Talk:Human rights/Archive 1

message: This needs rewritinghi. There is no point in discussing the types of human rights before giving an account of their existence, which is  where the real philosophcal meat lies. so im goign to do this over the next day or so if my changes don't get reverted straight away Tommo 87 20:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: philosophy of human rights

message: The contributors to this article need to do some actual research, not just write about their personal beliefs. Someone needs to actually read some books and other sources and specifically cite them. This article as it is now is a jumbled set of unsubstantiated claims and disconnected topics. Many of the claims are dubious and confused, such as the bald statement that rights are divided into positive and negative rights (that is only one way of classifying those concepts).
In particular, someone needs to find the specific definition of the term "rights"; also, research the various concepts of "civil rights", "human rights", "positive" and "negative" rights, and determine how and whether those terms differ from each other.
: Mateo SA | talk 05:59, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
How do human rights relate to civil rights, a phrase that Americans tend to prefer? --Robert Merkel
"civil rights" are not negative. Since the USA rejects the doctrine of positive human rights, and since some positive rights are necessary in a pseudo-democratic society, it's invented a category called "civil rights" to take up the slack.
:Human rights are rights you have through being human. Civil rights are rights you have through being a member of a society. Loosely. DJ Clayworth 18:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doing some ''research'' for this article 

message: Isn't it POV to introduce the -ve / +ve distinction in rights as a statement of fact? -- Tarquin 17:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For those of us with training in the sciences, this statement seems to be about fashion. Antiquated is a statement which is time-relative, which is the exact opposite of a law of nature, something which is timeless, something which was true, and also something which will be true. It seems especially strange when talking about moral philosophy or ethics. If ethics are something to be dependent upon, then why shouldn't ethical statements be timeless. Ancheta Wis 07:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive / Negative 

message: Those within the US enjoy greater human rights guaranteed by their own nation than do most of other nations. For example: all enjoy the right to trial by their peers - not by judges. Ironically the greater human rights within the US creates difficulty when international treaties with reduced levels of human rights are considered. The US Government may not legally enter into any treaty that diminishes the fundamental human rights of Americans, and most treaties would do this. The ICC for example would require Americans to be tried before judges and to be denied trials by juries of their peers.
Few understand US Constitutional law because most come from nations where their government has far more authority than does the US Government. The US Government is in practice very weak, and the human rights of the people are greater than is the case in most other nations. For example: The US government lacks authority to deny the people the right to bear firearms. One often hears debate about the wisdom of this civil right, and such is irrelevant here - except that this illustrates how much greater fundamental human rights are in the US. Few, (if any) other nations gurantees the right to bear arms as a civil right? (Please refrain from engaging in irrelevant debate here about the wisdom of this civil right, the point is that it is a civil right not widely held anywhere else). Name another nation where citizens cannot be tried by judges? To be fair, the US does not recognize that criminals have a civil right to avoid execution, but many nations recognize this civil right for criminals.
The primary point here is the challenge the US faces when treaties that would diminish US civil rights - but increase them elsewhere are offered. This is the same challenge nations face today that recognize a civil right of criminals to avoid execution when extraditing criminals to nations that might execute them. Nations are expected to only enter into treaties that conform to the civil rights recognized, so the US may not enter into the International Criminal Court, nor will nations that prohibit capital punishment cooperate with those that do.
Raggz 22:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Fundamental Civil & Human Rights Greater in the USA?

message: The UN Declaration did not introduce the idea that rights are inalienable to the public realm.  That idea goes back to at least the 1776 United States Declaration of independence, which I cite as prior art.
Moreover, as Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence, and as Jefferson was a Deist rather than a believer in the Judeo-Christian God, it's not quite accurate to say that that Declaration espouses the theory that those rights come from that God.  The Declaration of Independence refers to "Nature's God," which while still being an inherently religious idea leaves some room for interpretation beyond Judeo-Christian interpretation.
Finally, the statement "Humans have rights and they must be respected," at the end of the final paragraph under Hate crimes, explaining the liberal view, is redundant and tends to give the impression that this is a liberal argument and that those who oppose their view do not believe that "humans have rights and they must be respected."  The sentence adds nothing factual.
170.35.224.64 18:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN Declaration and inalienable rights 

