![\"George](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/1-blog-Animal-Farm.jpg\")
<\/a>In George Orwell’s Animal Farm<\/em>, animals take over a farm and paint on a wall “an unalterable<\/em><\/span> law by which all animals” there “must live forever<\/em><\/span>.” This law was a list of commandments, one of which was: “No animal shall kill any other animal.” But eventually the leaders began having other animals executed. And one day, the commandment against killing other animals was noticed to have at its end two extra words, “without cause.”<\/p>\nLikewise, many of those who proclaim commitments to human rights, protections, and respect for everybody<\/em><\/span> for all time<\/em><\/span>, in practice come up with “sufficient causes” to reduce or deny these rights for at least some people at least some time.\u00a0 Some even appear willing to give up some rights in order to wipe out other rights efficiently.<\/p>\n Examples and observations follow:<\/p>\n The\u00a0US Constitution, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the Geneva Convention, and other standards prohibit cruel punishments and torture, require humane conditions for prisoners, and require presumption of innocence until proven guilty.\u00a0\u00a0No exceptions.<\/p>\n But early this century, US agencies held alleged terrorists and alleged terrorist\u00a0enablers in inhumane conditions and tortured them, without a trial.<\/p>\n Some of the torture centers lay<\/a> in formerly\u00a0Communist countries , even though during the Cold War,\u00a0Americans had been told that one bad thing about Communist countries is that they had terrible prisons and tortured people.<\/p>\n The US also rendered people to openly brutal countries for torture.<\/p>\n Some support torture as a way of getting information or a confession.\u00a0But people undergoing torture often make up false information or confess falsely.\u00a0These do not bring investigators closer to the truth. And what about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?<\/p>\n Several American officials claimed that the Geneva Convention did not apply, because the suspects were \u201cenemy combatants.\u201d\u00a0 What about that label is exceptional?\u00a0 In violent fights, all sides are combatants, and all call their adversaries \u201cenemies.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Could we see it coming?\u00a0 From 1984 to 2000, the US Army ran\u00a0the School of the Americas in Fort Benning,\u00a0Georgia,\u00a0which trained Latin Americans how to torture people in their own countries.\u00a0(Though the curriculum did also include some lessons on human rights.)\u00a0 Did some North American mouths water?\u00a0 From Fort Benning to Abu Ghraib, is not the line logical?<\/p>\n Every country has a right to hold elections without outside interference.\u00a0 But the US and other countries have been trying to influence each other’s elections for over a century.<\/p>\n In 1970, presidential advisor Henry Kissinger claimed<\/a>, \u201c[We don\u2019t] need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves!\u201d<\/p>\n And what if the election still does not go as powerful outsiders want?\u00a0 For Chile in 1973, it was a violent coup.<\/p>\n The western media has acknowledged forced abortions, infanticide, and other violence during China\u2019s one-child regime.\u00a0 But Singapore, Vietnam, and sometimes India have also imposed family-size limits and declared them sufficient cause for reducing human rights for \u201cexcessive\u201d children, mothers who carry them to term, and families who do not disown the mother. \u00a0Punishments and discrimination include fines, surcharges, dismissal from jobs, and denying children admission to schools.\u00a0In about 1990, I heard somebody who had lived in Asia report that in Indonesia when government officials call on homes, the family hides their children except the first two.<\/p>\n Meanwhile in the US, when I was in undergraduate college in the mid-1970s:<\/p>\n Sometimes membership in certain groups is considered sufficient cause to deny equal rights.\u00a0 Race, ethnic group, religion, economic status, age, family member behavior, presumed “wantedness” before birth, abilities, and health can define these groups, depending on\u00a0the country and community.\u00a0 A previous blog post<\/a> goes into this.<\/p>\n Many “causes” used to justify human rights violations include:<\/p>\n In college, a\u00a0Political Science major told me that some \u201cless developed\u201d countries “aren’t ready for democracy.”\u00a0 She didn’t specify what qualified a place as ready for democracy.<\/p>\n Illustrated by the US torturing people in formerly Communist countries.<\/p>\n In addition, Mr. Kissinger<\/a> \u201ctime and again displayed contempt for the idea that the powerful can and should be constrained by democratic safeguards.\u201d<\/p>\n When officials and experts tell you that it is your “right” and “best interest”\u00a0to die, that if you stay alive beyond a certain point you will lose your “dignity,” and that to want to stay alive in your condition is “irrational,” they really mean “it is the majority’s human right to live in a world unpolluted by burdensome\u00a0you.”<\/p>\n Another example is the young woman’s calling someone “fascist” for tolerating large families.<\/p>\n Illustrated by the two examples of college students accepting population control.<\/p>\n Actually, rejecting “human rights” as a goal, in order to keep abortion, recognizes that living from conception to natural death is a human right.\u00a0 More likely, they will redefine “human rights” to include sentencing dependents to death.\u00a0 In that case, it will be for people (like me) who object to this change to come up with a new term for what we now call “human rights.”<\/p>\n These attitudes are what human rights activists are up against. They are challenges to confront.<\/p>\n Over the ages, there have been many definitions of rights, protections, duties, and responsibilities.\u00a0 This can be the subject of many essays.<\/p>\n The violation of some human rights can make the violation of others less unattractive, but the presence or absence one human right does not guarantee the presence or absence of others.\u00a0 For one thing, democracy — the people having a major say in making the rules — is not a synonym for freedom or human rights.\u00a0 People can democratically vote to kill people for belonging to a certain ethnic group or having a certain disability.\u00a0 For another example, one can maintain free speech while waging a campaign to kill these people.\u00a0 In this case, we can say, write, and broadcast that the killing is wrong, without being arrested, as long as we are willing to be told, “You make logical points, but you lost!”<\/p>\n Are commitments to human rights for everybody for all time meaningless, because of how they are modified as circumstances and morals change?\u00a0 Are “rules” protecting human rights as meaningless as Animal Farm’s law against killing other animals became when they added “without cause”?<\/p>\n ====================================<\/p>\n For more of our posts from Ms. Boomer-ang, see:<\/em><\/p>\n Political Homelessness is Better than a Wrong Political Home<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cShut Up and Enjoy it!\u201d: Abortion Promoters who Sexually Pressure Women<\/a><\/p>\n Asking Questions about Miscarriage and Abortion<\/a><\/p>\n The Danger of Coerced Euthanasia: Questions to Ask<\/a><\/p>\nTorture and Guilt\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/h3>\n
Elections<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Right to Bear Children<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Minorities and Unworthiness<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Observed Attitudes<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Defining and Redefining Human Rights<\/strong><\/h3>\n