’t remove our right to vote, either. So, if you believe that a constitution is really necessary concerning civil rights, it’s as necessary concerning food.
The UN declaration off human rights is relatively well known here, and quite often refered to, by the way.

7

I first heard of this declaration in an article that cited it to back up the assertion that we (in the US) should not trust the UN; that the UN, if it could, would wipe out our traditional liberties in a second. The article made the claim that it was untrue that the UN declaration was a sort of super bill of rights, garanteeing most of the same basic rights as does the US Bill of Rights – and more! Additional rights! According to the article, the key difference was that the UN declaration said, in effect, “we, your wise and benevolent government, are giving you these rights; you have them because, and only because, we are confiring them upon you”. Whereas, the US Bill of Rights is basically a list of things government is not allowed to do, so as not to interfear with the rights we just inherently have as human beings.

8

That’s an interesting distinction, **hazel[/z], but couldn’t someone read the bill of right as something like

we, your wise and benevolent government, we’ll refraining from these actions; we will refraining from doing them because, and only because, we have decided so "

That seems to me to be mostly an “UN is evil whatever it does because I said so” argument…

9

Food and housing are not “Rights”. Nobody is obligated to feed and shelter you, those are your own responsibilities - things you need to do if you wish to continue to survive. Hungry? Sad that your human rights are being violated? Go kill a squirrel and eat it. Congratulations, you have satisfied your basic human rights! We have needs, yes. But it is our own responsibility to provide for those needs, not anybody else’s. This UN declaration of rights sounds like a bunch of feel-good bullshit designed to encourage people to be leeches on the rest of society. A right to good wages? Rights to food and housing and free education and medical care?

So, basically, the UN says that all people have the right to a socialist society, where daddy government provides for your every need, right? Thrill. :rolleyes:

You seem to be unclear on the difference between laws passed and the Constitution. The various acts establishing social security and unemployment, etc, have nothing to do with the Constitution. The Consitution outlines the basic framework for the workings of the government, and then states specific things that the government is prohibited from doing because it violates the people’s rights. It does NOT say that we have to give money to people for not working, or that we need to feed and house people. All those things are separate laws.

Who has a right to live? According to reliable statistics, 1 out of every 1 person dies. So who do I sue for nature’s violation of my human rights? And you do have the right to any medical care that you pay for. Or do you think doctors do NOT have the right to get paid for their work? Personally I think the rates for medical care are way, way too high, but that’s the way it goes.

yeah, definitely. Give me a break too.

Yeah, and that makes it important. :rolleyes: The UN rights declaration is as powerless and useless as the UN itself.

10

I’m not obligated not to take your stuff if I’m in power, nor to let you express your ideas. That’s your responsability to defend yourself or to scream louder than me.

Arbitrarily imprisoned? Sad your human right are being violated? Go kill the jail guard and free yourself. Congratulations, you’ve satisfied your basic human rights!

We desire freedom, yes. But it’s our own responsability to become more powerful than others, not anybody’s else.

These civil rights sounds like a bunch of feel-good bullshit designed to encourage people to become dependant on the rest of society. A right to any wage when enslaved? Right to a free lawyer when imprisonned?

So basically, these constitutions say that all people have the right to a liberal society, where daddy government protect you from any infrigments on your liberty, right?

You seem to be unclear on the difference between the constitution in my country and the constitution in yours.

Where?

Where?

Where?

Everybody.

And these people seem not to be in a hurry, usually.

You could also sue it for not providing you with a lawyer, or no strong enough muscles to hit in the face someone who don’t want you to speak.

I disagree. Actually, I believe that most posters on this board won’t agree with letting people die in the streets if they can’t afford the care in the emergency room.

They have. And since people have the right to receive medical care, this result in society having an obligation to make sure that people will receive medical care and doctors will be paid.

Would you live in the US, by chance? The low cost-efficiency level of healthcare in this country is one of the main reason why its medical system is ranked so low by the WHO, as compared to other western countries. Perhaps you should try a public healthcare system :wink:

Sure…when I’ve finished answering to your post.

The OP didn’t ask if the UDHR was important. My answer was relevant, I believe.

That’s unfortunately mostly true. But I’m lucky enough to live in a country where my rights, including the right to live, are guaranteed by the constitution.:wink: . So, it doesn’t matter too much on my individual level.

11

Jim B.: First of all, thanks for bringing this up. I have a couple of minor corrections to your post.

The UDHR was not meant to be a binding treaty. Some states advocated that such a convention be drafted, but the UN decided to create an aspirational document instead. It was intended to be followed by legally binding treaties, thus we have the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The UDHR was not the first time that economic, social and cultural rights (ESCRs) appeared. These provisions can be traced to many sources, such as: many major religions, including Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism; the writings of Thomas Paine, Karl Marx, Immanuel Kant, and John Rawls; the political programs of 19th-century Fabian socialists in Britain, Bismark in Germany, and the New Dealers in the US; and the constitutions of Mexico (1917), the Soviet Union, and the Weimar Republic (1919). ESCRs first appeared in international law with the International Labour Organisation in 1919. Footnote: Henry Steiner and Philip Alston, International Human Rights in Context. So they aren’t some wacky idea that came out of nowhere.

