PDA

View Full Version : UN Declaration of Human Rights


Fishman
04-17-2009, 03:10 AM
I believe this should hold true for everyone, even gays and terrorists.

PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.



^ Top
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.
^ Top
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.
^ Top
Article 3.
■Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
^ Top
Article 4.
■No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
^ Top
Article 5.
■No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
^ Top
Article 6.
■Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
^ Top
Article 7.
■All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
^ Top
Article 8.
■Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
^ Top
Article 9.
■No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
^ Top
Article 10.
■Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
^ Top
Article 11.
■(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
■(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
^ Top
Article 12.
■No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
^ Top
Article 13.
■(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
■(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
^ Top
Article 14.
■(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
■(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
^ Top
Article 15.
■(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
■(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
^ Top
Article 16.
■(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
■(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
■(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
^ Top
Article 17.
■(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
■(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
^ Top
Article 18.
■Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
^ Top
Article 19.
■Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
^ Top
Article 20.
■(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
■(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
^ Top
Article 21.
■(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
■(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
■(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
^ Top
Article 22.
■Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
^ Top
Article 23.
■(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
■(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
■(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
■(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
^ Top
Article 24.
■Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
^ Top
Article 25.
■(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
■(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
^ Top
Article 26.
■(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
■(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
■(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
^ Top
Article 27.
■(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
■(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
^ Top
Article 28.
■Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
^ Top
Article 29.
■(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
■(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
■(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
^ Top
Article 30.
■Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Tiberon
04-17-2009, 03:00 PM
They can declare all they want. The truth is that the UN is full of stagnating rotten pussies. They sure want to have a peaceful world....but when it comes to actually doing something productive about it....they fail miserably. Talk Talk Talk....blah blah blah. NK,Iran,Sudan,Darfur, and the list goes on.

Its my belief that we should have pulled out of that shithole awhile ago. Most of the money that the UN operates on is from the US....and we have been a little behind in payments latley....and theyre calling us greedy...fuck em!

But yeah.....it would be nice to have all those declarations come true.....but its a pipe dream

midnitefarmer
04-17-2009, 07:37 PM
Fuck the U.N. and piss on their "declaration"......and fuck obama too...the apologist no spine pig.....:thumbsup:

Fishman
04-18-2009, 03:32 PM
Your brilliance is blinding MF.

Tiberon
04-18-2009, 09:53 PM
well shit....thats about the only time I can say that I agree with you fishman.


It is quite blinding/sarc/

Weedgrl
04-18-2009, 11:00 PM
Fuck the U.N. and piss on their "declaration"......and fuck obama too...the apologist no spine pig.....:thumbsup:

I have to say I agree.

midnitefarmer
04-20-2009, 04:58 AM
Your brilliance is blinding MF.

well shit....thats about the only time I can say that I agree with you fishman.


It is quite blinding/sarc/

OMFG....what a couple mental giants........you guys enjoy sucking each other off?

Edward Scissorhash
04-21-2009, 06:14 PM
I may have worded it different but I agree with MF. The UN stands for everything I am against. So does our current administration. But then again no politician/administration/organization really represents my beliefs. No matter who is in the White House I think they suck balls. Basically the government sucks balls, and I can only hope for revolution. Anyway....
Speaking of the UN, did any of you wahibist sympathizers see the 40 member-nations walk out of the UN summit in Geneva over the weekend when your hero Ahmadinejad started talking shit about Israel and the West again?? Even Sweden and France bailed lol, go UN.:bongdude:

Tiberon
04-28-2009, 01:32 AM
OMFG....what a couple mental giants........you guys enjoy sucking each other off?

umm....I think you misunderstood MF. Notice how I put the [sarc] after my last post? I was being sarcastic towards fishboys reponse. I figured my first post would have clarified my views. I wouldnt go around jumping the gun like that...shows your true colors.

midnitefarmer
04-28-2009, 12:07 PM
umm....I think you misunderstood MF. Notice how I put the [sarc] after my last post? I was being sarcastic towards fishboys reponse. I figured my first post would have clarified my views. I wouldnt go around jumping the gun like that...shows your true colors.


My apologies to you....

Fishman
04-29-2009, 12:47 AM
Like I said, your brilliance is blinding.

Tiberon
04-30-2009, 05:07 PM
coming from the guy who copy and pasted the article.....lets not even talk about brilliance.

go back and believe all you want in the un and their garbage at their website whilst cooking up one liners to throw back at people on the net.

U use to contribute a hell of a lot more in your political tantrums....but sadly...you are know as a 'one liner'. Your like an unemotional grumpy old sour puss now.

whats wrong....your not high on the 'messiah?

SFC
04-30-2009, 06:21 PM
He don't burn anymore #1. Life must have kicked him in the nuts one to many times. I am sick to death of everyone looking for a fucking handout myself. It has saturated every sector of our society. What ever happened to making your own way in this world?

