It’s one of those foundational “where do our rights come from” debates.
Are rights:
A) Granted by a government
B) Derived from nature and recognized by the People
I’d it’s (A), then they can be taken away by a change in the law. They’re just you’re because some monarch or bureaucrat decides you no longer should have it.
If it’s (B) then you always have the right and the monarchs or bureaucrats denying it to you is an assault on your human rights.
While a trousers in school debate isn’t exactly life or death, I see the title’s wording as suspect. It says the girls are now “granted” the right, which means the government decides if you have rights. That’s (A), while I would hope an article writer would want (B), and say the girls’ right to wear trousers has been “recognized” by the courts, which means it should never be taken away without the removal being an act of supppression of human rights.
Given you recognise it’s a foundational debate, why would you expect a journalist to have the same view as you on it?
Anyway I think it’s pretty clear a lot of rights only make sense in a social system - there’s no inherent natural right to things that don’t exist in a state of nature.
Given that i had my right to live and work in the majority of Europe taken from me against my will and now half our political parties are looking to strip me of my human rights I’d say it’s pretty self evident that it’s A and governments can take them away.
Is that perspective on rights common? And is there anywhere I can read more about the nature of human rights? It’s something that crosses my mind often but never really encountered any good learning material for.
Even with (B) changing cultural attitudes can lead to rights being revoked without being viewed as suppression. The line between something being recognised by the people and granted by the government is a fuzzy one.
Seems like a weird line of reasoning
It’s one of those foundational “where do our rights come from” debates.
Are rights: A) Granted by a government B) Derived from nature and recognized by the People
I’d it’s (A), then they can be taken away by a change in the law. They’re just you’re because some monarch or bureaucrat decides you no longer should have it.
If it’s (B) then you always have the right and the monarchs or bureaucrats denying it to you is an assault on your human rights.
While a trousers in school debate isn’t exactly life or death, I see the title’s wording as suspect. It says the girls are now “granted” the right, which means the government decides if you have rights. That’s (A), while I would hope an article writer would want (B), and say the girls’ right to wear trousers has been “recognized” by the courts, which means it should never be taken away without the removal being an act of supppression of human rights.
Language and fraking matters here.
deleted by creator
Given you recognise it’s a foundational debate, why would you expect a journalist to have the same view as you on it?
Anyway I think it’s pretty clear a lot of rights only make sense in a social system - there’s no inherent natural right to things that don’t exist in a state of nature.
Given that i had my right to live and work in the majority of Europe taken from me against my will and now half our political parties are looking to strip me of my human rights I’d say it’s pretty self evident that it’s A and governments can take them away.
Is that perspective on rights common? And is there anywhere I can read more about the nature of human rights? It’s something that crosses my mind often but never really encountered any good learning material for.
Even with (B) changing cultural attitudes can lead to rights being revoked without being viewed as suppression. The line between something being recognised by the people and granted by the government is a fuzzy one.