U. N. High Commissioner For Human Rights, European Convention Of Human Rights, International Covenant On Economic Social And Cultural Rights discussed on Legally Bland

Legally Bland
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Oh Boy Am I. I started off thinking. Wash our human rights. Because like you I wanted to go very broad and then narrow in on what I actually picked so I find this interesting close in. The face of a book called maclear. It's an international human rights law book and it's as human rights mean different things to different people from the woman on the street to the U. N. High Commissioner for Human Rights from the local human rights activists to the government official. Each of us has a different conception of the origin purpose and function of human rights. So a good head space to get into before considering anything else. Human Rights I think is something along. The lines of the first rule is there are no rules because I love human rights. It's it's as Alana mentioned earlier. I I've studied it a bit more and I really love it put. It frustrates me beyond belief. So this is a reoccurring theme one of the first pitfalls of thinking about in human rights in an international context is there's this agreement that prevails thought the framework on basic conception. We have of what human rights are are fundamentally subject to Western bias so we think are essential human rights. This comes back to like the moral of the story for the first couple episodes where we kept surmising. The lowest fake doesn't really mean anything so it's been aggie dot like the imposition of human rights is a neo colonialism venture of sorts And these actually ageements from public international law scholars that the Western influence on human rights is so large dotted foxy impossible to imagine what it would be like with this Western influence which is just it's headbutting. Bush so just yet remember. There are no rules. They're they're really they don't find it. It's just a hideout no but it's it comes back to like it comes back to as humans. We try him put labels on things. That are really just things that like. We feel like we feel human rights. We like we feel inherently some of the time. What should be a human right? But it's very hard to explain to them. Undertake weigh the sources really not as straightforward as we try and label. It as another issue can be. We try to legally justify what we have moral justifications for which is tricky so right can be seen in two basic ways you can see them as the universal natural phenomenon that are that are innate to human beings so if by virtue of being a person you have human rights or it can be viewed as this contractual protection afforded to you by your government so not really universal on practically. That's an easier way to think about us. I I like the idea of natural rights that you know. We're just people and people have rights. Yeah I think I told my explanation. Lean towards anyway realistically. It's easier to think in a practical science dot. The government is affording you these protections which is an idea so the origins of human rights. I think it's an interesting. I suppose question because there is no starting point and Arjun humanoids albeit in a slightly different guides can be traced as far back as ancient Babylon aren seventeen hundred BC which is a long time ago. Some scholars wrongly slash the magnetic AirAsia. Which is a thirteen century. Document just stopped the King of England having absolute power over his nobles objects dot sometimes light is like the beginning of human rights in a modern ISH context. There is a lot in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Bache scholar is believing rights. We're just a social contract with you. And your government and natural rights really became prevalent as a result of the American revolution and Subsequent Declaration of Independence. So ever knows you know those famous words. We hold these treats to resolve evident that all men are created equal that they are indeed with certain unalienable rights that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The people that wrote these owned other people like it. Just fix the hypocrisy. It's just ludicrous. Like hypocrisy war like everyone has rights. We know sorry. We have rights. Everyone might have rights. That's kind of the gist. It's so from that point. In time there were more people can like more people. Existed who didn't have rights than heart rates like women did not have many rights that many rights. That's got to be over fifty percents. Also I remember thinking about. This child made like why? That's really embarrassing. That they wrote that was take people rights. I can't believe they didn't realize what an error they were making themselves. And we still quote it like. That's like if Hitler had said something about like peace and we were like where that was a good quote though on you. Just what? He preached boy. Was it a good quote? I know exactly like this is very aspirational. Unlike it for what it is when you think about the context no so human rights in the modern era really gets going. I suppose with the UN Cheshire which was established in one thousand nine forty five which is in the wake of the atrocities of World War. Two but an important thing about the UN Charito to keep in mind is the human rights was never the main focus. The main focus was to prevent road war. Three if you will and a good question I think is the. Un was not created to take Mankayane to heaven but to save humanity from hell which is a coup the former United Nations secretary general commerce gold. That's good it's good boy. I want the poster. I don't think we're even being saved from Alabama. Oh No it doesn't the third circle of Hell Somewhere. I don't know you mentioned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted in nineteen forty eight and it had thirty areas calls with you know again the quote unquote the basic human rights. The high profile ones right to life freedom from torture freedom of expression and there is a big divide theoretically within rights and the international contacts between so-called positive and negative rights which doesn't mean one's good and one's barrage like what is good and one said is bad and so positive rights is higher the government can interact with people to enhance their enjoyment of