Fishman
05-01-2009, 03:52 PM
I don't think human rights has anything to do with free hand-outs.

Tib, Read your post and then tell me which one of us is a grumpy old sour puss.

Fishman
05-01-2009, 03:53 PM
Equal human rights for everyone is a pivotal part of making your own way.

Edward Scissorhash
05-01-2009, 05:07 PM
I don't think human rights has anything to do with free hand-outs.

Tib, Read your post and then tell me which one of us is a grumpy old sour puss.

I agree there haha, hand-outs and human rights have zero to do with each other. I'm all fo' human rights unlike the UN.
The problem with the UN is half of the member nations are THE human rights violators to end all violators. So apparently human rights are not really priority, or don't quite fit into the UN globalization agenda at this time.

Fishman
05-01-2009, 05:39 PM
The problem is not wit hthe UN. The problem is with the members that have the veto power. This is a post WWII setup that has made the UN stagnant. In my opinion the UN just needs to be retooled. There are people at the UN that really put their whole lives into furthering human rights. But the five permanant members of the security council can veto anything.

Its hard for anyone to say that the US stands for human rights in this world. We sanction Cuba but work with the Saudis? WTF?

Fishman
05-01-2009, 05:42 PM
A cut and paste from wikipedia.

There has been criticism that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, who are all nuclear powers, have created an exclusive nuclear club whose powers are unchecked. Unlike the General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council does not have true international representation. This has led to accusations that the UNSC only addresses the strategic interests and political motives of the permanent members, especially in humanitarian interventions: for example, protecting the oil-rich Kuwaitis in 1991 but poorly protecting resource-poor Rwandans in 1994.[22] Any nation may be elected to serve a temporary term on the Security Council, but critics have suggested that this is inadequate. Rather, they argue, the number of permanent members should be expanded to include non-nuclear powers, which would democratize the organization.[23] Still other nations have advocated abolishing the concept of permanency altogether; under the government of Paul Martin, Canada advocated this approach.[24]

Another criticism of the Security Council involves the veto power of the five permanent nations. As it stands, a veto from any of the permanent members can halt any possible action the Council may take. One nation's objection, rather than the opinions of a majority of nations, may cripple any possible UN armed or diplomatic response to a crisis. For instance, John J. Mearsheimer claimed that "since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members."[25] However, the Security Council has been criticized for extreme anti Israeli bias. Since candidates for the Security Council are proposed by regional blocs, the Arab League and its allies are usually included but Israel, which joined the UN in 1949, has never been elected to the Security Council whereas at least 15 Arab League members have. In fact, Israel used to be the only one of the 185 member countries ineligible to serve on the Security Council. In addition, the Council has repeatedly condemned the Jewish State but not once has it adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of Arab attacks on Israel. What takes place in the Security Council "more closely resembles a mugging than either a political debate or an effort at problem-solving," declared former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick.[26]

The practice of the permanent members meeting privately and then presenting their resolutions to the full council as a fait accompli has also drawn fire; according to Erskine Childers, "the vast majority of members -- North as well as South -- have made very clear...their distaste for the way three Western powers behave in the Council, like a private club of hereditary elite-members who secretly come to decisions and then emerge to tell the grubby elected members that they may now rubber-stamp those decisions."[27]

Other critics and even proponents of the Security Council question its effectiveness and relevance because in most high-profile cases, there are essentially no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution. The most prominent and dramatic example of this is the Darfur crisis, in which Arab Janjaweed militias, supported by the Sudanese government, committed repeated acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the indigenous population. Thus far, an estimated 300,000 civilians have been killed in what is the largest case of mass murder in the history of the region, yet the UN has continuously failed to act against this severe and ongoing human rights issue. Another such case occurred in the Srebrenica massacre where Serbian troops committed genocide against Bosnian Muslims in the largest case of mass murder on the European continent since World War II. Srebrenica had been declared a UN "safe area" and was even protected by 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers, but the UN forces did nothing to prevent the massacre.

Other critics object to the idea that the UN is a democratic organization, saying that it represents the interests of the governments of the nations who form it and not necessarily the individuals within those nations. World federalist Dieter Heinrich points out that the powerful Security Council system does not have distinctions between the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches: the UN Charter gives all three powers to the Security Council.[28]

Another concern is that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are five of the top ten largest arms dealing countries in the world.[29]

Delta-9
05-02-2009, 12:06 AM
:fucku::fucku::fucku::fucku::joint:
fuck it all! fuck this world! fuck everything you stand for! dont belong!
dont exist! dont give a shit! dont ever judge me!!!

Fishman
05-02-2009, 01:28 AM
Sometimes I agree with that.

Edward Scissorhash
05-03-2009, 02:10 PM
A cut and paste from wikipedia.

