0
Human Rights
This category gathers all the questions about the basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled. Questions should include but are not limited to the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.
977 Questions
Is human rights good or bad thing?
Human rights is a good thing as long as you like being alive; being alive is the very essence of human rights.
What set of human rights limits the right for same sex marriages?
No set of human rights limits the rights of same-sex marriage. Only governments can limit human rights.
Explain Roosevelt's civil rights dilemma?
Roosevelt set aside Wilson's discriminatory policies, but he stayed neutral on an anti-lynching bill that was brought to the floor of congress in 1937.
global and regional system of protection of human rights
No, if you protest you have to tell the government that you are and you have to do it where they tell you to and peacefully.
Why was the African National Congress formed?
The Whites put in place a policy called Apartheid in 1948 which denied Black South Africans from many basic rights. So some black Africans formed a group called the African National Congress to fight for their rights.
and explain how the characteristics of servant leadership are displayed and practiced within that organization.
How would the wright brothers react if they saw your technology today?
They would pass out or have a heart attack especially if we told them that they had led us into the world of technology now their dad would be very proud of them .
What are religious and philosophical origins of human rights?
Human rights are currently endorsed by many religions, but are not the origin of human rights. Most religions teach an in-group-out-group mentality that divides people into "people of my religion that should be treated well" and "people not of my religion that should be treated more poorly". The main way that religion influenced the development of human rights was indirectly through the Wars of Religion in Europe that convinced people that persons of other religions are still people and it is not worth it to kill or subjugate them.
The origins of human rights are almost all philosophical coming out of the Enlightenment Tradition in Western Europe in the 1600s. They capitalized on the uniformity all of humans before their Creator. The most commonly referenced articulators of that tradition are John Locke, Rev. Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui. They believed that just like there was a natural law of gravity or a natural law of maths that there should be natural laws of human decency and ethics.
[D] none of the above
What is the right temperature for a normal human being?
it is from 35 degree celcius to 47 degree celcius
Can you start am immigration process for your fiance that lives in another country?
Yes, the K-1 visa petition.
Do indigionus people deserve special protections?
No they do not...
Argument 1: Equality and InequalityWe argue that special protections are not necessary in ensuring the welfare and protection under the law of indigenous peoples firstly because:v Reason: Indigenous peoples should be treated with equality, and not preferential treatment. They should have the same rights and opportunities as everybody else.
v Addition Information: Article 2 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples clearly states that "Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals". (United Nations General Assembly, 2007)
v Example: In Canada, the majority of Inuit and Indian peoples, under the Indian Act have a say in what happens within their community, they have a say in the government, they pay taxes, they have access to health care, and they have equal access to the welfare state, including child tax benefits, old age securities and employment insurances, as well as a range of other government run programs. (CanadaGOV)
v Analysis: As we can see, in Canada the indigenous peoples are treated as equals to the Canadian people, getting very little 'special protection'. These indigenous peoples thrive and have access to all the government schemes Canadians do, whilst retaining their culture and traditions.
v Link: From this we can see that it is NOTnecessary to give 'special protection' to indigenous peoples in order to ensure their welfare and protection under the law.
Argument 2: Multiple Cultural IdentitiesSecondly, we argue that special protections aren't necessary in order to protect the cultural identities of indigenous peoples:v Reason: We point out that it is possible, and incredibly common for a person to have multiple cultural identities. We must acknowledge individual multiculturalism.
v Example: I will give a personal example of this to show you what I mean: I consider myself an Aberdonian. I consider myself Scottish. I also consider myself English. I consider myself British. I also consider myself European. Also I consider myself 'Western'.
v Analysis: As we can see a person doesn't have just one cultural identity, let's use the indigenous Basque people of Western Europe as another example. The Basques could consider themselves not only as being Basque, but also as being Spanish, French, European and 'Western'.
v Link: We can see it is again not necessary to grant special protections to indigenous peoples in order to preserve their identity, as they can subscribe to the cultural identity of the land that they inhabit in addition to their indigenous cultural identity.
