In reply to Wiley Coyote:
> You've got me interested in this now and human rights seem to be a very slippery mess.
Yes, the UN Declaration and ECHR are something of a slippery mess.
> eg Article 18 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
> Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom ...... either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
> So what happens when 'practice and observance' of that religion includes suppression of homosexuality? Is it still one of your basic rights? Or is the UN wrong? Or merely ambiguous? I can't see anything that says which rights trump others.
Under the ECHR some rights do trump others: some are absolute, others are qualified, and I think it gets more complicated than that. The legal specifics just cloud the issue which I see as this:
Not being imprisoned for a characteristic that you can't help is a basic right. I'd say it's one that can't be trumped.
A right to privacy is also pretty basic, but it's the qualified type where there might be good reason for it to be forfeited.
The right to religious observance is a right to go to mosque or wherever and mumble stuff out of books and have a sing-song. It isn't what I'd call a "basic right" - it's just a specific case of the right to do what you like as long as it isn't harming others. Once your "religious observance" starts to harm others, then that right is obviously forfeited. Only a complete retard would think that their right to "religious observance" trumps someone else's right to freedom (or even life). But there are many such retards out there.
And as for state persecution of minorities, what the hell has that got to do with religious observance? Human rights (by the ECHR or otherwise) don't give states the right to do anything, they concern individuals. Dressing up state persecution as "religious observance" is pretty horrible, IMO.
> So what happens when one of those 'limitations determined by law' to meet 'the just requirements of morality' is to make homosexuality illegal? There's probably hours of fun in debating 'just' morality but again your 'rights' don't seem as clear cut or universal as you might think, at least for the UN.
I agree that human rights (whether you take that to be the UN Declaration or the ECHR or something else) are just an attempt to articulate something about how people should be treated that most people would agree with. There isn't anything universal about them, they're just words on a page, and they (the UNDHR) are drafted quite deliberately not give gays any particular rights while race, colour, sex, language, religion all get a mention.
All the same, I believe strongly that you have to be a retard not to see that it's immoral and unjustified to imprison people for personal traits they can do nothing about. It's clearly an abuse of their basic rights - the simple rights to freedom and privacy, the right to seek happiness without harming others. I think that these are principles we should all be able to agree to, but sadly in the real world it isn't the case. People who think that their religion - or how they choose to interpret some words written in a book - is an adequate excuse to take these basic rights from others are retarded (at best).
I don't believe that all views are equally valid and should all be respected. Some views are harmful and disgusting: they breed hatred, divide people, and inspire violence. The views of the BNP fall into this category. I don't respect them any more than I respect religious fundamentalists who promote the persecution of homosexuals.
Do you believe that all ideologies should be respected, or do you have a cut-off point where you say "sorry, that really is total shit"? Or is it total relativism for you, anything goes? Do you think apartheid was fine, just someone else's culture, equally valid as our own, or do you think it was a good idea to campaign against it, to say it was wrong and that our ideas of blacks and whites being equal is better?
Which achieves the best outcome, pandering to retards who think it's fine or even morally righteous to persecute minorities and saying how you respect their view (a blatant lie in my case), or do you think it's better to have a bit more confidence in what you believe and say that it's wrong?
Thing is, there *is* a way you can judge ideas against each other and decide which is best. Just look at the outcomes. Which ideas bring about misery and violence vs. which ideas bring about freedom, opportunity and happiness? Call it utilitarianism, or just pragmatism, or even just 'reason', there is a system by which a sensible analysis can be made. Religious conservatism scores very poorly on this system: it is a pile of shit, because it leads to violence and misery. Secularism, science and human rights on the other hand are good ideas because they allow freedom and opportunity and do not contribute to violence or oppression.
If you are prepared to accept reason, then it's easy to see what's positive, sensible and progressive, and a path to good outcomes, and what's retarded, harmful and a path to misery and violence. Ideas and cultures are not all equally valid.