Safe, affordable housing and a secure income is something that many people throughout the world have, but at the same time, many more don’t have this luxury. Many families take this for granted while many suffer every day with poor housing and no secure form of income. Social rights such as affordable housing, guarantee income, education, etc. should be considered human rights, and everyone in the world should be able to access these and in turn, have a basic standard of living. If everyone had access to these basic rights, the world would be much better. There would be no one living on the streets and no one having to starve their families because of no money. Some people believe that these social rights should only be given to you if you can earn the money to have them. Some people have certain circumstances that do not allow them to find a job, especially with the economy, there is a decrease in jobs available. That is why education, all the way up to post-secondary should be free as well.
There needs to be a basic view of social and human rights as one. Without this basic view, “when someone is tortured or when a person’s right to speak freely is restricted, observers almost unconsciously hold the state responsible. However, when people die of hunger or thirst...rural dwellers are evicted from their homes, the world still tends to blame nameless economic or ‘developmental’ forces...before placing liability at the doorstep of the state” (Leckie, 1998, p. 82). People who believe that you should earn these rights think that the poor people of the world brought it on themselves and should have no assistance. These poor people are the people that we should be helping, not letting them fall to the way side, living in streets and i...
... middle of paper ...
...ate a better country for all, both rich and poor. This could make Canada a whole new country and show others around the world that we are committed to helping the people that need help, and not stereotyping people and denying some of them their basic needs.
References
Cardenas, S. (2005). Constricting rights? Human rights education and the state. International Political Science Review, 26 (4), 363-379.
Clapham, A. (2007). Human rights: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Leckie, S. (1998). Another step towards indivisibility: Identifying the key features of violations of economic, social and cultural rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 20 (2), 81-124.
Whelan, D.J., & Donnelly, J. (2007). The west, economic and social rights, and the global human rights regime: Setting the record straight. Human Rights Quarterly, 29 (4), 908-949.
great of a country as we really are. The country of Canada lacks a true
If I were the prime minister of Canada, I would strive to accomplish and strengthen three major things. First, I would make sure that our educational system maintains strong and will make others succeed in life, second, I would make sure that everyone has equal and fair treatment in our society, and lastly, I would make sure every Canadian family can live happily by reducing tax.
Schattuck, John. “Overview of Human Right Practices, 1995,” Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. March 1996: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 10 Oct 2013.
The issue of human rights has arisen only in the post-cold war whereby it was addressed by an international institution that is the United Nation. In the United Nation’s preamble stated that human rights are given to all humans and that there is equality for everyone. There will not be any sovereign states to diminish its people from taking these rights. The globalization of capitalism after the Cold War makes the issue of human rights seems admirable as there were sufferings in other parts of the world. This is because it is perceived that the western states are the champion of democracy which therefore provides a perfect body to carry out human rights activities. Such human sufferings occur in a sovereign state humanitarian intervention led by the international institution will be carried out to end the menace.
...he light there could be more laws made to stop discrimination. Plus that would be more of a plus for Canada because for we would be leading and not stuck following.
In order to be radical about poverty, we need to understand the difference between wealth and income. Income is a transfer of money by working or by gifts. On the other hand, wealth is more of a total of accumulated assets that has been stored for a period of time (Conley, pg. 253). Wealth is not distributed equally among the public. (NCH, 2016, http://nationalhomeless.org/about-homelessness/). Declining wages has also caused a lot of stress and increase people’s inability to pay for their housing or other needs. If there are affordable housing, it’s usually in an unsafe and polluted environment or it’s extremely overcrowded that people have a higher chance of being homeless or inadequate housing arrangements than getting their applications accepted (Why Are People Homeless Research, 2016, NCH). Also, privatizing housing will increase the accumulation of wealth of the power elite or those that own property and lands by their pricing in rents. Most people go through depression because of loss of home, jobs, or a sense of self. Often times, the lack education about health and they don’t receive adequate support for medical care if they are homelessness. Poverty is also treated as a criminal offence and if people were to ask for public assistance, they have to prove their eligibility. If they have a criminal record, they are
45 Oona Hathaway, ‘Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?’ (2003) 112 Yale Law Journal
...e taken seriously, it is important to consider the arguments in the appropriate context. They are global concerns in which every nation needs to cooperative to improve conditions. As humans, however, we all have moral obligations to help those around us who are living in conditions of suffering and misery.