Argument 3: Societal TensionFirstly, we will address the tension which is created by special protections.v Reason: The 'special protections', which often segregate indigenous peoples from non-indigenous peoples, have the unfortunate effect of making non-indigenous peoples see them as inferior, and not belonging, often resulting in racism, discrimination and violence on either side.
v Example: Indigenous peoples in Australia are 11 times more likely to commit a crime (News Australia), and are more likely to be the victims of a violent attack than non-indigenous peoples. Racist attacks are becoming increasingly common in many regions of Australia:
CTV-news in early 2009 reported the following attack:
"Questions have been raised about racial intolerance after a group of New Year's partiers beat an aboriginal man. Not long after the incident occurred early on New Year's Day, photos of a 21-year-old aboriginal man were posted on an online website for car enthusiasts. The photos which were posted, claimed to show the aboriginal man beaten, bloody and lying on the ground. The photos appeared under the heading 'Us: One - Dirty Indian Thief: Nil.'" (CTVNews)
Australian-news.com reported another incident from 2006:
"On Saturday night last week bouncer John Rukuata was working at a nightclub in Perth's Northbridge area when he was viciously attacked by up to 12 Aboriginal teenagers.
He was so savagely bashed that both eyes are just slits in a swollen purple face. Doctors have told Mr Rukuata that he may lose sight in his left eye. Two Aboriginals have been arrested over the attack." (Australian News)
Australian-news also reported the followed incident:
"Mr Robinson made the fatal mistake of flagging down a car driven by Aboriginal Jeremiah Charles Farmer. Farmer and his gang got out of the car. A second carload of Aboriginals also stopped. The gang viciously attacked Mr Robinson who fell to the ground. He was then repeatedly kicked by several attackers as he lay motionless on the ground.
Farmer dragged Mr Robinson's body off the road before speeding off. Mr Robinson did not regain consciousness. He died in hospital on Christmas morning. At the trial of Farmer and three youths, prosecutor Dave Dempster told the court that the Aboriginal gang later stopped and bragged to each other about attacking a white. The West Australian public was horrified when the gang walked free from court on a legal technicality."
v Analysis: As we can see there is often racial tension between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, which is increasingly leading to violent attacks on both sides.
v Link: We argue that these tensions are encouraged as a result of the special protections, which segregate indigenous peoples, distancing them from non-indigenous peoples. We argue that without special protections more indigenous peoples would integrate into the rest of society, relieving social tensions caused by each side viewing the other as 'different' and 'not belonging'.
Argument 4: Negative Effects on Indigenous PeoplesSecondly, we will address the negative effects 'special protections' can have on the indigenous peoples:v Reason: As we have argued many times 'special protections' distance indigenous peoples from the rest of society.
v Example: Only 22% of aboriginal people in Australia have at least one secondary education qualification, and only 4% of all aboriginal people in Australia have a university qualification (GOVAustralia). An Indigenous family, on average in Australia will earn 60% of what a non-indigenous family of the same number would earn.
v Analysis: It is clear that indigenous people are significantly worse off than their non-indigenous counterparts.
v Link: We argue that this is caused by indigenous people being differentiated and separated from the rest of society by 'special protections', and as such not having the same opportunities as non-indigenous peoples.
Argument 5: Special Protections Not Improving Lives of Indigenous PeoplesI would like to follow on from some of the points made by my colleague:v Reason: Some of the special protections are in place to try and improve the living and economic conditions of indigenous peoples. We argue that they are not very successful in their goal and that it is time to try different approaches, involving more integration of indigenous peoples into non-indigenous society.
v Example: In addition to the educational and income statistics which were previously given I would like to add some more statistics, again involving indigenous Australians. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare indigenous peoples are 6 times more likely to have heart problems and diseases than non-indigenous people. They are ten times more likely to have tuberculosis, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. They are five times more likely to have mental disorders, and two times more likely to have mental diseases. They are 3 times more likely to have a respiratory disease, and are three times more likely to commit suicide than their non-indigenous counterparts (Australian Institute for Health and Welfare). In addition to this, indigenous communities in Australia are ridden with drug and alcohol problems.
v Analysis: It is clear that special protections are failing to improve the living and economic conditions of indigenous peoples.
v Link: As such, we believe that it is time to try different approaches.
Argument 6: Treatment of Women in Indigenous SocietiesWe argue against special protections for indigenous peoples because of the treatment of women in indigenous societies.v Reason: The treatment of women in indigenous societies is horrific. Rape and violent abuse are common occurrences in many indigenous communities. Often the perpetrator is the victim's husband, father, brother or another male relative. The reasons are varied, but sexual lust, punishment and displays of dominance are the primary ones.
v Example: An indigenous woman in Australia is 12 times more likely to be the victim of sexual assault than non-indigenous woman in Australia. Even more staggeringly, indigenous women in Australia are 45 times more likely to be violently attacked by their partners. The issue is common in almost all indigenous Australian communities (Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault). These shocking statistics are based only upon the cases that we know about, there are many more unreported cases and we know little about the issue of the sexual abuse of children in indigenous communities.
v Analysis and Link: To further increase the horror of this situation, this indigenous culture which accepts and tolerates the abuse of women is being preserved by the special protections which were intended to improve the lives of indigenous peoples! With this knowledge the propositional team are against special protections for indigenous peoples.
