2012 and human rights.

[Hawk]

While we have continued to develop and improve our technology and scientific knowledge, and we have reached the "Cyber era", there are still many things happening around the globe that are absolutely appalling! With all the knowledge we have learnt through our history, and our advancement, humans are still horribly cruel to one another, and in some cases little is being done about it.

This thread is for awareness to things happening now, in 2012, that shouldn't be happening at all. Please post and link about current human rights violations for awareness.

***


Imprisoned and tortured for not wanting to fight... http://www.jw-media.org/vid/kor/cons...bjection-e.htm

Exported for being nomadic... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11020429, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11186592

Forcibly removed... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ouin-west-bank

Civilians bombed... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

[Codex]

This is just the Canadian branch of the website, but Amnesty International always has information on things like this.

Reminder in advance to keep things respectful, guys.

[Hawk]

This is just the Canadian branch of the website, but Amnesty International always has information on things like this.

Reminder in advance to keep things respectful, guys.

Thank you Codex!

[FallenVamphyre]

What annoys me is how this is never seen in the US media. When I talk about NDAA and SOPA around people they look at me like I just said something foreign. It really makes me sick, and I think we're in for a lot worse.

[Hawk]

I think that's the same for all western media - We do get to see some of it, but there is so much that we never even hear about. The disturbing thing is we are no longer in the Dark Ages, and we have so much technology, and we should be able to learn from our past mistakes!

[_Pax_]

The people in power learned from THEIR past mistakes, just a little bit faster than we learned from OURS, Hawk.

[Israelite76]

[QUOTE=Hawk;1490228]
Forcibly removed... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ouin-west-bank

Using the Guardian as a source for the ME conflict is always a mistake with their political point of view and anti-Israel bias. I am sure that they fail to mention on any article over the last few years, the forcible movement of Christians from places like Bethlehem under Palestinian Authority control through a process of threats and intimidation so that now, the Christians are now every increasing minority where once they were a majority...

The Guardian is famous for it's unbalanced reporting and 'misleading' facts and instead making up new ones... better to not give examples from this 'newspaper'.

[Hawk]

[QUOTE=Israelite76;1490499]

Forcibly removed... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ouin-west-bank

Using the Guardian as a source for the ME conflict is always a mistake with their political point of view and anti-Israel bias. I am sure that they fail to mention on any article over the last few years, the forcible movement of Christians from places like Bethlehem under Palestinian Authority control through a process of threats and intimidation so that now, the Christians are now every increasing minority where once they were a majority...

The Guardian is famous for it's unbalanced reporting and 'misleading' facts and instead making up new ones... better to not give examples from this 'newspaper'.

The Guardian is not where I originally found out about this, but I think I was watching 60 minutes.

I'm not picking on the Israelis (I'll try not to use the Guardian in the future), I'm just pointing out that what is being done to the Bedouin is wrong, whoever is causing it - their families have lived in those otherwise unused areas for at least quite a few generations, and now they are forcibly removed! When they refuse to leave their homes are demolished...Imagine how we'd feel if that happened to us?

[Atlas-]

The Guardian is not where I originally found out about this, but I think I was watching 60 minutes.

I'm not picking on the Israelis (I'll try not to use the Guardian in the future), I'm just pointing out that what is being done to the Bedouin is wrong, whoever is causing it - their families have lived in those otherwise unused areas for at least quite a few generations, and now they are forcibly removed! When they refuse to leave their homes are demolished...Imagine how we'd feel if that happened to us?

That does happen in our countries though it is possible for the government to force people to 'sell' their houses. You may say that this is to make way for infer-structure but its still effectively stealing from the home owners. The fact that they get money doesn't change anything if they didn't want to sell the house then no amount of money justify's taking it.

[_Pax_]

There's a big difference between Eminent Domain - where the homeowner gets paid the fair market value for their property, AND has the option to fight the seizure in court - and simply sending in the bulldozers because you want someone different to live there rather than the current tenants.

