Human Rights

Look at www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
The Declaration of Human Rights 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.

This also answers the issue of prisoners having a vote as discussed in another thread. Sorry, I couldn't resist that.

glitabo

The problem with "Human Rights" is that they are divorced from "Human Responsibilities". The simple premise "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is too often overlooked by the judiciary.

As a society we need to have a means of protecting ourselves from the excesses of both states and individuals. When an individual infringes another's Human Rights they should forfeit some of their Human Rights.

There is no problem with human rights and one of their main functions is to protect society from the excesses of the state. Society already has sanctions for an individual who infringes another's human rights which may involve the (usually temporary) removal of some human rights, e.g. a prison term removing the right to family life. Simply removing an individual's human rights will nilly would be absurd and which particular rights would be removed – the right to a fair trial, for example?

Do you mean willy nilly? If so I don't think anyone is suggesting removing human rights in this way. There is a problem with human rights inasmuch as the rights of victims, or their families, seem to be secondary to those of the criminal.

It would be useful if you could explain this in more detail

Sorry Orca, of course I meant willy nilly. On the contrary, that seems to be exactly what Merseymog is suggesting.

I thought this was an inappropriate place for the OP but Orca you have proved me wrong.

I used to be very active in an Amnesty Group and still retain my membership. I was often asked to go to speak to young people, women's groups and church groups about Amnesty and Human Rights. The analogy I used to help them to understand the importance of human rights was with water: you take it for granted until you can't have it. Same with human rights. We take ours for granted but if a government started to infringe them we would begin to squeal about it.

annodomini A good analogy. Incidentally, did you know that the USA has consistently voted in the UN against making access to clean water a human right?

Well, absent, what do you expect? Sometimes I despair!

I find myself agreeing with Orca. Of course everyone has a right to fair trial but when proven guilty they should not be allowed to use "Human Rights" as a means to block lawful deportation. There are far too many instances of foreigners abusing our society and getting away with it. The Human Rights of the victim should always take priority over those of the criminal.

The whole area of Human Rights is very complex as a Google search shows.