message: In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), shouldn't this article be called Human right? Rad Racer 22:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Google test: 706,000 hits for "Human right" and 18,500,000 for "Human rights" (rato: 1:20).  It's just one of those words that people manipulate to get around saying the singular form: "an example of my human rights", etc.  By comparison, "scissor", which should never be singular, gets 1,480,000 hits while "scissors" gets 3,630,000 hits (ratio 1:2.5).  Naming conventions are not a straitjacket and this article should stay where it is. - BanyanTree 23:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Human right vs. Human rights

message: As many paragraphs of the orginal article were rehashses of previous sections, I combined and rearranged sections into 4 major subcategories.  It became apparent during the copyediting that some topics related to History, and others to Philosophy, so I created separate sections for each.
Now however my head hurts (it took well over an hour to copyedit).  If someone would please be so kind to compare versions and add back in the internal links that were previously pointing to WikiPedia pages, I would much appreciate it LOL.
--JeffC 02:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major copy-editing

message: I noticed that this article avoids any mention of a right to self defense in either the text of the article or the links at the end.  In the US it is a commonly held view that human rights include the right to individual and collective self defense and the access to weapons to make that possible.  The article seems biased in this regard.  I don't want to add a series of links to gun rights organizations at the end, but there should be some recognition that these organizations exist and that it is considered a human right by many. kpturvey August 8, 2005
Oh dear. If the right to own and use a gun is seen as a "human right" by many in the USA that explains rather a lot, including 20,000 gun-related deaths per annum. 
The right to life is a human right - how one exercises that right - by defending oneself, or by appointing a private security force, publically funded police force or army to do it, is the MEANS by which that right is maintained. In fact, it's arguable that, if positive human rights do not exist, you do NOT have the right to either weapons or police protection - the only right you have is for others not to infringe your right to life. 
Exile 15:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right to self-defense 

message: :The world's oldest recorded charter of human rights was engraved on the famous Cyrus Cylinder, written and confirmed by the Persian emperor Cyrus the Great at around 538 BCE. Cyrus' charter, adopted by the first Persian Empire (Iranian Empire of the Achaemenids), is thought to be very advanced for the age, even comparing favorably with modern declarations of human rights, against which it is also contrasted as being much more spiritual.
This is extremely subjective and may not be NPOV; it also overreads the test of the Cyrus Cylinder, as quoted in that article. Cyrus does not ascribe any rights to all men, but says he rules all men and is benevolent to them. Laudable; but not the same thing. The only suggestion of right or desert is that the inhabitants of Babylon do not deserve to do forced labor; it doesn't befit their social standing. This rather suggests that forced labor is suitable to other humans. Septentrionalis 18:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: removed text

message: It might be an interesting exercise to provide a list of rights grouped into categories.  For example, a right that is inalienable but not natural, a right that is natural but not inalienable, etc.  How about it? --JW1805 19:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you include breathing as a human right, I think that diagram is a fair representation of general usage.  The problem you run into by using that diagram is that some people will say that all Human rights are based on morals.  If Natural rights are a subset of Human rights and it becomes accepted that all Human rights are based on morals, that would change the meaning of Natural rights. (It would no longer include breating, for instance.)  Since Human Rights are used in various different contexts, some of which exclude the right to breath, it is better to keep Natural rights completely separate to avoid confusion.  --Zephram Stark 02:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram

