conflicts with Universal declaration of human rights

Universal declaration of human rights

Articles with which I have conflict

Article 9.
• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.


in America, this is contested b/c the u.s. gov’t can detain any individual indefinitely on “terrorist” charges

Article 16.
• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Marriage is to be defined as the union of a man and woman recognized by law, allowing the right to bear children

Article 20.
• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
• (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Obstructed in the U.S. by local gov’t

Article 21.
• (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
• (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
• (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

U.S is a plutocracy, non-high class citizens cannot participate in the higher levels of government

Article 22.
• Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Questionable to allow a safety net, associated with massive costs, autocracy, and bureaucracy

Article 25.
• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
• (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Children born out of wedlock are to be considered 2nd class to children of marriage

I think your comments are accurate. Only hippies like Ace and Preid would disagree.

I think it's a good thing that the uneducated and stupid can't participate in the higher levels of government.

Explain to me how Article 20 is 'obstructed'? All you have to do is get permission. If you don't get it, do it anyway. It's not rocket science.

In regards to Article 21, bullshit. Many of our presidents, Mr. Obama included were born in situations that would be noted as sub-standard to even the middle class. That being said the American aristocracy, as I like to call it, is a real problem in less developed states such as Texas and Florida as demonstrated by the Bush family. As such it is up to the individuals within a state to dispose and avoid unlawful aristocracy.

As for Article 25, if you really believe that then you can go f*&^ yourself. A human is a human is a human, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein.

P.S. God I hated reading Gertrude Stein's works for classes last semester.

Preid he never said they aren't. He just said they are 2nd class humans.

But I would have to disagree, cuz it's not the children's fault. It's the people who gave birth to them's fault.

Oh please. All children are treated equally, at least here anyway. The article 25 issue seems more like a 'your state' problem than a country issue.

You are the people who always talk about them like they're different to everybody else. They aren't humanely, psychologically, or otherwise.

Meanwhile in Iran, North Korea and any other dictatorship with almost no human rights...

Ace wrote:I think it's a good thing that the uneducated and stupid can't participate in the higher levels of government.

Explain to me how Article 20 is 'obstructed'? All you have to do is get permission. If you don't get it, do it anyway. It's not rocket science.

preid1220 wrote:In regards to Article 21, bullshit. Many of our presidents, Mr. Obama included were born in situations that would be noted as sub-standard to even the middle class. That being said the American aristocracy, as I like to call it, is a real problem in less developed states such as Texas and Florida as demonstrated by the Bush family. As such it is up to the individuals within a state to dispose and avoid unlawful aristocracy.

As for Article 25, if you really believe that then you can go f*&^ yourself. A human is a human is a human, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein.

P.S. God I hated reading Gertrude Stein's works for classes last semester.

Ace wrote:Oh please. All children are treated equally, at least here anyway. The article 25 issue seems more like a 'your state' problem than a country issue.

You are the people who always talk about them like they're different to everybody else. They aren't humanely, psychologically, or otherwise.

Peaceful demonstration, as with the recent occupy wall street protests, are put down by police force, infiltrated by outside groups and demonized by media (ex: "they don't know why they are protesting","bunch of stinking hippies". efforts to divide the protestors). The Arab Spring protests were also put down with heavy police force, such as Bahrain where protesting was made illegal, Syria where the gov't declared war on the protesters, Libya where CIA infiltrated and allowed Al Qaeda in (questionable), and Egypt where the military took over.

In regards to Article 21, the senate is primarily composed of people from very wealthy backgrounds. Becoming a senator is incredibly difficult for people from a poor background and state senators are incredibly corrupt and full of nepotism.

As for article 25, the more children out of wedlock, the more associated crime there is. It was noticed that after the passing of Roe v. Wade, during the 90s a correlation was seen where increase sin abortion, decreases in population, correlated with decreases in crime and increase in per capita GDP (see "Freakonomics", Beureu of Labour Statistics). Penalizing either the child born out of wedlock or parents for bearing children out of wedlock should inhibit such behaviors and allow for a more stable society where only the institution of marriage is sanctified and it can be assured that children are born into a healthy family.