Universal Declaration of Human Rights

i'm giving it to you it's the

universal universal it's the universal declaration of human rights okay okay yeah cool

i'm giving that to you yeah yeah

i'm happy with it i was getting there also i was getting there like that was my next thing also okay fine i i yeah that's fine

But the other thing that Amnesty has to take into account of is what impact it's going to have You know, if it's going to lead to a change, if the kind of pressure that's put on governments or prisons is actually going to make a difference, that's another thing that amnesty has to think of.

And always we have a thread, an anti-death penalty action running through all of our work because Amnesty International has been opposed to the death penalty from the start because it contravenes Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the right to life.

And in terms of things that you're planning at the moment that's going to be happening in the near future, is there anything you can share with us there?

Well, yes.

But Rothbard's view of natural rights was rooted in specific Lockean theories of self-ownership, not in the progressive human rights tradition.

the one now finds in such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Indeed, Bradford endorsed Rothbard's historical analysis, writing that, quote, I agree with Murray Rothbard that the American Revolution exploded against remote and arbitrary power.

The revolt against despotism is not purely a blood and soil instinct, but also one rooted in the ideal of liberty, but against remote and arbitrary power in a way because this was inherited through their rights as Englishmen.

I mean, at the age of enlightenment in Europe was still age of slavery.

And when the UDHR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written, two thirds of the current members of the General Assembly were still in chains.

They were colonies, they were not states, independent states.

These didn't start with this dismemberment of the rule of law system and then transformation into rule of lawlessness has known an unprecedented acceleration with Israel normalizing the genocide, turning wars into genocidal wars.

At some point, the concept of dignity was given a different meaning, contrary to the original.

This happened mainly through the intercession of the language of human rights, especially after the 1948 Universal Declaration.

The idea of human beings having inalienable rights is counterintuitive and extremely difficult to justify.

It may make some philosophical sense if derived from a strong theory of human nature such as one finds in classical metaphysics.

This operation, or more precisely, sleight of hand, and not very fair to boot, led to a sudden revival of the concept of human dignity but with a radically different meaning.

One that politicians and especially in the democratic framework could now enforce, giving them increasing their power, increasing their importance.

Since the issue of universal declaration, dignity has no longer been about obligation but about claims and entitlements.

The new dignity did not oblige people to strive for any moral merits or deserts.

Mm-hmm.

Zimbabwe is, um, party to the United Nations and a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Okay.

What that means is that human rights are not privileges.

... that are extended to citizens.

Okay.

Because I am a citizen of Zimbabwe, which is a party to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I am entitled to certain treatment.

I am entitled to certain rights or access to certain things-

This might seem to suggest that he would read historical documents the same way, as a mere statement of abstract universal rights, disconnected from any particular people.

But Rothbard's view of natural rights was rooted in specific Lockean theories of self-ownership not in the progressive human rights tradition that one now finds in such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Indeed, Bradford endorsed Rothbard's historical analysis, writing that I agree with Murray Rothbard that the American Revolution exploded against remote and arbitrary power.

The revolt against despotism is not purely a blood and soil instinct, but also one rooted in the ideal of liberty.