The Mail Editor seems to disapprove of Human Rights.

Stryder

Stryder

Keeper of "good" ideas.
Valued Senior Member
Although the source is from the BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7718961.stm it's interesting to see how the Paparazzi comments on Privacy laws and the handling by Mr Justice Eady.

It's known the tabloids invade peoples privacy only when it suits their sales figures, in fact they are even known to entrap people just to create their stories.

This is quoted from the BBC article (So it's therefore "paraphrased")
"If Gordon Brown wanted to force a privacy law, he would have to set out a bill, arguing his case in both Houses of Parliament, withstand public scrutiny and win a series of votes," he said.

"Now, thanks to the wretched Human Rights Act, one judge with a subjective and highly relativist moral sense can do the same with a stroke of his pen."
Click to expand...

To me this suggests that the Mail, or incidentally their editor-in-chief Paul Dacre is implying that they disagree with the Human Rights Act. If I was a purchaser of papers, the Mail would not be one of them and I'll be sure to boycott them and sister tabloids too just for this.
 
"Human Rights" are a human invention, loaned to humans by other humans, and protected with the power of the gun by still other humans. If the humans with the guns decide to stop protecting all those other humans, then human rights go down the toilet like so much waste toilet paper.

Baron Max
 
The Baron is right. Everyone deserves as much rights as they can fight for...
 
Baron Max said:
"Human Rights" are a human invention, loaned to humans by other humans, and protected with the power of the gun by still other humans. If the humans with the guns decide to stop protecting all those other humans, then human rights go down the toilet like so much waste toilet paper.

Baron Max
Click to expand...

Does the word 'consensus' ever pass your lips?

BTW who other than humans would 'invent' human rights? Is it possible that 'human rights' came about when humans developed a sense of empathy for the suffering of others and felt it might be desirable to try to minimise suffering no matter how futile such an aim might seem to those lacking said empathy.

Stupid humans.
 
Stryder said:
To me this suggests that the Mail, or incidentally their editor-in-chief Paul Dacre is implying that they disagree with the Human Rights Act. If I was a purchaser of papers, the Mail would not be one of them and I'll be sure to boycott them and sister tabloids too just for this.
Click to expand...


You mean you would ostracize a British newspaper for rejecting a political doctrine created by a foreign power?

I find that more remarkable.
 
Ever read the Mail? Disagrees with EVERYTHING including itself.

Anyway wasn't the UK involved in that there treaty?

/shuffles off to find out
 
sniffy said:
Does the word 'consensus' ever pass your lips?[/dquote]

Not often, 'cause I seldom talk about something that's virtually impossible in the world of human reality. Waste of time, ya' know?

sniffy said:
Is it possible that 'human rights' came about when humans developed a sense of empathy for the suffering of others and felt it might be desirable to try to minimise suffering no matter how futile such an aim might seem to those lacking said empathy.
Click to expand...

Yep, and it took hard and rough men with guns, and many bloody, vicious fights and wars, to bring about those "human rights" ...and you should never, ever, forget that. Guns brought about "human rights" that you so easily accept and enjoy.

And similar hard and rough men stand ready every day, all day, with guns to insure that others might continue to enjoy those "human rights" ...those same "human rights" which you're now trying to use as a way to disarm people!

In the 1930s, Hitler disarmed the citizens of Germany. He probably felt the same way as you, huh? Disarm the people, then they can't harm others? Not too far off the mark, is it?

Baron Max
Click to expand...
 
Baron Max said:
Yep, and it took hard and rough men with guns, and many bloody, vicious fights and wars, to bring about those "human rights" ...and you should never, ever, forget that. Guns brought about "human rights" that you so easily accept and enjoy.
Click to expand...

Yes, Guns brought about the suffering and persecution of people, without them there would be no Human Rights because there wouldn't have been any suffering.

Seriously though Human Rights are Important, the problem is that they regularly find themselves misused by Criminals and (you've probably guessed it) Terrorists. The problems with those type of people is they only use them when they are caught and are being brought to justice for what crimes they have committed, for the most part their crimes themselves could be littered with Human Rights Violations. So violators of such rights are quick to quote those rights while they are incarcerated.

There were rights prior to the second world war, however they were only for Prisoners of War (POW), most countries did this as a form of respect even in war time, a few of course didn't. The inception of "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" was on the 10th of December 1948 (So note it's 60th Anniversary in your Calendar) Albeit this does breakdown the history.

Appears Baron it wasn't the guns that got the Human Rights kitted out, but Mrs Eleanor Roosevelt (I'm sure you'll recognise the name)

It just annoys me a bit that a Paparazzi member would blatantly undermine Human Rights for "Entertainment" or "Sales". I certainly picture the Editor-in-chief much like those Doctors the Nazi's had that were put before the Nuremberg Doctors Trials. (To cut it short a bunch of Nazi doctors did inhuman experiments on Jews, Gypsies and anyone that had a disability because they were thought to be "Weak" and not perfect. The daft thing is even Hitler didn't think himself perfect enough to be where he was.)
 
Stryder said:
Yes, Guns brought about the suffering and persecution of people, ...
Click to expand...

Yep, but then rough, hard men with guns fought those that were hurting those people and won the rights and freedoms that they now enjoy. :D

Stryder said:
Appears Baron it wasn't the guns that got the Human Rights kitted out, but Mrs Eleanor Roosevelt (I'm sure you'll recognise the name)
Click to expand...

Just words on a piece of paper ...and mean nothing, NOTHING, without those rough, hard men who defend those rights, every day, all day.

Just curious, ....do you think Hitler would have cringed in fear at that little piece of paper outlining the "rights" of humans? Or, perhaps, Hitler thought that his guns could let him violate anything he wanted to violate?

And, once again, it took hard, rough men with guns to come to the rescue of that little piece of paper ....and thus restored the "rights" of men.

Yep, restored the "rights" of men who seem to regularly denigrate them and heap scorn upon them ...and yet they still stand ready to defend those "rights". Odd men, those who accept such verbal and written abuse, yet are still willing to defend the abusers. Strange, huh?

Baron Max
 
Human rights are an observation that people will not tolerate certain transgressions. The difficluty comes when one realizes that exactly what is intolerable varies from person to person.
 
THe EC regulates on such things as fair competition, trading rules, workers rights, human rights, and pollution control.

That's why some people find its rulings irksome.
They get in the way of rampant capitalism.

The cry goes out.
"How is a decent newspaper to make money by trashing someone's reputation when the EC insist they have a right to privacy."
Poor Daily Mail.

The UK has got opt outs on some of the EC laws, for example we give our workers the "right" to work more than 48 hours a week,
but most laws which protect the welfare of ordinary people have their origins in the European Parliament.
 
Last edited:
MetaKron said:
Who the hell does approve of human rights?
Click to expand...

The humans with the biggest guns! Just look at central Africa, and you'll readily see that guns are what gives or takes away those silly things we call "human rights". The guns giveth, and the guns taketh away! :D

Without guns, there'd be no "human rights".

Baron Max
 
swarm said:
Baron a gun would not save you.
Click to expand...

Guns have saved me many times, my friend!

And while you would, of coures, deny it, but guns have probably saved you, too. But guns most assuredly have secured and protected your "rights" for your entire life ...and you don't even recognize that.

Baron Max
 
Antidisestablishmentarianism. Except about everything. Including the establishment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top