4 ms·

That's hardly news. But you're looking in the wrong place. It was called the "Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action" it was not an agreement to be ratifi

That's hardly news. But you're looking in the wrong place. It was called the "Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action" it was not an agreement to be ratified, but a course of action for the UN members to follow, which includes the US. Of course in United States social justice is seen as a political stance, it's not surprising from the country that has signed and not ratified - Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women - International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Convention on the Rights of the Child (they do not actually think of the children, apparently) - Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities I get that the rights of people with disabilities can be a divisive argument, but they also refuted to sign for - Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women - Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and if that wasn't bad enough, they have also not signed - International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families - International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CIA really loves making people disappear, they couldn't possibly disappoint them) How is it possible that we call it "the greatest democracy in the World" while they are not even a real Democracy is the "greatest mystery in modern history" So, yeah, social justice is political only in USA and probably in some South American dictatorship lead by former nazis and militarily installed by yours truly the USA Not even Putin would say in public that social justice it's the patrimony of a specific Political side, because it would be a (politcal) suicide, even for a guy like Vladimir Putin who recently spoke about it citing Martin Luther King (of course it's all propaganda in his side, but still...), while in the USA, where MLK was born and was killed, his ideas are still considered "agenda" and not "Country's own values". Again: not surprising, just sad. > It was ratified by Russia and, somehow, Afghanistan. to put it mildly, in that list, as you can see, USA is the country that ratified fewer treaties. Even Iran ratified one treaty more than US. Actually there is one that did worse: Bhutan, with zero of them.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> yeah, social justice is political only in USA You’re shifting your goal posts. You said “social justice is an objective of US as a whole” and hence “not a political view.” That’s false. > Even Iran ratified one treaty more than US Which shows the difference. Ratification, in America, is not performative. Those treaties can become the basis for lawsuits against the U.S. in U.S. courts. If you’re arguing women have a better time in Iran, or civic and political rights are better protected in Russia, because they ratified those chapters, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > You’re shifting your goal posts. You said “social justice is an objective of US as a whole” and hence “not a political view.” That’s false. If you're saying that US usually says one thing, and does another thing entirely, you're right. When someone signs an official document in representation of their Country, they are actually saying that the Country's objective align with the things written in the document. They signed a document that stated that social justice is not political, it's a human right. You're now saying that's false in the US. So either you or the US are lying. > Which shows the difference. Ratification, in America, is not performative like the ratification of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1994? Are we there yet? > Those treaties can become the basis for lawsuits against the U.S. in U.S. courts Lawsuits, like the first of a long list a guy named Donald Trump had to face for his act of racism, in 1973, for refusing to rent houses to black people? That totally blocked him from becoming President of United States and from running again at the next elections. Because in USA nothing is performative. Trump BTW was at least honest in treating things the rest of the World consider global as internal political arguments; when he felt that climate change wasn't important to his administration, he withdrawn from the Paris climate accord. Seriously, you're talking like the US is the only country with the rule of law, where the ratification of an International treaty has actual legal consequences. How come that Countries like Italy, France, Germany, even MONGOLIA, ratified all of them or more than 90% of them and US did not? Are you saying that in Finland they have no justice system or engage in "performative treaty signing" as a cultural tribal tradition? > If you’re arguing women have a better time in Iran, or civic and political rights are better protected in Russia, because they ratified those chapters, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. I've simply argued that they committed to the cause and failed. US hasn't even tried. If, as you say, they didn't out of fear of "lawsuits against the U.S. in U.S. courts" does that mean that you think US know that they do not meet the requirements?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> yeah, social justice is political only in USA You’re shifting your goal posts. You said “social justice is an objective of US as a whole” and hence “not a political view.” That’s false. > Even Iran ratified one treaty more than US Which shows the difference. Ratification, in America, is not performative. Those treaties can become the basis for lawsuits against the U.S. in U.S. courts. If you’re arguing women have a better time in Iran, or civic and political rights are better protected in Russia, because they ratified those chapters, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> You’re shifting your goal posts. You said “social justice is an objective of US as a whole” and hence “not a political view.” That’s false. If you're saying that US usually says one thing, and does another thing entirely, you're right. When someone signs an official document in representation of their Country, they are actually saying that the Country's objective align with the things written in the document. They signed a document that stated that social justice is not political, it's a human right. You're now saying that's false in the US. So either you or the US are lying. > Which shows the difference. Ratification, in America, is not performative like the ratification of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1994? Are we there yet? > Those treaties can become the basis for lawsuits against the U.S. in U.S. courts Lawsuits, like the first of a long list a guy named Donald Trump had to face for his act of racism, in 1973, for refusing to rent houses to black people? That totally blocked him from becoming President of United States and from running again at the next elections. Because in USA nothing is performative. Trump BTW was at least honest in treating things the rest of the World consider global as internal political arguments; when he felt that climate change wasn't important to his administration, he withdrawn from the Paris climate accord. Seriously, you're talking like the US is the only country with the rule of law, where the ratification of an International treaty has actual legal consequences. How come that Countries like Italy, France, Germany, even MONGOLIA, ratified all of them or more than 90% of them and US did not? Are you saying that in Finland they have no justice system or engage in "performative treaty signing" as a cultural tribal tradition? > If you’re arguing women have a better time in Iran, or civic and political rights are better protected in Russia, because they ratified those chapters, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. I've simply argued that they committed to the cause and failed. US hasn't even tried. If, as you say, they didn't out of fear of "lawsuits against the U.S. in U.S. courts" does that mean that you think US know that they do not meet the requirements?