their freedom and negative rights is basically. You're the government limiting their interference. So he can be left alone to enjoy your freedom like privacy for his aesthetically cool so there's the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Which is the more positive side of rights? So it's the right to the rector social security the right to education the right to health so this kind of right to Geshe things from the government and then there's the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is the negative rights. So be left alone. The right to life the right to liberty freedom of expression right of peaceful assembly so that was really good like that was Seabra. Good no wonder you're an an expert. I'm not an expert so the Irish constitution will narrow it back day in from. That was a very broad general introduction to the gist of human rights in a micro sense. So we'll bring it back to the Irish Constitution. So if you've been listening to this podcast for any amount of time you know we love the constitution. It's what we're a boast. So the Irish Constitution or Boehner Clarion was ratified in nineteen thirty. Seven eight describes the fundamental rights of every Irish citizen. I mentioned the constitution is also part of a wider human rights framework in Ireland. So there's other legal and human rights commitments made by Ireland so the treaties under the United Nations. Which have mentioned some of them the European Convention of Human Rights on the ECJ or act which brings those rights into the Irish context on the charter fundamental rights of the European Union. So articles forty. Two forty four provide the fundamental rights of our citizens so as Alana mentioned fundamental rights are not obsolete which they can be limited or restricted by the octaves for certain reasons like common good public order and every constitutional. Right has the same status and value. If there's a conflict between the constitutional rights all the circumstances are wade opt to decide which conceal right is more important in that particular case so I feel those last. Two points are very important to emphasize because I perceive a common misunderstanding to be like having a rice is obsolete Like no further just discussion required end of story. Good night good luck. I have my rice go away. So the Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights is generally associated with more like eastern countries so when Western countries like when people say I have a right to education? My brain just wanted to go do you think so which is kind of terrible so on enumerated rights have been mentioned before. Alana back in episode two and also earlier in this episode so basically not every fundamental rights that you possess is set in the constitution explicitly. You've Sony personal rates that are just not specifically stated and these rights can be derived or employed by the constitution. So these include privacy bodily integrity on freedom from torture inhumane or degrading treatment. So the case I pick a for a while I was worried. I'd gone away off brief and the human rights but this is a rights case. It's just sometimes I think when people talk about human rights they perceive it to be these massive injustices like on an atrocity scale which it can be but a lot of time feel human rights can be very almost mundane every day things if that makes sense so the case I chose was nickel and on boarding tola nine hundred sixty six one four so the applicant in this case can ever say Leonidas Nikola was separate national. Living in London he'd been in a relationship with Kathleen Donnelly Irishwoman woman and they lived together in London when their daughter was born there. February nine hundred sixty at the time. Stanley was upset that the child was illegitimate and operate. Continue living with Mr Nikolai on his wife but she also would only marry Niccolo if he became a member of the Catholic Church because he was a member of the Greek Orthodox church where she's yeah. I can't read the Times that makes sense you. I mean this case really does focus on the rights of the married father. But at the time it's really pertinent to remember. For All this context I focus on Nikolas writes Bush like Kathleen. Donnelly obviously a terrible time. As well the nineteen sixties in Ireland absolutely just controlled by the Catholic Church so women having children of wedlock of you will was just absolutely scandalous. And they retreated so horribly criminally stigmatized Bush. Just keep that in mind. I do focus on Nikola. But that's not saying that she got off. Scot free in any sense of course so the Mother Kathleen Donald Returns to Ireland. She goes to the Office of the Catholic Production Rescue Society of Ireland and was admitted with her baby to Saint Patrick's home. Which was you know whether there's more and baby homes which is just a whole other fish we could discuss so she requested that the child be placed for adoption on. She then left the home and went to live with her parents on the ABC. Into this case Niccolo went and visited. The home of the mother's parents Orland and was very apprehensive. That arrangements were being made to have his child adopted and in nineteen sixty one. The child adoption was finalized bought. Mr Nicholas was only informed of this when Miss John Lee Returned London. Nineteen sixty three. He objected the adoption. Which had been arranged with Ed is consent? It was you that he had no right to contest the adoption order or even be heard by onboard. Tola just the adoption board so the governing major station in this case was the adoption act. Nineteen fifty two. It was the first legislation Ireland covering adoption before nineteen fifty two. It was just a free for all adoption. There is if there's something though low legislation no real. Anything went terrible when the adoption act was being was being drafted. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church was given an unusual degree of control. You know even by the prevailing standards at the time so every line of the bill was sent to the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin by Dev. Really well Dave Dave wanted. Obviously the Catholic Church had a huge influence over everything devils particularly religious Yuccas. What he sent every single line of the adoption act. The BISHOP PROVED LEGISLATION..

Coming up next