h a l f b a k e r yNo serviceable parts inside.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
The UN declaration of human rights <link> is a big deal. People
go on about it a lot, and lots of legal and political wrangling is
based upon it.
However, reading through it, it appears as though it were
thrown together over lunch by a multilingual group. It is not a
tightly written document,
like say, the 10 commandments. The
reason for that, is that the 10 commandments has had a good
amount of editing/rewriting over the years. so let's see if we
can kick-start the process.
Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity
and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and
should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
You know you're in trouble when list item #1 is a mess. Firstly,
not all humans are born free, or equal in rights, with reason or
with conscience. So either this is factually incorrect, or it
declares slaves/the insane/psychopaths as non-human, which is
against what this document should be aiming at really. Then it
goes on to throw in "brotherhood" which is vaguely sexist by
exclusion. You could really tighten this up, and go with:
"All humans should be born free and equal in dignity and rights"
Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set
forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the
political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or
territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent,
trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of
sovereignty.
This is an immediately self-referential statement. It also
departs linguistically, "Everyone" works, I'm not sure how that is
in other languages, but it's another way of saying "All human
beings" and that's what we went with not one article ago, so,
some consistency. Then it just gets wordy and boring. How
about:
"Human rights are inalienable, regardless of sex, race or social,
religious or political affiliation. The rights apply in all
circumstances."
Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
person.
Spot on. Working Group #3 clearly got the brief and thrashed
out a tight article. I think we should steer clear of "Everyone"
for consistency, but otherwise no problems here.
Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery
and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Pretty good again, but could be tighter, it essentially makes the
same point a few times, and do you really need to prohibit the
slave trade if there aren't slaves? And servitude? Well, plenty of
people in prisons around the world doing labor of some kind.
How about:
"No human should be held in slavery"
Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Pretty good, but still wooly. What is punishment? well it can be
torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, but the word is more
about the motivation i.e. this is happening because you did
something wrong. So is the article prohibiting torture, cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment even AS punishment, or is it
independently prohibiting punishment? If it's the first case, then
the word "punishment" is superfluous. If it's the second, then
the article is prohibiting removing someone's ipad for a week,
which seems an overreach.
Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a
person before the law. Excellent, moving on.
These articles go on, getting longer, more specific and even
dividing themselves into subsections, and my point remains.
Almost all of them can be tightened up with a good
writer/editor.
Declaration of Human Rights
https://www.un.org/...ion-of-human-rights
[bs0u0155, Feb 09 2022]
Prosecutions of War Criminals
https://www.britann...r-crimes-and-trials
[DrBob, Feb 10 2022]
Srebrenica Massacre
https://www.britann...Srebrenica-massacre
In particular, the 'Aftermath' section (about half way down the article) gives the lie to the idea that nothing ever happens. [DrBob, Feb 10 2022]
[link]
|
| |
//Is there an idea for an invention in there?// |
|
| |
No, to be fair. I'm just having a go at a remarkably revered,
but shoddy document. |
|
| |
Perhaps "Be clearer about being nice". |
|
| |
I think you overlooked the quotation marks there, [a1].
There were two of them on each side, too. |
|
| |
//Is there an idea for an invention in
there?// |
|
| |
Hmm. Let me read the title. Mmmhmm.. okay, it
says: "Rewrite the Declaration of Human Rights" so
it's an idea of some sort, I think it's suggesting the
idea of rewriting something. Let me go back and
read it again. Mmmhmm. Yes, after the part where
it says "Rewrite"? it says what to rewrite. Let me
go back and see what that is. Yes, it's carefully
hidden in the title, "the Declaration of Human
Rights." So yes, it's an idea, to Rewrite the
Declaration of Human Rights. |
|
| |
[+] This is probably something that should be
addressed regularly, rewritten, discussed,
adjusted. It's an important concept and document.
Lots of people don't even know it exists. (I for one) |
|
| |
There's a saying about the US Constitution, that it's
a "living document" meaning the people can and
should adjust it, add to it, edit it etc. Same should
apply to this. |
|
| |
//it essentially makes the same point a few times// |
|
| |
Not really. There's a difference between "no slavery" and "no slavery or involuntary servitude of any kind". The second excludes indentured servitude and, presumably, military drafts. |
|
| |
//Then it goes on to throw in "brotherhood" which is vaguely sexist by exclusion.// |
|
| |
No it isn't. The spirit of brotherhood can be held by women or by men. |
|
| |
True, like referring to the state of "man" meaning
humans doesn't exclude women. Might have some
biblical background and sound a little un PC by
today's standards but we should probably stick to
the meat and potatoes of the document and not
get too lost in the semantics or boilerplate, but
some updates here and there could be good. |
|
| |
But I think more people should be made aware of
this thing, I was never taught about this in school.
