The denial of a right may be politics, but the denial of a freedom is tyranny.
The right to do, or participate in, something is invariably linked to the freedom to choose whether or not to exercise that right. That is to say that when one has the right to do, they also have the freedom to choose not to do. As an example of this, I have the right to freely travel across any state border, I also have the choice not to if I do not need or want to.
In a ‘free’ society, civil/human rights are justifiably seen as important to the workings of that ‘free’ society, and that the whole community ought to enjoy the same rights equally.
The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) includes statements like ‘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‘ and 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. In other words, the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world is the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family; and that these inalienable rights should be protected by the rule of law (not by government fiat).
How many of us really believe these Utopian words?
Do we believe that the rights (and the freedoms attached to that right) should be shared and enjoyed by all? including minorities? all minorities? all peoples? ALL?
Article 7 of the UDHR continues with the above theme, stating ‘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.’
All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.’
Article 16 of the UDHR states that ‘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.
Two words – GAY MARRIAGE
Early this morning (Australian time) the California Supreme Court ruled that the right to marriage extends to same sex couples, and that to exclude people from that right based on sexual preference is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. This is a correct decision and follows in the spirit, theme, and in the journey toward human rights and human dignity for all.
The right to marry, the freedom to choose not to marry. This may be a tiny thing in the larger scheme of things in the world; it may be just one brick in the structure of human rights and dignity, but without this brick another brick will not be supported and the structure will be weakened and incomplete. Each brick is equally important, just as each person is equally important – racial equality, dignity for disabled people, women’s rights, gay rights, etc. each brick of this structure supporting and supported by each other.
The denial of a right may be politics, but the denial of a freedom is tyranny.
Read Full Post »
Politics or tyranny
Posted in gay, Opinion, Social comment, tagged human rights on May 16, 2008| Leave a Comment »
The denial of a right may be politics, but the denial of a freedom is tyranny.
The right to do, or participate in, something is invariably linked to the freedom to choose whether or not to exercise that right. That is to say that when one has the right to do, they also have the freedom to choose not to do. As an example of this, I have the right to freely travel across any state border, I also have the choice not to if I do not need or want to.
In a ‘free’ society, civil/human rights are justifiably seen as important to the workings of that ‘free’ society, and that the whole community ought to enjoy the same rights equally.
The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) includes statements like ‘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‘ and 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. In other words, the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world is the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family; and that these inalienable rights should be protected by the rule of law (not by government fiat).
How many of us really believe these Utopian words?
Do we believe that the rights (and the freedoms attached to that right) should be shared and enjoyed by all? including minorities? all minorities? all peoples? ALL?
Article 7 of the UDHR continues with the above theme, stating ‘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.’
All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.’
Article 16 of the UDHR states that ‘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.
Two words – GAY MARRIAGE
Early this morning (Australian time) the California Supreme Court ruled that the right to marriage extends to same sex couples, and that to exclude people from that right based on sexual preference is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. This is a correct decision and follows in the spirit, theme, and in the journey toward human rights and human dignity for all.
The right to marry, the freedom to choose not to marry. This may be a tiny thing in the larger scheme of things in the world; it may be just one brick in the structure of human rights and dignity, but without this brick another brick will not be supported and the structure will be weakened and incomplete. Each brick is equally important, just as each person is equally important – racial equality, dignity for disabled people, women’s rights, gay rights, etc. each brick of this structure supporting and supported by each other.
The denial of a right may be politics, but the denial of a freedom is tyranny.
Read Full Post »