Monday, August 20, 2007

Human responsibilities

Sentinel asks: We hear a lot about Human RIGHTS, but what about Human RESPONSIBILITIES?
Posted by at

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

This was the UNESCO Plan for a Universal Declaration formulated in March 1997.

Article 1

Every human being, regardless of social origin, sex, property, color, language, nationality or religion, ought to be treated humanely.

Article 2

All human beings should oppose all forms of inhumanity, especially fanaticism, hate, and social exclusion, and work for greater humaneness.

Article 3

No individual human or group of humans, including the state, social class, pressure group, police or military agency stands above the ethical dictates of good and evil. All should behave in a genuinely human fashion, that is: Do good and avoid evil.

Article 4

All human beings, endowed with reason and conscience, should act towards one another in a spirit of sisterhood/brotherhood. Therefore, there should be applied to all human beings, both individuals and groups, including among others families, communities, races, nations, and religions, the long-standing principle of so many ethical and religious traditions: What you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others.

Article 5

Every human being is always to be treated as an end, never as a mere means, always as a subject of rights, never as a mere object, whether in business, politics, communication, scientific research or other areas of life.

Article 6

No one, except in the case of self-defense, has the right to injure or to kill. Every human being ought rather to have respect for life.

Article 7

Although every human person is infinitely precious and must be unconditionally protected, the lives of animals and plants which inhabit this planet with us likewise deserve protection, preservation, and care. That is, we humans are a part of nature, not apart from nature. Hence, as beings with the capacity of foresight we bear a special responsibility - especially with a view to future generations - for the air, water, and soil, that is, for the earth, and even the cosmos.

Article 8

Conflicts ought to be resolved without violence. This principle is valid for all institutions, especially states, as well as for individuals. Particularly public officials are obliged to work within a framework of a just order and to commit themselves, whenever possible, to non-violent, peaceful solutions.

Article 9

No one has the right to rob or dispossess in any way any person, group of persons, or the commonweal. Every human being ought rather to deal honestly and fairly.

Article 10

Property, limited or large, carries with it an obligation; ownership not only permits the personal use of property but also entails the responsibility to serve the common good.

Article 11

Economic and political power should not be misused as instruments of domination, but for service to humanity. Therefore mutual respect and the will to mediation should be fostered so as to reach a reasonable balance of interests in a sense of moderation and fairness.

Article 12

Wherever rulers repress the ruled, institutions threaten persons, or might oppresses right, human beings have not only the right but the responsibility to resist - whenever possible non-violently.

Article 13

No one should speak lies. Every human being ought rather to speak and act truthfully.

Article 14

The communications media, to whom the freedom to report for the sake of truth is entrusted and to whom the office of guardian granted, do not stand above ethics but have the obligation to respect human dignity, human rights, and fundamental values. They are duty-bound to objectivity, fairness, and humaneness. Hence, they have no right to intrude into individuals' private spheres, manipulate public opinion, or distort reality.

Article 15

Politicians, scientists and artists are doubly obliged, as individual persons and as society's leaders, to model ethical standards, and especially to serve truth.

Article 16

Religious persons, and especially religious leaders, whose religious freedom is guaranteed, ought to avoid prejudice, fanaticism and hatred towards those of different belief, let alone incite or legitimize religious wars. They rather should always be guides for truthfulness in thinking, speaking, and acting.

Article 17

All individuals and groups are obliged not to treat other persons as mere sex objects or disadvantage them because of their sexuality. Rather, men and women should treat each other in their sexual and kindred relationships with respect and as equal partners.

Article 18

Young people should learn at home, school, religion and elsewhere in society that sexuality in itself is a creative and positive - not a negative, destructive, or exploitative - force. As a life-affirming shaper of community, sexuality can be effective only when partners accept the responsibility of caring for one another's happiness.

Article 19

Marriage, which, despite its cultural and religious variety, should be characterized by love, loyalty, and permanence and guarantee mutual security and support.

