Human rights are universal and eternal according to the statement itself.Human rights have been formulated in response to the Enlightenment, and this commitment led to the abolition of slavery, equality between men and women, the illegal declaring of racism and gay emancipation within one or two centuries. This did not happen anywhere, and often still half-hearted, but still, after more than 10,000 years of Injustice, there has been some progress in those few centuries. Let us go on this road.
Mmm… Your first question raises an essential question: what do you consider human rights?
I think that it is not so difficult to mention five basic rights.Then it is not necessarily difficult, but the importance of these rights and the resulting ranking is more discorable.
From this discussion, the question arises as to whether the assurance of a specific right is still this time.
An example: in the Netherlands there is freedom of education (within the framework of what the government sets as a minimum).This freedom is given form in a specific way (including by subsidy) and thus also allows Islamic schools. Now the fact that not everyone feels comfortable with what pupils of those schools is being taught. Irrespective of whether actual pupils are being taught a “wrong” vision, and irrespective of why that is thought; It puts the freedom of education under pressure as soon as it is about intervening in schools or at the very possibility of making Islamic education possible, for example by toring the subsidy.
The discussion shows that the issues surrounding the guarantees of basic rights/fundamental rights are often still alive and kicking.This makes human rights a certain time, as long as they are not of all times from their character.
Should we not modernise them?To my irritation, I hear more and more often that constitutional articles should be deleted or adapted to accommodate these kinds of discussions.It does in my opinion absolutely no right to the thoughts that have been the basis for some fundamental rights, and my great fear is that the discussion about what is in place will ask too much of us as a society, if it is not us in endless discussions za L do bogged down.
I also sometimes have the idea that people do not understand the concept of fundamental rights.The interpretation of basic rights is already quite complex matter itself and I would first look at it if something seems to be no more of this time.
These rights are beautiful on paper, but they are not respected.
In the late ‘ 90 I was assuming that we were almost there, that emancipation was successful, that women became full-fledged as in terms of rights and employment, that people were no longer suppressed and that slavery no longer existed.I also thought that everyone was going through what was going on with religions.
Now, 20 -25 years later, this euphoria bar is very little about it.The real progress has been wiped out, men are amazingly often stupid, disrespectful * * pouches, pimps are again slave traders, there is a thriving child trafficking in the world, wars are going to worry again about religions and UN sanctions against a country Decades for endless famine and misery.
Even in the Netherlands, a woman has less rights than a man and in some other country a tenth of it.Chapeau.
So if you read the first 10 rights then again; They are beautiful.But are not complied with after almost 70 years. I strongly wonder why that is so terribly difficult, but I also understand that I cannot change anything.
Again, the rules need to be better respected and not changed, I find. At most, but it might be too early for that.First, try to do well the world over the next 10 years.
I think that especially the impact is rather flawed. The text of the song ‘ Over the Wall ‘ says it all: ‘good!You can demonstrate, but with the back against the wall. And only if you have money, then freedom is not expensive. ‘
We live in a society where we can no longer do everything ourselves and therefore rely on the goods and services of others.If we no longer have access to this, our livelihoods are automatically gone. These private or semi-public parties have a tendency to play for their own courts, which are the victims of civilians. Such as:
- Access to the housing market.
In theory, you can live wherever you want, including Amsterdam if you want a job in the international financial world, for example. Only, Amsterdam and the surrounding cities have completely shielded the social housing market for newcomers and the free market is priceless for starters. In other countries this is much worse.
Without a bank account you can do practically nothing. Only the prostitutes are often banned by banks, perhaps because of fears of money laundering. The result is that a vulnerable group remains vulnerable. But also certain people who are negative in the news are being banned by banks. In addition, many Americans abroad do not get a bank account anymore because the banks are afraid of FATCA. A big problem for homeless people trying to crawl out of the gutter is that they are not even allowed to enter at banks, also if they have work.
Insurers use black lists and if you do, you either don’t get insurance or you have to pay more premium. The decision to put you on such a list is taken by the insurers and so you have no influence or control over this. With the new care system, since 2006 happy Health insurances are no longer listed below.
Think of members ‘ and to high donations, they presses to volunteering, they deprive their decision-making freedom in financial and ultimately even sexual matters, the inner chambers handing out penalties. At the moment you are a church society, you can act virtually uncontrollably in the Netherlands to abuse, and even become fiscally facilitated. This is due to the advanced elaboration of another human right: freedom of religion. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948, may not be a perfect document and bear the signs of its time and authors, it is a huge step forward to give people a view of an equal and righteous existence.Similarly, the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Now the question suggests that these are actually dated fashion phenomena.
Tell me exactly what right you would like to delete.For convenience, here is a linkje:
I wonder what right you would like to do away with.
Human rights are fundamental legal principles of any well-functioning rule of law.In The Netherlands, we have several binding and non-binding sources of law that contain human rights. At national level, we have the Constitution, at international level, for example, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Essential examples of human rights are the principle of equality (enshrined in article 1 of the Constitution), the right to immunity of the body (article 11 of the Constitution) and the right to freedom of expression (article 7 of the Constitution).
These human rights are essential for society.For example, without these rights, discrimination can be made on grounds of race, belief or sexual orientation. I hope that the importance of this is not to be further motivated.
Human rights are therefore of no significance and certainly still of this time.
However, modernisation is certainly in place.At least some spots.
An example of this is the article 7 of the Constitution, which contains the following text: “No one needs prior leave to reveal thoughts or feelings by the press, except for everyone’s responsibility under the law.”
Who is still using a printing press in today’s time?For illustration, that’s such a thing:
Of course, we do not use such instruments anymore.
Of course, nowadays more is understood by article 7 of the Constitution (e.g. spreading your opinion by electronic means, for example by mail), but a modernization of such articles would certainly be in place.
If human rights no longer exist dictators get free job to just kill or torture people to know what reasons.
Human rights are not a whim or fashion phenomenon, they are of all times, so also of the contemporary time.Because people are never changing broadly, what was applied 50 years ago still applies. However, additions can be made when new things have been devised to make the lives of others a hell, but that is the only thing that I would call modernizing in the case of human rights.
That “modernizing” in the question seems to me to be quite negative.There is not much to modernise unless it is implicitly meant to make them hollow or less important. So my answer is nothing to change!
Human rights are to be applied to people who have not taken away human rights by other people.
Everyone is right until the moment comes that you pick something off another.
You just hear the dead in my eyes when you kill someone else (without a good reason).