Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Human rights violations

Page 1 of 2 [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

HisDivineMajesty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,364
Location: Planet Earth

29 May 2012, 2:33 pm

Today, I came across a rather interesting article. Amnesty International is about to publish a new report on human rights in the world, saying the Dutch government treats asylum seekers very poorly. I decided to take a look at reports for previous years, and it surprised me how often the Dutch government was found guilty of supposed human rights violations. These human rights violations were mainly related to the situation of asylum seekers, who were often detained or sent back to where they came from, especially if they were from Iraq or Somalia. Alternatives were used sporadically, they said.

My perception of the matter is completely different. The report indicates about three thousand asylum seekers were taken into administrative detention. That might seem like a lot, but it's part of a necessary procedure for those fleeing violent countries, partially because a lot of them have, in fact, served in the military or police force of a brutal regime. Plenty of people from Iraq who were detained had, in fact, served under Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile, 160 000 people moving from countries with better situations, often simply in search of a comfortable life rather than fleeing oppression, were allowed into the country and given passports and a lot of financial and personal help.

Some other reports seem to indicate that Austrian police are racist, domestic abuse in Finland happens to women and girls only, Germany sold battle tanks to Saudi Arabia while interrogating torture victims in Uzbekistan, Belgium was forced to accept a request for asylum from convicted terrorist because he might be tortured back in Morocco, and Greece and the United Kingdom apparently treated gypsies poorly.

What do recent reports for your countries say in terms of criticism, and do you agree with them? You can find a summary for your country (in our case, it seems to be for 2011) by selecting it on the right:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/annual-report/2012



Evinceo
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 392

29 May 2012, 3:50 pm

Germany sold tanks to Saudi Arabia? But the US did that too, didn't it? I was under the impression that the Germans sold the Leo II to basically anyone who could afford it?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 May 2012, 8:29 pm

HisDivineMajesty wrote:
Today, I came across a rather interesting article. Amnesty International is about to publish a new report on human rights in the world, saying the Dutch government treats asylum seekers very poorly. I decided to take a look at reports for previous years, and it surprised me how often the Dutch government was found guilty of supposed human rights violations. These human rights violations were mainly related to the situation of asylum seekers, who were often detained or sent back to where they came from, especially if they were from Iraq or Somalia. Alternatives were used sporadically, they said.

My perception of the matter is completely different. The report indicates about three thousand asylum seekers were taken into administrative detention. That might seem like a lot, but it's part of a necessary procedure for those fleeing violent countries, partially because a lot of them have, in fact, served in the military or police force of a brutal regime. Plenty of people from Iraq who were detained had, in fact, served under Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile, 160 000 people moving from countries with better situations, often simply in search of a comfortable life rather than fleeing oppression, were allowed into the country and given passports and a lot of financial and personal help.

Some other reports seem to indicate that Austrian police are racist, domestic abuse in Finland happens to women and girls only, Germany sold battle tanks to Saudi Arabia while interrogating torture victims in Uzbekistan, Belgium was forced to accept a request for asylum from convicted terrorist because he might be tortured back in Morocco, and Greece and the United Kingdom apparently treated gypsies poorly.

What do recent reports for your countries say in terms of criticism, and do you agree with them? You can find a summary for your country (in our case, it seems to be for 2011) by selecting it on the right:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/annual-report/2012


No nation is obliged to offer asylum to aliens. That is a favor and a privilege, not a right.

ruveyn



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

30 May 2012, 10:34 am

ruveyn wrote:
No nation is obliged to offer asylum to aliens. That is a favor and a privilege, not a right.

ruveyn


You are quite incorrect.

Every contracting state to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1951_Refugee_Convention) is obliged to observe its provisions with respect to any person who meets the definition of a refugee, as well as the rights attributable to a person who claims to be a refugee whose claim is not yet finally determined.

Any contracting state may, of course, avail itself of the provisions governing withdrawal from the Convention. But so long as a nation is a Contracting State, the obligations continue. Further, some provisions of the Convention have entered customary international law, particularly the prohibition against refoulement.


_________________
--James


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

30 May 2012, 3:44 pm

visagrunt wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
No nation is obliged to offer asylum to aliens. That is a favor and a privilege, not a right.

ruveyn


You are quite incorrect.

Every contracting state to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1951_Refugee_Convention) is obliged to observe its provisions with respect to any person who meets the definition of a refugee, as well as the rights attributable to a person who claims to be a refugee whose claim is not yet finally determined.

Any contracting state may, of course, avail itself of the provisions governing withdrawal from the Convention. But so long as a nation is a Contracting State, the obligations continue. Further, some provisions of the Convention have entered customary international law, particularly the prohibition against refoulement.