Article 20

In the family, parents should not exploit children, nor children parents. Their relationship should reflect mutual respect, appreciation, and concern.

Article 21

The different professions and other societal groupings, such as medicine, business, journalism, among others, should develop current codes of ethics which will relate to the ethical principles of this Declaration by providing more specific guidelines.

Article 22

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any state, group or person the right to engage in any activity aimed at the destruction of any of the rights, freedoms or responsibilities set forth in the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights or subsequent UN documents.

Poste dby Sentinel

20/8/07 8:56 am
Anonymous said...

sounds good to me - who's using it?

21/8/07 9:46 pm
Anonymous said...

That's just it! Who IS using it?!!!
It's been around for over 10 years too.

22/8/07 12:40 am
Anonymous said...

The muderer of headmaster Lawerence is seems he likes it.

22/8/07 9:52 am
Anonymous said...

3.54 oh really?

23/8/07 4:12 pm
Anonymous said...

345 I think not perhaps you would like to go to lancs:).

23/8/07 5:01 pm
Anonymous said...

Chindamo can only be deported if he's seen as a danger to others.
Currently he's in prison and cannot be released if he's a danger to others.

23/8/07 7:30 pm
Anonymous said...

umm was he not to be deported AFTER his sentence and does not a report say he still is a danger?

24/8/07 9:09 am
Anonymous said...

He was sentenced to what is laughably called "life", why should he be allowed out at all?

24/8/07 4:28 pm
Anonymous said...

Dear 9:09

he's still in jail!

dear 4:28

he was sentenced to life, with a minimum term of 12 years before parole could be considered.

Please check your facts and understanding of British law.

And then consider, he's still in jail, he's not YET being considered for parole. This is the summer, there's bu^&er all news around. Are journalists trying to stay in work? Are the Gov't preparing something?

And also please remember, it's got nothing to do with the Human Rights Act.

24/8/07 5:49 pm
Anonymous said...

Dear 549 Please check YOUR facts he was being set up for release in ford open prison, he was sentenced in 1996 so 12 yrs is next yr also the human rights act was the reason see link then I will accept your apology thank you
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2295841.ece

24/8/07 8:32 pm
Anonymous said...

dear 8:32

join the real Guardian/Independent reading world.

he is not ready for Parole YET.

Now mebbie you and the Times and the Mail can read the future, the rest of us can't.

1. He can't be released if he's a risk to us.

2. He can only be deported if he's a risk to us.

Do you understand that?

Human Rights Act?

It hasn't been used in this case at all.

What has been used is the UE Citizens Directive of 2004.

Facts checked and correct - OK?

24/8/07 10:02 pm
Anonymous said...

I have never said he was going to be released soon but the human rights act was used in this case the home office argued that he was still a danger, this was disputed please read this article posted on the BBC cant say the beeb is right wing, so again you saying that the HRA has not been used is totaly incorrectm and I or I beleive no one on here has suggested a date only when he COULD be out, If you dont beleive 2 forms of the media well what can I say bugger all really!http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6958638.stm

25/8/07 1:13 am
Anonymous said...

and mike or john what ever your name is cut the lefty bull ok

25/8/07 1:14 am
Anonymous said...

Dear 1:13

from your own bbc link

"It was not the Human Rights Act which sealed the fate of the Home Office's attempt to deport him - but it could have been invoked were it not for the other law".

Clear?

25/8/07 7:17 am
Anonymous said...

His lawyer persuaded the tribunal, using EU immigration law and the Human Rights Act, that there were not sufficient grounds to force Chindamo to leave the country when his jail term was up.

We could go on for ever but all media reports i and others have heard rigtly blames the human rights act, this could have all been avoided if he had been given a lethal injection which is probably the way forward. The human rights act protects the wrong people.

25/8/07 9:56 am
Anonymous said...

Right wing view

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/02/11/cmcare111.xml

Left wing view

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article1099172.ece

I know which one I think is the better reporting.

30/8/07 8:45 pm

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)