Are Human Rights Just a Western Invention?

by Don. Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:56

No. The concept of human rights was invented in Iran by Cyrus the Great around 500bc. It is what the UN charter(or what ever its called) is based on. It was the first charter to abolish slavery and religious intolerance.

by Nora Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:10 noorazao at hotmail dot com Malaysia 00-60125394924

Such universal human rights as hated by both the elitist and capitalist idiots are the key to solving the destruction caused by such inhumanity currently going on in the world right now. Through struggling for social justice using the medium of universal human rights will save us from such calamities where barbaric crimes of injustices are justified and continued by such classes. Using race, religion and ultra-nationalist sentiments and prejudices to construct their both psychological and physical weapons of destruction of racism, extremism and fascism.

by Sarah - OWC Mon Feb 11, 2008 13:14

All opinons are welcome.....7.30 upstairs in the Bridge Mills Building ...be there,,,

by pat c Mon Feb 11, 2008 13:48

I'm afraid I won't be able to get to your meeting as I'm based in Dublin but I hope theres a good debate.

Here are the blogs of an Iranian socialist feminist, Maryam Namazie and an Iraqi socialist feminist, Houzan Mahmoud. They both believe that women in the "Islamic World" are just as entitled to human rights as women in the "West" are.

http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/

http://houzanmahmoud.blogspot.com/

Heres the link to the site of the Organisation For Womens Freedom in Iraq:
http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english.htm

This is the link to the Iranian organisation Change For Equality:
http://www.we4change.info/english/

by C. Mon Feb 11, 2008 14:04

No- but their codification by the chattering classes leaves a lot to be desired.

ask FF about the human rights of the Child to education, healthcare, and safety.

by gurgle Mon Feb 11, 2008 15:56

Cyrus didn't allow freedom of movement, association, access to education or universal suffrage - did he?
There is nothing wrong with the codification of human rights "C" - unless you'd like to suggest some way in which the codification of human rights may be improved, I'd suggest you stop being silly.
The UN charter is undoubtedly based on the rights of man which were proclaimed at the French revolution & to some other extent owe much to the bill of rights or American constitution & the bill of rights of England & later Scotland in the 1690's. The European convention on Human Rights brings them all together in a pamphlet which you may have sent your house free of charge if you can negotiate the switchboard at the EU offices & get put through to the right extention number & department desk for the relevant & appropriate member of European staff, or any such equivalent temporary, fixed contract or subcontracted temporary employee.

That's your rights.
Know them.

Meanwhile, for those of us who can't recite the whole bundle of rights from one to (how many of you know how many of them there are?) it might be better not to ask are they a Western Invention (answer YES simply check any encyclopedia) but rather -


How may western concepts of human rights transcend sovreignty issues & the basis of international law that each state may legislate independently & in so doing neither abuse, allow to be abused or made vulnerable said rights?

I'd go back to Ireland & all the way to Cork to hear a debate on that. How do you enforce the rights?

by gurggle Mon Feb 11, 2008 15:59

obviously - the debate is in Galway.
I'd be exercising my right to free movement & chasing the cutting edge of debate there. & why shouldn't I? I'm a solvent male with no sun-taning capability at all. Blue eyes too. Rights coming out my ears me.

by Don Mon Feb 11, 2008 17:57

Clealy the rights we have now and the rights Cyrus at the time was advocating are different. But at the time it was the best anyone could get at the time. Slavery was still allowed in America till when? 18-something? Slavery is allowed in some countries today. Also theres still alot of religous intolerance in some countries. I'm just saying he started the whole thing. Plus the UN have the actuall Cyrus pillar in thier HQ.

by C. Mon Feb 11, 2008 18:24

The comment emanated from an email- this is not the only debate on rights that is upcoming..
a debate on the ECHR is also mooted and it is attended by 'Tanaiste'' Mc Dowell, and Ger Hogan SC.

So I reserve the right to be interpreted as 'silly'- talking about rights is one thing, ensuring
their implementation is quite another. Mr Mc Dowell has not been a Tanaiste for a while
now but he still advertises himself as such. The current government has done little in the
way of transposition of rights into law and less in the way of ensuring basic rights
in practice (most notably in the areas of education, health and people trafficking).

