Human Rights -ignored often, not far reaching enough, more than often.

by Phizzy 15 Replies latest social current

• 

  Phizzy

  Human Rights are clearly laid out in a number of places, and are upheld by legislation in many nations, and yet they are ignored, or when they are invoked, do not go far enough.

  This is a sad state of affairs in the 21st Century.

  Human Rights are simply trodden in to the ground where we have War, where we have Totalitarian regimes, and where we have ignorant clerics who rule.

  Even in enlightened countries that broadly accept the principles of Human Rights, they often are not given the priority they should receive.

  Take Freedom of Religion for example, this right should enshrine the right to freedom from religion. The fact that we in the U.K, Canada the U.S.A, Europe etc etc are unable to really be free of the WT/JW religion if we wish to choose to do so shows this right is unenforceable at present.

  The same with the Right to Family Life, the JW/WT cult is allowed to ride roughshod over this basic Human Right.

  It is time their power, and the power of Religion in general, was reigned in, and they be made to respect Human Rights fully.
• 

  KateWild

  I agree phizzy, human rights laws, are just not enforced, and when the laws are broken the punishment is not evident. Having laws in place is one thing, enforcing them is quite another. The British police aren't going to enforce and breach of a human rights law, they don't even enforce a legally binding family contact order.

  There needs to be government appointed authorities to enforce certain laws. But that will just cost money, and they don't want to spend anymore.

  Kate xx
• 

  Laika

  How would you suggest reining that power in Phizzy?

  I hate disfellowshipping but I'm not convinced a police state is the solution.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @Phizzy:

  Take Freedom of Religion for example, this right should enshrine the right to freedom from religion. The fact that we in the U.K, Canada the U.S.A, Europe etc etc are unable to really be free of the WT/JW religion if we wish to choose to do so shows this right is unenforceable at present.

  You can disassociate yourself from the JW religion. You have that freedom in the USA. How are you not free?

  The same with the Right to Family Life, the JW/WT cult is allowed to ride roughshod over this basic Human Right.

  You must start with a firm definition of what a "right" should be. What is your defintion if a "right"? For example, what is the "Right to Family Life"? Are you saying that if someone were to want a family, he/she should be provided one?

  MMM
• 

  redvip2000

  The fact that we in the U.K, Canada the U.S.A, Europe etc etc are unable to really be free of the WT/JW religion if we wish to choose to do so shows this right is unenforceable at present.

  How are you not free? The freedom in this case is the ability to leave the religious group of your own volition. The rest of the members who stay behind are also free to decide they don't want to talk to you. Even if this is imposed on them, they agree to it, otherwise they too have the freedom to leave if they wish.

  We have never been as free from relgion in human history as we are today - even if it's still not perfect.
• 

  sir82

  It is time their power, and the power of Religion in general, was reigned in

  This doesn't make any sense.

  A religion has no power other than what its members choose to allow it to have.

  If A JW chooses to believe that God wants him to shun you, and acts on that belief, that is his decision. What "power" did the religion exert? Did it threaten to kill him or jail him?

  The WTS presents an argument for shunning that it thinks is compelling. Members are free to believe it or not. There are consequences for believing it or not.

  In what sense is this a violation of human rights?

  Religions teach nutty things, and even nuttier people believe those things and act on those beliefs. But they are also free to stop acting that way any time they choose to.
• 

  JeffT

  Look at it this way: you have a right to be free from their religion, they have a right to be free from yours.
• 

  Phizzy

  Thanks for the responses from Posters I respect !

  Kate : that is the sort of thing I wish to see, not just pretending that Human Rights are respected, some sort of Authority that makes sure they are !

  Laika : thanks for spotting my spelling mistake, I meant "reining", I think that simply by defining more clearly what Human Rights are, and making sure that people are getting them, will curb the excesses of religionists. (Still far from easy to achieve, of course).

  MeanMrMustard : you can DA true, or even get DF'd, but they will still harrass you by calling on you , D .N. C list or no, they will still do it , apparently now every C.O's visit.

  You are not free of them in their eyes.

  Redip: see comment above, they will still call.

  Sir82 : you said , about shunning, " In what sense is this a violation of Human Rights " , are you serious ? Just look up The Right to Family Life as defined in the European Human Rights Act. of course this is a violation, ask Punk of Nice and 100's of others who are denied access to their children etc etc if it isn't.

  Of course the W.T hides behind its "Our members are exercising their conscience" lie, yes LIE, but we know that all JW's are coerced to act as they do for fear of being DF'd themselves.

  Human Rights are ignored by Governments, Individuals, and religious groups, the latter should not get away with it in the free (non-Muslim) world.

  ( In the Muslim world, human rights as we know them do not exist).
• 

  sir82

  In what sense is this a violation of Human Rights " , are you serious ?

  If an individual chooses to treat you poorly by shunning you, that's not nice, but it's hardly a violation of your rights.

  we know that all JW's are coerced to act as they do for fear of being DF'd themselves.

  It's one thing to "know" this; it's an entirely different kettle of fish to convince a court that it is somehow a "violation of human rights".

  I don't disagree with your sentiment; shunning due to fear of reprisal is an abomination and no ethical religion would require it. But that's a moral issue, not a legal one.
• 

  Phizzy

  I understand your reasoning Sir82, and it is sound for the present day situation, sadly, but if we could show that the individual is not choosing their course of action freely, we may have some Legal recourse. (Big) perhaps.

  The shunning does in fact constitute a violation of H.R if it involves denying you access to normal family life.

  I think this aspect is worth pursuing here in the U.K, where at least token respect is given to the Legisaltion on this, the WT's weaving, and ducking and diving on this should at least be exposed, even if the Law takes no action.