A privilege is when something is only available to a certain group. Rights are broader than the legal context you keep coming back to. For instance, us white men have the privilege of never having experienced discrimination (far less likely anyway). It leads to some white men being unable to grasp that other people (not in their privileged position) may have been born into (not chosen) a much harder life and therefore basic human rights (legal, social and ethical) are far more critical to their well-being than they are for them. Hence why governments/societies have had to step in with anti discrimination laws so these guys all cosy in their bubble can't use their ignorance either proactively or passively to make life harder for those less privileged.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)
- Thread starter Cesoir
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
You mean countries (of which we are one) that are signatories to the universal declaration of human rights? I'd bet my bottom dollar there's more than a few positive rights in there.
It's a really useless debate. The word right is used so loosely in our society, majority of people wouldn't even be familiar with the terms negative and positive rights. If you have something of substance to offer regarding the bill, that would be great.
Bridget McKenzie stepped down from the front bench.
- Thread starter
- #529
Can you keep the politics out of here mate.
And this is what welfare in the form of Newstart/Austudy/Disability etc is. A privilege only available to a certain group - Australian citizens.
There just isn't though.
Here's the Australian human rights page. The first section (civil and political rights) contains exactly zero positive rights i.e. there is no right to be given anything. Only a list of things that the government can't do to you. I.E. Negative rights.
Rights and freedoms: right by right
Discover an overview of human rights material prepared by the Attorney-General’s Department in consultation with the Australian Human Rights Commission.
This is really just a case of you inventing things that do not exist.
Yes true, it is a privilege to be born an Australian (we should remind ourselves of that when people in less fortunate circumstances ask us for help). But that is not the context you were using it in before
The context was welfare...Australians have the right to apply for social welfare and also to appeal if they are unhappy with any decision made regarding their welfare. Those are rights, not privileges. The privilege is being Australian and therefore having those rights.
We have an Australian Charter for Healthcare Rights which amongst other things states: Everyone has the right to be able to access health care and this right is essential for the Charter to be meaningful. It goes beyond just access of course.
Haven't looked at the link but fairly certain it would include things like... The right to vote. The right to marry. The right to a name. The right to a nationality. The right to an attorney. The right to have children. The right to run for office. The right to a passport. The right to assistance from consulates overseas and so on... Zero positive rights?
See this is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't be bothered reading the link but you just assume that rights exist when they don't. There's no right to a passport (the government can deny you one for a variety of reasons) and there's certainly no right to consular assistance (in fact they'll tell you to **** off a good percentage of the time).
"Services the government might provide under certain conditions" is not the same thing as a right. It's only like the 5th time I've had to explain that now, sorry you can't or won't understand.
Last edited:
Some rights will have restrictions, it doesn't mean they aren't rights. You keep trying to explain something (as per your last sentence above) that you are blatantly wrong about, that's why everyone continues to disregard it. The government refers to these things as rights themselves. For instance the freedom of movement is a right (it really should be in that link of yours - perhaps you just missed it?). It includes the right for people to move freely (eg by obtaining a passport) - there are sometimes restrictions though (eg legal reasons). It's like having the right to freedom but not if you go and break the law. Are you trying to claim that it is a privilege for innocent people to not be incarcerated? Of course not, that is silly.
You have a very strange way of trying to debate. You pick out two out of ten things I mentioned to try and disprove a point when I was rebutting you saying there are zero positive rights. Clearly there aren't zero - your point is disproven regardless. I could have kept going suggesting a heap more positive rights that we have in Australia. Like others have said the whole positive and negative rights thing has little to no relevance to the original topic though.
And hypocrite much? You couldn't even be bothered looking at the Religious Discrimination Bill before entering a convo about it.
I seriously doubt old mate has read the universal declaration of human rights if he's claiming there's zero positive rights in there. Not to mention the hundreds of scholarly articles about positive rights and the second and third waves of human rights.
