In reply to MG:
> That was signed in the 1940s when pretty much all the signatories had capital punishment so I don't think it can be used as an argument against that. Indeed we were executing people until the 60s and women only got the vote 100 years ago.
Is it not the case that those principles then went on to influence the abolition of capital punishment however? Is it not the case that they are still being used to assist the campaign for human rights and equality in many other countries? Is this not almost their reasons to be? If we all went round being jolly nice to each other all the time, there would have been no need for the declaration, would there?
> Why are we so confident that our system is better after only adopting very recently that we feel we can order other countries to do the same as us?
What answer to this question would ever satisfy you or others asking it?
Why did we abolish those things? Where does any moral authority ever stem from? Also, we do not "order out he countries to do the same as us". We ask, we plead, we cajole, we sanction. What is our authority to do these things? That we can.
Also, I get a bit sick of asking "who are we to judge". When it comes down to subjugating and repressing the female half of your population, the "who are we to judge" line is either monumentally stupid or pathetically weak. Unless you believe someone born a female half a world away is somehow different to a daughter or sister or mother born here. Personally I have similarly strong feelings about the execution of a minor under any circumstances.
> FWIW I think any execution and certainly beheading is barbaric, but the way forward is persuasion and argument, not pointing to rules, ordering foreign countries about and telling them how to behave.
Indeed. You will note that I was using the UDHR as a response to the question of "Who are we to judge..." and not as an instrument by which we should seek to change the world by "ordering" people about". It is also why I said:
> This is why I find it such a travesty that we now sit near the top of the pile and do not use our muscle to deal with specific countries with an appalling human rights record,
We need to use persuasion. With the Saudi example, one form of persuasion would be to use our financial muscle and break off arms agreements. As I've said a focus on "the bigger picture" would seem to outweigh any such possibility, somewhat weakening our claims to any moral superiority in the whole dirty business.
Post edited at 15:19