Granted, I never really went to school but that's
not the point. |
|
| |
hmmm, I've never meant it in a sexist way when I refer to men or mankind... I just would never presume to speak for a woman. |
|
| |
Their voice is their own. I only have a male perspective. That perspective seems to revolve around a need to protect. The thing to be protected though remains quite nebulous. Is it a person? A thing? A group? A concept? A religion? |
|
| |
Easy to manipulate, this need to protect... if not given an outlet. |
|
| |
Human rights would be a darn fine outlet. |
|
| |
"They" wanted a re-set?... |
|
| |
[-] Wordiness is a far cry from accusations of outright failure. Rewriting any section would be a sickening mess in 2022 because 1) International politics these days no longer feel beholden to immediate memories of WW2 as a corrective 2) A number of wrongs are in danger of becoming "rights" |
|
| |
//it appears as though it were thrown together...by a multilingual group//
Which, of course, it was. But you know that already.
Are you sure that your changes translate easily into other languages? It is after all the "Universal" declaration. An important word that you seem to have missed out in your bid to tighten up the language. You also missed out on the pre-amble, which sets out the tone & context for the document. ;)
I am not claiming that the document is perfect or couldn't do with an update, but I think that editorial dissatisfaction is probably the least important reason for making any changes. |
|
| |
Article 13, unlucky for some: |
|
| |
"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his
own, and to return to his country." |
|
| |
//Wordiness is a far cry from accusations of outright
failure.// |
|
| |
Let's not forget the UN is a derivative of Churchill &
Roosevelt's Atlantic Charter. I can't imagine Churchill
considering wordiness a success. |
|
| |
If it's outright failure you're after, how about the fact that
many of the articles are routinely contravened in many of
the world's countries and nothing is done because the U.N.
is a toothless administrative gravy train that can't prevent a
massacre even when they have managed to get blue-hatted
troops standing right next to it? |
|
| |
//Rewriting any section would be a sickening mess in 2022
because// |
|
| |
You're right of course. I'm willing to give it a go. $200k/year
an expense account and a parking space and I'll head up the
UN steering committee on Article 1. By the time I retire, I
think we might have a reasonable draft to put forward. |
|
| |
//editorial dissatisfaction is probably the least
important..// I'm functionally, bureaucratically &
financially dissatisfied as well, it's just the writing stands
out as more easily correctable. I'm also against things like
polyamory, but only on linguistic grounds: polyphillia or
multiamory, at least try and stick with one ancient
language for the duration of one word. |
|
| |
//I can't imagine Churchill considering wordiness a success.//
You obviously haven't read his 'History of the Second World War" then. He's probably not the best person to call on when discussing human rights. He was the one who first came up with the jolly wheeze of using poison gas on the Kurds.
//many of the articles are routinely contravened in many of the world's countries//
I would correct that to 'every country'. I am willing to bet you a full English breakfast that there is not a single country in the world that abides by every article of the charter every day of the year. The point isn't to prevent such things from happening (because it can't) but to provide a context, justification & common ground for any later actions against the perpetrators. |
|
| |
//I would correct that to 'every country'.// |
|
| |
I agree, I backed off and went with wooly writing because it
was the lowest effort way of not being wrong. |
|
| |
//context, justification & common ground for any later
actions against the perpetrators.// |
|
| |
Maybe because there's never going to be any action, they
didn't have to work very hard on the writing? |
|
| |
This idea did cause me to read the declaration complained of.
On the whole, I think the drafting is pretty good. It's only baggy
in a couple of places and those points of bagginess (e.g. "whether
born in or out of wedlock" in Article 25, being arguably redundant
with the generality) are intentional and serve a clarificatory
purpose. I didn't find any areas when the intent or purpose of
the drafting was unclear, which to my mind is Essential Element
#1 of Good Drafting. Elegance and concision are subordinate to
clarity. |
|
| |
//Maybe because there's never going to be any action//
Well that's a common misconception & probably what Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic & Ratko Mladic thought too. |
|
| |