Read the 30 articles in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (pg. 399-404).
This document, which was initiated and crafted in response to the horrors of WWII, took almost two years of discussion, international collaboration, and negotiation to craft. As you can imagine, there were multiple drafts. Some articles that people wanted included in the Declaration didn't make the cut or weren't worded exactly the way they hoped; some articles have been easier to abide by than others.
Imagine that you all are members of the committee formed to REVISE this document 64 years later. On this blog, as you read this prompt and then read your classmates' responses, imagine that you are in a room with the rest of your classmates debating and discussing what should be added, deleted, and/or changed to this document.
Add your voice.
Choose at least one of the following questions and respond in a passionate and specific--yet respectful--paragraph:
What Article/Right should be ADDED to the list? Why?
What Article/Right should be REVISED? How?
What Article/Right should be DELETED from the list? Why?
You are encouraged to respond to and build on each other's posts (as you would in a live discussion)--just make sure your post doesn't repeat someone else's comment. Say something helpful, insightful, and original.
And, as always, proofread before you post. Let's have these posts be punctuationally perfect :-)
I believe that Article 24 should be deleted. It states that everyone has the right to rest and leisure along with holiday breaks with pay. I do not think that this is true and does not relate to a lot of situations. There are jobs that are more demanding than others. If you accept that job, the pay, and the duties it comes with than you are not always given the right to leisure time.
ReplyDeleteI disagree... everyone is entitled to pay, respectful hours, and off days.
DeleteI think that Article 10 should be revised because I personally don't believe someone should get the oppurtunity to explain themselves, depending on how severe the crime that they committed was. I personally believe everyone makes mistakes, but there is a large line between intentional mistakes and accidental mistakes. If a child is molested, the molester knew exactly what he/she was doing in that moment. They took that child's childhood away, so that person should have their freedom of speech taken away. I think our country needs to be more strict in the courtroom and in order to do that, I don't think that every criminal who has made an intentional mistake should get the right to explain themselves. Therefore, depending on the crime, I don't think everyone deserves a change to explain the situation unless they are going to state a public apology to whomever or whatever they may have hurt.
ReplyDeleteI feel that article 5 regarding torture should be revised. The article states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." I think it should be more specific because it leaves out issues of interrogation. I believe that torture may be used in extreme circumstances. If lives could be saved by one mans confession, than there is no logical reason as to why not force them to talk. If they are willing to kill innocent people, they the must suffer the consequences of other people attempting to stop them. It may seem cruel, but it is justified through the lives that could be saved.
ReplyDeleteI think that article 7 needs to be revised. I feel this way because it talks about discrimination but I think they should add that there should be a punishment for those who do descriminate. I think that should be added because eventhough this says you are not allowed to discriminate, but people discrimiate all the time against people of different color. Therefor, i think there should be a punishment.
ReplyDeleteI believe in article 16's assertion that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and found a family." However, I would revise this to include homosexuality. I feel as though being against homosexuals is a form of discrimination, like racism and such, and that although it might take time to accept, our world is capable of accepting it as a right.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Article 22 should be deleted. It states "Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to realize the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable to their dignity. I disagree with it because I believe that any culture should be able to practice and go about freely as any other culture does. From what I understand, this article is saying that depending on your culture, you have certain rights you get. I also think that the article is poorly worded. Even if certain people within certain statuses and cultures do have specific rights, they would already realize it, an article doesn't need to tell someone to realize their dignity.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Article 22 should be deleted. It states "Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to realize the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable to their dignity. I disagree with it because I believe that any culture should be able to practice and go about freely as any other culture does. From what I understand, this article is saying that depending on your culture, you have certain rights you get. I also think that the article is poorly worded. Even if certain people within certain statuses and cultures do have specific rights, they would already realize it, an article doesn't need to tell someone to realize their dignity.
ReplyDeleteArticle 16 states that men and woman of "full age" can marry. The term "full age" is unclear. Different culture has a different thinking of when they are an adult. In India, children marry at the age of 9. They do not marry by their choice. They are forced to marry by their parents. This article need to protect children and be specific about what a "full age" is.
ReplyDeleteGreat point Misaki! I completely agree that they should make that more clear.
