Senior journalist Andrea Vance, who should know better, writing about housing affordability said a house is everyone’s human right.
No it’s not Andrea. You just made that up. Homes don’t fall out of the sky like raindrops. They have to be built or bought and paid for.
Meanwhile, a Canadian correspondent in the latest Economist, writing on free speech, claimed what was being overlooked was everyone’s human right to be heard. I think he was referring to censorship. But that’s certainly a new one that should excite our Human Rights Commission.
Once again, there’s no such thing as human rights. There are legal rights which are only as good as people’s adherence to them.
The cold hard literal fact is that every so-called human right is simply an aspiration.
11 Comments
Is she a Labour voter I wonder.
Well Sir Bob,
Try here in Britain in what you mentioned then. Free speech and all.
” Right. In terms of rights. It is my right to have a right to rights “.
Recent statement from NZ member of parliament the right honourable F–ken Idiot.
The concept of human rights–or the labelling of certain aspirations as rights–is just a way of shutting down the conversation, so that certain assertions do not have to tolerate debate.
Bob of course you are literally correct but its a bit like the “principles” of the Treaty of Waitangi… People have a habit of re-defining things to suit the prevailing social climate, which may not make literal sense but nevertheless less, quickly becomes a political reality. Gay “marriage” (which I believe is now also a “human right”) is another example of this.
Arguing against this on the basis of semantics misses the point..
The art of politics is to be able to rapidly re-define and re-frame an issue so as to hitch a ride on the prevailing mood of the nation.
…and for the public to see how low our leaders will stoop.
Here is a story that I’ve recently heard (2nd time) on the radio . I can’t confirm the validity of the story, but I have in fact heard it on two occasions, several months apart. The senior gentleman does not sound to be in anyway lying about what happened or imagining what happened. It would be relatively easy to find the gentleman and/or hotel to confirm that this actually happed.
It is a reflection of how PC “stupid” this country has become.
– Young boy swimming in hotel pool, seen to be motionless at bottom of pool by passing senior gentleman.
– Mother of young boy arguing and fighting with another woman over who’s fault it is boy is in trouble while boy appears to be dying.
– Senior gentleman assesses situation , jumps in to pool, gets boy out. Boy not breathing.
– Senior gentleman hangs boy upside down, drains out water, places boy on ground, thumps boy on chest; tries CPR; tries mouth to mouth ; boy vomits into gentleman’s mouth.
-BOY REVIVES AND LIVES…may have broken rib.
POLICE CHARGE MAN FOR DANGEROUS ACTION THAT COULD HAVE FATAL CONSEQUENCES ON BOY, BASED ON COMPLAINT FROM MOTHER OFFENDED HER “RIGHTS” HAVE BEEN BREACHED.
WTF ?!?!
Man has COURT COSTS payed for by hotel….
Moral of story in this country….let them die.
That is how this country is now.
Thank you social activists for banning the use of sanity and good to see government that advocates stupidity.
Well done everybody for voting them in.
Completely agree. ‘Human rights’ are only concepts that are purchased through membership in social contracts in civilized society.
And you only gain them as real rights through laws if enough people are prepared to fund enforcement through taxation.
Andrea, dear, you can appropriately advise everyone that makes these obscure claims, thta they should contact the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) who has lead responsibility in the UN system for the promotion and protection of human rights – or do this yourself and make a complete ass of yourself.
Why stop there? – surely a bach is a basic human right of all New Zealanders! Given our fondness for the beach and our love of the quintessential kiwi summer we need to make it easier for all New Zealanders to own beachfront property.
Give me a break, property is an asset, and as with any asset we all as individuals make decisions that put us in a position to acquire such assets or not.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone who has wealth and complains of inequality ever declaring that they’ll only take 25% of their earnings for themselves to maintain a basic standard of living and give the rest away. Ironically it’s the worlds wealthiest and poster children for Capitalism such as Gates and Buffett that seem more than happy to give the majority of their wealth to charity. If our Prime Minister for example is so concerned with inequality and child poverdy then how about she gives up most of her PM pay as John Key did.
The original rights derived from the English Bill of Rights followed by the American declaration and it’s amendments. These rights are God-gifted freedom rights, derived from a long Gentile tradition. They are basically about preventing state empowered bullies infringing on little people. They are rights to be left alone and free. They don’t demand action, they demand inaction. They are a right by negative. Rights describe the things the state (and the rich and powerful) should not do.
Human rights are a perversion of nature and put demands through weak words in tyrants mouths. They demand that the state become the new bully, in the name of human rights. An abhorrence and a twisting of history.