message: I oppose the merge. Clearly, these are closely related concepts, but they have shades of meaning which have been discussed in very different ways in the past. Generally, I propose the following distinctions between the articles in questions:
*Right - discusses the basic idea of rights
**Natural rights - discusses whether or not some rights arise from natural law
**Inalienable rights - discusses whether or not some rights are inalienable
**Human rights - discusses that muddy morass of thought that describes itself as "human rights", especially the definitions used by the UN and similar such groups, along with their legal implications
**Civil rights - discusses citizens' rights to interact with their governments, etc. I'm not sure how universal "civil rights" is ever going to be; as a distinct concept it seems to be tied in quite closely to specific conflicts and legal relationships in Western countries in the late 19th-through-mid 20th centuries.
Does that sound about right? - Nat Krause 05:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that is about spot on. You've summarised my view extremely succintly.ElectricRay 08:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Oppose merger: I agree completely. Check out the human rights entry from the internet encyclopedia of philosophy to see natural rights in the context of human rights. Further, I don't think a categorical listing excercise of rights would be helpful to anyone. TreveXtalk 09:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Nat Krause, You have done an excellent job of describing how these terms should be used as succinct and different ideas with the possible exception of "Inalienable Rights."  The Inalienable rights article links to only examples that are either "Natural rights" or "Human rights."  The example it gives of Unalienable rights as used in the U.S. Declaration of Independence is clearly talking about the concept of Natural rights as you describe them.  Whereas, Iran's "Inalienable right" to a nuclear fuel cycle, and Palestine's "Inalienable right" to Mediterranean property are clearly talking about the concept of Human rights as you describe them.  Because archaic usage of "unalienable" is already covered by the concept of "Natural rights" while the modern usage of "inalienable" is covered by "Human rights", no article on "Inalienable rights" is needed at all.  Its weak attempt to link the Declaration of Independence with Moral_universalism and Moral_relativism amounts to nothing but primary source original research.  Nothing in the articles themselves claims that the Declaration of Independence is, in any way, an example of these arguments.  The "Inalienable rights" criticism of the Declaration as a Naturalistic_fallacy is absurd since the Declaration obviously does not "appeal to a definition of the term 'good'" in any fashion.  --Zephram Stark 18:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Since the above discussion did not come to a clear conclusion and there was such strong opposition to the merger already in September, I removed the merger requests. 
Zoe12345 14:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger requests removed

message: The introduction has several problems, which I'm listing below.  I think the introduction needs to be redone but before I change it, I wanted to ask you for your opinions.
Here are the problems I see: 
1.Human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction, and likewise other localizing factors, such as ethnicity and nationality. 
--"regardless of legal jurisdiction"-- No, human rights may be universal but nonetheless they are guaranteed by individual states (and can be revoked by individual states as well). There are some universal principles (e.g. genocide, slavery) that go beyound state jurisdiction, but most human rights do not. 
--The phrasing of this sentence seems a bit iffy to me... why is "human rights" not a concept in itself, why does it refer to a concept of human rights as having universal rights?  
2.For many, the concept of "human rights" is based in religious principles, or else is otherwise directly related to them.
--"religious principles"--perhaps for many, but for many others human rights transcend religious belief and thus claiming that they are based on religious principles is to undermine their universality. 
3.However, because a formal concept of human rights has not been universally accepted, the term has some degree of variance between its use in different local jurisdictions —difference in both meaningful substance as well as in protocols for and styles of application.
--"not universally accepted". I quickly counted that had only about 15% of the states in the world have not ratified the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights or in other words 85% have. In legal terms, this means that at least some human rights can be called customery law and are thus universal principles, regardless of whether an individual or an individual state accepts universal human rights. 
4. Ultimately the most general meaning of the term is one which can only apply universally, and hence the term "human rights" is often itself an appeal to such transcendent principle, without basing such on existing legal concepts. 
--"such transcendent principle, without basing such on existing legal concepts"?  What? Unclear formulation and no point that I can see. Perhaps the writer means "discourse on human rights are an attempt to uncover a transcendent principle" in which case, I disagree as human rights are clearly defined in the legal documents.  
5.The term "humanism" refers to the developing doctrine of such universally applicable values, and it is on the basic concept that human beings have innate rights, that more specific local legal concepts are often based.
--Humanisms should be discussed somewhere else but here. Perhaps in philosophical schools of thought close to human rights. 
6.Within particular societies, "human rights" refers to standards of behavior as accepted within their respective legal systems regarding 1) the well being of individuals, 2) the freedom and autonomy of individuals, and 3) the representation of the human interest in government. 
--"particular societies", "respective legal systems"-- a legal system does not exist in a society but in a state. Wrong phrase here. 
7. These rights commonly include the right to life, the right to an adequate standard of living, the prohibition of genocide, freedom from torture and other mistreatment, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, the right to self-determination, the right to education, and the right to participation in cultural and political life. These norms are based on the legal and political traditions of United Nations member states and are incorporated into international human rights instruments (see below).
--"prohibition of genocide" is actually not a human right but a part of international humanitarian law as put forward in the " Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide"
:more comments from another observer  on Oct. 16 2005
Has the work on this page been dropped? 
I noticed the "four most important" now includes only 3 rights.
:: as i understand from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the "four" non-derogable rights are (roughly) right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery. (see articles 4, 6,7,8 here). this and other problems with the page appear to merit an attention or expert tag, which i'm planning to insert shortly. comments?  Doldrums 10:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction needs to be redone? 

