The following is the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of
Human Rights”. It expresses many worthy ideals
and begins in prose analogous to the Declaration of Independence, but
especially in the final pages it slips into extremely socialistic
language. This document is being touted
around the internet by some as an ideal. I've decided to refute those passages that I find offensive. I will highlight the offending or questionable words or phrases in red, and my comments will be in blue and I’ll include links to
pertinent articles from my blog:
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of
freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and
contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged
the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings
shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom
from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common
people,
Taken literally this
passage is not offensive, freedom from fear and want is certainly a worthy
aspiration, but in the overall context of this preamble that talks of “fundamental
human rights” and “fundamental freedoms” and taking the entire document into
account, this passage seems to raise the desirable goal of “freedom from want”
to the level of an inalienable right, and that is a dangerous concept… http://thoughtofasecularconservative.blogspot.com/2011/11/natural-rights-social-rights-and-social.html
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have
recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that
human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly
relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter
reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of
the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in
co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for
and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is
of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as
a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end
that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and
international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and
observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the
peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
OK, maybe I’m just
paranoid about the word “progressive”, and also about the notion of using “teaching
and education” to promote this document.
I have no problem with teaching the value of human life, diversity, and
respect for all, but if I disagree with some of this documents “rights and
freedoms” then I don’t want them taught to my children and grandchildren, and
while I’m teaching my children and grandchildren about inalienable rights and
freedoms, I’ll keep the Declaration of Independence and the United States
Constitution “constantly in mind” rather than anything published by the United
Nations. http://thoughtofasecularconservative.blogspot.com/2010/10/progressivism.html
- All human beings are born free
and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
- Everyone is
entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property,
birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the
basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the
country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent,
trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
- Everyone has the right to life,
liberty and security of person.
- No one shall be
held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be
prohibited in all their forms. (Does this include punitive taxation?)
- No one shall be
subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
- Everyone has the right to
recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
- All are equal before the law
and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the
law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in
violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such
discrimination.
- Everyone has the right to an
effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating
the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
- No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
- Everyone is entitled in full
equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any
criminal charge against him.
Who determines what’s “fair”?
What constitutes the “independent and impartial tribunal”? Is the UN planning to monitor American
courtrooms?
- (1) Everyone
charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until
proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all
the guarantees necessary for his defense.
- (2) No one shall be held guilty
of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not
constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time
when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one
that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
- No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,
nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to
the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
- (1) Everyone has the right to
freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
- (2) Everyone has the right to
leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
- (1) Everyone has the right to
seek and to enjoy in
other countries asylum from persecution.
- (2) This right may not be
invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political
crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United
Nations.
I think I agree with
the spirit of this passage, but how can it be said that anyone from any country
has the “right” to asylum in another country?
Such implied subordination of sovereign nations to the UN is very
troublesome and is found throughout this document.
- (1) Everyone has the right to a
nationality.
- (2) No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his
nationality.
- (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.
- (1) Everyone has the right to
own property alone as well as in association with others.
- (2) No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his property.
- Everyone has the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom
to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in
community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion
or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
- Everyone has the right to
freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information
and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
- (1) Everyone has
the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
- (2) No one may be compelled to
belong to an association.
- (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 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.
Again
I agree with the spirit of this statement, but in the United States our
Constitution is the basis of the authority of government. While it’s true that “the people” have it in
their power to amend the Constitution, it is by design a difficult process not
subject to the whim of a momentary majority.
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.
What does this mean? Does
it mean that each member of society has the right to work toward his or her
full potential? If so how does the “organization and resources of each State”
come into play? The very vagueness of
this statement and others in the document is disturbing, as if designed to
sneak in meaning that might not be caught by the casual reader.
- (1) Everyone has the right to
work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of
work and to protection against
unemployment.
- (2) Everyone, without any
discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal
work.
- (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable
remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of
human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social
protection.