Argument 7: Indigenous Peoples Who Have Integrated Into Non-indigenous Society
An idea which has been recurring throughout the propositional case is that the removal of special protections for indigenous peoples will lead to further integration of indigenous peoples into the rest of society, which we argue is to their advantage. Our first speaker showed that indigenous peoples could still hold onto their culture, history and identity if they integrated into our modern society. Our second speaker and I showed the tensions and problems which would be resolved if indigenous peoples were to integrate into the rest of society. But, we would now like to present you with the stories of several indigenous people who have integrated into the rest of their society and have been very successful, whilst retaining their cultural identity and history:
"John Herrington, a Native American, graduated with a bachelor degree in applied mathematics from the University of Colorado Springs in 1984, he then served in the American navy, becoming a test pilot after three deployments in the pacific. John was selected by NASA to become an astronaut in 1996, and flew his first space mission in 2002. John spent 13 days and 19 hours in space. To honour his Native American heritage, John, a member of the Chickasaw Nation, carried a Chickasaw flag on his space trip. The flag had been presented to him by the Chickasaw Nation Governor."
"David Unaipon was an Australian Aboriginal. He was a preacher, inventor, writer and philosopher. David was known as the Australian Leonardo da Vinci for his mechanical ideas, which included drawings for a helicopter design based on the principle of a boomerang and his research into the secret of perpetual motion. David wrote many articles for newspapers and magazines, particularly the Sydney Daily Telegraph. David was a passionate human rights activist. Today, he is featured on the back of the Australian $50 note in commemoration."
These are just two of the many examples of how indigenous lives can be radically improved by integrating into the rest of society, whilst retaining their heritage and cultural identity
The ultimate 'special protection' which could be given to indigenous peoples (and which many indigenous people call for) is national independence. This means the creation of new countries for indigenous peoples. For example, in Australia large indigenous communities would no longer be part of Australia and subject to the Australian government, but would become their own country, and have their own government. As our first speaker stated we are firmly against the ultimate special protection of independence.
Argument 8: Unityv Reason: We are against the creation of indigenous states because we believe that united we are strong. Our society is built upon unity and acceptance, and creating new indigenous nations has division at its core. As we have argued multiple times, it is better to move towards integrating and accepting indigenous people into our society, rather than separating ourselves from them. Argument 9: Where to draw the line?v Reason: We are also against the creation of new indigenous states because we believe that it is based upon an absurd principle.v Example: "If indigenous groups W, X, Y and Z separate from the primarily non-indigenous country A because they are a different people and deserve to govern their own country, called country B. You could then justify splitting country B into two new countries; C and D. X and W consider themselves different from Y and Z and so create country C. Y and Z consider themselves different from X and W and so create country D. You could then justify the creation of two new countries, E and F. X consider themselves a different peoples from W and so form country E. Z consider themselves a different peoples from Y and so form country F. You now have five countries; non-indigenous country A and the indigenous countries C, D, E and F."
v Analysis and Link: This is an absurd situation, and I'm sure many of you find it amusing, but it is perfectly justified under the logic used to argue for the creation of new indigenous countries.
v Example: In Spain some power of governing has been given to the indigenous Basque people, the Basques have their own devolved parliament. In Canada, America, Australia and many other countries, all indigenous peoples have the right to vote in elections and to stand in elections, and many indigenous communities have their own community councils to govern their area.
v Analysis and Link: As we can see it is not necessary to give indigenous peoples the special protection of state independence. Indigenous peoples have their right of representation and self-determination in many countries, without resorting to this special protection.
Five Dialogues
The Last Days of Socrates
The Trial and Death of Socrates: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Death Scene from Phaedo
The Republic
The Republic of Plato
Protagoras
etc.
Duncan Lustig-Prean was a British naval officer who was dismissed from the Armed Forces after his homosexuality was discovered. He then led the campaign to change the law in the United Kingdom and Europe and was the lead test case of four which went through the British Courts to the European Court of Human Rights between 1995 and 2000. Then Lieutenant Commander Duncan Lustig-Prean was gay and was dismissed from the Royal Navy. He alleged that this, together with the intrusive nature of the investigations conducted by the Military Police into his sexuality, violated his right to privacy under Article 8 ECHR in connection with Article 14 ECHR.
