US needs to consider human rights proposal of China

[Zsari]

So the entire world is wrong only chin is right , ok kim

Depends on what you define as the entire world as the UN vote says otherwise.

 

[Brainsucker]

What does it mean?

"mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of human rights"

Yeah...It sounds reasonable enough. There are many fields of human rights, do you agree?

Why is it so difficult to be more specific, like 'Freedom of Expression'?

This is what China propose :
Sovereign equality is the most important norm governing state-to-state relations over the past centuries and the cardinal principle observed by the United Nations and all other international organizations. The essence of sovereign equality is that the sovereignty and dignity of all countries, whether big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, must be respected, their internal affairs allow no interference and they have the right to independently choose their social system and development path.

And these are the important points :

• Use dialogue, consultation and cooperation to deal with differences
• Reject double standards in the application of international law
• Promote “openness and inclusiveness” and “reject dominance by just one or several countries”
• Major powers should “build a new model of relations featuring non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation”
• China puts “people’s rights and interests above everything else” and its accomplishment in lifting “over 700 million people out of poverty” is a “significant contribution to the global cause of human rights”
• China “is ready to work with all the other UN members states as well as international organizations and agencies to advance the great cause of building a community of shared future for mankind.”

It means that the basic human right include : To elevate people from poverty, Their right of living and not to be bombed by a certain country, the right of security, to live without fear when their children goes to school.

Isn't it more basic than the "Freedom of Speech" and the "Freedom of putting down the head of nation" for the name of democracy? Or do you prefer to live in a country like today Syria as long as you have the "RIGHT" to curse Assad / your government everyday on the street?

It is not vague at all. Whatever it is good or bad for you, the majority of the nations in the UN Human Rights agree with China, and only US disagree. If you think that those nations who agree are stupid or the enemy of human right, or China's crony, or bribed by China; then no problem. I don't care.

 

[TaiShang]

This is what China propose :
Sovereign equality is the most important norm governing state-to-state relations over the past centuries and the cardinal principle observed by the United Nations and all other international organizations. The essence of sovereign equality is that the sovereignty and dignity of all countries, whether big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, must be respected, their internal affairs allow no interference and they have the right to independently choose their social system and development path.

And these are the important points :

• Use dialogue, consultation and cooperation to deal with differences
• Reject double standards in the application of international law
• Promote “openness and inclusiveness” and “reject dominance by just one or several countries”
• Major powers should “build a new model of relations featuring non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation”
• China puts “people’s rights and interests above everything else” and its accomplishment in lifting “over 700 million people out of poverty” is a “significant contribution to the global cause of human rights”
• China “is ready to work with all the other UN members states as well as international organizations and agencies to advance the great cause of building a community of shared future for mankind.”

It means that the basic human right include : To elevate people from poverty, Their right of living and not to be bombed by a certain country, the right of security, to live without fear when their children goes to school.

Isn't it more basic than the "Freedom of Speech" and the "Freedom of putting down the head of nation" for the name of democracy? Or do you prefer to live in a country like today Syria as long as you have the "RIGHT" to curse Assad / your government everyday on the street?

It is not vague at all. Whatever it is good or bad for you, the majority of the nations in the UN Human Rights agree with China, and only US disagree. If you think that those nations who agree are stupid or the enemy of human right, or China's crony, or bribed by China; then no problem. I don't care.

Excellent post.

China's proposal (which has been adopted) is empowering. It does not lecture. It does not interfere. It enables and gives developing nations more room for indigenous, peaceful domestic political development.

Giving fast developing and changing societies such room for maneuver is very important. And, the US neo-fascist regime actually has always targeted this area for maneuver and worked not to give developing nations any say over their own affairs.

US always sought to generate rigidity and inflexibility by imposing its own discourse upon others by force and by deceit.

US has weaponized concepts and discourses.

Now, China is targeting that very advantage the US-West held. It is why the US side accused China of creating its own discourse by offering its ideas.

In fact, China does nor lecture or impose. It simply undermines US control over international and national governance discourse. This is, obviously, the greatest threat to the US neofascist regime's militarist control and domination over our lives.

Mainland China will continue to liberate international relations from US ideological hubris. This way, developing nations will have all the time and flexibility to chart their own route without being lectured/imposed by anyone, be it US or China itself.

 

[gambit]

This is what China propose :
Sovereign equality is the most important norm governing state-to-state relations over the past centuries and the cardinal principle observed by the United Nations and all other international organizations. The essence of sovereign equality is that the sovereignty and dignity of all countries, whether big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, must be respected, their internal affairs allow no interference and they have the right to independently choose their social system and development path.