Delete^^^what she said
DeleteArticle 21, Section 1 states the following: "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives." This rule should not hold true if said person has previously committed a felony, or if he is currently incarcerated. High level offenders convicted of first-degree murder, treason, or those sentenced to life in prison, should not have the privilege to voice their opinion in government, for if they gain a large amount of support, they could potentially sway their supporters towards their own malicious point of view.
ReplyDeleteArticle 16, section 1 states, "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." First of all, what exactly is 'full age'? I feel that this term is very vague and will confuse many people. Although some cultures do marry off girls as young as 10, I think that if the article is going to include the term 'full age' it should at least give some kind of standard. If the whole plan of The Declaration of Human Rights is to protect the people, they should try to protect the girls. Second, it is not clear if this article includes same-sex marriage. I also find this unclear.
ReplyDeleteArticle 26, Section 3 states, "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children." I do not agree with this section of Article 26, and I think it should be revised. A parent wants their child to go to a certain college to then become a certain profession, but that child does not want to go to that college or to become that profession. That parent is stripping their child of their freedom to choose their education and life. I think Article 26, Section 3 should be revised to say, "Parents have a prior right of expressing what kind of education that shall be given to their children." This avoids the parents being able to chose the education and life that they believe is right for their children, but still gives them an opportunity to have input and a say in the matter.
ReplyDeleteI think that Article 25, Section 1 should be revised so that the right to security in the event of unemployment should only be applicable to unemployed people who are seeking employment. People who are looking for a job, but honestly can't find one, deserve to have this security while they are unemployed. However, people who don't want to look for a job and are just taking the benefits without actually doing anything, should not get this right. They're abusing it so that they don't have to work but can still have security, so this should be revised so that people don't take advantage of the rights they are given.
ReplyDeleteArticle 29, Part 3 struck me as ironic. It states, "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purpose and principles of the United Nations." Rights are something that cannot be restricted; they are a privilege that we automatically possess.Therefore, I think this statement goes against what the entire document is standing for: the declaration of rights. This article is discussing what we can't do with our rights which completely contradicts the other articles. In short, this section of article 29 should be deleted.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading through all the articles in Declaration Of Human Rights, the one that I constantly went back to was Article 23. Although I agree with most of it, there are some points that should be revised. For example, I agree with "Everyone...has the right to equal pay for equal work." But what if a person works harder in a job than others do? It is only fair that they should be rewarded more than the others that do not care about their job and wish nothing more than to get out of it. Therefore, I believe that Article 23 should be revised because it does not clearly state the obvious.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you didn't read close enough, but it does state, "equal work." They will get the same amount of money for the same amount of work. That's why promotions were created.
DeleteI understand...but what I am trying to say was it should state that clearly. Because some people might understand "equal work" as doing the same jobs, but my point is that if one person works harder and does better, they should be rewarded.
Delete*is (after trying to say)
DeleteArticle 5, 16 and 24 should all be revised. Article 5 needs to be revised because there are some times where torture is needed. I know this sounds awful but it's true. I believe that there are certain times that torture would be appropriate, especially for military purposes; for example, if we have found the man who is trying to destroy the world but he won't tell us anything, then torture is needed. Article 16 should be revised. I don't believe in gay marriage, and there have been a lot of fights regarding this. Although it depends on your religion, i do not think that they should include "equal rights as to marriage" in Section 1. Article 24 should be revised because there are some jobs, like an ER doctor, that need to be working each day of the year no matter what. I believe this because every day there are a lot of people that still get badly injured regardless of what day it is and people with important jobs need to be willing to make that sacrifice. Think about it. What if every single person in the world was off on a holiday?
ReplyDeleteArticle 21 should be looked at and revised; specifically section one. It states, "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives". Why should everyone have a chance to be in power? Some, in fact a lot, of people can not handle the power granted to them by the government. As Kyle said earlier, what if that person we are allowing in government has a criminal record or is hiding a mental instability they could release upon the country? All I'm saying is that if someone wants to rule/lead a country, they should be properly "screened" or there should be some limitations to this article. I think the article should read as follows: "(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representative as long as he is qualified and able to take on the duties and responsibilities bestowed to him with the position".
