One could argue as Bentham does of the wordings on any declarations of rights at any given time in any given century. Are they foundations for society? or rights? Are they ""natural or "God" given, does my religious freedom negate these rights if I am an Atheist? So many things that are "natural" for example, nudity, are not a right to impose on others based on their religious "God given" rights, so their freedom of religious rights negates my "natural" rights? Whether they be rights or opinions, Bentham is correct in they are foundations for just getting along in society. So much of these arguments are matter of opinion whether it be the wording of those rights or the rights themselves. I am placing my focus on the juxtaposition of civil rights.
As stated in the Declaration of Rights of 1789, everyone is not "born and remains free in equal rights" A child is subjugated to be brought up in a religion that is not his choosing, in an economic circumstance that he did not chose, and as a child and young adult may be educated in a way that that is not the best interest of his future choices of career or economic stability in life. The government, while not being monarchist, does demand that children go to school, and (In the United States) does demand that people seek health care whether it be against their religious or economic rights or not.
Many civil rights are a matter of opinion. Rights in Texas may not be the same as rights in Arizona. Rights in one town, may differ from another town. Rights do boil down to personal judgement of the government officials who are enforcing them. Cases have been to the supreme court time and time again over the interpretations of certain rights.A particular case can be appealed because of the interpretation of rights.
Is it my right to go barefoot in a store? Is it a store owners right to insist I own shoes? What peace is being disturbed by bare feet? Can a town enforce a law stating that its residents cannot wear pajama pants in public? "The moral fiber in our community is dwindling"
Whos moral fiber? Maybe you are being a bit judgemental Mr. Mayor. Is it his right to impose dress codes on the resdidence in a community they share? Seems a bit monarchist to me. The people in the pictures moral fibers seem fine. Maybe its his moral fiber that could be in question.
The American judicial system is a system of not necessarily rights, but the interpretation of the rights through a series of privileges. The privilege of wealth may allow for legal defense that would pardon an individual taking the rights of another. The privilege of knowing someone can aid the same way. Hierarchy in the community or the government is one of those privileges that greatly affects rights. Those individuals can sway the opinions of a jury of our peers. The peers who decide our rights.
Was it a right for a white store owner to chose who he wanted at his drugstore counter, he chose white customers to do that. Joseph McNeil, a black man decided that it was his right to sit at the same counter as well. They were at a store that had advertised economic equality for black customers and were encouraged to purchase their college supplies there. There was not a right though for the same students to access the lunch counter. Provisions had been made though, a provision for equality, there was a hot dog stand in the basement. For that store owner, he was abiding by the equal civil rights. Is it not his right as a store owner to chose what type of clientele he allow into his store? I am not defending his stance, but am suggesting the point made of whose rights?
American civil rights were continually violated long after the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was drafted following the second World War.
Article 1: 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.
Article 2 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.1
UNDHR, had a variety of violated "equal in dignity and rights" issues of its own, years after these articles were instated. Rights aren't born. They are proven. We would have no Brown vs. The Board of Education if the rights had been born. It is a matter of opinion of interpretation of the governing entities that are deciding. Although in the Brown case there was consideration to equality that was give to the child to attend school. The problem was with disparity.
The rights before the case were a matter of opinion, and again after the case they were a matter of opinion and interpretation of the law. Civil Rights have continued to evolve in all governments over time. The wording of the Declaration has been amended as a reflection of those changes, and clarification of rights. The people and the branches of government are continually defining and redefining humanity's peaceful coexistence in life, whether it be "natural" rights, "God given" or even if entitled foundations or rights, again, is a matter of opinion.
http://www.ksn.com/content/news/also/story/Town-considers-ban-on-pajama-pants/fZ5hHpONL0-TSkE4J9JYyw.cspx
Giffith/Baker Civil Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents
Virginian- French Declarations
I am a junior majoring in American History. I enjoy visiting American historical sites. I had to opportunity to visit the USS Missouri in September on the anniversary of the signing of the Japanese surrender.
Good Post. Consider this however. Yes civil rights are an opinion, but that is where the concept of " the general will of the nation", as Abbe Syeyes put forth suggests comes in. The society collectively defines the rights you have and your government is instruction to enforce you equal right to use them. Is the owner of a store right to make you wear shoes. Yes in HIS store he does. Once you step outside you can do as you please. Just as you have rights to have similar rules on your property. Society collectively thinks this is ok or they would change it. At least in theory.
ReplyDelete