UNC Human
Rights Convention Blog:
Collective Rights
This blog is for Collective Rights, including group rights to culture, language, environment, good government. Collective rights are only meaningful because they are shared and recognized as such. To post a comment, click below.
Comments
“ Garantizar e incrementar los niveles de escolaridad, favoreciendo la educación bilingüe e intercultural, la alfabetización, la conclusión de la educación básica, la capacitación productiva y la educación media superior y superior. Establecer un sistema de becas para los estudiantes indígenas en todos los niveles. Definir y desarrollar programas educativos de contenido regional que reconozcan la herencia cultural de sus pueblos, de acuerdo con las leyes de la materia y en consulta con las comunidades indígenas. Impulsar el respeto y conocimiento de las diversas culturas existentes en la nación.”
The paragraph above is from the Mexican constitution. It is part of the
first title and it pertains to the indigenous population. If the United States
adopted a version of this, and would apply it to all people, especially those
of foreign descent, it would read something like this:
The guarantee and increase of levels of schooling, favoring bilingual and
cross-cultural education, the alphabetization, the conclusion of basic
education, the productive capacitation and the medium
education and higher education. The establishment a system of scholarships for
all students at every level. The definition and development of educational
programs of regional content that will recognize the inherited culture of
everybody’s background, according to the laws of the subjects. To impose
respect and knowledge of the diverse cultures that exist in the nation.
This addition to the constitution will diverse people under one common ground and people will be able to cohabitate with the understanding and expertise in all cultures.
Currently in the U.S. House of Representatives, there is a bill (H.R. 769)
that would make English the official language of the Government of the
The United States is built on a system of "checks and balances"
for what it claims to prove that every portion of its government is monitored
by a separate branch of itself and therefore cannot promote any manner of
justice or law that is objectible that the other
systems' standards. Nevertheless, due to the mistrust in our government and the
lack of voice from the people that are supposed to support our government, I
believe that even promoting a constitutional convention should be a right that
we should have as
After studying the South African Constitution while Abroad last Fall I fell in love with the South African Bill of Rights.
http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm
I propose that we revise our constitution to include similar ideas; such as the "Right to Human Dignity," "Freedom of Movement and Residence," and "Labour Relations", just to name a few.
I believe we need a Bill of Rights that is more cohesive and in touch with the issues and events of today. While the South African Constitution is fairly new, i think it has this advantage over our current American constitution.
Contrary to the above comment regarding the House of Representatives' proposed bill to make English the official language of the United Sates, I believe that declaring English as our nation's official language will promote a greater level of social and economic equality in various ways. Spoken language is the most personal and effective medium of communication, but language barriers can often make communication between individuals or groups nearly impossible. I think that making English our official language will help to ease communication and, as a result, will simplify and accelerate matters in government, business, and education. Language barriers can also fuel feelings of discrimination and animosity towards a particular group. Eliminating such language barriers by standardizing our mode of spoken language will help to decrease discrimination between various racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. The passing of this bill also implies that our current wasteful practices of providing documents and other government programs in multiple languages would be ended. I firmly believe that it should not be the taxpayer's responsibility to provide for such expenditures.
I think that both comments in regards to making English the official
language of the
I agree that the bill to make English the official language of the
I am not sure how this fits into our discussion on rights. I am in a
business law class. According to
I think the above suggestion for a Good Samaritan law is very interesting and spurs a question that I have been wondering throughout this class- is there a point to where we can no longer make laws and must instead hope that individuals will make a choice that will benefit all? I think personally that there is such a point to where human made laws can no longer have affect and the moral law inside must take over. What is this moral law? I believe that humans all have an innate understanding of right and wrong inside them. However, because of selfish motives or self-centeredness they may not always abide by that understanding. Therefore, I would argue that while a Good Samaritan law is a good idea, it can never really be affective unless the individuals are acting based on their innate knowledge of right and wrong. If they are not then the Good Samaritan laws will become like speeding laws- we break them unless they are visibly enforced by a patrol car.