ReplyDeleteWhat does "qualified" mean? What is involved in "properly screen[ing]" citizens?
DeleteI believe that Article 16 needs to be revised. Part one of the Article reads, "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 its dissolution." I agree with everything said in this article but I think that the right to gay marriage should be added. The fact that only certain states allow it is disorganized and unconventional. I agree with Lilly when she said that being against homosexuals is a form of discrimination. Two people that love each other should be capable of getting married, no matter what sex. If certain people aren't "supporters" of gay marriage that is fine, but not allowing people who love each other to not get married isn't fair.
ReplyDeleteAs it is still a new concept to our country and only legal in a few states, it should stay the same for a while.
DeleteAlso it does say in article 2 that everyone is entitled to the rights so...
DeleteThis article doesn't say men and women have to marry each other...couldn't this article include homosexuality without having to specifically name it?
DeleteArticle 1 says everyone is born equal. If "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights," then why are there social and international ranks that are set? Article 1 is vague and unrealistic; there will always be discrimination and inequality in the world because that's the way the human race is. I definitely agree that equality should be a right to everyone, so Article 1 should definitely be included in these Declarations. With that said, Article 1 should be revised and have a second part that states if anyone is being treated unequally, there should be some kind of consequence for the people treating them unjustly. That way, we can come closer to full equality and not just say we are all equal while inequalities are happening all around us.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "social and international ranks that are set"? I agree that discrimination and inequality are (unfortunately) rampant in the world today, but I also think that's a result of our culture and human interactions. This article, especially considering it is the first one, seems to remind us all that we are born equal--not that we all stay that way.
DeleteI believe that an article that should be added is one that states everyone has the right to think and speak any thing they feel is nessasary or appropriate. I believe this because people, of any ethnicity, should be able to think and speak any thing. This is an important part of what we have in this country because it allows people to think of new ideas with the assurance of safety, but I feel that this should be allowed everywhere because if it were allowed everywhere, the world would change in positive ways.
ReplyDeleteEven if what people think and speak is full of hatred?
DeleteI agree with Article 2, except I believe that something should be added to it. If someone is a felon or has committed other horrible crimes, they shouldn't have the rights or freedoms from the Declaration. Similar to what Kyle said, they could possibly want to damage the government or benefit themselves, and losing their freedoms would be a punishment that they deserve.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Article 26.3,16.1,16.3,5, and 4 need to be revised. In Article 4, it says that no one shall be held in slavery, and yet we still have children in armies, and factories working like slaves in Asia and Africa. In Article 5, it say we cannot torture people, yet in the KGB, CIA, and FBI; we still waterboard, starve, and dehydrate prisoners to get information about terroristic threats and homeland security. Article 16.1 says that men and women of fll age have the right to marry, yet homosexuals and incest are frowned upon in society. Article 16.3 says that any family whatever race, gender, and type get protection from the stat, yet we still have bullies in school and other discriminatory people putting down the thought of a child with two mothers or two fathers. In article 26.3, Parents have the right to educate their child anyway they see fit. I disagree withthis because some parents educate their children in bad morals and practices which damage society.
ReplyDeleteI believe that all these articles need to be revised, clarified, and put into force.
The third section of Article 26 states, “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” I agree with Bethany that the parent is stripping their child’s freedom of education if the child does not want to go to that particular college or become that what the parent wants. I also agree with how Bethany revised Article 26, but I still believe that more revision is needed. I believe that something should be added about how parents that are “capable” can only choose their child’s education. What I mean by “capable” is a parent that actually cares about their child’s education, and that is not is some way mentally ill. The reason why is because there are parents out there in the world that personally don’t care about their child’s education and send their child to a bad school and don’t send them to college. There are also parents that could be slightly mentally ill or crazy, but the government does not pay attention. In this case, all parents should not be allowed to choose the kind of education that should be given to their child.
ReplyDeleteJanet, I'm really intrigued by your reply. Why do you think some parents "don't care about their child's education and send their child to a bad school"? And how would you suggest parents be evaluated for whether this right applies to them (in other words, how do we test if parents are "crazy"?)?