That is state rights, not human rights.

And these are the important points :

• Use dialogue, consultation and cooperation to deal with differences
• Reject double standards in the application of international law
• Promote “openness and inclusiveness” and “reject dominance by just one or several countries”
• Major powers should “build a new model of relations featuring non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation”
• China puts “people’s rights and interests above everything else” and its accomplishment in lifting “over 700 million people out of poverty” is a “significant contribution to the global cause of human rights”
• China “is ready to work with all the other UN members states as well as international organizations and agencies to advance the great cause of building a community of shared future for mankind.”

None of these are human rights, which are as the US have propounded as basic individual rights that are not granted by or abridged by any entity.

Let us take one of the ideas that the US proposed as a basic human right: Freedom of Expression.

At the individual level, it means you are free to ingest and express any idea you want. Let us not get bog down in the weeds about 'Yelling fire in a theater' scenario here.

The US is saying that this right is inherent, meaning permanence, something you are borne with. This right is as genetic as having five fingers, but unlike biology where genes can go wrong, what you are as a POLITICAL creature cannot go wrong. If you are politically conscious, you automatically have this right.

This is why the idea of 'Freedom of Expression' is so attractive all over.

It is not vague at all. Whatever it is good or bad for you, the majority of the nations in the UN Human Rights agree with China, and only US disagree. If you think that those nations who agree are stupid or the enemy of human right, or China's crony, or bribed by China; then no problem. I don't care.

So if China propose that 'Freedom of Expression' is a human right, the UN would disagree?

Instead of making this a impersonal issue, make it YOUR personal issue.

Do YOU approve of the concept of 'Freedom of Expression'?

If yes, then why is China not on board?

 

[Brainsucker]

@gambit

Explain this, you false flagging excrement.

America is the world's #1 terrorist organization. This is the truth arrived at by the world's majority. http://nypost.com/2014/01/05/us-is-the-greatest-threat-to-world-peace-poll/

Yes, for Gambit, the freedom of expression is more important than the right to live peacefully and not being bombed by other people. So maybe for him, the event of Vietnam war were not a violation of human right. Well, who are those people who got agent orange and got bombed by napalm bomb? They are not important for Gambit. It's more important for him if people curse their head of states on the street, doing demonstration, and burn the city with anger; then goes to a prolonged civil war that make thousand of people dead.

That's why I said that he prefers the freedom of cursing Assad at the street in today Syria, than having a security and live peacefully and peaceful Syria before the event of Civil War.

But I have no problem if he prefers that way. American human right is different than Universal Human Right anyway.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Your lack of basic knowledge of North and South America is obvious if you are trying to insinuate the US killed 100M Native Americans. It is possible that 100M were killed but almost all of that number were killed in South and Central America. Certainly Native Americans were killed in what is the US but nowhere close to 100M.

Most Native Americans lived near the equator so they could grow food year round to sustain a population in the 10’s of millions (in fact South America grows much of the food the US eats during the winter months). The US is up North where it snows and the population was nowhere near as high as in the South. We aren’t in the tropics.

Saying 100M Native Americans were killed in what is the US is ridiculous. That’s like saying the entire Russian population lives in Siberia. Only a small fraction live there. The rest are in the warmer areas..just like how the Native Americans were.

In fact even with all the Millions and Millions who have immigrated to the US and Canada over the last 400 years (which is probably more than half the entire land mass of the America’s) we still (~350M) can’t ever catch up to the population of Central and South America (~800M).

The biggest populations were the Incas (Peru at the equator) and the Aztecs (central America). These are the areas where most lived not up where the US is.

 

[AndrewJin]

All Muricans who are involved or have ever supported US-led immoral killing of innocent people will go to hell.
Their family will also suffer in the rotted hell.
They are the shame of mankind.

One century later, people will look back to the history, joking about the already collapsed US regime.
And they will talk about how Murican people were living in extreme hunger and gun violence until they died with the regime.

 

[Brainsucker]

That is state rights, not human rights.

None of these are human rights, which are as the US have propounded as basic individual rights that are not granted by or abridged by any entity.

Let us take one of the ideas that the US proposed as a basic human right: Freedom of Expression.

At the individual level, it means you are free to ingest and express any idea you want. Let us not get bog down in the weeds about 'Yelling fire in a theater' scenario here.