I am also intrigued by the idea of crafting a Good Samaritan Law. It is a very interesting idea, and I think it would make for a very fascinating discussion/debate. My reaction to such an idea is along the same lines as Charissa. Yes, it sounds like a fabulous idea in theory – why wouldn’t we want to make sure we are all looking out for each other and helping each other? Yet, is that really practical and/or even plausible? Or perhaps, is it even necessary? Has our society gotten to the point where we must mandate such laws, rather than trusting people to take such things upon themselves out of their own human dignity and compassion? I surely hope not. But if it has, will imposing such laws really make a difference? My experience suggests that people will behave the way that they wish to regardless of laws that are not only difficult to truly define, but also impossible to really enforce. The significance of free will cannot be undermined. We cannot have laws that become so restrictive that they get to the point where every decision is determined by laws. People must have the chance to decide for themselves; otherwise they will never learn right from wrong. People oftentimes need a chance to make mistakes in order to find true purpose and meaning. Rather than creating a Good Samaritan Law, I would advocate for finding ways to foster stronger senses of community among all American people. This is what I think would make the biggest difference. Once people learn to care for one another, they will do anything for each other.
I think that a Good Samaritan article would be a valuable addition to our constitution or we should consider a federal law that covers that type of action. I don’t think it is moral to let a child die if you could reasonably save it, but I think that it would be a hard task to enforce said law. What if someone knows that their next door neighbors are physically abusing their child and have been doing so for years? Will they be responsible for the child's subsequent death from the abuse? How would we prove that the neighbor of the deceased child actually knew about the abuse and could have prevented the death by reporting it? I think the answer to that is we would never know, and therefore, the law would be next to impossible to enforce. Police would have to chase every next door neighbor, friend, family member, co-worker, etc. that knew a killer, child molester, terrorist, etc. I think it would be a fabulous idea, but I really dint think that it would be enforceable. I think that it would be a great idea for people to truly care about others and their well being like Ashley said in her post, but I also think that part of a person's freedom is the freedom to make your own decisions. If that means watching the baby careen over the cliff because you don’t want to break your nails, then you have that right. If that means that you watch as a child's spirit is broken by child abuse so that you don’t have to get involved in someone else's household, then you have the right to do so.
I think that the idea of a Good Samaritan law is great in theory, but I also am not sure how it could be enforced. I think this falls in to what we were talking about in class on Tuesday. There seems to be a difference between something being a moral code and something being made legislation. There are plenty of things that people "should" do, and that you would hope everyone would do...such as saving the baby falling off the cliff! But like Denna said, how can you have a law that intends to force people to act a certain way without infringing on a person's rights to act as they so choose? I think that a Good Samaritan law is more of a code of how people should act, but can not (and should not) be how people have to act.
I agree with Casey that having a Good Samaritan law is an ideal thing to have but it may not be feasible or enforceable. While it is the moral responsibility of everyone to help one another there is no way we can force people to do it without violating their personal rights. Also, different people react to different situations differently, would we have to punish people's failure to act quickly or failure to act? Some people are just not used to taking charge or may have some reasons for not acting. And by what criteria would we enforce these laws?
Something we haven’t discussed much yet in this class is Environmental Rights. I am a huge advocate of protecting our environment, because I believe it provides innumerous possibilities and benefits to society and humanity in general. Without trees, clean air, and clean water we will have nothing. We will run out of resources, we will be living in miserable circumstances, and the world’s beauty will be lost if we do not start sticking up for the environment immediately. That is why I believe it imperative that serious initiatives are taken now to protect our environment. Since the environment is a collective good, it must be a collective effort made by all. Therefore, I propose that we write in an article about environmental preservation and protection as a collective right.
Collective education should be very essential to the development of a child.
Various sources of education should be presented to all students from vast
regions of the
It seems like the Good Samaritan Law is somewhat like an honor code for a university or workplace. While it is sometimes difficult to enforce, that doesn't mean that it should not be included in the constitution. I think that there should be a moral responsibility/Good Samaritan/honor code section of the Constitution. In this section could be included the details for certain situations (ie. if a child is being abused and a person observes or knows of this and yet they say or do nothing about it, then the consequence is...) A constitution should include all of the ideals of the country whether or not they are easily enforced or not. If all citizens feel an obligation to be honest and to have others be honorable, then ideally this would help the country run smoothly.