When one speaks of the codification of rights by the chattering classes, that means quite
simply that theres a lot of talking going on but very little in the way of adherence, especially
in relation to kids rights , which are subject to political footie by FG and completely ignored by FF.
(and their friends in the RC hierarchy who seem intent on going to courts to preserve their rights
against all comers).

by Sceptic Mon Feb 11, 2008 20:40

"Such universal human rights as hated by both the elitist and capitalist idiots..."

Democracies run on market or social market principles are actually the best respectors of human rights. The worst are communist, Islamist and the various other models. The further a regime is form the western model the worse its human rights record will be.

by Nora Mon Feb 11, 2008 21:41 noorazao at hotmail dot com Malaysia 00-60125394924

"Democracies run on market or social market principles are actually the best respectors of human rights....."

I'd rather quote it in much more humanistic and just way "Democracy based on universal human rights are actually the best respectors of truly civilized values!". By the way, all those pseudo-socialists do not represent true Marx's idealism and activism; which can be summarized in one fundamental sentence "let's reclaim our true humanity from those capitalist and elitist idiots; we're sick to the death of being their slaves as if it's a natural order of the world!".

by Sceptic Mon Feb 11, 2008 21:59

I would not quibble with your restatement but would re Marx. He was an ideas man not a practical one. His philosophy cannot be implemented and never has been without the abolition of freedom and democracy and its replacement by a repressive party dictatorship. There is no checks or balances and thus we get specimens like Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot and Mao killing tens of millions of their own people. Marx and Marxism has been an absolute disaster for humanity. It is finished. Incidentally capitalism can only operate well in the presence of a strong human rights culture. Limited government and a law of contract and tort enforced by an impartial judiciary are essential to it.

by angry Tue Feb 12, 2008 09:09

That really is utter crap. Capitalism experienced its largest growth when children cleaned chimneys, afroamericans were considered private property & women weren't allowed secondary education let alone vote.
Freedom of Capital on a global scale was at its heighest in the final years of the 19th century & the peak of European empires. Afroamericans were emancipated, children didn't clean chimneys & very women read Wolstencroft but the concept of rights as articulated at the French revolution were at their second furthest point from today's acceptance. International capitalism based on reserves & banking reached the summit of its power & co-operation after the recovery from the global depression in the late 1930's & early 40's. During which, sceptic, only 5 states in Europe did not endure dictatorship.
Capitalism thrives in the absence of human rights & the supposed transformation from fascistic dictatorships to liberal democracies is always easier to achieve with Capitalist gains than a comparative transformation from stalinist or other marxist centrally planned economies. As one example the Capitalist sponsored dictatorship of Chile is an excellent example.

Take your utter crap & stick it back whence it comes.

by Dev Tue Feb 12, 2008 09:28

During the woeful 30s and 40s, as you say "... only 5 states in Europe did not endure dictatorship." Depressed little catholic Ireland was one of them. Several impoverished catholic states went fascist during that time but not us. Up Dev!

by Sarah - OWC Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:32

George Soros and Eric Hobesbawm, a currency speculator and a marxist historian both maintain that free market type of capitalism is an opposite of democracy, now if democracy is a necessary component of Human rights then free market must be seen to mitigate against the realisation of these rights.Capitalism of other sorts such as Keynesian and Third way capitalism which is arguably the type of system that is being developed in places like Venezuela and Boliva are struggling responses to this problem with free markets. In human rights the concept is that the whole indivisible bundle of rights apply to each person in free market capitalism the concept is that you must compete to win your share with the minimum interferance from regulation. This has failed as spectacularly if more circumspectly than communisim. Someone once said the problem with communisim is that it has never been tried - the same can be said of free markets- they have never been tried either the strongest economies in the world are protectonist.

