Thread: Are human rights right or wrong?

Are human rights right or wrong?

“I came to liberate you but before I liberate you I have to kill you”
An American soldier to Iraqi citizen



http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul....man-rights.html
Why human rights are wrong?
Human rights conflict with the principle of moral autonomy, and form an excuse for oppression. Any harm to others can be justified by claiming that it is intended to respect certain 'rights', even if the victim does not know of their existence. Revised June 2004.

A Serbian or Iraqi child who is shot to enforce human rights, suffers just as much pain, as an American or British child. Yet the US and British governments do not kill or injure their own citizens, to protect their human rights. That fate is reserved for Eastern Europeans, Arabs, Africans, and Asians. The western human rights lobby claims, that it is wrong to deny people human rights. They claim opposition to human rights is based on 'ethical relativism', and that their own 'moral universalism' is superior. Yet they would not bomb their own cities like they bombed Belgrade or Falluja or remote Afghan villages. Clearly, the 'moral universalism' of the human rights lobby is itself relative: it is turned on and off to conform to geopolitical interests. It was never much more than a propaganda slogan anyway………………………………………..

Human rights are right. It is human beings who are wrong.

Imperialistic or self righteous agendas set forth by other invading nations in order to establish their moral or political superiority should be outlawed. We have the right to defend ourselves as a nation, in our nation. We do not have the right to decide if other people or nations need our help, nor should we in any way jeapordize the lives of innocent people and excuse it as self defense when no clear threat is present.

“I came to liberate you but before I liberate you I have to kill you”
An American soldier to Iraqi citizen

Geez. Some people just can't appreciate irony...

Iaca wrote,

Human rights conflict with the principle of moral autonomy, and form an excuse for oppression. Any harm to others can be justified by claiming that it is intended to respect certain 'rights', even if the victim does not know of their existence.

So your position is that we're better off without them?

I can understand why Laca is so concerned about human rights in Iraq.

If he dared to write about human rights in his homeland, he'd be arrested and imprisoned:

3. The mass arrests: a sudden and unprecedented crackdown


"I am certain that informing others objectively and professionally and writing my opinions about the society in which I live cannot be a very serious crime - no one, no law will make me believe that I have become a gangster or a delinquent just because I report the arrest of a dissident, or list the prices of staple foods in Cuba, or write that I find it appalling that more than 20,000 Cubans every year go into exile in the United States and hundreds of others try to go anywhere they can.(29)" - Raúl Rivero Castañeda, in 1999.

He was arrested in the crackdown and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.
For several days beginning on 18 March 2003, Cuban security forces began arresting known dissidents across the island. Those detained included journalists and economists, doctors, pro-democracy members of illegal opposition parties and other activists. According to reports, security agents searched the homes of those detained, confiscating computers, fax machines, typewriters, books and papers; in a number of cases, this material was then included in the prosecution’s case against the activists.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...pen&of=ENG-CUB

Matt

Well, in Australia, where he lives, he has plenty of rights. I am about tired of his portrayal of living in Cuba.

It is getting seriously old...even older than his drivel in general.

There really is no such thing as "human rights".

There is only human will to enforce laws (and human will to ignore same).