- (4) Everyone has the right to
form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
(1) What does “protection
against unemployment” mean? While
everyone has the right to work pursuant to agreeable terms with an employer, no
one has the right to force an employer to hire them, nor does the state have a legitimate
right to force someone to hire against his will. Does this mean that everyone who is
unemployed has the right to some kind of government provided sustenance? Such a notion is raw socialism. http://thoughtofasecularconservative.blogspot.com/2010/10/communism-socialism-democracy-and.html
(2) Equal pay for
equal work is certainly fair and desirable, but as I’ve stated elsewhere, state
enforcement of such policy is impossible, and attempting it would be disastrous
to liberty.
(3) There are many
jobs that do not and cannot pay a wage large enough to assure a family “an
existence worthy of human dignity”. Such
jobs are usually held by young people in high school or college or by someone
who is not the primary bread winner in a family. Forcing employers to comply with this
statement would be economically disastrous for all concerned. Supplementing “by
other means of social protection” is pure socialism and would result in even
greater disaster.
(4) No argument, but I’d
add that everyone also has the right to not join a trade union and every
employer has the right to hire non-union personnel.
- Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including
reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Again
a reasonable and desirable thing that is NOT a “right” – classifying such
things as rights distorts the meaning of the word and that’s a dangerous thing
to do. Such things are negotiable
between employer and employee, or group of employees organized into a union.
- (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.
OK, this is as good a
place as any to make the point that no one can have a “right” to something that
must be paid for by someone else. This
statement says that I have the RIGHT to be completely taken care of by
society. I don’t know why this statement
mentions unemployment – who in the world is going to work if they have the
right to all of this stuff just for existing?
- (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall
be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary
education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall
be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible
to all on the basis of merit.
- (2) Education
shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to
the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It
shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations,
racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of
the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
- (3) Parents have a prior right
to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
(1) Here’s that word again. I’m all in favor
of free education through high school, but it’s not a “right”. In my article “Natural
Rights, Social Rights, and Social Privileges” (link above) I refer to free
education as a “social privilege”, a gift given by society and morally valid
because virtually all of society benefits.
One cannot have a “right” to something that has to be paid for by
someone else.
(2) This statement is mostly OK unless one
accepts this document’s definition of “human rights” and “fundamental freedoms”,
but the notion that education should promote the United Nations is repugnant.
(3) I like this and believe that it
contradicts (2) along with one or two other statements in the document.
- (1) Everyone has the right
freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the
arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
- (2) Everyone has the right to
the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any
scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
- Everyone is entitled to a
social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration
can be fully realized.
As already discussed, many of the “rights and
freedoms” set forth in this declaration are not legitimate rights and freedoms
so the entitlement of a social order guaranteeing them is equally illegitimate.
- (1) Everyone has duties to the
community in which alone the free and full development of his personality
is possible.
- (2) In the exercise of his
rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as
are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition
and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just
requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
- (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary
to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
(2) “General welfare”
is always a phrase to be viewed with suspicion; and yes, I know it is used in
the Constitution, but the meaning at that time was not what is often implied
today see link below). In any case the problem here is
that this statement seems to be saying that we have the right to exercise our
rights as long as exercising them is beneficial to others. In other words they are not rights at all.
http://thoughtofasecularconservative.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-general-welfare-clause.html
http://thoughtofasecularconservative.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-general-welfare-clause.html
(3) Now I may not
exercise my rights if they are contrary to an Ad Hoc assembly of ambassadors
whose authority I do not recognize. This
means I do not have the right, in spite of the First Amendment, to advocate
that the United States should leave the UN and stop funding it, because that would
certainly be “contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
- Nothing in this Declaration may
be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any
act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth
herein.
This is vague enough
that I’m not sure but I think I've already violated it…
In fact many of the
articles in this document are vague, seemingly by design. Sometimes that happens when those creating
such a document cannot agree on more precise language; such was the case in
some passages in the United States Constitution. Other times vague language is purposely used
to confuse the reader and slip in language that many would otherwise object
to. I’ll leave it to the reader to
decide if such language appears within this document.