There is no such thing as a right to something that has to provided by someone else.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

30 May 2012, 7:57 pm

JWC wrote:
There is no such thing as a right to something that has to provided by someone else.


Of course there is. What kind of nonsense is that.

A right is an entitlement that an individual can enforce at law.

When you sign a contract, you have a right to receive the benefits for which you have contracted--that is provided by the other contracting parties.

When you are injured by a person who has failed to meet the standard of care of a reasonable person, you have the right to sue in negligence. That is provided by a court of competent jurisdiction.

When you apply to a public agency for a benefit, you have the right to have your application assessed in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Provided by the administrative decision maker that is assessing the application.

An a person who makes a claim to be a refugee before a competent official of a Contracting State under the 1951 Convention has the right to all of the protections that the Contracting State has agreed to provide by reason of its accession to the Convention.


_________________
--James


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

30 May 2012, 8:00 pm

visagrunt wrote:
JWC wrote:
There is no such thing as a right to something that has to provided by someone else.


Of course there is. What kind of nonsense is that.

A right is an entitlement that an individual can enforce at law.

When you sign a contract, you have a right to receive the benefits for which you have contracted--that is provided by the other contracting parties.

When you are injured by a person who has failed to meet the standard of care of a reasonable person, you have the right to sue in negligence. That is provided by a court of competent jurisdiction.

When you apply to a public agency for a benefit, you have the right to have your application assessed in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Provided by the administrative decision maker that is assessing the application.

An a person who makes a claim to be a refugee before a competent official of a Contracting State under the 1951 Convention has the right to all of the protections that the Contracting State has agreed to provide by reason of its accession to the Convention.


Your statements can easily be summed up as: "We have the right to force each other to provide for one another's existence."



Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 440

30 May 2012, 8:10 pm

JWC wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
JWC wrote:
There is no such thing as a right to something that has to provided by someone else.


Of course there is. What kind of nonsense is that.

A right is an entitlement that an individual can enforce at law.

When you sign a contract, you have a right to receive the benefits for which you have contracted--that is provided by the other contracting parties.

When you are injured by a person who has failed to meet the standard of care of a reasonable person, you have the right to sue in negligence. That is provided by a court of competent jurisdiction.

When you apply to a public agency for a benefit, you have the right to have your application assessed in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Provided by the administrative decision maker that is assessing the application.

An a person who makes a claim to be a refugee before a competent official of a Contracting State under the 1951 Convention has the right to all of the protections that the Contracting State has agreed to provide by reason of its accession to the Convention.


Your statements can easily be summed up as: "We have the right to force each other to provide for one another's existence."


No, it can be summed up as, "Parties that sign contracts and treaties have a legal obligation to obey the terms of those treaties to the letter." The terms of this treaty happen to include the sheltering of refugees.


_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

30 May 2012, 8:31 pm

visagrunt wrote:
JWC wrote:
There is no such thing as a right to something that has to provided by someone else.


Of course there is. What kind of nonsense is that.

Ok. I should have been more specific, sorry guys.

A right is an entitlement that an individual can enforce at law.

Here is an exhaustive definition of the term "rights". No where in there do I see a definition even remotely similar to yours.

Quote:
right   [rahyt] Show IPA adjective, right·er, right·est, noun, adverb, verb
adjective
1.
in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
2.
in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.
3.
correct in judgment, opinion, or action.
4.
fitting or appropriate; suitable: to say the right thing at the right time.
5.
most convenient, desirable, or favorable: Omaha is the right location for a meatpacking firm.
6.
of, pertaining to, or located on or near the side of a person or thing that is turned toward the east when the subject is facing north ( opposed to left).
7.
in a satisfactory state; in good order: to put things right.
8.
sound, sane, or normal: to be in one's right mind; She wasn't right in her head when she made the will.
9.
in good health or spirits: I don't feel quite right today.
10.
principal, front, or upper: the right side of cloth.
11.
( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to political conservatives or their beliefs.
12.
socially approved, desirable, or influential: to go to the right schools and know the right people.
13.
formed by or with reference to a perpendicular: a right angle.
14.
straight: a right line.
15.
Geometry . having an axis perpendicular to the base: a right cone.
16.
Mathematics . pertaining to an element of a set that has a given property when placed on the right of an element or set of elements of the given set: a right identity.
17.
genuine; authentic: the right owner.

When you sign a contract, you have a right to receive the benefits for which you have contracted--that is provided by the other contracting parties.