message: is there a source for this statement in the article?
"The declaration limits the behavior of the state, which now has duties to the citizen (rights-duty duality)"
Doldrums 13:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits to (the former) HR & UN section 

message: I have just finished merging Human rights abuse and human rights violation, and strongly believe it should be merged into this article. It would be a small addition because most of that info is inferior to the info on this page. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 22:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: gets my support Andeggs 14:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger Proposed

message: Human rights agencies have had some conflicts with dictatorships (Iraq, Nepal) and communist states (China, Cambodia, Vietnam) where people have been oppressed and some of their freedoms taken away. Examples are China's invasion of Tibet and censorship, Cambodia's past brutal history in which human rights workers were working for good, and Vietnams heavy control over media and freedoms.
They have also interestingly in a few cases been at odds with animal rights activists, as some animal rights called for by activists intrude upon human rights and visa versa.  For the most part however both rights activists have worked together. This is just an interesting point that could or could not be mentioned and has no real importance.
Most important is the lack of mention of the human rights abuses in dictatorships and communist states throughout modern history which obviously make those abuses commited by democratic states pale in comparison.  However human rights abuses by democratic states are mentioned but not of those of other more freedom restricting governments. This seems to me as POV.--Exander 07:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Conflicts

message: [Re-posted here due to skewing page due to overly-wide banner format in user's original posting; it made the message and this article too hard to read.]
Hi everyone.  I just wanted to thank everyone who's had a part in writing or editing this article. My Model UN report is on human rights, and this article has been invaluable. Kudos to you all! I know this is not the best place to post this comment, so will someone go to my talk page and let me know where is a better place. And by the way, you may want to delete this, but please wait until it has been posted somewhere else.  P.S. who should get a barnstar for this?--NSD Student 04:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Praise from a Wikipedia User

message: 1) "In the 18th century in Europe several philosophers, most notably John Locke..."
Although Locke's philosophy was popular and influential in the 18th century, he died in 1704 and ought to be described as a 17th century thinker.
2) "Philosophers such as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill and Hegel expanded on the theme of universality during the 18th century." 
Both Mill and Hegel are 19th century figures (not 18th).  Paine, who died in 1809, can properly be viewed as an 18th century figure.
3) "A contemporary, Henry David Thoreau, who wrote about human rights in his treatise On the Duty of Civil Disobedience [8] may have been the first to call them by that name."  
I do not know who was the first person to coin the term "Human Rights" (as opposed to "Rights of Man").  But it was definitely not Thoreau, whose essay on Civil Disobedience was published in 1849.  
In 1831 William Lloyd Garrison wrote in the inaugural issue of The Liberator that he was trying to enlist his readers in "the great cause of human rights."  
(Rabben, Linda  "Fierce Legion of Friends: A History of Human Rights Campaigns and Campaigners", the Quixote Center, 2002, p.43, who in turn is quoting from Mayer, Henry "All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery" St. Martin's Press, 1998, p. 110.
Because Rabben quotes Garrison's biographer Henry Mayer, there is a slight chance that these are Mayer's words, not Garrison's.  But the nested quotes make it look like Rabben is quoting Mayer quoting Garrison.) 
I don't believe that Garrison coined the phrase either.  Evidently the phrase "human rights" came into use some time between 1791 when Paine wrote "The Rights of Man" and 1831 when Garrison published the inaugural issue of The Liberator. 
I'm too timid to alter a Wikipedia article, but I think you should just say that the phrase "came into circulation by the early 19th century" or something like that, or else just leave that mostly extraneous remark about Thoreau out altogether.
:Hi there - thanks for these comments which I have now added to the article. See the changes here. Don't be timid editing articles, be bold! Andeggs 06:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my OED has an entry but no etymology so no help there. By the way it's courteous to sign comments on the talk page with your signature by typing four tildes after the entry. Welcome to Wikipedia! Andeggs 21:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good job on catching the Locke / 17th / 18th century reference. I should have seen that when I did the edits. -- Finnegans wake 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Few Factual Corrections