[Atlas-]

There's a big difference between Eminent Domain - where the homeowner gets paid the fair market value for their property, AND has the option to fight the seizure in court - and simply sending in the bulldozers because you want someone different to live there rather than the current tenants.

The Americans used the Eminent Domain law to seize land from the natives so settlers could live there. (I'm not having ago at Americans just to clarify) And yes they may have the ability to fight it in court but if they don't win they are still forced to seel there property. Obtaining property through the use of force is theft, and against human rights.

[Codex]

That depends on whether or not you view the justice system as corrupt or not though. TBH, I feel that if there is no other option, then the rights are more greatly infringed than if you are just ignorant of the options.

Also, I've never heard of this "law of Eminent Domain." Did it actually exist when the colonies were expanding? I somewhat doubt it - given the imperialism at the time there was certainly a policy of "stick a flag in it and call it yours" around the world.

[Atlas-]

The whole point of rights is that they are inviolate. That is the difference between laws and rights. If any justice system ignores the rights of it citizens then it is no longer they're protector, but rather they're destroyer.

[Codex]

Hang on, since when do you have the right to a house? You have the right to life, liberty and security of person, not of residence.

[Atlas-]

Hang on, since when do you have the right to a house? You have the right to life, liberty and security of person, not of residence.

You have the right to property. Property being that which you have earned or produced, without a right to what you produced you can not sustain you're life and as such the right to life be-gets the right to property, one can not exist without the other.

[Codex]

You have the right to property. Property being that which you have earned or produced, without a right to what you produced you can not sustain you're life and as such the right to life be-gets the right to property, one can not exist without the other.

Show me where it says that in any country's document that it uses to get it's rights from. I haven't seen it in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You don't have a right to property, but a right to pursue whatever it is you wish. So, for example, you are entitled to the freedom t purchase property and you have the right to have that goal. However, if you renege on your part of the social contract, for example by taking out a loan and then not paying it back such as in the form of a mortgage, you are at risk of forfeiting everything you bought with that loan, including your home.

You don't have a right to property - at least not in the real world. You have a right to feel safe, secure and uninfringed, within reasonable limits, such as not infringing on another person.

What this thread is talking about, however, is the inalienable human rights - such as the right to feel safe, secure and unharrassed by others. When it comes down to it, having NO other alternative to leave your home and your country or be shot is far worse than being kicked out because you can't be bothered/can't figure out how to fight it.

~*~

That said, here's an ongoing issue in Canada about "inalienable" human rights. Attawapiskat is a Native reserve in rural northern Canada that is completly reliant on the government for funding. All reserves here receive money from parliament to "take care" of themselves. This particular one has been in such a state of disrepair because they won't up the funding to fix it. people have been living in tents in -40 degree celsius weather since before the end of last year. They even declared a state of emergency. How did the goverment intend to fix this? Send in a "third party manager" to cut off their funds and then decide where they needed the money they already received to go. This would have meant another 6 months of living in the cold.

When did the first mention the issue with the housing? In the summer. A couple of years back. GG, Canadian government. GG.

[Hawk]

This reminds me of one of my favourite comedies "The Castle" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118826/), which is about a family in Melbourne who have to fight to keep their house. It goes into the subject of human rights and being allowed to keep your home.


We all know that this sort of thing has happened time and time again through history, such as with the European colonists kicking natives off their own land...What I'm saying is that in this day and age it shouldn't be happening, but it is, so something is wrong here. We humans have tried every form of Governmental system, and despite the best interests of at least some of the countless rulers of history, and our modern times, we are not able to fix the lack of basic human rights.

[Atlas-]

Show me where it says that in any country's document that it uses to get it's rights from. I haven't seen it in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You don't have a right to property, but a right to pursue whatever it is you wish. So, for example, you are entitled to the freedom t purchase property and you have the right to have that goal. However, if you renege on your part of the social contract, for example by taking out a loan and then not paying it back such as in the form of a mortgage, you are at risk of forfeiting everything you bought with that loan, including your home.

You don't have a right to property - at least not in the real world. You have a right to feel safe, secure and uninfringed, within reasonable limits, such as not infringing on another person.

