This is lebih of a rant than a well-thought out article, but since this here is called "soap-box", I am going to use it.
I'm currently menulis my paper for my Human Rights class. Sometimes I come upon artikel that are so messed up...
I can understand artikel that argue for example for economic interests against human rights. I do not agree with those, but at least they have often an argumentation that makes sense.
But the artikel I just read... it was actually published in a booklet oleh Amnesty International. I have no idea why they put that in there. Maybe to tampil how ridiculous some argumentations are.
So, the artikel deals with the pertanyaan whether countries should pressure other countries to respect human rights.
The artikel goes like that:
* Nowadays with human rights are not only meant political and economic freedom as originally, but also social rights, and this is so wrong!
* If countries pressure for human rights, they will pressure for social rights.
* From advocating social rights it is only a small step to pressure for higher wages in developing countries!
* This will lead Western countries with high wages to force the developing countries to raise wages, so that the Western countries don't have to lower theirs in the competition!
* This will take away any development possibility for those countries!
Hence... advocating human rights is bad!
~~~
What a messed up argumentation! It's not like we're talking about advocacy against torture, child labor, arbitrary killings etc.
Besides, the Universal Declaration in 1948 already included both political and social human rights. It's completely wrong to say that it is a new idea. Western states just usually prefer to talk only about political rights.
The artikel is here oleh the way: link, but it's in German.
I'm currently menulis my paper for my Human Rights class. Sometimes I come upon artikel that are so messed up...
I can understand artikel that argue for example for economic interests against human rights. I do not agree with those, but at least they have often an argumentation that makes sense.
But the artikel I just read... it was actually published in a booklet oleh Amnesty International. I have no idea why they put that in there. Maybe to tampil how ridiculous some argumentations are.
So, the artikel deals with the pertanyaan whether countries should pressure other countries to respect human rights.
The artikel goes like that:
* Nowadays with human rights are not only meant political and economic freedom as originally, but also social rights, and this is so wrong!
* If countries pressure for human rights, they will pressure for social rights.
* From advocating social rights it is only a small step to pressure for higher wages in developing countries!
* This will lead Western countries with high wages to force the developing countries to raise wages, so that the Western countries don't have to lower theirs in the competition!
* This will take away any development possibility for those countries!
Hence... advocating human rights is bad!
~~~
What a messed up argumentation! It's not like we're talking about advocacy against torture, child labor, arbitrary killings etc.
Besides, the Universal Declaration in 1948 already included both political and social human rights. It's completely wrong to say that it is a new idea. Western states just usually prefer to talk only about political rights.
The artikel is here oleh the way: link, but it's in German.