Yes, that is correct. The other party would be guilty of breech of contract (fraud) if they did not pay. Which is a violation of your right to your property. There is no such thing as a right to violate someone else's rights.

When you are injured by a person who has failed to meet the standard of care of a reasonable person, you have the right to sue in negligence. That is provided by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Yes, legally you have the right to seek repayment for any injury or loss of property.

When you apply to a public agency for a benefit, you have the right to have your application assessed in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Provided by the administrative decision maker that is assessing the application.

You may be granted the legal privilege to ask for public benefits. But you possess no moral right to force others to put food on your table.

An a person who makes a claim to be a refugee before a competent official of a Contracting State under the 1951 Convention has the right to all of the protections that the Contracting State has agreed to provide by reason of its accession to the Convention.



Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 440

30 May 2012, 8:46 pm

Quote:
You may be granted the legal privilege to ask for public benefits. But you possess no moral right to force others to put food on your table.


You know, I've always wondered this - how is it that folks morally justify treating food, water, shelter, and medicine as commodities that must be purchased rather than basic human rights that should be freely available to all?


_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 May 2012, 8:47 pm

Lord_Gareth wrote:
Quote:
You may be granted the legal privilege to ask for public benefits. But you possess no moral right to force others to put food on your table.


You know, I've always wondered this - how is it that folks morally justify treating food, water, shelter, and medicine as commodities that must be purchased rather than basic human rights that should be freely available to all?


Because they require labor and capital to produce. Labor is private and so is capital before it gets stolen by the government.

ruveyn



Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore

30 May 2012, 9:12 pm

Lord_Gareth wrote:
Quote:
You may be granted the legal privilege to ask for public benefits. But you possess no moral right to force others to put food on your table.


You know, I've always wondered this - how is it that folks morally justify treating food, water, shelter, and medicine as commodities that must be purchased rather than basic human rights that should be freely available to all?


Because if you take that view of it, they call you crazy and a socialist, despite the fact that you may be neither.

The current mindset does not allow for such "radical" thoughts.

(p.s. we need more like you!)


_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html


edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

30 May 2012, 9:25 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Because they require labor and capital to produce.


So do highways. Sewer systems. Public libraries. Police cars, and stations. Etc.



Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 440

30 May 2012, 10:44 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Lord_Gareth wrote:
Quote:
You may be granted the legal privilege to ask for public benefits. But you possess no moral right to force others to put food on your table.


You know, I've always wondered this - how is it that folks morally justify treating food, water, shelter, and medicine as commodities that must be purchased rather than basic human rights that should be freely available to all?


Because they require labor and capital to produce. Labor is private and so is capital before it gets stolen by the government.

ruveyn


Labor and capital can be paid back easily enough if the system is well-designed. Admittedly, designing political/social systems well is not one of humanity's strongest traits, but the concept is pretty sound.


_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."


Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

30 May 2012, 10:53 pm

Lord_Gareth wrote:
You know, I've always wondered this - how is it that folks morally justify treating food, water, shelter, and medicine as commodities that must be purchased rather than basic human rights that should be freely available to all?

Because those folks understand the price system and how it affects resource allocation. The moment you make food "freely available to all", as in the government provides all of it for everyone, you are either going to end up with huge amounts of squandered food or a food shortage.

Unless you are talking about providing it freely to the poor only, which is separate issue (and still not desirable over a negative income tax).


Kjas wrote:
Because if you take that view of it, they call you crazy and a socialist, despite the fact that you may be neither.

Putting the government in charge of a resource is socialist. Do you have a better term for it?



Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 440

30 May 2012, 10:58 pm

Burzum wrote:
Lord_Gareth wrote:
You know, I've always wondered this - how is it that folks morally justify treating food, water, shelter, and medicine as commodities that must be purchased rather than basic human rights that should be freely available to all?

Because those folks understand the price system and how it affects resource allocation. The moment you make food "freely available to all", as in the government provides all of it for everyone, you are either going to end up with huge amounts of squandered food or a food shortage.

Unless you are talking about providing it freely to the poor only, which is separate issue (and still not desirable over a negative income tax).


Kjas wrote:
Because if you take that view of it, they call you crazy and a socialist, despite the fact that you may be neither.

Putting the government in charge of a resource is socialist. Do you have a better term for it?


In all honesty, with no sarcasm whatsoever: I'd love to see a thread started on this if you feel you can explain what you're talking about in detail. I can envision a few things that might work out, but I'm very, very far from an economist, so it'd be nice to get some data from the other side of the argument.

Also: no issues with calling freely-available goods 'socialist'. I don't consider it a bad term either, just a descriptive one.


_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."