What this thread is talking about, however, is the inalienable human rights - such as the right to feel safe, secure and unharrassed by others. When it comes down to it, having NO other alternative to leave your home and your country or be shot is far worse than being kicked out because you can't be bothered/can't figure out how to fight it.

Let me clarify, if you take out a loan and do not pay it back then they have every right to take your house, if you pay back you're loan then they have no right to take it from you. This is because in one instances they own the property and the other you own it. When you take out a loan you take out a contract with the other person saying that in the event you do not pay back your loan then they may take the house, If you do pay back the loan then the house is yours.

Once you have the right to the house through payment of your loan. Then no third party has the right to kick you off your land. or if the mortgage company have no intention of making you sell and you have no intention of selling then once again they have no right to take it.

Think of this, if a farmer spend his entire year tilling, sowing and harvesting his field to produce food for his family. and with the food he intends to feed him his family as sell the rest to pay for his house. If any one has the right to take those crops away from the farmer, the fruit of his labours for an entire year, then how can the farmer sustain his life? If a farmer does not have a right to his property then he can not have a right to life as he does not have a right to that which sustains him. In fact it is the very right to property that allows debt collectors to take houses, they are merely reclaiming they're property which they leant out.

[_Pax_]

The Americans used the Eminent Domain law to seize land from the natives so settlers could live there.

(A) no, not really, not in most cases. They weren't that nice about it - they just said "you, get lost". Kin of like what Israel has done to the Bedouin, more recently.

(b) unlike an actual use of Eminent Domain, generally the courts never came into it when Native land was taken by the Federal government. Rather, it was the Army that did the deed - at gunpoint, if necessary.

(c) that was over a century ago. I'd like to think we've gotten better, since then.

(I'm not having ago at Americans just to clarify)

Didn't think you were. Besides, it's important to remember the mistakes of ones' own national history, when examioning the more-current mistakes of another nation.

And yes they may have the ability to fight it in court but if they don't win they are still forced to seel there property. Obtaining property through the use of force is theft, and against human rights.

No, it's not theft.

Let me put it to you this way: say I was walking along the sidewalk, in frontof your house. It snowed, then rained, two days before ... and you never took any steps to clear the ice from the sidewalk, nor put down sand, and so forth.

I slip, fall, and break a bone (which one is unimportant). Well, by the laws of many places - including the city I spent most of my life living in - the sidewalk is actually part of your property, and the law places responsibility for clearing snow and ice on you, and if you fail to make a reasonable, good-faith effort to render the sidewalk safely useable? You hold 100% liability.

So when I sue you for medical compensation, and win? Technically, i am taking some of your money by force. Indeed, in the act of attempting to collect, if you don't cooperate I could put liens on your vehicle(s), any and all real estate, stocks, bonds, jewelry or artworks, trust funds, and so on.

That's not theft ... wouldn't you agree?

So why is Eminent Domain theft? Especially when it's not forcibly TAKING your property, it's forcibly PURCHASING it ...?

(I'll grant you, as a separate complaint, ED is a power that is sometimes abused. But that still doesn't make it intrinsicly an act of theft, in and of itself.)

You have the right to property.

No, actually, you don't.

At least in the U.S., you do have the right not to be deprived of ANY possessions (real estate or otherwise) without the application of Due Process.

But there is neither an explicit nor an implied "right to own real estate" in the first place.

[_Pax_]

If any one has the right to take those crops away from the farmer, the fruit of his labours for an entire year, [...]

Taxes.

[...] then how can the farmer sustain his life? If a farmer does not have a right to his property then he can not have a right to life as he does not have a right to that which sustains him. In fact it is the very right to property that allows debt collectors to take houses, they are merely reclaiming they're property which they leant out.

Are you forgetting that Eminent Domain requires that the person from whom the property is taken be paid the FAIR MARKET VALUE for that property? Said person could then go and purchase an otherwise-identical property, whose only difference was location.

Whereas, if the property was simply stolen? The now-former owner would simply be S.O.L.