DeleteArticle 24 states, "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay." I agree with this right, but it needs to be reinforced and revised. There are factories where workers are forced to work an unreasonable amount of hours a day. These workers also recieve less then what they should earn. Although stores that are open 24 hours a day ,365 days a year are convenient for the costumers, they aren't for the employees. Workers being forced to work during the holidays ,because they don't want to lose their job, is cruel. There are also students around the world who go to school six or seven days a week, and rarely recieve any breaks. I think that this article should be revised and stating that not only do workers, but also students should be allowed to rest. It should also state that stores that are overworking their employees should be shutdown. Without rest the body shuts down and refuses to function.
ReplyDeleteAricle 7 states that all are equal before the law, but I think that people who have not had trouble with the law before should be punished and prosecuted less harshly than those who have previously comminted crimes. Article 13 states that everyone has the right to leave or enter any country; I think that someone who has commited a crime must stay in their own country until their sentence is up, or when the government says they are okay to leave. Also I think article 25 is borderline socialism and the United Nations should not promote that. Along those same lines, article 29 tries to regulate one's duties to their community, and I think that local responsibilities if any should be regulated by local governments not the United Nations.
ReplyDeleteI think that article 26 should be revised because it says that everyone has the right to get an education. It should be revised because there are kids that don't have an education to learn new things and grow along; even older people who want to go back and learn better won't be able to. I agree with Janet on how some parents don't even care about there children, they don't care if they get an education or not. If their child does go to a school , the child might end up going to school that doesn't have good teachers. What I mean by good teachers is that they don't care about how they teach them and don't care if they understand it or not. Children should be able to get the education that they understand and deserve because later on they can go to college and have a good career. I know many people that have an education say,"I don't want to go to school, I'm tired. It's to early!" I even say this when I wake up in the morning. Come to think of it for awhile, there are many children in the world that want to get an education and learn and they can't get it.
ReplyDeleteIt is mandatory that Article 13 be revised. The article basically states that anyone can enter any country and leave any country. The writers forgot one small but important detail: Anybody that has committed a serious offense should not be allowed to leave the country and/or enter the country. It is extremely dangerous to let a dangerous criminal into other countries. Whether that criminal stole something or murdered hundreds of people, he should never be allowed out of the country until he is captured and punished.
ReplyDeleteWhat's a "serious offense"?
DeleteI believe Article 25, Section 1 should be revised. Yes, those who are unemployed should recieve benefits, and have the right to security, but those who are unemployed because they do not want to work should not recieve anything. Those who are not searching for a job, or trying to work are abusing this right. It is not fair for those who are unemployed and truly trying to find a job. I agree with Thuy vy that they should have this right taken away if they are going to abuse it. People who want a job and are looking for one deserve the right to security, not those who don't want to work.
ReplyDeleteArticle 19 states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression." In the middle east and some other muslim states, women's lives are strictly regulated, and they have few ways of expressing themselves. I think that this article should be expanded to the freedom of dress, mainly because in some parts of the world, that is the only way that people can express themselves. Also, punishments should be added for people who do not allow freedom of expression, in order to discourage the repression of public opinions in the future.
ReplyDeleteSo what do we do when it is the governments themselves who are repressing freedom of expression? How can they be both the problem and the cause?
DeleteI believe Article 26 should be revised. It states "....higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit." Merit means to earn, so this section of the Declaration of Human Rights means people may learn at a higher level if they earn the right. Personally, I think this part should be cut out or edited, because I know for a fact that there at millions of people in the world who are smart but dont get the oppotunity for higher education. Education is given out to those who can afford it. While this is unfortunate, it remains true to our society. Therefor this article should be revised to show that education is not given out by merit.
ReplyDeleteRight...but this Declaration isn't stating what IS; it is stating what SHOULD BE.
DeleteDon't you think higher education should be available to all on the basis on merit rather than wealth? What is everyone's fundamental RIGHT when it comes to education? Should access to higher ed be in the Declaration at all?