message: The second sentence in the lead now places significant weight on the concept of human dignity as underlying the concept of human rights. I think this needs to be removed or nuanced since the two concepts do not always sit well together. For example, in debates around abortion, medical trials or the selling of organs it may well be that those with a human rights outlook take a different position from those with an outlook that affords primacy to dignity. If no-one objects I will remove this sentence. Andeggs 07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human dignity 

message: I removed this section because I could not make head nor tale of it: Derivative Rights, are rights that are deduced and can not be separated from primary rights without nulifying the primary right.  Example: The Right to Life, is a primary right. The 1st derivative of the Right to Life, is the right to use deadly force to defend your life and rights. The 2nd derivative of the Right to Life, is the right to have defensive weapons. The 3rd derivative of the Right to Life, these derivative rights can be collectively transferred to nation states. The 4th derivative of the Right to Life, a nation state has a right to defend its people, borders, resources, rights and culture with defensive weapons. The 5th derivative of the Right to Life, is to have a criminal trial conducted against anyone who is responsible for taking your life. -Your Last Right. Without any one of these derivative rights The Right To Life does not exist. Andeggs 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivative rights

message: Some editors are having a heated debate on whether the Falun gong is homophobic.  The following quotes are from the leader of this group Master Li Hongzhi.  It would be great if you could come to this page and vote your opinion here.
   
According to Li homosexuality is the leading indicator of the depravity and regression of our society. Gays are more visible than ever and laws have been created to protect their evil life style. In Li’s poem “the World’s Ten Evils,” he states: “homosexuality, licentious desires—dark heart, turning demonic.”  Li’s strongest words against gays come from a lecture in Switzerland. Homosexuality was one of the factors that led to the collapse of the Greek civilization, he said. Furthermore, “Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic.”  Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. They will be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful annihilation: “That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way.” 
Thanks --Samuel Luo 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the Falun Gong homophobic

message: I found no mention about School of Salamanca  and Francisco de Vitoria. They said that all human beings share the same nature, so they have the same rights. The School of Salamanca defended the rights of the indigenous people in the Americas. Francisco de Vitoria maybe the first to develop a theory about human rights called  ius gentium (the rights of peoples).
--81.202.174.206 23:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  School of Salamanca 

message: I was recently released from prison on 3/11/2006 after serving a 3 month sentence for attempt to pervert course of justice (hardly crime of the century).
Anyway on my release i was handed a large clear polythene bag with all my belongings in it which carried a large print on the front of it in blue stating "HM Prison Service" on it.
I had to endure embarrassment sitting on a local bus service twice & walking through a main city centre bus station with the said printed bag.
Can anyone advise whether id possibly have a case if i was to start legal action against some body for this embarrassment?
Thanks
:Don't worry about that! Just be happy that you can update Wikipedia now that you're free!
:Contact the ACLU. Beyond the classroom 04:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prison release 

message: How about homelessness and people without medical insurance,and the resulting inaccesability to medical care. Would this be considered a violation of human rights?
:This touches on an extremenely controversial area, the very definition of human rights. Western sources often emphasize political and civil rights, esp. freedom of the vote, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion. In contrast, some non-Western documents (prominent example, the Chinese government's response to the US human rights report on China) emphasize improvements in material quality of living, e.g. access to clean water, medical care. These are the two major groupings but in real-world practice, human rights advocates and researches tend to fall somewhere in the grey area of the spectrum. --Dpr 16:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shelter and medical care 