Slight difference.

[Hawk]

Joseph Kony is number one on the list of human rights violations. He kidnaps children and forces them to be either child soldiers or sex slaves, and he has done this for over 20 years...and hardly anyone knows who he is...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc

Please watch the video and spread the word!

[IllusionOfLife]

Joseph Kony is a terrible human being and should be brought to justice for his crimes, but I'm not convinced that The Invisible Children are the right people to rally behind.

http://thedailywh.at/2012/03/07/on-k...+Daily+What%29

[Atlas-]

Joseph Kony is one of many horrible people and criminals, he and his ilk are scattered across the globe. Posting videos and links does absolutely nothing to stop any of them. It is merely to make people feel better, where as before people denied the truth as seen during Nazi Germany in world war 2 where people said they had no idea they where living down the road from a concentration camp. Now the Internet allows people to pretend they're doing something instead, the result is the same, the truth is washed over in preference for a nicer look at the whole situation.

[Hawk]

Joseph Kony is one of many horrible people and criminals, he and his ilk are scattered across the globe. Posting videos and links does absolutely nothing to stop any of them. It is merely to make people feel better, where as before people denied the truth as seen during Nazi Germany in world war 2 where people said they had no idea they where living down the road from a concentration camp. Now the Internet allows people to pretend they're doing something instead, the result is the same, the truth is washed over in preference for a nicer look at the whole situation.

I get what you're saying, but what would you have us do?

For me, at the very least I'm letting others know - people didn't know that there were concentration camps, but we don't have to live in ignorance today. The more people that know, the more likely something will be done.

[Invader]

I get what you're saying, but what would you have us do?

Form a militia and fly to Uganda. Anything else is a null point. I'd be very willing to bet that the government of the United States or any other 1st-world country would not waste time, resources, money and the lives of their soldiers on arresting just one villain in a sea of villains, especially given that Kony is in no way a threat to any major nations and that he is already far less capable than he ever has been.

The important thing is that one YouTube video and a whole bunch of frowny-faced webtrawlers is never going to be enough to make any government make any sort of significant military action. Ever.

[Codex]

This is a really good article on the whole KONY 2012 campaign. Whilst the meaning behind it is sound, this charity doesn't seem to be so. It's better to fund something like Red Cross/Red Crescent or even something like UNICEF than it is to trust this particular organization.

Edit: this is probably the most pertinent quote I can come up with from the article explaining my position on the situation:

Let’s not get our lines crossed: The Lord’s Resistance Army is bad news. And Joseph Kony is a very bad man, and needs to be stopped. But propping up Uganda’s decades-old dictatorship and its military arm, which has been accused by the UN of committing unspeakable atrocities and itself facilitated the recruitment of child soldiers, is not the way to go about it.

Edit II: there's also links to reputable charities within the article, a few paragraphs down from the paragraph I quoted.

[Hawk]

I didn't know about that...I have heard of this sort of thing before, but I can't remember which organizations are untrustworthy?

If people know of trusted charities and organizations dealing with human rights, please feel free to post the links for easy access. Thank you.

[_Pax_]

Joseph Kony is a terrible human being and should be brought to justice for his crimes, but I'm not convinced that The Invisible Children are the right people to rally behind.

http://thedailywh.at/2012/03/07/on-k...+Daily+What%29

On the other hand? The ICC themselves have come out in favor of Invisible Children's efforts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17303179

Form a militia and fly to Uganda.

.... and commit murder? MULTIPLE murders, because we'd have to kill all the people fighting in Kony's organisation?

Then, we would be no better than he is. We would not be acting with any legal authority, we would just be vigilantes. At best.

[Hawk]

.... and commit murder? MULTIPLE murders, because we'd have to kill all the people fighting in Kony's organisation?

Then, we would be no better than he is. We would not be acting with any legal authority, we would just be vigilantes. At best.

I agree actually, even though these people are very bad, I don't think I could live with myself if I killed another human...Besides, Gandhi proved that you can win with non-violent solutions, in fact he proved this more than once.