I agree with Rainer that article 13 should be revised. This article states that "everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state" and "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country." I agree that people should be allowed to move around the world or country, but I think this article should emphasize the fact that not everyone should be allowed to move - specifically criminals. Anyone who has committed a major crime should not be allowed to leave his country and/or his country's law. This article should be revised to make sure that it is understood that people can leave their country or state as long as they aren't trying to escape their wrongful actions.
ReplyDeleteI believe that an article should be added that everyone has the right of movement. In some places in the world, there are people who are being kept in a country for really pointless reasons, and they can't leave their country/aren't allowed in other countries. I'm aware that have been a few cases like this before, and there is a more recent case of a US engineer being held in China released without charge. These days, there are many requirements and restrictions regarding travel to foreign countries. I'm not talking about the heavy security on airports. I'm talking about the paperwork and legal rights that go into traveling to foreign countries. I feel that (to an extent) there should be more leeway on what a person needs in order to leave. For example, when my sister was in Istanbul, my family and I, back in the United States, learned that there were some problems with her Turkish citizenship, and there was a chance that she wouldn't be able to come back. It took weeks for our friends who were hosting my sister to finally get her a new Turkish ID. Thankfully, this wasn't as severe of a case as many other cases out there, but the idea that my sister may be stuck in a foreign country for months was scary, and I feel that there must be some type of movement to make travel more accessible.
ReplyDeleteAnd if anyone is interrest in the case of the US held in China, there's an 'interactive web comic' written by an activist here. http://fav.me/d4dpebo
I believe that article 16, section 2 should be revised. It states, "Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses." Yes, this should be true, but this does not apply for our world today. Many countries such as India, have arranged marriages, which are when women are forced to marry the groom who is the choice of the parents. The couple has no say into whether or not they want to be married to each other. In this country, we are fortunate that it is not like that, but in other countries it is. I am not saying that this article should be removed, I am just saying that it should be revised because it needs to take a global view at the world and see if it applies to all environments in all countries.
ReplyDeleteI think that article 24 should be revised. The article states: "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay." I think it should state that those who work to certain standards should recieve those benefits of rest. It is not fair for people to work overtime without pay when they take a vaction or rest period while others who barely work get paid vacations. Many people in society today are overworking themselves because they know if they do take a vacation or rest period, they would not get paid for it and they need the money.
ReplyDeleteI think that article 4 should be revised. It states that "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the s;ave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." I don't think this law has quite been followed by everybody. There are still in the world that believe in slaves. People may not have a slave per say, but there are parts of the world where people are treated as slaves. There are things like slavery that go on today that should not. I believe that this law should be more harshly enforced. People take this law way too lightly as they do other laws. I think this law should be revised and enforced. If people don't follow this law, then I think there should be a lot bigger of a punishment.
ReplyDeletewow
DeleteRemember that this is a Declaration of RIGHTS--not laws.
DeleteI believe that article 16, section two should be taken away or revised. It says, "Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses." We are lucky to be able to choose who we want to marry. But some in this world cannot say the same. Around the world today, there are marriages being arranged by the parents and the kids have no idea whom they are to marry. This article does not should be changed or removed because it is not looking at the global picture. We are lucky to have our own say, but that does not mean that we should stand around and not do anything for those that don't.
ReplyDeleteAre you arguing that this right should be revised in order to honor arranged marriages? Or that this right should be strengthened to prevent arranged marriages?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe Article 4 should be revised. Salary is still going on today. The government has come up with this idea they call Diplomatic Immunity. This idea consists of diplomats being not susceptible to persecution or lawsuit in their host country. Most diplomats having the correct morale do not abuse this privilege in any way shape or form. Though there are some who do abuse this privilege bestowed upon them by taking advantage of domestic workers. There are diplomats all the time being accused of enslaving domestic workers. But when this is brought up to courts the judges cannot do anything about it due to Diplomatic Immunity. I think Article 4 should include the diplomats not being able to enslave domestic workers. No one should have the ability to take someone’s freedom away from them. Freedom is a right.
