Human rights stipulations are very vague and very subjective when it comes to rights. Stating that all is equal is very unrealistic. People who have the means must not be felt compelled to fill those who have less. It depends on their choice. In cases that no one shall be tortured is very irrelevant in cases in which the perpetrator who planted a bomb needs to be persecuted in order to tell informations in which the safety of the many is at stake. Human rights movement focus more on people's sentiments rather than others basis, such as logic, time, and other aspects. Rights are not inherently given, legalize, subsidize by the government unless it has a compelling interest to do so. The right to marry including the same sex marriage. Why would the government legalize and subsidize those kinds of marriage? Just because they love each other??? That is already a personal sentiment in which the law and government has no interest. Natural marriage has a compelling interest of the state since it promotes and produce the next generation of people who will continue the existence of human hence it shall be subsidize and legalize since it has a benefit to society.
Human rights is a secular religion, replacing the self - hate the West has developed for their own christianity, although, that's taboo.
Humans are social, herd animals, fact.
Human rights is also the only 'justification' for making the most socially successful animals 'serve' the least socially successful animals. (eg. Tax)
Is this enforced repossession right or wrong? Nature knows no morals, only utility.
Is it right to make the most successful gene group sacrifice for the least successful gene group, in order that hierarchy is reduced and flattened?
Maybe its not a matter of morals, but of higher priorities, like the West becoming apathetic towards science and development, and losing its spirit in a decline.
DASAAAAA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Human rights movements, specifically, the open borders groups are handicapping Europe royally. Europe has enough problems to deal with in terms of massive unemployment and now they have to tens of millions of illegal immigrants social benefits because it is their "duty" to do so. Why do these so called human rights groups complain that Europe does not accept enough illegal immigrants while turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia or UAE?
ISIS thrives because of human rights organizations. Don't you think that some of their operative will be among the so called refugees? They use will use this opportunity to launch a massive attack onto to Europe as they have already stated. And then no so called human rights organization will save us Europeans.
Nonetheless I don't think the politicians are really that dumb. They want this; they want to divide us and cause a major conflict. Remember what the ancient Romans did, divide and conquer. These loud human rights organizations act just as an enforcer to the will of the elites, who want another major conflict, whenever there is any opposition to these kinds of policies. Social engineering at its finest.
Take a look at Singapore, a small country with no natural resources but then again has a higher living standard than almost every EU country. Do some research on how they deal with illegal immigrants and then ask yourself how many race riots or social conflicts do the Singaporeans have? Not many because their politicians look after the best interest of their people.
There is no unifying moral code that unifies all of humanity, that all of humanity will actually agree to act upon.
There are cultural perceptions of what rights every human must have, but those are subjective and change from culture to culture.
There for when you say that something is justified or unjustified due to "human rights" you just project your own cultural values.
So be ready to be disagreed by people of different culture or values
When people start claiming things like having a mobile phone, or having access to the internet is a human rights, things have gone too far.
Quite simply human rights are to fed and watered, sheltered, loved and free from oppression or fear. Anything else is a luxury afforded by the society you live in.
The human rights movement has become harmful because its activists get behind certain criminal cases without looking at all the facts. They walk around and preach for justice when the evidence clearly shows that the crime was committed by the defendant. This devalues any case where human rights activist are truly needed.
Nothing in life comes without a price. Not even so-called "rights". The privileges we have today are earned. To apply the term "right" is a perversion of the English language and results in the creation of a moral absolute - something which resulted in the killing of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The problem with human rights is that every hero either dies, or lives long enough to find itself as the villain. Human "rights" are subject to interpretation.
Human rights organizations are really just left-leaning people full of self-entitlement. While there are some things that should be rights like not being killed or tortured by the state for no reason, there are very few things that should be anybody's "right". And yet, if many of these "human rights" groups were allowed to decide how things should be run then almost everything under the sun would be a human right. Thus human rights groups do more bad then good since they are really just socialists in disguise trying to exploit people's good will by abusing the term "human right".
The human rights movement has started causing harm. Much like the unions were helpful in the beginning, to establish a safe and productive workplace for employees, they now abuse their power. The human rights movement is now the same way. It is supposed to promote basic human rights, so that people are not mistreated or tortured, and so that they are given basic needs to sustain life. Now, people use it to abuse what it was originally needed for, to justify things that aren't human rights. These include privileges that aren't basic needs, when in prisons or in third world countries. Human rights should extend to meeting our basic needs to sustain life, without torture or degradation only.
It is less than a century since the Holocaust, and other genocides, notably in the Balkans and in Rwanda, have gone on since. These are the most extreme results of bigotry and hatred, yet even "first world" countries still struggle with the social ills of prejudice, racism and sexism. Progress is evident, yes. But the day when justice "rolls down like waters" has yet to come. This is the dream of the human rights movement, and any perceived harm is to those who are unwilling to relinquish privileges and power for the sake of freedom and justice.
The human rights movements sometimes causes problems in policy makings and other organizational issues, but they are the ones who try to keep the sufferings and problems of the mass people. They try to rise voice against violators of human rights and if for that reason they hinder any other process it is acceptable.
Although opponents and extremists might cause violence in the name of this movement, the cause is a just one and thus worth the fight. People will twist the truth and turn human rights into something it is not solely to promote a narrow agenda, but the intrinsic principles of the movement are still just and right.
It facilitates just change, examination of the status quo and a showing of respect for all human life. The human rights movement has not caused any harm. But, it hasn't exactly gotten it totally right. It is lacking. There are people that could benefit from the human rights movement that haven't. The human rights movement can sometimes seem a bit selective or preferential. And there is often a fine line between leading someone to the water and feeding it to them. The human rights movement must be careful not to cross that line.
People need rights to learn and grow. Freedom of speech is also another point. Cats are cute, that is freedom of speech. If the president doesn't like cats then it could be illegal to say that. Freedom of speech is good for us! Children deserve an education and with Donald Trump as president it would be horrible!
They are cute like so cute I cant even rn. Holy goodness c u t e a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
No way does it cause more harm, it protects more people.
With out human rights:
- People would be prosecuted for their ethnicity.
- People would not get an education because some teachers might discriminate (This does happen)
- With human rights there would be no right to vote, meaning there would be no democracy
- People would be enslaved and not treated like humans
there are JUST four of the effects. Just imagine ALL THE OTHER EFFECTS BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY MORE. LIFE WOULD BE HELL
Because it has taught us that everyone has a right to live, a right to do things legally,to do things equally without harm!
We all shouldnt be illtreated or discriminated because we are all equal and nobody is better than anyone... We should all share and care about others because that is known as doing a good deed!
I believe that without the human rights movement, even more human rights violations would take place than are currently happening. The only way to end these violations is to make the public aware and, as a group, stand up to these injustices through legal action. To ignore the problems would just make the circumstances worse for everyone.
"Human rights" can mean so many things to so many people. The first issue that comes to my mind is the one of child labor. If children had no advocates working to ensure their safety and rights to happy and healthy childhoods, there would be so many more young people working in dangerous and inappropriate situations. This issue has come to the forefront, and many good people work tirelessly to improve life for children.