3 ms·

I believe in this case it's indeed useless as a set of rules. If we'd call it as it seems to be, a "suggestion", we could say it has some purpose.

by po1nt 5y ago

ratww 5y ago
It is a framework of rules that countries decide to implement into their own. Those countries who implemented it decided it was a useful enough set of rules to implement at home. Others didn't. If by "this is a useless set of rules" you are saying "oh, c'mon! This is not the law"... then yeah, you're right. It's not legally binding. It says so in the first paragraphs of Wikipedia. But it was useful to others as a framework and model.
- po1nt 5y ago
  This is literally the whole discussion under this article. How can we act like it's a violation of something if it's not binding in the first place. How can we complain about western countries violating our privacy defined by some ruleset defined by organisation that decided it's a good idea to make genocidal state member of a human rights council of said organisation.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ratww 5y ago
    > How can we act like it's a violation of something if it's not binding in the first place. It is the framework used for creating things that are binding: laws. Even so, something someone else does can "violate my personal beliefs", even if they're not really legally binding. Nothing strange about that. Saying "something violates human rights" is a shortcut to saying "Something violates a set of rules that are the framework of our societies, and those rules are important enough that they managed to seep into our laws and influence our thought, and our world. We should pay attention to that violation, and maybe crack down on it." > How can we complain about western countries violating our privacy defined by some ruleset defined by organisation that decided it's a good idea to make genocidal state member of a human rights council of said organisation. Literally by doing it. Just because the UN is not perfect, doesn't mean it automatically retroactively invalidates a certain text that we hold to a high standard. The current state of the UN really makes no difference on the text itself. Even if someone in the UN goes wacko and decides to rewrite the text, we still have a previous copy. Just fork it.
  - gpderetta 5y ago
    FWIW, the ECHR does recognize the right to privacy and that's legally binding to all EU members.
Talanes 5y ago
This feels on par with relabeling the Monopoly booklet "suggestions" because no one is enforcing it, really.

I believe in this case it's indeed useless as a set of rules. If we'd call it as it seems to be, a "suggestion", we could say it has some purpose.

by po1nt 5y ago

I believe in this case it's indeed useless as a set of rules. If we'd call it as it seems to be, a "suggestion", we could say it has some purpose.

ratww 5y ago

It is a framework of rules that countries decide to implement into their own. Those countries who implemented it decided it was a useful enough set of rules to implement at home. Others didn't. If by "this is a useless set of rules" you are saying "oh, c'mon! This is not the law"... then yeah, you're right. It's not legally binding. It says so in the first paragraphs of Wikipedia. But it was useful to others as a framework and model.

po1nt 5y ago
This is literally the whole discussion under this article. How can we act like it's a violation of something if it's not binding in the first place. How can we complain about western countries violating our privacy defined by some ruleset defined by organisation that decided it's a good idea to make genocidal state member of a human rights council of said organisation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ratww 5y ago
  > How can we act like it's a violation of something if it's not binding in the first place. It is the framework used for creating things that are binding: laws. Even so, something someone else does can "violate my personal beliefs", even if they're not really legally binding. Nothing strange about that. Saying "something violates human rights" is a shortcut to saying "Something violates a set of rules that are the framework of our societies, and those rules are important enough that they managed to seep into our laws and influence our thought, and our world. We should pay attention to that violation, and maybe crack down on it." > How can we complain about western countries violating our privacy defined by some ruleset defined by organisation that decided it's a good idea to make genocidal state member of a human rights council of said organisation. Literally by doing it. Just because the UN is not perfect, doesn't mean it automatically retroactively invalidates a certain text that we hold to a high standard. The current state of the UN really makes no difference on the text itself. Even if someone in the UN goes wacko and decides to rewrite the text, we still have a previous copy. Just fork it.
- gpderetta 5y ago
  FWIW, the ECHR does recognize the right to privacy and that's legally binding to all EU members.

Talanes 5y ago

This feels on par with relabeling the Monopoly booklet "suggestions" because no one is enforcing it, really.