This is about cultural relativism. Are human rights universal and applicable to all humans? Or are they relative and depend on the culture the person belongs to? My view is that in principle human rights are universal, and it is not valid or acceptable for people anywhere in the world to be wrongly deprived of justice, or freedom, or their lives. In practice though the European Convention on Human Rights can only be enforced in the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, and it's difficult enough to achieve even that much. Extending the same rights to the rest of the world, although highly desirable, is in reality entirely beyond our capacity.
True. But the optimist in me tells me that it will happen in time. The internet already exposes people to new ideas in much the same way as the printing press furthered the Enlightenment.
It is down to these individual countries to decide what is acceptable and what isn't. When it comes to things like female genital mutilation of course we need to step in, but this hardly rates in the same category.
There is definitely an issue here about rights, justice etc. but many people will have different views on what is a fundamental right. Is it a fundamental right to be able to ride a motorcycle using the straddle method? ....or is it a matter of common sense, balance, and even comfort? If some folks want to dress up their own insecurities as religious nonsense in the name of their god, it does not change the fact that riding using this method will probably get you killed. Similarly, you cannot safely drive a car wearing a burka. I don't want to highlight any particular religion, they are all nonsense in my view, but incredibly dangerous too. I wonder if some religion will soon insist that all women wear catheters as the act of pissing through the vulva is a deliberate contravention of "insert your god's name of choice here" holy law.
Tried to read Dawkins, its a repetitive, boring bible under another guise. Gave up after a few chapters. Does there come a point where human rights are forgone by your actions...murder? Rape? Stealing? Not following the rit or any god?
There's a distinction between defending our own rights, culture, law and forcing it upon other sovereign states. As Bradders says, there are lots of nasty state sanctioned shenanigans going on in the world. So what would we do? Send nasty letters to their government? Impose sanctions (that only affect the poorest)? Military intervention? Thus sacrificing our own people in conflict? Although 'we' don't like it, other than whinging about it like a load of Radio 4 listeners and Daily Mail readers, there's f**k all we're going to do about it. AND if we don't want other countries/cultures/religions telling 'us' what we should/shouldn't do, then it's probably better if we let them get on with whatever nonesence they want. The only way a state/culture is going to change is when enough people living under those conditions say 'enough is enough'. They have the authority of the masses, to choose to oust their ruling bodies or not. If and when that time comes, western governments will just sit back and then arm/aid the side that will offer the best ROI in any 'civil war'. But, if the people of those countries are more or less happy with their laws, who are we to tell them what to do?
No of course it's not a fundamental right to be able to ride a bike astride. It is a fundamental right not be unfairly discriminated against solely because you're a woman. Nations which introduce laws or practices which criminalise behaviour by a woman when the same behaviour by a man is legally permitted - that's the issue, whatever the behaviour in question happens to be.
"Happy"? Oppressors are always happy to carry on with their oppression; their victims are not at all happy with being oppressed. We may not be in a position to do much, or anything, about it - but we need not be too shy to express our disapproval of the oppression or our sympathy with the victims.
For my worthless 2p, I feel there is a place for a faith to whatever deity one may believe in, however I think what we are talking about is extremism here. Sharia law derives from such extremism which is unfortunately directly linked to religion. Historically many of our UK legislation was brought about by religious dictat as to how society should behave in the view of the church's. Fortunately our society has seen fit to ultimately adapt to reflect society as it evolved. It is unfortunate that Sharia law doesn't take into account the views of anyone other than those who formulate and practice it, a religious dictatorship if you will. I don't personally believe that the issue of riding side saddle raises a human right argument per se, rather than the whole sharia system its administration and oppressiveness towards not only women but other groups (other oppressive regimes / religions are available). The notion that a covered ladygarden whizzing past at a heady 30 MPH will stir a male bystander into a raping frenzy is frankly just fanatical bollocks and is another excuse to treat women as second or even third class citizens within these, IMHO, backward cultures. so yes, to some extent Sharia is a law stuck in the dark ages! Probably 3 p actually !
No. If you are alleged to have committed murder, you have a right to a fair trial and if convicted to be legally punished (e.g. not including torture). It is perfectly proper for authorities to arrest, try, punish and imprison offenders, but those offenders still retain their human rights not to be arbitrarily killed, mutilated, tortured or raped. Those rights are permanent. The notions that offenders should "lose their rights", or that offenders can claim some "right not to be punished" are both wholly misconceived. This is Daily Mail froth and nonsense.
And that's the point when history tells us that the 'oppressed' take back control of their society and form a new set of laws/morals/rules.
You have put your finger right on it. Nor does canon law, or any other system of religious doctrine. In modern ethics, it is consent which is the key. Populations consent to laws by a representative or democratic process, and individuals consent to what happens to them. That is where legitimacy derives from. Religious rules depend on traditions created by figures of authority. The definitions of what is and is not a "sin" never take account of the consent of the people as a whole, nor of individuals' right to make their own choices. That is why religions fall so far below acceptable ethical standards of today.
I completely agree. I was trying to highlight (not very well!) how ludicrous it is that a religion deems it unacceptable for certain people to ride a motorcycle in a certain way (as if their god cares one way or the other). The much more serious point is about the discrimination and how a small number of fanatics manipulate large numbers of people in a very undemocratic way. If it was not so serious, it would be like a Monty Python sketch.
*unintelligent reply alert* For some reason I always link these less developed countries with 'personal' grooming. Every time things like this come up I always imagine they all have 70's porn style pubes - not a Brazilian or manscape in sight. Perhaps that's the definition of a developed country - sculpted pubes!
Pete, offenders do lose certain human rights albeit temporarily, such as the right to a familly life by being incarcerated, and this is quite right. I would suggest that this whole fundamental human rights question is a 100% human construct, our fundamental rights are whatever we chose them to be, we are just fortunate to live under a benign regime. I don't see that there is a fundamental difference between a 'sin' as defined by a religion and an 'illegal act' as defined under law, other than the legitimacy of the body making that decision. Even when we come to rule of law by 'consent' we are selective in our definitions, for example, who in the UK has consented to the wholesale tranfer of powers to the EU ? (I am not trying to start a new thread here, although I could be tempted :wink It comes back to 'Elites for Elites' I am afraid, they do and tolerate that which they need to succeed.
Yes indeed. Of course human rights are a human construct - no-one pretends they are absolute physical laws, or ordained by god! Formulations like the ECHR or the UN Universal Declaration are arrived at by a political process. As you rightly say, some rights are permanent while others can properly be abridged, given up or taken away. The ECHR makes very careful and detailed provision for this.
The EU was set up and developed by a series of treaties between member nations. The UK has entered into hundreds of international treaties down the years, many of them with momentous consequences, but the treaty by which we joined in 1973 is the only one in history which has ever been approved by a national referendum. The YES vote got a two-thirds majority in June 1975, and I was one of those voting. Later treaties have been approved by the government and parliament of the UK in the same way as all kinds of treaties and legislation are approved. What do you mean by "transfer of powers"? The UK has gained exactly as much power over the other 26 member nations as they have gained over the UK. The "transfer" process is mutual and equivalent. The notion that there has been some kind of one way transfer of power is the usual mendacious Daily Mail/UKIP nonsense.
The thing to remember is that Britain, by standing alone and separate from Europe, will be able to make its own decisions without interference from faceless Brussels bureaucrats. The fact that Britain has just as many faceless bureaucrats as Europe, and the fact that when an isolated Britain speaks, no one will actually listen, fails to get any column inches in the Daily Maul. Good old Daily Maul. In every way, it's the paper its readers deserve.