The US is saying that this right is inherent, meaning permanence, something you are borne with. This right is as genetic as having five fingers, but unlike biology where genes can go wrong, what you are as a POLITICAL creature cannot go wrong. If you are politically conscious, you automatically have this right.

This is why the idea of 'Freedom of Expression' is so attractive all over.


So if China propose that 'Freedom of Expression' is a human right, the UN would disagree?

Instead of making this a impersonal issue, make it YOUR personal issue.

Do YOU approve of the concept of 'Freedom of Expression'?

If yes, then why is China not on board?

LOL, at the end you just want to preach about the "American" Democracy. Freedom of Expression / political freedom is not the most important thing in human right. The most important human right is the right of living, the right of security, the right of equality, and the right of having financial capability. If the Freedom of Expression / Political Freedom cause a chain of event that take away the most basic human right from other people, then the Freedom of Expression itself is the violation of human right.

For example, just because you dislike your head of states and goes demonstration, and then kill, rape, and rob the people in the town is already be considered as a worst violation of human right.

And the other example, the freedom to own firearm. Yes, it is also some kind of freedom. But if that freedom can cause the death of many children in many schools in your country, then it is also the worst violation act of human right.

And the States Right is also the form of individual human right. Because it is the states who can decide the fate of individual people. Without the existence of a state, nobody can ensure the implementation of human right for the people in the region. That's why the States right is also the most important thing for human right issue. Do you want the example? I'm sure I don't have to give it, as you already know it yourself.

What is political freedom? What if Texas and other southern US people decide to separate from United States, declare independent and form a Confederate again? Or what if a lot of people (not the majority, but enough) have different ideology than what US implemented now? For example, they want to change the US ideology to Islamic ideology, or communist ideology. Will you allow it? I doubt it.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

LOL, at the end you just want to preach about the "American" Democracy. Freedom of Expression / political freedom is not the most important thing in human right. The most important human right is the right of living, the right of security, the right of equality, and the right of having financial capability. If the Freedom of Expression / Political Freedom cause a chain of event that take away the most basic human right from other people, then the Freedom of Expression itself is the violation of human right.

For example, just because you dislike your head of states and goes demonstration, and then kill, rape, and rob the people in the town is already be considered as a worst violation of human right.

And the other example, the freedom to own firearm. Yes, it is also some kind of freedom. But if that freedom can cause the death of many children in many schools in your country, then it is also the worst violation act of human right.

And the States Right is also the form of individual human right. Because it is the states who can decide the fate of individual people. Without the existence of a state, nobody can ensure the implementation of human right for the people in the region. That's why the States right is also the most important thing for human right issue. Do you want the example? I'm sure I don't have to give it, as you already know it yourself.

What is political freedom? What if Texas and other southern US people decide to separate from United States, declare independent and form a Confederate again? Or what if a lot of people (not the majority, but enough) have different ideology than what US implemented now? For example, they want to change the US ideology to Islamic ideology, or communist ideology. Will you allow it? I doubt it.

Gambit, that sociopathic POS has no shame. But he is only the slave of bigger fishes, not even the Clinton's are big enough. the most pathetic thing is, he does not even know who is his real master as he only receives his orders from his handlers.

 

[gambit]

LOL, at the end you just want to preach about the "American" Democracy.

At least I believe in something. What do you believe in that you are willing to fight for?

Freedom of Expression / political freedom is not the most important thing in human right.

To Americans -- it is. We believe in it strong enough to evangelize it. The idea that a person is borne with that freedom was attractive enough that it helped brought down the Soviet Union. You got anything better? Nope.

The most important human right is the right of living, the right of security, the right of equality, and the right of having financial capability.

Sure. Communism offered all of them. A lot of good that did.

If the Freedom of Expression / Political Freedom cause a chain of event that take away the most basic human right from other people, then the Freedom of Expression itself is the violation of human right.

That is silly. In that context, every 'right' that you declared as 'human right' can be argued in the same spirit. In the end, everything violates everything else. It never ceases to amaze the pretzel logic US-haters will to thru.

It seems to me that from the rest of your post, you have not bothered to take even the most basic PolSci class. No need to continue.

 

[Brainsucker]

At least I believe in something. What do you believe in that you are willing to fight for?

To Americans -- it is. We believe in it strong enough to evangelize it. The idea that a person is borne with that freedom was attractive enough that it helped brought down the Soviet Union. You got anything better? Nope.

