A global pushback against human rights.. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14779160
The state of the world: A global pushback against human rights

Seismic political shifts in 2016 exposed the potential of hateful rhetoric to unleash the dark side of human nature. Whether it is Trump (USA), Orban (Hungary), Modi (India), Erdogan (Turkey) or Duterte (the Philippines), more and more politicians call themselves anti-establishment and wield politics of demonization that hounds, scapegoats and dehumanizes entire groups of people to win the support of voters.

This rhetoric will have an increasingly dangerous impact on actual policy. In 2016, governments turned a blind eye to war crimes, pushed through deals that undermine the right to claim asylum, passed laws that violate free expression, incited murder of people simply because they use drugs, legitimized mass surveillance, and extended draconian police powers.

The more countries backtrack on fundamental human rights commitments at home, the less leadership we see on the world stage, with governments everywhere emboldened to join a global pushback against human rights.

This could have disastrous consequences given the already pitiful global response to mass atrocities in 2016, with the world standing by as events in Aleppo, Darfur and Yemen unfolded.

Meanwhile, several other countries carried out massive crackdowns, including Bahrain, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Philippines and Turkey. Other countries implemented intrusive security measures, such as prolonged emergency powers in France and unprecedented surveillance laws in the UK. Another feature of “strongman” politics was a rise in anti–feminist and -LGBTI rhetoric, such as efforts to roll back women’s rights in Poland that were met with massive protests.

Amnesty Internationals Annual Report.(2016/2017)
https://www.amnesty.org/download/Docume ... NGLISH.PDF


Any thoughts on governments around the world depriving people of their fundamental human rights?

Image
Last edited by anarchist23 on 23 Feb 2017 15:08, edited 4 times in total.
#14779165
anarchist23 wrote:The state of the world: A global pushback against human rights


Amnesty Internationals Annual Report.(2016/2017)
https://www.amnesty.org/download/Docume ... NGLISH.PDF


Any thoughts on governments around the world depriving people of their fundamental human rights?

Image



No such thing as human rights, it is a dumb concept. Only right is the right you can enforce.
#14779171
Rights are granted by a community. Therefore, You are only entitled to the rights each community recognizes.
Believing each individual has rights granted by his mere existence can only be religious in nature and therefore makes the human rights issue even more laughable since most of the supporters either deny religion or disagree violently about it. It is total hypocrisy meant to disguise the real intent of globalization. The true believers in human rights are pawns in a game they don't seem to comprehend.
#14779178
Pants-of-dog wrote:I find it is usually people who have never had their rights taken from them that dismiss the importance of having rights taken from people.


Your post only makes sense if you believe in 'human rights' and I just posted how laughable I believe that idea is. It is up to the people in the community to decide what rights they will have. If there is a human right, then it should be the majority decides. Any other 'right' is simply imposing your beliefs upon others without their consent.
#14779179
One Degree wrote:Your post only makes sense if you believe in 'human rights' and I just posted how laughable I believe that idea is. It is up to the people in the community to decide what rights they will have. If there is a human right, then it should be the majority decides. Any other 'right' is simply imposing your beliefs upon others without their consent.


Sometimes, minorities need to impose recognition of their rights on the majority.

But this does not, in any way, address my point that people who dismiss human rights concerns are almost always white men from developed countires who have never had their rights questioned or taken away.
#14779181
"Pants-of-dog"]Sometimes, minorities need to impose recognition of their rights on the majority.

Why, if you believe in democracy and majority rule?

But this does not, in any way, address my point that people who dismiss human rights concerns are almost always white men from developed countires who have never had their rights questioned or taken away.


This must be why 'human rights' have been so popular in Africa and Asia. :roll:

Edit: Human rights were invented by white men to benefit the wealthy.
#14779183
One Degree wrote:Why, if you believe in democracy and majority rule?


Democracy is often limited by laws. In the US, this is done by the US Constitution. The constitution has a bill of rights that cannot be taken away by majority vote.

If this were not the case, white people could vote away the rights of blacks.

This must be why 'human rights' have been so popular in Africa and Asia. :roll:

Edit: Human rights were invented by white men to benefit the wealthy.


...and then they have been extended to more and more peope becuase those minorities forced the rest of us to recognise their rights.

But this does not, in any way, address my point that people who dismiss human rights concerns are almost always white men from developed countires who have never had their rights questioned or taken away.
#14779188
"Pants-of-dog"]Democracy is often limited by laws. In the US, this is done by the US Constitution. The constitution has a bill of rights that cannot be taken away by majority vote.