message: I have a question about the use of templates in geographic/regional human rights articles. Human rights in Tajikistan uses the template "Human rights in Central Asia", while Human rights in Uzbekistan (also a Central Asian country) uses "Human rights in Asia." Which one is to be preferred? Is there value in specificity (e.g. in using Central Asia, East Asia, etc, instead of the mega-category "Asia")? Thanks. --Dpr 16:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about geographical articles

message: This headline should be clarified or removed. There's just a list, but it doesn't mention if this is the "islam" law / rules written in the qur'an, or if it's a list of things that should be better in the religion. If it's the last mentioned, it should be removed, as it's not NPOV. -- Kirjapan 06:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights in  

message: The article says "However, for many people the doctrine of human rights goes beyond law and forms a fundamental moral basis for regulating the contemporary geo-political order. For them, they are democratic ideals." Human rights have nothing whatever to do with democracy which only protects majority rights. Democracy can be a tyranny of the majority. Democracies do not protect human rights, only constitutions do. An effective constitution is the only proven form of governmental protection for human rights. 
I suggest deleting "For them, they are democratic ideals" and substituting "For them, effective constitutional human rights are the only means to prevent tyranny, particularly tyranny of the majority". Raggz 08:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Rights and Democracy

message: Where it has been adopted, legislation commonly contains:
*security rights that prohibit crimes such as murder/"enforced" involuntary suicide, massacre, torture and rape
*liberty rights that protect freedoms in areas such as belief and religion, association, assembling and movement
*political rights that protect the liberty to participate in politics by expressing themselves, protesting, participating in a republic
*due process rights that protect against abuses of the legal system such as imprisonment without trial, secret trials and excessive punishments
*equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship, equality before the law and nondiscrimination
*welfare rights (also known as economic rights) that require the provision of, e.g., education, paid holidays, and protections against severe poverty and starvation 
*group rights that provide protection for groups against ethnic genocide and for the ownership by countries of their national territories and resources
The text above is without any supporting citations. Does anyone have any, or should it be deleted?
Raggz 08:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Rights Legislation - Treaties & National Legislation

message: ARTICLE TEXT QUOTED: "It is often argued that "welfare rights" are not human rights, since they cannot even in theory be provided to everyone in all conditions (e.g., if somebody is unemployed or self-employed, if the society is very poor or if there are too few doctors or teachers or if they are not willing to work), and that only the classical human rights that do not require any active provision by anyone, just the lack of violating actions by other humans, should be called human rights. However, the communist countries required "welfare rights" to be added to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, threatening not to sign the declaration otherwise (which they did anyway in the end). The communist's alleged motivation was to belittle any accusations on human rights violations by answering that the West does not completely provide all "welfare rights" either. [4] There is an analogous discussion on some "group rights." See International human rights instruments."
This has no supporting citations. Wikipedia does not have an article for Welfare Rights. Although the concept is interesting - and the text itself is interesting, the text fails Wikipedia standards for inclusion.
Personally I hope that a welfare rights section is added and referenced - or some substantial citations are added to this article. Raggz 08:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Welfare Rights

message: "There are also many regional agreements and organisations governing human rights including the European Court of Human Rights, which is the only international court with jurisdiction to deal with cases brought by individuals (rather than states); the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam; Inter-American Court of Human Rights; and Iran's Defenders of Human Rights Center." Raggz 08:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regional legislation - to be deleted if not supported

message: Please support these claims or delete them. Raggz 09:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy of human rights - This Section Requires Support

message: The article begins with a list: "Human rights refers to universal rights of people regardless of jurisdiction or other factors, such as ethnicity, age, nationality, sexual orientation or religion." While I have no problem with the list itself, it should have a citation to show the source. The only global jurisdiction is the UN, from my POV, the opening should be from the UN policy and the UN list, because it will represent the global view, not a regional POV. Raggz 05:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UN Position on Human Rights