Human Rights
The United Nations human rights convention covers all people, in
accordance with internationally accepted standards for the promotion of
universal rights and freedoms, as well as economic, social and cultural rights.
It reflects an overall approach, which focuses on the recognition of specific
aspects of universal rights and freedoms, as well as its application in
different societies and contexts. With respect to human rights, the UN
General Assembly has adopted thirty-two additional conventions including
genocide and related crimes, which cover both the international community and
governments. All these UN conventions are part of an array of instruments governing
general and subsidiary global human rights that have been developed in response
to various regional and national human rights conventions.
Human rights are important and mandatory for all citizens but are
not just limited to what is written in this document. For example, one would
like to believe that there is no law that does not recognize the rights of
every person in the world. But there are laws that govern the laws of nations
and are made under laws and regulations that govern the laws of nations. These
include the laws applied in countries where the Constitution allows or bans any
form of slavery. In addition to this, there are also laws that govern torture
and abuse. Many countries provide for such laws to be introduced and
implemented if a country is going to join other countries in doing this. In
essence, the UN human rights convention and other similar conventions define
some basic principles which apply to human beings all over the world and it
covers all types of human beings and protects them from physical, mental,
intellectual, political and economic abuses.
In addition, Human Rights are not only intended to protect
everyone from suffering pain or harm in their personal lives but also to
prevent potential harm and pain caused by others. One of the primary areas of
concern by the US government is the right to privacy. To explain privacy, one
must look at the case of surveillance by the NSA, which is an example of
surveillance done solely for security reasons. By using spy satellites to monitor
and collect highly sensitive data such as telephone numbers, dates, location,
financial transactions, etc., the FBI can use information gathered for criminal
purposes against people or groups of individuals deemed to be threats to the
nation. This might lead to widespread privacy violations which could pose
serious threats to American society and the public as a whole. Privacy laws
have recently become even more complicated. The Patriot Act was passed by the
USA Congress to enable law enforcement agencies to monitor and track potential
terrorists. A number of people have criticized the law for being too intrusive
and for infringements on civil liberties. There are now attempts to have it
repealed by Congress and the President, who wants a court-ordered order that
prohibits the government from collecting Americans’ cell phones. If Congress
passes this legislation, you will be able to identify your cell phone number
from within the government database to try to trace calls going your way (not
through the internet) and obtain warrants to seize it without probable cause.
You can expect big fines from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the IRS for
breaching this new requirement. Not only does the amendment violate the
constitutional right to privacy but it also makes it difficult for the police
to conduct surveillance they deem necessary to protect the nation. In addition,
it may be important for the FBI to keep logs of telephone numbers, addresses,
names and locations and of course access to other critical information related
to targets and victims. Thus it infringes upon the freedom of movement and
privacy for millions of innocent citizens, many of whom do not wish to be
identified (or do not want to be monitored). Although there are limitations in
terms of privacy protections today, especially when used inappropriately, I am
sure that privacy would continue to be a major issue in the future to come.
One very interesting aspect of our current society is the
importance of freedom of speech. People are forced to communicate freely with
each other whether that is for business or personal concerns or just sharing
their thoughts and ideas with friends. While protecting themselves or others, I
think that this type of communication is completely unacceptable and regrettable.
This kind of communication should not be tolerated and should be regulated so
that the vulnerable part of society enjoys the benefits of free speech while
keeping the majority safe from the risk of violence and terrorist activity from
others. Unfortunately because of this situation, we are constantly bombarded
with false propaganda and misleading news aimed at us. We know that most of this propaganda is sensationalist in nature and generally designed to scare
us into thinking that one or two words can make a story so much worse. In
reality, there are probably a lot of cases where these kinds of stories may
actually benefit the vulnerable members of society, but the message is always
clear that the victim is the ‘bad actor’. As long as there is continual
disinformation of this sort, we can expect more tragedies related to our own
behaviour. Our media platforms continually bombard us with fake images and
videos and continuously push misinformation around us. Furthermore, we have
increasingly greater amounts of information about the dangers posed by
terrorism and other forms of armed conflict. This information comes often
through non-scientific sources, some of whom may be actors, and may go awry due
to misinformation. And finally, our government is actively involved in the
dissemination of this misinformation through television, radio, print,
billboards, posters, billboards, magazines, posters, banners and social
networks. Media is used to propagate false propaganda, as demonstrated above,
and can take shape during times of war. We need independent and responsible
journalism and investigation because we need to realize that most information
comes through the media.
