Opinion Forum

We Need More Human Rights

June 8th, 2011

And the United Nations is there to provide them.

According to a United Nations report released late last week (Friday, when nothing else newsworthy was happening),

A United Nations report released Friday declares Internet access a human right. Presented to the General Assembly, the report by UN Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue states that, “the Internet has become a key means by which individuals can exercise their right to freedom and expression.”

Although the report seems to stop short of saying directly that the internet (not to mention computers, pencils, paper, postage, and trips to the post office) should be free for all, that’s a next logical step. Clearly, North Korea, China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Venezuela and all other nations that cherish human rights will fall right into line; if they don’t, the U.N. will deal with them with appropriate severity — maybe even a diplomatic note will be sent, after the receiving nation has agreed to the text.

There are, of course, lots of recently discovered human rights. Here are only a few:

To “affordable” health care (but not to be free from government mandated health care);

To privacy (but not if one has to go through ~~scan and grope~~ TSA checkpoints);

To abortion (but not to not be aborted);

To prenatal care (it’s for the not yet born);

To enter the United States and Israel illegally (but not to enter Mexico and most other countries illegally);

To freedom of religion (except in the Arab countries, some Asian countries and elsewhere);

To freedom of speech (except to say unflattering things about Islamists and other protected classes);

To be blatantly antisemitic;

To have the fruits of the labors of others.

With the United Nations around to proclaim and protect our human rights with its customary vigor, one must wonder why we need our own silly old Constitution; let’s repeal it and rely on the United Nations, with its highly regarded Human Rights Council, to take care of us. It’s a big world and all must be free to express multicultural feelings and from adverse comments by those who don’t share them.

(This article was first published at The PJ Tatler.)

Articles written by Dan Miller
Tags: freedom, human rights, Human Rights Council, internet, satire, UN
Categories: Humor, News, Politics | Comments (4) | Home

4 Responses to “We Need More Human Rights”

Brian | June 8th, 2011 at 11:15 pm

Dan, I think this sort of goes back to what you said about the transmogrification of language not too terribly long ago.

My right to anything ends where your nose begins. It’s a real pity that libruls can’t seem to grasp this fact, except when it comes to their own noses.

Dan Miller | June 9th, 2011 at 3:20 pm

Brian,

Yep. We give things, some of them stupid or worse, nice names and they automatically become nice and acceptable. We give other things, some of them good or at least necessary, nasty names and they automatically become nasty and unacceptable.

Elections matter, and so do the words we use. When someone uses words such as racist, torture, human rights, etc. it might be worth asking what he means; I wouldn’t often expect a responsive answer, but it could be fun and might even provoke some thought.

Brian | June 9th, 2011 at 6:14 pm

Dan,

Rand pointed out that there are only 2 ways to deal with other humans: violence or persuasion – rational discourse or the barrel of a gun.

What happens when language gets so muddled that communication becomes difficult or even impossible? It sort of eliminates the possibility of rational discourse.

Tom Carter | June 11th, 2011 at 10:46 am

The “right to privacy” discovered (serendipity!) in Roe v. Wade has always fascinated me. Seems like what Justice O’Connor had in mind was that the Founders intended for there to be a right to privacy in choosing to have an abortion, but since that was a touchy issue (especially back then!) they crafted it as a penumbra which lay dormant until brilliant judges found it in 1973. Amazing, though, that the learned Founders were smart enough to limit that particular penumbrized right to mostly abortion, lest we abuse it. Or did the Supremes just make this up? Heaven forfend!