Also, I’m guessing your classmate was (or should have been) referring to the ICCPR, not the UDHR. The ICCPR declares that people have a right to marry and form a family (Art. 23) and to be free from any discrimination based on sex (Art. 2), and one could argue that these two articles read together establish a right for gays to marry.

Joe_Cool: There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about what ESCRs entail. States are not obligated to give people food, housing, health cared, or anything else, though inevitable some sort of welfare system will probably be required. They are obligated to ensure a society where these basic needs are met. ESCRs focus on results, and states can chose any political and economic system that does not contradict the basic human rights contained in the UDHR.

The Ryan: The distinction between negative (what you can’t do) and positive (what you must do) is frequently invoked but is not very useful in practice. Civil and political rights also impose duties on states to act. For example, in order to achieve the right to due process, a state must set up an entire judicial system, which is very costly. The right to vote requires the creation of an electoral system. Even something as seemingly clear-cut as the right to be free from torture necessitates the creation of an administrative framework that ensures that government agents do not violate this right. And states must provide a police force to ensure that private actors do not violate others’ rights.

MGibson: No country has fulfilled all its obligations under the UDHR. But that fact doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it’s completely worthless. It is used as a yardstick to measure a states performance in the area of human rights. Political pressure can be exerted on states who don’t comply. It was this sort of pressure that eventually brought down the apartheid regime in South Africa. Who’s to say what the world would look like today without it?

What did you want a cite for? You want cites, I got cites!

12

Yeah I guess I wasn’t clear enough on what I was saying. Allow me to elaborate.

Yes, I live in the US (brilliant piece of deduction, clairobscur. What was it that gave me away? Was it the words “Northern NJ, USA” underneath my name? :slight_smile: ). The US Constitution comes in three major parts:

[list=A][li]The main body. This is the definition of how the government is to work. Defines powers and privileges of the three branches (legislative, judicial, executive) and the framework for each. This is where our judicial system comes from. Not because of any statement of rights. And if you think setting up a judicial system is expensive, you should try living without one.[/li]
[li]The Bill of Rights. This is the enumeration of basic rights. This can be interpreted in two (more, actually, but this is just an overview) ways: [/li]

  1. a list of privileges gifted by the government to its citizens, and

2.a list of behaviors that, in view of the rights held by all people, are withheld from the government. This is the correct view, as evidenced by reading the Constitutional debates, the Federalist Papers, and --most obviously-- the Preamble to the danged thing:

(emphasis added)
See? After the section defining powers of the new government comes a section Explicitly denying powers from that government, because they infringe upon the rights held by the people (and the States).
[li]And finally, other amendments to the Constitution.[/list=A][/li]
Rights, in the sense that a just government is obligated to protect them, are things that the government is not allowed to stop you from doing or force you to do. Such as practice the religion of your choice, speak your mind, defend yourself, put up soldiers in your home, etc.

The apparent exceptions to this are the trial rights. Right to representation, right to a trial by jury, right to a fast trial, etc. But even these aren’t very different from the rest: The government doesn’t have the power to compel you to testify against yourself. It doesn’t have the power to deny you a speedy trial. It doesn’t have the right to deny you representation or a trial by jury. In other words, you are entitled to all the protections and privileges defined under and provided by our judicial system, and the government does not have the power to deny them.

So to say that you have the right to life or food or housing is, in a sense, accurate - No even slightly sane government will stop its people from eating, working, seeking shelter or medical treatment, or from living (except under specific circumstances to remove dangerous elements from the population). But then, any government that tried would quickly collapse, because if the people can’t eat, produce goods, and survive, what happens to the rulers? And you can’t very well rule dead people, can you?

But to draft a document making the claim that all people have the right to food and shelter is to imply that they must be given these things if they can’t provide for themselves. That’s not a basic right.

My Rights are what you can’t deny me or take from me, not what you must do for me or give to me.

It would be criminal to stop me from seeking medical attention, but there is no reason for the government to hand it to me. Same goes for food, shelter, work, etc. It’s amazing how widespread these socialist ideas have become. I don’t want to be dependent on the government for my day-to-day survival. I want it to defend the shores, pick up the trash, and stay the hell out of my business. I already have a mother, thanks. Don’t need another one.

13

The degree to which we want something is not a significant criterion for determining whether something is a right. If it were, having my own private jet would be even more of a right than voting or eating today.

No, refrain. Not protect. Refrain.

No, human rights are human rights, regardless of where one lives. There aren’t “US rights” and “non-US rights”. There’s just rights. And the right to food is not one of them.

So once you offer to support someone, you have the right to tell what to do with the rest of their life, even if they don’t accept your offer?

No, we’re talking about the right to a livilihood. “right to live” and “right to livilihood” are completely different concepts.

chula

Rights aren’t about what’s useful. Rights are about rights.

No, they don’t. Rights simply state that certain actions impose duties. Trying someone imposes the duty of forming a judicial system. Passing laws imposes the duty of creating an electoral system. If we never tried anyone, if we never passed any laws, then there would be no duty to have a judicial system or an electoral system.