[Invader]

I agree actually, even though these people are very bad, I don't think I could live with myself if I killed another human...Besides, Gandhi proved that you can win with non-violent solutions, in fact he proved this more than once.

Then again, the British government wasn't exactly a power-hungry dictator in a third-world country. A non-corrupt government is far more civil than that. When you get down to it, a dictator just doesn't care about civil disobedience (meaning, caring about why it's happening). I do suppose, however, that a dictator would start to care if it got too widespread. But they would probably just have the protesters disappear early on...

Anyway, Pax pretty much proved my point. Noone is willing to do anything that will actually make any difference- and, yes, you would be vigilantes. I would expect that the people who were being terrorized by Kony would call you something more along the lines of "liberators", though.

Sending money to feed the kids won't stop the people hunting them, and forwarding a video to your friends is next to pointless. If you want to actually do something to help, you have to fight force with force, which noone wants to do. Nazi Germany didn't stop invading peaceful European countries just because we said we didn't like it, they stopped because the Allies fought back.

Frankly, I don't see how killing people who are kidnapping children to force them to work as soldiers and slaves is unjustified (I wouldn't want to do it myself, but if someone else tried to I wouldn't stop them), but I can tell just by looking at our posts that we are too fundamentally different for this discussion to end well. Seeing how it's two-against-one right now (with others who would likely jump in, esp. moderators), I'll back off if you will allow me to do so.

[Codex]

Then again, the British government wasn't exactly a power-hungry dictator in a third-world country. A government knows when to quit (at times) but, well, a dictator just doesn't care about civil disobedience.

You do realize that the British government shot Indian protesters taking part in Ghandi's civil disobediance on several occasions. I'd recommend watching the film Ghandi before making accusations that a government is more or less terrible than other dictators - keep in mind that India was a colony under their control, and British colonialism was very, very different than it is nowadays.

However, I am editing this post to argue that the discussion of murder, whether for "positive" reasons or not, is a discussion for another thread, one that I don't think will last long either.

[Invader]

You do realize that the British government shot Indian protesters taking part in Ghandi's civil disobediance on several occasions. I'd recommend watching the film Ghandi before making accusations that a government is more or less terrible than other dictators - keep in mind that India was a colony under their control, and British colonialism was very, very different than it is nowadays.

My country fought a war to prove what British colonialism was like. A war, not a mass protest (though it sort of started off like one). India's a huge place, and with the amount of people Ghandi had with him, anyone would give up. Uganda, on the other hand, is just a little dot in south Africa. While the numbers on both sides are scaled down, Kony has already proven himself to be far more sinister a foe, willing to give children machine guns and make them kill their own parents. The British were no angels, but the LRA is closer to demons.

Can I back off now?

[Codex]

I don't know, can you? No one is forcing you to respond, Invader, this is a discussion not an interrogation :P

Also, I'd like to point out children have been used as weapon's for millenia, see the Children's Crusade or even look at a great deal of warfare prior to the late 1800's (all ships tended to have children on them during most of the late colonization period - they were called "powder monkeys" and ran gunpowder from the bottom of the ship to the guns and were treated in much the same way that Kony's abducted kids are). It was perfectly acceptable to have children on the battlefield.

Was it right? Hell no; it wasn't and we got to that understanding eventually. It's more of a philosophical question that we're asking here: is it ever right to kill another human being? And, as I said at the bottom of my last post, that's an argument for another thread.

[Invader]

I don't know, can you?

I don't know, that's the problem.

[Hawk]

Frankly, I don't see how killing people who are kidnapping children to force them to work as soldiers and slaves is unjustified (I wouldn't want to do it myself, but if someone else tried to I wouldn't stop them), but I can tell just by looking at our posts that we are too fundamentally different for this discussion to end well. Seeing how it's two-against-one right now (with others who would likely jump in, esp. moderators), I'll back off if you will allow me to do so.

