Victims of Politics

Well, rights are concepts created by, granted by, and enforced by, humans. There really are no such things as "god given" rights. An International body set up to enforce "basic human rights" violations will only work if it has the teeth to enforce it's rulings and what if the subject is a citizen of a non signatory nation? And how far does it go? Europe is using blackmail (IE the death penalty issue) with some nations who want to join the EU. There have been proposals put to the UN to pass resolutions abolishing gun ownership by private citizens worldwide but obviously aimed at the United States which clearly impedes on American national sovereignty. It is becoming more and more clear that International bodies such as the UN are becoming less and less effective as time goes by mainly because it's members are stodgy bureaucrats. I think that international courts (which the US fortunately doesn't recognize) are a bad idea. It's better to let nations hold people accountable according to their own laws.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Well, rights are concepts created by, granted by, and enforced by, humans. There really are no such things as "god given" rights. An International body set up to enforce "basic human rights" violations will only work if it has the teeth to enforce it's rulings and what if the subject is a citizen of a non signatory nation? And how far does it go? Europe is using blackmail (IE the death penalty issue) with some nations who want to join the EU. There have been proposals put to the UN to pass resolutions abolishing gun ownership by private citizens worldwide but obviously aimed at the United States which clearly impedes on American national sovereignty. It is becoming more and more clear that International bodies such as the UN are becoming less and less effective as time goes by mainly because it's members are stodgy bureaucrats. I think that international courts (which the US fortunately doesn't recognize) are a bad idea. It's better to let nations hold people accountable according to their own laws.

Cambodia, Somalia, the Balkans, Iraq might disagree

bump

I am white middle class male and I am afraid all the time lol cuz now with collectively all the minorities I am the minority from a legal standpoint.......................Now I am a minority oh no!

I feel somewhat confused by that. But eh, one of the best ways to learn, walk for a mile in another's shoes, experience what they do.

Still, it's ironic, in a way, that the people discriminated against as ethnic minorities in "white" countries, such as Africans, Asians, Muslims or Indians or whatever, come from the most populous nations on earth, and are in fact, on the global scale, majorities, in the purest sense of the word. One day it might even be worth it to see them put that majority status to work against those who have oppressed and discriminated. Of course there is a lot wrong with such a plan. and sadly a lot of similar problem also exist in such societies.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Cambodia, Somalia, the Balkans, Iraq might disagree

My point exactly. What have the UN, or international courts done for these countries? People tend to view foreign intervention in their country, no matter how well intentioned, as an invasion. Despite Saddam Hussein's ruthlessness and oppression the US and Britian were never welcomed as liberators. The UN intervened in Somalia and to what end? The situation has only gotten worse. The Serbs commit genocide in the Balkans and what, a few people go to jail for a few years? Do you think the Ethnic Albanians or Mulims of the region feel a sense of justice over that? You're living in a fantasy world. Humanity is not ready for a world government and thus a world judicial system. Probably never will be.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
International Law says some things are simply not justifiable many on this forum disagree. This is an extract from a Nuremberg Judges response to an essay by Kissinger.

For over half a century, United Nations committees struggled in vain to reach consensus on a code of international crimes that would be punished in an international court. Cold war politics stymied all U.N. efforts to create an international criminal jurisdiction. Powerful nations remained unwilling to yield their sovereign rights to kill as they alone saw fit. After years of meticulous argumentation at the U.N., a breakthrough finally came in Rome in 1998 where 120 nations voted in favor of an ICC to curb the incessant murders and persecution of millions of innocent people. The U.S. was one of 7 nations that voted No. Mr. Kisssinger now argues that because of "the intimidating passion of its advocates", the judicial procedures designed to punish and deter new crimes against humanity are being "spread with extraordinary speed and has not been subjected to systematic debate". It is not the passion of its advocates that is moving nations toward the rule of law - it is the passion of those who have been victims of politics as usual.

The law sees what politicians cannot.

Gay, Straight, Black, White you should not live in fear. Anywhere in the world that is your basic human right.

only a right if the country is part of the UN you fool remember there is no good and evil only points of view.AND im reporting this we've disscussed this already.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
only a right if the country is part of the UN you fool remember there is no good and evil only points of view.AND im reporting this we've disscussed this already.

not exactly Gav as in an intervention situation a country that did not sign could be tried. The US whilst not signing to this has policed itself over Quatanomo Bay 🙂