Something I hope comes up in the debate is the problem of western human rights emphasis on the Individual rather than the collective. Looks like the deabate should be fun...plug plug plug

by Nora Tue Feb 12, 2008 17:48 noorazao at hotmail dot com

Hi Sara; actually true socialism is being tried in Venezuela and Bolivia. Hopefully it will stay its course; but you never know people once they have massive power and got tempted with capitalist greed for their own self- interests. That's why we have pseudo-socialists like Stalin, Pol Pot, Milosevic, Mao for examples. That why such social justice struggle based on reclaiming and reasserting universal human rights values must remain grassroots and not dominated by only a few individuals within divided hierarchy. And good for you Angry! Brilliant comment!

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Tue Feb 12, 2008 21:21

"Free" Market Capitalism has killed more people than Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Polpot put together

by fin Tue Feb 12, 2008 21:59

Socialism is about an end of bosses and employers, of wealty elites and in my opinion hierarchy and domination. Venezuala and bolivia meet none of the above criteria.

by Sarah - pers cap Wed Feb 13, 2008 13:16

Free market ideology is genocidal..I agree. But the fact that 80% of the worlds population live in relative poverty is never blamed on free markets- its blamed on lots of stuff like a lack of 'democracy'. Thats because freemarket is now the dominant Ideology- but actually no one has ever tried a truly free market...so its exactly that no more no less than an ideology which allows a system to be sustained by disguising the reality. Bah Humbug. Venezuela is growing its socialism from very capitalist oil profits, and it is supplying one fifth of its great nemisis the US'S oil.

by Nora Wed Feb 13, 2008 17:19 noorazao at hotmail dot com

Quoted in Labour in Irish History by James Connolly "It is a system which in its least repulsive aspects compels thousands and tens of thousands to fret and toil, to live and die in hunger and rags and wretchedness in order that a few idle drones may revel in ease and luxury" - Irish People, 9 july 1864.

"It is a common saying amongst Irish Nationalists that 'Providence sent the potato blight but England made the famine'. The statement is true, and only needs amending by adding that 'England made the famine by a rigid application of the economic principles that lie at the base of capitalist society.'

Hi Sarah & Fin, I did say Venezuela, Nicaragua & Bolivia are trying to implement true socialist principles based on true social justice for the masses poor, including nationalizing many of their natural resources especially oil. But It's being challenged and resisted by the long entrenched US/UK-propped capitalist class that include the giant corporation EXXON and the uppity classes; just like Shell doesn't want that to happen in Ireland as in Rossport and all over Ireland. Capitalism is about exploitation and oppression of the masses's labour and humanity, and the natural environment, fundamentally for profit sake and endless/infinite greed. That's the key word, exploitation and oppression for maximum i.e infinite/endless profit's sake. And socialism is not against trade as long as it's fair and just (thus why we need to promote Fair-Ethical Trade instead of free trade; because trade and human rights are not invented by the capitalist-elite class as they like to claim so. Both have existed and been fought for since ancient times.

by Fin Wed Feb 13, 2008 17:45

fair trade is nothing do with socialism. If you suscribe to the maxim "from each according to their ability to each according to need" fair trade does not attempt this nor does try to end employer/employee social realtions as far as I know

by Nora Wed Feb 13, 2008 17:57 noorazao at hotmail dot com

Down with Free Trade. I give up on you Fin.

by Fin Thu Feb 14, 2008 09:51

Can you explain what fair trade has to do with socialism- i just think its a nicer version of capitalism.

by Nora Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:47 noorazao at hotmail dot com

Socialism is fundamentally about ending exploitation and oppression especially by the elite class of the few that include the capitalist class towards the majority. Socialism is not against trade (which has existed since ancient times and not newly invented by the elite-capitalist class) as long as it's fair and just. And what this means, is Fair Trade which is about ending the exploitation of producers/labourers of the products by paying them directly and in fair and just price as is being sold in the market. Thus it focuses on small or poor producers such as small or poor farmers who are being exploited for their products that they put hard labour into, by any middle-person that includes capitalist corporations. Thus why for example we have Fair Trade coffee rather than Free trade Coffee, in which Free Trade would encourage small farmers to sell at really cheap price whilst the corporations are making a fortune/profit selling it in the market. Fair Trade would instead that the corporations but it at market and fair price and thus ensures exploitation of the small or poor farmers/labourers/producers is not allowed to happen and that they can survive economically from their hard labour from being paid justly and fairly for their labour and products.