In rewriting a constitution and a bill of rights, does this include the consequences of not upholding these rights? I was wondering if we would establish as Janie mentioned about consequences, the repercussions and/or incentives given to people to abide by the constitution and if this would be effective in making it more practical and practiced?...just curious and not sure.
That's a really good comparison about the Good Samaritan Law being somewhat like an honor code for a university. I'm just not sure either about whether a constitution should have consequences. Maybe they should and do, but I always thought that a Constitution was more about the rights that the state provides and protects for the people. Don't consequences fall into the realm of law? If not, then alot of the articles that we have proposed and have agreed would be difficult to enforce (but are ideals) would merit consequences (even though we have said that they might not be practicable).
Cultural rights are so crucial to protect, but are lacking. Protecting what makes us unique and individual helps maintain our identity. Together, we have the rights to preservation of our heritage and for the government to provide the framework for the arts, sports, and sciences that we share and that define our culture.
I agree that cultural rights is important because culture is what unites
people but also make people unique. A society with just one culture will be
boring and new ideas could not be generated as well. It is important that
everyone's rights to retain their culture be created because it is what makes
the world a more interesting place. Also, we are the
People have the right to safe roads. Thus, all roads need to be equipped with side walks, all intersections with crosswalks and lights, the speed limit needs to be more heavily enforced, as well as running lights, stop signs, and heavier punishments for driving under various influences.
I'm taking a class on language and political identity this semester and it has really helped me to understand the importance of language protection. Whether people are indigenous minorities or immigrant minorities, being able to use their language is a huge part of keeping their culture alive. Society benefits from cultural diversity, so including protection for language will contribute to promoting cultural rights.
I agree with protecting Cultural rights, although the unite states is the melting pot, it runs and functions from the identities of the many cultures that it is made up from, and that is what makes the US so unique. Protecting cultural rights, is just as important as protecting the person and their idenity becuase when their identity goes so does their importance.
I propose that we provide cultural education in our public school systems
starting as early as pre-school and elementary school. I also believe the
cultural curriculum should address regional culture since culture is so
diverse. For example, say that you have a elementary school in the southwest
While I agree with the preservation of culture and language it is important
that people also master the language of whatever country tey
have chosen to live in. The main reason is political mobilization and social
activism. For example, Mexicans have migrated to the
I agree with Nicole. It is very important to preserve one's culture, but isolation is dangerous. A balance between knowing English and respecting one's heritage is important.
I don't think we have to fundamentally change our constitution. We just need to add to it and refine it. It seems like there is an imbalance of power, finding a way to protect recently naturalized immigrants heritages while providing them greater access learning English would be an appropriate step.
What about the right to organize? Right now we have Freedom of Assembly, though this does not include recruiting and holding peaceful meetings without intervention from the state through spying.
I too would like to comment on the significance and even necessity of diversity, culture, and an array of languages. I’m glad Kate brought up languages, because that is exactly what was on my mind. In my opinion, the first step towards protecting and promoting diversity and culture is guaranteeing, promoting, and protecting all languages. Language protection and promotion not only makes all people feel valued and assimilated, but it also keeps everyone educated and informed as to what is happening around us all (in our society, country, world, etc).
In terms of protecting language rights, I agree that language is important
to maintaining one's cultural identity. However, because of the large diverse
population in the
I do believe it is important to preserve one's culture of origin but it is also important to appreciate the culture you are apart of now. Like someone said earlier "isolation can be dangerous." I believe is essential for people to learn about and appreciate different cultures, in order, to respect and accept others. I would just propose that every one have the right to express one's culture. Though I honestly do not know how I feel about if two cultures conflict. I understand both sides. A person should be able to practice the culture of origin but then again one is living in a new country and enjoying whatever benefits there may be being a citizen in the new country.