Sure. Communism offered all of them. A lot of good that did.

That is silly. In that context, every 'right' that you declared as 'human right' can be argued in the same spirit. In the end, everything violates everything else. It never ceases to amaze the pretzel logic US-haters will to thru.

It seems to me that from the rest of your post, you have not bothered to take even the most basic PolSci class. No need to continue.

Alright, if you don't want to continue, let's not continue anymore. I don't want to make our argument to become a troll war just for the purpose of kicking each other butts. It's pointless anyway. You have given your argument, I have to give my argument. So let's us stop here and become civil again

 

[phancong]

In the US unarmed black men had the individual freedom to speak up against the police and state police had the freedom to shoot the unarmed black man in the back while he run away from the police brutality. In anywhere on this planet earth we all have the freedom of indivual right to do whatever we want to someone or state government retaliated. The right to bear arm was in effect promote the right to kill people you disagree with.

The rapist in the US had to freedom to rape til he caught by the police because rape is outlaw by the government. There no such thing as human right or individual freedom to do whatever we want, every human being have to be a subject of law and order to prevent society from a complete anarchy.

 

[gambit]

Alright, if you don't want to continue, let's not continue anymore. I don't want to make our argument to become a troll war just for the purpose of kicking each other butts. It's pointless anyway. You have given your argument, I have to give my argument. So let's us stop here and become civil again

That is why I suggest you take up at least one political science class -- because your argument about human rights is all wrong.

If you live by yourself in the jungle or on an island no one claimed, you have all the freedoms in the world but no rights. Do you understand now?

The concept of 'human rights' is about the relationship between the citizen and the State, which includes between ourselves. If you and I meet, under the banner of 'human rights', each of us have identical rights that neither can take away. Same for the State in that we have rights that the State cannot grant or take away. So when we talk about the 'Freedom of Speech', we are actually talking about the right to speech, which includes companion rights such as association or to read without restrictions from the State. In a community, the greatest threat is the State, not your fellow man. That is where you lack understanding.

 

[Brainsucker]

That is why I suggest you take up at least one political science class -- because your argument about human rights is all wrong.

If you live by yourself in the jungle or on an island no one claimed, you have all the freedoms in the world but no rights. Do you understand now?

The concept of 'human rights' is about the relationship between the citizen and the State, which includes between ourselves. If you and I meet, under the banner of 'human rights', each of us have identical rights that neither can take away. Same for the State in that we have rights that the State cannot grant or take away. So when we talk about the 'Freedom of Speech', we are actually talking about the right to speech, which includes companion rights such as association or to read without restrictions from the State. In a community, the greatest threat is the State, not your fellow man. That is where you lack understanding.

Now you want to continue, ok then.

That's depend on what version of political science you are following. Political science is not a math. American political science is different to Chinese, Indonesian, etc. And this is where you're wrong. Why should you learn a political science in order to understand human rights? It means that you want to politicize human rights. That's why the result is USA often use Human Rights to justify their casus belli for war. Because for you, humans right is politic. It's not the basic need of human being. It just a political play to fulfill your political ambition.

The basic right of human being are the things that I have said before. The right of live, the right of protection, the right of equality, and the right of having property / financial capability. And the only one who can protect them are the states. If you destroy the states and put the region into a war, it means that you violate the human right of all people who live in that country. Because you make them lose their security, their house, their financial capability, and their live.

So, like I said before, Freedom of speech is a kind of freedom. But if the Freedom of Speech cause the a lot of people lost their human right, then the Freedom of Speech itself is the worst violation of human right. Freedom of Speech is good as long as it doesn't create a chain of event that can cause another Syria Civil War on Earth.

I don't care about the political science of your country. Because it just a form of propaganda and indoctrination from your government. You are their citizen, so it's up to you to believe them. But for me, meh. I don't care about it.

 

[gambit]

Freedom of speech is a kind of freedom. But if the Freedom of Speech cause the a lot of people lost their human right, then the Freedom of Speech itself is the worst violation of human right.

If? The best you can do is 'if'?

If I shoot you, that is a direct action. I deprived you of life and I would go to prison or even executed.

The world is filled with speech that can be and have been interpreted in many ways that caused deaths and destruction. As soon as you -- in your mind -- need to figure out what the speaker meant before you act, that is no longer direct action.

So in using your grossly wrong understanding of the concept of human rights, we should have no speech at all since anything said can be interpreted as a commandment or advisement to kill. Jesus and the Bible should be banned, so should the Quran.