In the face of media campaigns and political sanctions, the question about whether we owe the global poor assistance and rectification is an appropriate one. Despite television advertisements displaying the condition of the poor and news articles explaining it, the reality is the majority of us, especially in the Western world, are far removed from the poverty that still affects a lot of lives. The debate between Thomas Pogge and Mathias Risse regarding our obligation to the poor questions the very institution we live in. Pogge created a new framework in which the debate developed. He introduced a focus on the design of the institutional global order, and the role it plays in inflicting or at least continuing the severe poverty people are exposed to. Whilst both Mathias Risse and Thomas Pogge believe that the “global order is imperfectly developed. It needs reform rather than revolutionary overthrow”, they differ on whether or not it is just and entitles the global poor to assistance. Pogge believes that the global order is unjust as it “helps to perpetuate extreme poverty, violating our negative duty not to harm others unduly”. Risse believes that the institution is only incompletely just and can be credited to improving lives of the global poor. According to him, these improvements contribute to its justifiability and negate any further obligation we have to the poor. Through assessing their debate, it seems that one’s obligation to the poor depends on one’s conception of duty, their unit of analysis, and whether improvement rectifies injustice. On balance, it seems that we do indeed owe the poor, only we may lack the means to settle it.
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
While on one hand there is a growing consensus that human rights are universal on the other exist critics who fiercely oppose the idea. Of the many questions posed by critics revolve around the world’s pluri-cultural and multipolarity nature and whether anything in such a situation can be really universal.
ABSTRACT: This paper defends the claim that the contemporary canon of human rights forms an indivisible and interdependent system of norms against both "Western" and "Asian" critics who have asserted exceptionalist or selectivist counterclaims. After providing a formal definition of human rights, I argue that the set of particular human rights that comprises the contemporary canon represents an ethical-legal paradigm which functions as an implicit theory of human oppression. On this view, human rights originate as normative responses to particular historical experiences of oppression. Since historically known experiences of oppression have resulted from practices that function as parts of systems of domination, normative responses to these practices have sought to disarm and dismantle such systems by depriving potential oppressors of the techniques which enable them to maintain their domination. Therefore, human rights norms form a systematic and interdependent whole because only as parts of a system can they function as effective means for combatting oppression and domination.
[online] Available from: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/view_reports.cfm?year=2000&country= 0& region = 0& type = 0& theme = 0> [Accessed 2 March 2011]. Charney, E., (1999) Cultural Interpretation and Universal Human Rights: A Response to Daniel A. Bell.
The role that globalization plays in spreading and promoting human rights and democracy is a subject that is capable spurring great debate. Human rights are to be seen as the standards that gives any human walking the earth regardless of any differences equal privileges. The United Nations goes a step further and defines human rights as,
Human beings are willing to kill each other for the simplest amounts, imagine what they would do for all the money in the world. With this can occur an economic discrimination, which is based on economic factor. These factors can include job availability, wages, the prices and/or availability of goods and services, and the amount of capital investment. The average American doesn’t realize how good they have it in life, being able to sleep in bed, eat warmed cooked meals, and even spend money on needless things. There are homeless people all over the world being discriminated on, this very second, because of their economic status. But us, as humans don’t understand the suffering they encounter until it happens to us. We would rather sit there and donate to a homeless person wanting drugs and alcohol, rather than a begging for help to feed their family. Until we find the love and care to help the people in need our world peace is slowly drifting away from