Judgment
The European Court of Human Rights held that Commodore Lustig Prean was unjustly treated, and he won his case. The UK government immediately suspended discharging homosexuals and within months had changed the law. Being an ECHR judgement the impact was felt by all signatory nations of the Convention as well as aspirant nations of the European Union.
Biography of Lustig-Prean
Born of an highly aristocratic Austro-Hungarian family - a minor Royal [2]- Lustig-Prean comes from a long line of Fields Marshal and Generals.[2] His first job while at college was picking litter off beaches. He then had a "glittering career" in the Royal Navy.[citation needed] Again declining the gift of the "silver spoon", in 1979 he joined as an Able Seaman (Radio Operator Tactical) and worked his way through the ranks gaining much admiration and respect from those who served with him.[citation needed]
He did not use any of his family titles[citation needed] though on occasion as a Junior Rating (Ordinary Seaman), he took delight in wearing more inherited Orders and Decorations than inspecting Admirals. Later he was to become more considerate and always wore one neck order less than his Admiral. His habit of teasing was apparent early in his career.
While in officer training he once accidentally failed to salute a Lieutenant. The officer demanded that Lustig-Prean write down the regulations about salutes. Lustig-Prean, a mere Sub-Lieutenant at the time, knew that the same regulations required officers of any rank to salute Royalty, much to the officer's confusion, he demanded "No you go and write out the rules for me." The Lieutenant presented Lustig-Prean with his hand-written apology and copy of the rules. Lustig-Prean treated him to dinner. He and the Lieutenant became firm friends.
By 1994 he had become a senior officer on his own merit. He saw active service in most trouble spots in the world from the Falkland Islands, to Northern Ireland and the Gulf, as well as many peace-keeping operations.
Throughout his service in the navy and at sea he gained numerous commendations for bravery and leadership. Noted for leading by example and from the front, he was regarded as an "outstanding officer destined for the highest ranks". In Court the Ministry of Defence stated that "he was to become the youngest Admiral since Nelson".[citation needed]
He wrote the initial proposals allowing women full career opportunities in the military and he investigated racial discrimination in the forces. He was regarded as a superb staff officer and an outstanding front line commander.
He was highly acclaimed as a logistician and had wide experience of maintaining long supply lines in the Falklands and elsewhere. He was the Group Logistics Officer of several Task Forces. He was a strident advocate of the importance of creating and defending adequate supply lines. He recognised that this was vital to support the front line and he was cautious about over-reaching resources in the front by lack of supplies. He was known to storm into ship's Operation Rooms and switch off systems during exercises if Commanders or Operation's Officers had failed to appreciate that need to re-fuel and re-ammunition during "paper-play". Yet he was by no means a cautious Commander and was prepared to take huge risks for operational or strategic gain.
Admiral Sir John Webster described him in cricketing terms as "a first class all rounder".
He was nicknamed "Commander Bollocks" because of his habit of using that word, not quite under his breath, while attending meetings with senior officers or the Admiralty Board when they made decisions he regarded as ill-considered. One Admiral has said that, "more than once we reconsidered our position when Lustig-Prean muttered his expletives"! Admiral Sir Alan Gross said in his memoirs that Lustig-Prean was the "only member of my staff prepared to tell me what I did not want to hear". His assessments describe him as "a dynamic, inspirational yet conciliatory leader".[citation needed]
Acclaimed for his ability to think "outside the box" and, as one report said for "not being afraid to challenge established procedures if he thinks them to be wrong", he was a refreshingly dynamic and forthright staff officer at a time when Admiral's staffs were all too often made up of "yes men" who feared their masters.
Admiral Gross[citation needed] recounts an example of Lustig-Prean's irreverence. Lustig-Prean, the Admiral's Staff Secretary, had, by chance, met Admiral Webster at a marina in Plymouth. Webster declined to shake Lustig-Prean's hand because the Admiral had just been unblocking his yacht's heads (toilet). When Lustig-Prean got back to HQ he told Gross about meeting his predecessor. Admiral Gross asked him what Admiral Webster was doing after his retirement. Lustig-Prean told the Admiral "Funnily enough Sir, he is doing the same job as me these days!"
