Jan 16, 17 / Aqu 16, 01 02:47 UTC
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights ¶
Should the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be embedded in the Constitution?
Jan 23, 17 / Aqu 23, 01 06:15 UTC
The main problem with the UHDR is that it doesn't distinguish between rights (no one being allowed to prevent you from doing something) and privileges (things guaranteed for you). The former only requires a government to prevent actions against citizens, but the latter has to be paid for and enforced. This is not a problem for the current signatories to the UHDR, as the UHDR is not a legally binding document, so failure to comply with Article 25 is a non-issue.
Embedding the UHDR directly into our constitution means that we must immediately comply with the granting of these privileges or the government will immediately be unconstitutional, which sets a dangerous precedent for all articles of the constitution. I would prefer the flexibility of deciding our own constitution, especially given that UN membership means will we be a party to the UHDR anyway.
Feb 14, 17 / Pis 17, 01 02:30 UTC
By having the universal declaration of human rights into our constitution , it means that we must comply with granting these protection's or the government will have major problems in being unconstitutional, this intern will cause a dangerous "quagmire" effect to all the Constitution's articles.
With the objective to achieving UN membership and once achieved we will be in the human rights party. Personally i think that the Constitution will have a similar form of the UN human rights because there would be no benefit to the Asgardian nation without for example freedom of speech.
Feb 22, 17 / Pis 25, 01 15:19 UTC
I have always felt that every right should have a corresponding responsibility. Rights should NOT be assumed to be granted merely by existing, but by existing in harmony with society.
Right: Free Speech
Responsibility: When you speak freely, you are responsible for everything you say. If you intentionally produce falsehoods, you are liable for those falsehoods and all actions caused by them. If you intentionally cause damage through the use of your free speech, you are also responsible for making reparations to the party who was damaged. If you state falsehoods you were unaware were falsehoods, the source of the falsehoods is responsible, if it can be proven they were the source, and you are also responsible, but to a far more limited extent (public apology, perhaps a few hours service). Statements of opinion, clearly identified as such, are not falsehoods.
Feb 28, 17 / Ari 03, 01 20:03 UTC
When rights are implied rather than stated in a document, that leaves it open for interpretation. When it comes to rights it should be stated as clear as possible, so there is NO room to interpret that certain rights are not given or not necessarily implied.
Mar 23, 17 / Ari 26, 01 00:53 UTC
This could perhaps be an inspiration: The Transhumanist Bill of Rights: http://transhumanist-party.org/tbr-2/