I agree that some people do deserve to die (for example, Hitler deserved this), but I think we both agree that we personally don't want to be the ones to do it...You see, we are not meant to kill people, it just effects us too much. I won't press any issues, and I'm happy to stop the conversation now since you feel you want to back off, I don't want to pressurize anyone, and I understand that it's perfectly understandable that people have differing opinions and beliefs.

[Codex]

Here's a couple more issues popping up in the world:

-West Africa is suffering an extreme drought, much like the Sudan was last year. OXFAM is warning that people need to get off their backsides faster than they did for the Horn of Africa last year to actually be of assistance.

-Homs has had a fresh series of reports of people being lined up and shot.

[_Pax_]

I agree that some people do deserve to die (for example, Hitler deserved this), but I think we both agree that we personally don't want to be the ones to do it...

That's not why I, personally, objected to the "form a militia" idea.

I firmly and inshakably belive that EVERY accused man, woman, or child has the right to a fair and impartial trial, judged by a jury of his or her peers, and while afforded the benefit of competent, dedicated counsel. No exceptions, no excuses.

Forming a vigilante mob (a private "militia" by another name), to enact sentence without that trial? Merely means that YOU should be the one standing trial next, for you will have chosen to become that which you purport to hunt.

And that is why I object to any such "direct action". Vigilantism, lynch mobs, all of that ... that's not justice, it's just revenge.

[Hawk]

Again, I agree. Just because I believe that some people deserve to die, doesn't mean that I believe that we should go around killing them - take into account that I did say that we are not meant to kill people...On a scientific basis, it literally damages us psychologically, so we are quite literally not built to be able to naturally handle that sort of thing. We even naturally just know that killing people is wrong. These people should certainly be put on trial as well, because there could always be things that we don't out-rightly realize, and we want to come to a just, unbiased conclusion.

[kdn003]

I'm not sure about this one. It's one of those Catch 22 kind of things. Let's say Country A (developed, well populated, with plenty of military forces and little to no internal conflict, and lots of resources at their disposal) looks across the water and see Country B (undeveloped, ruled by a warlord/dictator/sociopath, very little (if any) civil rights for the people, and routinely commits inhumane war crimes against its own people) Naturally A wants to help B become developed so the people of B can enjoy the freedoms and comforts of A's lifestyle.

Typically this is done with sanctions and aid. Depending on how B's government reacts, this could be the end of it. B's people are still oppressed, and hundreds are killed anually in gruesome cleansings, and the warlord/dictator/sociopath remains in power. If B decides that A is trying to force their views and practices on B (and more or less that's what A is doing) and try to stop these diplomatic responses, A gains a reason/motive/incintive to send in Peacekeeping forces/assist local militia groups/invade.

If it comes to an outright war, the likelihood that A will be able to restore peace entirely is fairly low without large civilian casualties and massive collateral damage to B's infrastructure. in addition, A will most likely get labeled as an Imperialist/Facist nation, there will be protests the world over condeming A's leaders and, as time goes on, the soldiers themselves. Meanwhile, B, realizing they are incapable of defeating A in terms of technology, resources, and training resorts to gurilla tactics aimed largely at their own people. Violence escalates, and A loses soldiers to the increasing violent tactics B uses.

This forces A to make the decision of "sticking it out" and finishing the job, trying to rebuild B's economy, creating a new governing body to replace the old, and train B's soldiers to deal with the warlord/dictator/sociopath and those still loyal to him. (Normally I'd say him/her but warlord/dictator/sociopaths are typically guys) Alternatively, they can cave to public demand/international pressure, and prematurely pull out/strike a cease fire agreement with B's warlord/dictator/sociopath.

That was a long and fairly depressing post on my part. Personally, I wish warlord/dictator/sociopaths didn't exist and didn't feel the need to commit inhumane war crimes as easily as most people breathe. I also wih there was a simpler ay to deal with them rather than costly wars that have questionable outcomes. However, for now, this is the way things are. Maybe a technological solution will present itself, or it might be more of a social evolution kind of thing, but A countries are simply too rare and (particualrly with the economy crisis) let's face it fragile to try to solve the world's problems. This is all just in my opinion though.