14

Do you think that they didn’t have due process rights in mind when they decided the country needed a judicial system? My point was that ensuring many civil and political rights requires affirmative action (I mean in the literal sense) on the part of the government. You should try living without a roof over your head, enough food in your stomach, or access to health care. Now that’s rough.

Did you read your own quote? The clauses may be “declaratory” (like in the UDHR) or “restrictive.” However, I don’t disagree with your basic conclusion, that the guys who wrote it conceived of them as limitations on government power. That’s one way of framing the issue, but it’s not necessarily the most accurate way, so who cares?

These due process rights are actually a pretty typical example. It’s just a matter of how you phrase it. For example:[ul]
[li]An individual’s right to a fair and speedy trial -> The government’s obligation to create and maintain a fair and efficient judicial system.[/li][li]An individual’s right to vote -> The government’s obligation to create and maintain a functioning electoral system.[/li][li]An individual’s right to free speech -> The government’s obligation to create and enforce laws that protect and promote this right and reasonably balance it with other rights (such as the right to privacy).[/li][li]An individual’s right to be free from slavery -> The government’s obligation to punish those who attempt to keep slaves.[/li][/ul]All rights create a corresponding duty on the state to act. It is not simply a matter of “denying” the right.

But the government does this all the time. If you try to take the things you need, you are punished by the criminal system. I’m not saying that stealing and squatting are the best way to solve this problem; I’m just pointing out that the government does not take a neutral stance on how people may acquire basic necessities.

Funny, you say you don’t want the government to “hand you” anything, and yet you do expect it to hand you all kinds of things in order to protect your other rights.

15

The degree to which “we” (society, not you personally) feel something is desirable for the good of society is, in fact, a reasonable criterion for establishing a right. Do you believe that rights were handed down by God? No, we established them because we wanted them.

Of course there are rights that only apply in the US. The US Constitution only binds the US government. If you want to talk about only universal, then the right to food is a human right, legally binding under international law in most of the world.

Different, but not completely different. In India, the Supreme Court has interpreted the right to life as including the right to a livelihood, on the logical basis that one cannot live without a means to support oneself.

If you read the sentence I wrote, you’ll see that I said that the distinction you made is not useful. In other words, it does not reflect reality. The second sentence is really not useful. (By this I mean that it does not help explain your position.)

Then there would be no right to vote and no right to due process. Your logic here is really flawed. It’s not as if the US government is free under the Constitution to chose whether to take those actions that you say impose duties. The Constitution requires the US government to do certain things. The obligation to provide people with due process in turn imposes the duty of forming a judicial system. You can call it a “right to due process” or an “obligation to provide due process,” but it’s the same thing. I don’t get the idea that passing laws creates the need for an electoral system. The obligation of establishing an electoral system comes directly from the Constitution, and this obligation is what creates your “right” to participate in it. Who would be passing the laws if no one could vote for their representatives?

16

I rather like this capitalist/socialist ideals debate that’s swirling here. I can’t really tell if that was the intent of the OP though.
Maybe more of individual nations/UN sort of thing was intended.
Personally I wouldn’t mind if the US government committed itself to making sure that people could eat, get medical care, and have a place to live.

Ensuring that people can eat or have a place to live is more than just “coddling” people. It’s also ensuring that people aren’t taken advantage of by those in power. For instance, I don’t believe the US constitution gaurantees that children can’t be forced to work for pennies an hour in dangerous conditions. It’s been legislated since, but we don’t, I think, explicitly state that human welfare is a right. I for one would like to see that commitment at the constitutional level.

17

chula

No, the government doesn’t have that obligation.

No, it’s not.

We did not establish rights. They are.

But the Constitution does not establish rights; it only recognize them.

According to that logic, the right to free speech would require the government ensure air time for anyone that has anything to say.

But earlier you said that it comes from the right to vote. Which is it?

18

Joe: Do you believe that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel to indigent defendants is wrongheaded?

19

To celebrate I sent some UN Peacekeepers into my bedroom to clean it out. The dust bunnies chased them away.

20

I agree. A state that, through a prosperous free-market system and a reasonably solid rule-of-law that protects civil and political rights, ends up with a high percentage of the population reasonably fed, housed, and cared for, IS essentially following the spirit of the Declaration. EVEN if there are poor among that population and the country does not have absolute 100% equal coverage of the needs of every last soul (NO state on Earth has achieved this, we don’t even know if it’s possible). The Declaration itself, as far as I can read, does not actually mandate governments to set up a socialistic system to provide every last inhabitant a uniform level of existence. THAT is a political interpretation that has been spun opportunistically by leaders and wags on BOTH the left and the right in virtually every country of the world.

BTW, neither do I see anything in the UDHR that says that rights are concessions granted from above. But that, again, seems tobe interpretation issues.
As to celebrating the anniversary of the UDHR in 1998, quite frankly since this document is most often honoured in the breach thereof, a majority of UN members, had they any shame, should have been reduced to embarassed coughing when the topic came up.