There has been criticism that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, who are all nuclear powers, have created an exclusive nuclear club whose powers are unchecked. Unlike the General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council does not have true international representation. This has led to accusations that the UNSC only addresses the strategic interests and political motives of the permanent members, especially in humanitarian interventions: for example, protecting the oil-rich Kuwaitis in 1991 but poorly protecting resource-poor Rwandans in 1994.[22] Any nation may be elected to serve a temporary term on the Security Council, but critics have suggested that this is inadequate. Rather, they argue, the number of permanent members should be expanded to include non-nuclear powers, which would democratize the organization.[23] Still other nations have advocated abolishing the concept of permanency altogether; under the government of Paul Martin, Canada advocated this approach.[24]

Another criticism of the Security Council involves the veto power of the five permanent nations. As it stands, a veto from any of the permanent members can halt any possible action the Council may take. One nation's objection, rather than the opinions of a majority of nations, may cripple any possible UN armed or diplomatic response to a crisis. For instance, John J. Mearsheimer claimed that "since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members."[25] However, the Security Council has been criticized for extreme anti Israeli bias. Since candidates for the Security Council are proposed by regional blocs, the Arab League and its allies are usually included but Israel, which joined the UN in 1949, has never been elected to the Security Council whereas at least 15 Arab League members have. In fact, Israel used to be the only one of the 185 member countries ineligible to serve on the Security Council. In addition, the Council has repeatedly condemned the Jewish State but not once has it adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of Arab attacks on Israel. What takes place in the Security Council "more closely resembles a mugging than either a political debate or an effort at problem-solving," declared former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick.[26]

The practice of the permanent members meeting privately and then presenting their resolutions to the full council as a fait accompli has also drawn fire; according to Erskine Childers, "the vast majority of members -- North as well as South -- have made very clear...their distaste for the way three Western powers behave in the Council, like a private club of hereditary elite-members who secretly come to decisions and then emerge to tell the grubby elected members that they may now rubber-stamp those decisions."[27]

Other critics and even proponents of the Security Council question its effectiveness and relevance because in most high-profile cases, there are essentially no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution. The most prominent and dramatic example of this is the Darfur crisis, in which Arab Janjaweed militias, supported by the Sudanese government, committed repeated acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the indigenous population. Thus far, an estimated 300,000 civilians have been killed in what is the largest case of mass murder in the history of the region, yet the UN has continuously failed to act against this severe and ongoing human rights issue. Another such case occurred in the Srebrenica massacre where Serbian troops committed genocide against Bosnian Muslims in the largest case of mass murder on the European continent since World War II. Srebrenica had been declared a UN "safe area" and was even protected by 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers, but the UN forces did nothing to prevent the massacre.

Other critics object to the idea that the UN is a democratic organization, saying that it represents the interests of the governments of the nations who form it and not necessarily the individuals within those nations. World federalist Dieter Heinrich points out that the powerful Security Council system does not have distinctions between the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches: the UN Charter gives all three powers to the Security Council.[28]

Another concern is that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are five of the top ten largest arms dealing countries in the world.[29]


LOL did you or one of your buddies write that wiki Fish? Or perhaps by WORLD FEDERALIST Dieter Heinrich lol. That is the most spun, one-world government bullshit I have seen in a long time :lmao:

Edward Scissorhash
05-03-2009, 02:18 PM
:fucku::fucku::fucku::fucku::joint:
fuck it all! fuck this world! fuck everything you stand for! dont belong!
dont exist! dont give a shit! dont ever judge me!!!



Thats my problem with the UN, and all governments. Fuck them, we need LESS not MORE.
"Fishman- Sometimes I agree with that."
And Fishman dude c'mon. every post/opinion you've stated is favoring BIG GOVERNMENT OR GLOBALIZATION. Lol, aye aye aye

Fishman
05-03-2009, 04:44 PM
I don't care if government is big or small. I dont care if the world globalizes or not. All I am for is equal human rights, even for homosexuals. And fair treatment and representation for every country.

Its republicans that have increased the size of the government. It was Bush who put us 10 trillion in debt.

Hey Ed, Instead of just saying its spun and making a blanket statment, why don't you point ot some examples in the article of things that are not true. So far in this thread the opponents of what I believe have just talked a little shit or declared it to be wrong. There's no substance in that. Come on. I dare any of you to say something real.

A conversation with MF and Tiberon is like a conversation with 5 year olds. Its so predictable what they'll say next. It will just be more dumbass thoughtless shit talking. Who wants to make a wager?

Fishman
05-03-2009, 04:46 PM
BTW I said I sometimes agree with this statment:

fuck it all! fuck this world! fuck everything you stand for! dont belong!
dont exist! dont give a shit! dont ever judge me!!!

I never said anything about the size of government. lol