h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This is prompted by another thread.

Which Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of the Child do you disagree with?

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/plainchild.asp

Should anything else be added (Nobody has the right to bow down before graven images? )

1. Human beings are not endowed with reason. Reason is a learnt behaviour.

RF

1. "spirit of brotherhood" is excluding half of the human race.

RF

5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This is a bit of a value judgment. One man's "cruel and unusual" is another man's justice. It's too subjective to be a right.

RF

From the right of the child:

4 You have a right to ... good food ...

Why should they have a right to *good* food?

RF

The sexist language I'll grant you.

The Reason one - My interpretation is that our assumption is that everyone is capable of reason and conscience and as a result their duty is to behave well.

In other words...isn't it saying that 'I've never been taught any different' is no excuse?

The context is salutary. It was written post WWII when a brutal but constitutionally valid regime had enacted gross laws. What Article 1 says is that law can't override reason or conscience.

>>This is a bit of a value judgment. One man's "cruel and unusual" is another man's justice. It's too subjective to be a right.

Ah, the Guantanamo Getout whereby sleep deprivation and waterboarding are redefined as 'Aggressive interrogation techniques'. In practice - I suggest you'll find that we know torture and cruel and unusual punishment when we see it. Maybe in a few borderline cases, yes, there'll be value judgements. That's what a judiciary is for, isn't it?

>>good food

We're working from the Plain Language version there. The original http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/UN-declaration/ has 'adequate nutrition'. Any niggle with that?

Does McDonald's count as "good food"? Or even "adequate nutrition"?

RF

One country (possibly more) which included the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments" in its own constitution, used to (does it still?) kill people by applying a large quantity of electricity through them. It's not a very effective method of killing people, although it usually worked, eventually. Are you saying that that isn't "cruel and unusual"? Presumably the people who dreamt it up didn't consider it so...as I say, it's all open to interpretation.

RF

Indeed. I'm not saying the UDHR will stop cruel and unusual punishment any more than the Ten Commandments will stop some Christians from committing adultery.

Note, though, that some US anti-death penalty activists have successfully used the constitution to prevent executions. Indeed there is a tradition of legal activism in the US which is about getting the government to apply its own laws and constitution.

So I'm not asking 'will it work'? I'm asking 'do you agree with the articles?'

>>Does McDonald's count as "good food"? Or even "adequate nutrition"?

Good point. As it happens, I know a UNICEF worker who teaches Children's Rights to schools and community groups. They get a shock when they discover it's not just about starving kiddies in Africa but about *their* kiddies. Who, yes, have a right to adequate nutrition.

Is there anything about my right to have babies?

And I demand the right to breastfeed.