‘Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behavior, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights “to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being”, and which are “inherent in all human beings” regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal, and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone. They are regarded as requiring empathy and the rule of law and imposing an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of others, and it is generally considered that they should not be taken away except as a result of due process based on specific circumstances; for example, human rights may include freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution.’
I am quite amused by the vocabulary used in this article from Wikipedia, like, ‘Inalienable’ (not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor) & ‘Egalitarian’ (believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities).
If you are a human being than you are eligible for human rights, fair enough. But it should not be inalienable, it should have some constraints as ‘who should be considered a human being or should we forge a new word for it as the old one doesn’t seem to have any impact.’
Nowadays we have rapists, murders, corrupt personalities, etc. so the word ‘egalitarian’ doesn’t get along. They are not naive. They know the difference between right & wrong.
Why should we consider you a human being if you are involved in barbaric deeds?
Why we have codes such as ‘Sau gunhegar bach jayien par ek bekasur ko saza ni hona chahiye.’
Have you ever analyzed this statement?
Those hundred criminals can defile the country, & if one innocent is accused & punished, then I am forced to question the credibility of the system. This code makes the system safe from both sides. It is not a win-win situation for all. I know, sometimes mistakes are inevitable but your attitude might change the outlook.
Should all men be treated equally? Does our judicial system require a revamp? Should the eligibility criteria for Human Rights to be revised or the criteria for being human to be derived?
Should death penalty for atrocities to be given more often?
It’s time we should enunciate.