The United States government is on a mission to ensure that we
can protect our families and our country from violent and terrorist attacks
from a range of threats. But the danger is not restricted solely to the threat
from an individual or a group of persons. When one looks at the total number of
deaths recorded in U.S. history, one sees that our government has failed to
respond adequately to terrorist and hate crime incidents. And of course, there
are still countless instances where our military has served with distinction
and we need to remember that our military has fought side by side with our
civilian counterparts, from World War II to Vietnam and Korea, and yet they
have failed to show up in times when it seems that it is absolutely necessary
due to failures on the federal level.
However, the biggest reason why the U.S. government has failed
to respond adequately is due to the refusal to act on the numerous reports of
increasing acts of violence. Because we have seen our military serve alongside
civilians and journalists in Syria and Iraq, there can be multiple reasons why
the military has not been active in situations where it seems only prudent to
be. Firstly, the military has failed to properly analyze the best way to
respond to these situations and instead chose to remain mostly out of sight.
Secondly, perhaps the military has never been active enough to fully determine
the best ways to deal with terrorist incidents. Thirdly, if there were
significant intelligence and investigative reporting done internally that would
clearly indicate that the military was either unwilling or unable to act, then
it would be very easy for our government to refuse to do so. Fourth, and last,
our military has not done a good job in countering terrorist organizations.
Even though our military is well trained to fight terrorism attacks and other
mass terror incidents, our intelligence agencies have not really pursued this
type of strategy, which is certainly not optimal for dealing with terrorism
events. So, once again, this government has refused to act and continues to
hide its inadequacies.
At present, the UN General Assembly has adopted thirty-two additional conventions which cover a broad spectrum of issues ranging from Genocide and related crimes to discrimination, racial equity, refugee, gender equality, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, and child abuse, human trafficking, and environmental degradation. Most of the Convention’s provisions apply to member states and governments in other parts of the world. However, some of the provisions are not based directly on internationally recognized standards, and as noted earlier, there are various nations and cultures that may require different interpretations of the same conventions. Yet, there are also provisions that are universally applicable, and that can be expected to be applied even in different places globally. For example, Article 1.1.a states that “Any attack, whether committed by armed forces or by non-state actors, is inconsistent with article 15, which guarantees the principle of collective security. The Security Council is required to establish and maintain appropriate measures, appropriate to the circumstances in each state and context, to deal with matters of common interest” (UN General Assembly Articles, Section 16). Since the Security Council itself is composed of representatives from all Member States, they can make policies concerning security and act independently in response to events of worldwide concern. Of course, the Security Council has also been known to make decisions that are not consistent with international norms and policies, and it would be inappropriate for the Security Council to make decisions that don’t fit its mandate. However, despite our continued refusal to cooperate with our neighbouring and friendlier democracies, we are aware that many of our closest allies are willing to work together with us and indeed we are encouraged by a variety of initiatives that are currently ongoing. The first initiative is one of mutual dialogue between the United Kingdom and the European Union at least once a year. While the UK and the EU’s position on Brexit have not been formally addressed, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in recent months he plans to bring back control of our borders from the British government. He proposed an agreement between the two sides which would give the two signatories full sovereignty over the border management system in Northern Ireland and allow full control over its operations over the duration of the Brexit transition period. Given the amount of turmoil in Northern Ireland concerning the Brexit arrangements, this is definitely an encouraging first step in the process of maintaining peace.