This whole thing kicked off because I said "I think it's troublesome to privilege the rights of one group over another". Bushchook took off with that one word and entered his little flex (pretty shit one at that) about negative rights.
He did accuse me of making stuff up though, I guess now would be a good time to remind him of this complete fabrication
Tonga Bob
Getting warmer
- Oct 26, 2013
- 31,156
- 77,193
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- SFFC, LFC, ADO, CI Warriors
- Moderator
- #537
#beetrooter is trending again on Twitter
What you mean to say is that freedom of movement is a right that we don't have. Because if we actually had the right to freedom of movement then passports and visas would not exist.
If you need to ask permission to do it then that right is a right that you don't have.
Correct I obviously haven't read the UDOHR because I wasn't talking about that, I linked the Australian government rights page because it's a list of rights that actually exist in the real world rather than the UN version which is a wish list that no country honours.
That's actually exactly what it means.
Here is the first paragraph for the Right to Freedom of Movement from the Attorney General's website:
What is the right to freedom of movement?
The right to freedom of movement includes the right to move freely within a country for those who are lawfully within the country, the right to leave any country and the right to enter a country of which you are a citizen. The right may be restricted in certain circumstances.
If you still disagree maybe you need to take it up with the AG's office as they keep referring to all these things as rights? That would be preferable than wasting our time on here
Lol, if you cared to read the links you'd posted you would have realised that they come from the UDHR.
The ICCPR that is referenced in the civil and political rights section originates from the UDHR. The ICCPR was designed to try and make binding the rights outlined in the UDHR.
The rights of children comes from the Convention on the rights of a child, again directly from the UDHR.
I could go on but point being, we signed the UDHR, we are seeking to implement it through the ICCPR and the nail in the coffin here is that it contains positive rights.
We have positive rights, here in Australia, in the real world.
Edit: just to make it nice and simple. The link that you claim to somehow invalidate the UDHR 'in the real world' and thus deny the existence of positive rights actually references the UDHR, contains entire conventions from the UDHR and proves the existence of positive rights in Australia, thanks.
Last edited:
Ps, if you read your source properly you'd realise that the convention on the rights of the child (which exists here in Australia, ie the real world and has since we ratified it in 1990) contains the right to social security (article 26) and the right to education (article 28). Which are among some of the many things you claimed do not exist.There just isn't though.
Here's the Australian human rights page. The first section (civil and political rights) contains exactly zero positive rights i.e. there is no right to be given anything. Only a list of things that the government can't do to you. I.E. Negative rights.
Rights and freedoms: right by right
Discover an overview of human rights material prepared by the Attorney-General’s Department in consultation with the Australian Human Rights Commission.www.humanrights.gov.au
This is really just a case of you inventing things that do not exist.
I think we can put this to bed?
Last edited:
Anyone paying attention to the primaries? Biden and Warren are dead and IMO Klob is a flash in the pan. It's between Bernie and Pete which brings Mike into it.
Bernie's to lose from here, although it'll be interesting to see if the DNC tries to undermine him (again) in favour of Bloomers
It's hilarious that the heavyweights in US politics are all in their 70s - bearing in mind that they are vying for the top job in the world and committing for the next four years -
Trump 73
Weld (Republican challenger) 74
Sanders 77
Biden 78
Bloomberg 78
Warren 70
And Nancy Pelosi is 80
Which makes it all the more tragic that in Australia you're considered washed up at 50 - for even the most basic of employment.
Age discrimination is alive and well in this country.
The world must seem really sad to a person who makes up sad things that never happened to make themself feel sad for no reason
Wow, solid rebuttal. I really like the way you engaged with anything but the argument presented by witch1.
We all bow to your obvious intellectual superiority.
He wasn't presenting any kind of argument. He's asserting without evidence that you can't get hired once you're over 50 in Australia. Something so obviously false that it's laughable.
45-54 year olds are the highest earners in Australia.
- Status