Not a majority, but it can be taken away by a vote of the people through their state or federal representatives. This also obfuscates the point that most civil rights legislation is based upon which community has the right to decide.
If this were not the case, white people could vote away the rights of blacks.

They still could. White people gave them the right to vote and they could take it away.


...and then they have been extended to more and more peope becuase those minorities forced the rest of us to recognise their rights.

I don't follow you here. Human rights are a White Western civilization idea that was basically forced upon the rest of the world with varying degrees of success.

But this does not, in any way, address my point that people who dismiss human rights concerns are almost always white men from developed countires who have never had their rights questioned or taken away.

This is simply a prejudice on your part with no basis in fact. You simply ignore the fact that many darker skinned people than white people reject the idea. It is a white person's idea forced upon the rest of the world.
#14779190
One Degree wrote:Not a majority, but it can be taken away by a vote of the people through their state or federal representatives. This also obfuscates the point that most civil rights legislation is based upon which community has the right to decide.


You still seem to have trouble using the quote function properly. Are you aware of how you somehow screw up the beginning of each quote so that the person whom you quote does not receive a notification?

They still could. White people gave them the right to vote and they could take it away.


Yes, by changing your constitution. This does not, in anyway, contradict my claim.

I don't follow you here. Human rights are a White Western civilization idea that was basically forced upon the rest of the world with varying degrees of success.


I am not discussing non-western countries. In western countries, poor people also have rights even though rights were originally intended to protect the rich. This is because poor people (and minorities) did something about to force the rest of us to recognise their rights.

This is simply a prejudice on your part with no basis in fact. You simply ignore the fact that many darker skinned people than white people reject the idea. It is a white person's idea forced upon the rest of the world.


In this thread, the only people who are dismissive of human rights are white men who grew up in western countries. This corroborates my point.
#14779235
The concept of human rights is purely intellectual since life only works biologically as kinetically separated ancestrally. So, with that being center balance to all sides of political extremism setting up so many franchises of social identifcation geographically in one atmosphere by one species based upon ideology, possibility, probability, academic interpretation, race, creed, color, national origin, bias of gender, political leaning, spiritual conviction, most popular shared opinions, artistic impression, economic theory, social justification classifying idealists into idealisms one thing is always constant historically, physically, time never moved while results never stay the same now.

Brains are biologically conceived to navigate simultaneously existing and minds are developed after birth to manage the moment each lifetime never stays the smae as before arriving in the atmosphere. Peace is achievable through total honesty about what life actually is rather than arguing how if factually continues socially. So many ways to separate the self evident but only one way to understand self conjtainment to one's own skin as naturally positioned when alive. No exceptions, one rule, adapt or become extinct with choices at being personally civil or collectively civic minded.

Remember pride comes before the downfall of humanity's institutions that socially implode before a global societal eruption.
#14779306
anarchist23 wrote:Any thoughts on governments around the world depriving people of their fundamental human rights?

We see, in this thread, an example of 2 private individuals wanting their rights taken away from them, as long as it happens to other people too. With such people who are unable to recognise their basic self-interest, it's not surprising that many governments are keen to seize the opportunity to restrict rights. It's a lot easier to govern, and remain in power, if you don't have to worry about rights, and with a significant proportion of people literally asking for it, it's a temptation that many less than scrupulous politicians are bound to give in to.
#14779313
Pants-of-dog wrote:I find it is usually people who have never had their rights taken from them that dismiss the importance of having rights taken from people.



Rights cannot be taken away, since you do not have any by default. Any right is something that you must enforce, it is not inherent.
#14779542
Oxymoron wrote:Rights cannot be taken away, since you do not have any by default. Any right is something that you must enforce, it is not inherent.


The fact that rights are not inherent does not mean that they cannot be taken away.

So this does not, in any way, address my point that people who dismiss human rights concerns are almost always white men from developed countires who have never had their rights questioned or taken away.
#14779625
Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that rights are not inherent does not mean that they cannot be taken away.

So this does not, in any way, address my point that people who dismiss human rights concerns are almost always white men from developed countires who have never had their rights questioned or taken away.


I was a refugee, and was a prosecuted minority... :roll:
#14779701
Couldn't care less not could.

If you couldn't possibly care less you must not care at all (the whole point of the phrase). If you could care less than you do now then you must currently care at least to some degree.

I think those people are all a bunch of fucking i[…]

An EU army is now 110% an absolute necessity. A[…]

EU-BREXIT

Oh, please god. I’ll be marching on Saturday with[…]

Canadian Federal Election

Scheer has dual US/Canadian citizenship and hasn'[…]