In 1994 after a hugely successful period as a Lieutenant Commander in Supply Charge at sea, he was appointed as Military Assistant to the Prime Minister[citation needed] but following his principled rejection of a blackmail attempt he was dismissed for being gay.
He led the successful campaign in Europe to allow homosexuals to serve in the Armed Forces from 1995-2000 and was one of the four test cases at the European Court of Human Rights. The impact of his success resulted in a transformation of homosexual rights throughout the UK and Europe and led to major legal changes and advances. Historians credit his work as directly leading to wider equality.[citation needed] Although yet to be achieved, it is considered inevitable that USA policy will be forced to follow.
Lustig-Prean also wrote the new policy for "gays in the military" and was in regular discussion with the Ministry of Defense throughout the case so that implementation after the law changed has been regarded as a trouble free success by all the Chiefs of Staff.
After winning the case he returned to sea and commanded salvage tugs and other "specialist" ships later becoming Commodore (Rear Admiral).[citation needed] A "sailor's captain", his men often volunteered to move ship or unit to stay with him, though he was by no means a 'soft touch' requiring the utmost from his crew. He once said that his crew followed him "merely out of curiosity". Crewmen say that Lustig-Prean was a demanding Captain but a very fair man who played as hard as he worked and who fought hard for the welfare of his crew and their families. One is quoted as saying "Serving in Lustig-Prean's ships was the best nightmare I have ever had".[citation needed]
Among several major rescue operations[citation needed] he demonstrated dazzling ship-handling ability when rescuing the crew of a cargo ship bringing his ship alongside in a storm several times to take each member off despite the ferocious winds and enormous seas before taking the ship in tow and saving her. When the press pointed out that he had not even scratched the paintwork of his ship Lustig-Prean replied that he was "anxious to save the cost of repainting and his crew needed a day off anyway".
He was a founder member and Chair of the Equality Alliance, an umbrella organization empowering and bringing together diverse groups to coordinate effort and provide mutual campaign support and advice.
He also was a founder member of the Metropolitan Police Racial and Violent Crime Task Force Advisory Panel which led the way in transforming policing of those issues.
He is a past Secretary to the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee.
His varied civilian career demonstrates his "principled commitment to people and human rights"[citation needed] having played very senior roles in Liberty (a human rights campaign group) and Bindman and Partners (human rights attorneys).
He is credited with "restoring industry confidence in regulation" while Deputy Director General of the Advertising Standards Authority while also "restoring the confidence of consumer groups", a seemingly impossible combination.[citation needed]
Lustig-Prean's politics remain an enigma. A vocal and active supporter of the rights of working people, he is a business owner. He was known to be an opponent of the invasion of Iraq yet he is a very strong supporter of the USA. He has never disclosed his personal politics.
He is regarded as an exceptional and gifted speaker and communicator. This "charismatic campaigner" is also a noted author and correspondent and has written widely and variedly from children's stories, opera libretto to historical articles. He regularly speaks at legal seminars and at debates at Oxford, Cambridge, St Andrews and Durham Universities. He is well-known in the USA as a speaker on gay and human rights.
Although since 2000, other than his naval career, he has adopted a quiet public profile, it is known that he has been privately active assisting and guiding numerous organizations involved with human rights, civil liberties, race relations and workers' rights as well as assisting and representing individuals.
His recent career includes employment as a bus driver for Brighton & Hove Bus and Coach Company Ltd. and he is currently employed in the Customer Sevices Unit of that company where he is a member of a small team responsible for answering phone and email queries from the public about the services offered by that company.
His wide interests include opera, music, theater and film. He is often seen with the Oscar winning cinematographer David Watkin and also Sir Ian McKellen. One of his degrees is in music and he trained as an opera singer at the Royal College of Music.
Along with numerous military awards and commendations, he is an honorary life member of Rank Outsiders and also holds the Mike Rhodes award for his contribution to gay rights. He is a holder of the Stonewall Equality Award. He won the Prix de Nantes for his work in Human Rights.
What region is Latin America in?
Latin America is a cultural region that spans Mexico (North America), the Caribbean, Central America and South America.
What if your responsibilities under ussouthcom's human rights regulation 1-20 are to?
All of the above
-Internvention to prevent US government official from committing a human rights violation
- refusal to follow a clearly illegal order to commit a human rights violation
- intervention (through moral dissuasion and non-violent means) to prevent a member of the partner nation military from committing a human rights violation
What are ways to treat each other?
"Treat others as you would like to be treated" is a true and tried method.