ReplyDeleteArticle 4 says "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms" (Amnesty International 399). This article needs to be revived drastically or removed. I'm positive most everyone in the world knows that sex trafficking and slavery are still going on all tover the world. It's no secret to the world. It's a worldwide issue that no one seems to care for. This situation can't be taken lightly. I believe this article has no truth in it because slavery is still going on and nothing is being done about it. If we are going to have this article, people in the world need to make an effort to end it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that article 21 section 1 should be revised. Article 21 section 1 states: Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. I agree with Kyle when he says that people who have committed felonies should not have this right. If a person gained so much support, for the wrong reasons the country could head toward a downward spiral. I also believe that people who have not lived in the country for the majority of their lives should not be allowed to partake in the government. For example, if someone lived in Iran for 23 years of his or her life, but was still an American citizen I do not believe they should be a part of the government. I think this because several of their ideas could come from enemy forces. No one can be trusted and there is no room for error.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "partake in government," what do you mean? Voting? Or running for office? Working for a government organization? I am intrigued by your response, but I would love more details to better understand your vision.
DeleteI believe Article 16 should be revised. This Article discusses the idea that men and women of full age should be allowed to marry who they choose. This article doesn't cover the acceptance of homosexuality and divorce. There are some cultures in which divorce is not allowed even if the marriage is failed or has serious problems. Also if people are allowed to marry whoever they want they should be allowed to marry people of the same sex. I think people who discriminate gay marriage should be punished.
ReplyDeleteWhen the article states "men and women of full age...have the right to marry," did you read that as only heterosexual men and women? I guess I am confused as to why this right's careful wording doesn't imply inclusion of homosexuals.
DeleteI believe that Article 23 (1) should be revised because part of the statement is misleading. It is written that "Everyone has the right... to just and favorable conditions of work," but this is not the case in many parts of the world. People are forced to work in less-than-ideal conditions including in sweatshops and factories for very small amounts of money. We can either amend this section of the article, or take it out completely because it is not true.
ReplyDeleteI believe that article 5 should be revised. It states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." In extreme circumstances, I believe that torture is okay. If torture is the key to receiving needed information, I think it should be allowed. Even if it's not always effective, I believe it makes criminals more likely to cooperate. Also, if a victim has been tortured, I believe that the culprit deserves the same treatment. The belief in article 5 isn't followed in many countries. People often turn their heads in other countries when they witness torture. Overall, I think that the article should say that torture is okay in dangerous situations.
ReplyDeleteI believe article 24 should be revised. It states, " Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay." I do believe people should get certain holidays off and if they are dealing with a serious medical condition should get time off. Although, you have to remember people have different jobs and some are more leisurely than others. If one is an artist or writer then they have odd work hours and days as it is. Therefor, the people who work 9-5 jobs on the hour, five days a week is a different story. Different terms and conditions should follow different guidlines for those under certain circumstances. I feel they would add that into the context as well.
ReplyDeleteSo what should it say?
Delete
ReplyDeleteI think Article 12, which states "No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,
nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to
the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
Should be revised. Back in 1948 nations and governments did not have to
deal with things like terrorism. Ever since 9-11 people have been searched
randomly at airports. Also some governments have ways of tracking people,
tapping into phones and email, and observing people by satellite.
Sometimes it is necessary to search someone and break their privacy for
the good of other people.
I think article 5 should be deleted or revised. It should be deleted because it's not followed. Everyday there is someone being tortured and/or killed in a very inhuman way. I understand this article was written after World War II and the Holocaust but it didn't change anything. Abortion is both cruel and inhuman. It says no one shall be punished and yes, babies people and rights apply to them too. Over 48 million babies have been aborted. Thats about the same amount of deaths in the World War II. It's a human right that is not followed and is therefor pointless. If they were to "edit" the right, I would specifically include a section about abortion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Charlie. People should have the freedom of speech. It help bring new ideas to the table, that could be beneficial to the topic. On the other side, the freedom of speech could result in an uprising, or rebellion that could possible start a conflict, that could possibly end badly. The freedom of speech could go either way, it just depends on what risks/rewards a country is willing to take.
ReplyDeleteSo what's your stance?
DeleteThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights sounds wonderful. I have talked about equality -for everyone - to my family a lot. When I was reading these Articles, I thought one thing was not addressed. Funding. Who will pay for the free education? In order to have all of these things, you must have a government to enforce and to carry them out. Whose government is it? Is it one government for the world? Human Rights is for the world and all of its people. So, how do you create some of these behaviors in countries that have never seen anything like it? I just want to bring up this point. If we were to enact these tomorrow, it wouldn't work. Many countries have adopted this Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are not enforced by their governments and they are not universally accepted yet, so they cannot work.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm trying to say is, I think there should be an article added to explain how everything will be paid for.
DeleteAs I read this list of rights, the only thing that came to my mind was how often I've heard or read about them being violated. Wherever there are rules, there are people waiting to break them. The United Sates prides itself on being a just government, but not even we follow all these basic human rights. Article 5 states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. There is not a single government in the world who has abided by this right, including the United States. When those who made the rules can't follow them, how can they expect anyone else to? However, if I had to chose one thing to be revised, I would chose article 16 (3), which states the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society. What is the definition of a family? Is a married couple considered a family, since that's what the rest of the article is about, or must their be children involved? And what about the first part of the article? "Men and women of full age, without limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." Though this list does not include "regardless of sexual orientation," aren't they including that in the list when they say that all human being are born free and equal in dignity? Still, gay marriage isn't allowed in the majority of the world, including most of the United States.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Article 4 should be revised or deleted. Slavery is still going on and is still very relevant in many people's lives. Although we all know how wrong slavery is, obviously, some people around the world aren't following one of the "given" human rights.
ReplyDeleteArticle 30 probably needs the most inforcement in the world today. It says that no one can destroy of disobey these articlee, but in the world today, they are disobeyed all of these rules all the times. So they should be reenforced.
ReplyDeleteArticle 5 says no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel. I think that Article 5 should be revise because sometimes tortured is need. For example, if lives are in danger then I think that tortured is needed to get them to talk about where the bomb is or where the people is that person is keeping. I think that Article 5 should be revise to no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel unless to save lives.
ReplyDeleteArticle 23 and 25 should be changed to themselves and their family from himself and his family. Although it seems pointless, I feel that it should include women. Article 26 should be clear as to what point in their children's education that they should be able to choose.
ReplyDeleteI believe that article 19 is a controversial topic because of the problems and arguments that this expression of opinion can potentially cause, for example; a video aimed at an important religious profit of another country, which was made by Americans provoked an attack on Americans who were stationed in another country. I believe that the freedom of speech is very important for society, although it can cause problems such as these if it is not exorcized carefully.
ReplyDeleteArticle 20 section 1 should be revised. it states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association." i don't think "everyone" should get that right. people who prove to be dangerous should not be able to meet with one another.
ReplyDeleteArticle 30 needs the most improvement. It says if you break one rule out of the many rules, you should be punished. I don't agree with this statement at all. Simple rules can be broken all the time because nothing is perfect.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the whole declaration, or more specifically article 30, should be revised. I agree with the intent, but it is not held up to standards. I feel that they should enforce the rules and hold people accountable. I also disagree with article 5, I feel that if necessary torture is acceptable. If the person did something wrong, or is withholding very important information it is fine to torture.
ReplyDeleteI believe that article 14 should be deleted or at least seriously revised. If someone has committed a felony in a certain country, they should be held accountable, and not just allowed to ignore what they did by running away from it. The fact that they have run to another country does not make what they did less awful, and they should not be let off so easily. This of course is better when the laws are good laws, not stupid or arbitrary ones.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Article 4 should be revised. "No one Shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade Shall be prohibited in all Their forms". Because despite we already being in the 21st century ther still many types of slavery, such as all the work that is not paid, the only difference from today to the 14th century, for example, is that in that time this type of work was legal, today is illegal, but continues almost with the same frequency.
ReplyDeleteI think that Article 3 could be clearer, and therefore it should be revised. The article states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” As most of you know there has been conflict over the last couple of years about abortion. I do not take a side in this dispute, however, I believe if the International Committee that created these rules had taken a stand on it we would have a set standard to abide by today. I think that with all the revisions, deletions, and added articles that just our tenth grade class has come up with is crazy, there could be so many more if more people knew they could have some input. I think that the International committee should come back together and reread all of their Articles, and take a stand on abortion and many other cases as a World, not just as a country.
ReplyDelete