Recently, the ECHR passed a judgement stating that the Switzerland violated human rights by climate inaction:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68768598
I believe in man made climate change and I think we need to act on it. But bringing this issue under human rights seems ridiculous to me.
When I think about it further, I would say freedom of speech should be a human right. Yet many European governments have been passing anti-free speech laws for years now and the ECHR doesn't even bat an eye. But deporting criminals? ECHR seems to have a real problem with it.
It looks more and more like some political groups categorise anything they want to achieve as a "human right" and try to make it unquestionable.
What do you think should be a human right? How did you decide it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I thought the human rights was very basic, things like,
Access to clean drinking water,
Access to shelter,
Access to food.
Literally just the basics to live."
I thought right is something you are allowed to do without interference from others. Aren't access to all the things you mentioned
just privileges you expect from others, not even available in many countries yet? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's whatever wealthy vested interests and lords say you can have. Anything that is passed in law can be taken away. George Carlin said it best: "Human Privelidges.""
George Carlin has an amazing foresight  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I thought the human rights was very basic, things like,
Access to clean drinking water,
Access to shelter,
Access to food.
Literally just the basics to live.
I thought right is something you are allowed to do without interference from others. Aren't access to all the things you mentioned
just privileges you expect from others, not even available in many countries yet?"
I would assume your human right would change from place to place. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Human rights should be non-negotiable, they're fundamental building blocks of what we as people are born with, to support and maintain our lives.
Global heating is obviously very much in conflict with the potential to live our lives in safety. Its projected harm is very substantial, affecting all people of the world, including those who have done nothing to contribute to it. But it's currently a problem today, as the earth is already changed and will continue to have higher levels of harm. Already food supplies are at risk, our living environments impacted too. Obviously, just food and the conditions that we may be forced to be living in, are 2 basic aspects of being able to continue to be alive and to remain healthy.
Our body temperature is very fixed, for example too. With rising temperatures, there are points beyond which our body fails to be able to sustain it. Homeostasis becomes impossible. Without external intervention we die. Pretty fundamental stuff. A basic right lost. And some people will have much greater difficulties in maintaining homeostasis than others - it's an unequal struggle.
States have duties of care for us. If they haven't fulfilled those legal obligations, then we have legal recourse to seek redress. The place for this is via the courts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Human rights should be non-negotiable, they're fundamental building blocks of what we as people are born with, to support and maintain our lives.
Global heating is obviously very much in conflict with the potential to live our lives in safety. Its projected harm is very substantial, affecting all people of the world, including those who have done nothing to contribute to it. But it's currently a problem today, as the earth is already changed and will continue to have higher levels of harm. Already food supplies are at risk, our living environments impacted too. Obviously, just food and the conditions that we may be forced to be living in, are 2 basic aspects of being able to continue to be alive and to remain healthy.
Our body temperature is very fixed, for example too. With rising temperatures, there are points beyond which our body fails to be able to sustain it. Homeostasis becomes impossible. Without external intervention we die. Pretty fundamental stuff. A basic right lost. And some people will have much greater difficulties in maintaining homeostasis than others - it's an unequal struggle.
States have duties of care for us. If they haven't fulfilled those legal obligations, then we have legal recourse to seek redress. The place for this is via the courts. "
I think everyone is aware of the dangers of global warming. But the problem is we don't have a single pill that's going to solve the problem overnight. We will fix it, albeit slowly. Any action will conflict with individual rights of other people and hence these actions have to be measured.
Just randomly making everything a human rights issue makes the concept of human rights a joke. Especially when the ECHR has been watching governments strip off people's fundamental freedom of speech in silence, making noises about this issue makes it more agenda driven rather than being driven by any goodwill. It doesn't help solving the problem of climate change either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
