2018-06-29

You call that socialism? I call it basic human rights

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

This is called a “socialist platform“?

Compare points one and two (Medicare for all and Housing as a human right) with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of
his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security
in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances
beyond his control.

There’s also something in that “socialist” platform about higher education for all. Today higher education has become for many as necessary as elementary education was back in 1948.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental
stages Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Speaking of education, the UNDHR even includes curriculum guidelines:

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect
for human rights and fundamental freedoms It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all
nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

Some countries have seventy years of catching up to do!

20 Comments

  • daVox
    2018-06-30 14:28:24 UTC - 14:28 | Permalink

    I think it is important to look at the bigger picture rather than just focusing on a single declaration or act.

    At least 5 of those points (gun control, “LGBTIAQ+”, “women’s rights”, “immigration justice”, the fight against “climate change”) seem like socialism/cultural Marxism and generic whinging/vote-getting to me, and have bugger all to do with basic human rights. As we can see from what is prevailing in society these days, these kind of things tend to funnel the rights away from normal everyday citizens into the hands of highly vocal minorities.
    Socialism in a nutshell.

    • Paxton Marshall
      2018-07-01 00:53:26 UTC - 00:53 | Permalink

      daVox, what your see as “socialism/cultural Marxism “, i see as just good sense and basic fairness.

      • daVox
        2018-07-02 08:54:58 UTC - 08:54 | Permalink

        Admittedly, there’s not much to go by with this as the points haven’t been elaborated much, but from what I’ve seen in similar such campaigns, this is how I am seeing it:

        – Gun control/assault weapons ban = taking guns away from citizens just because you can, without a rational basis for doing so, but tell everyone how guns kill people so they’re always bad news.

        – Support LGBTIAQ+ – making huge noises about gay marriage and trying to promote it as an item of significant importance, and chastise everyone who is non-LGBTIAQ+.

        – Women’s rights – female supremacy (otherwise this is redundant, as women over there already have the same rights as men)

        – Immigration justice – let’s welcome everyone and anyone from all over the place just because we can, and reduce background checks and wait times just to prove how “multicultural” we can be. Worked well in Sydney and Melbourne, and we have turned once-livable and once-tolerable areas into ghettos and enclaves as a result of years of weakening our immigration laws and allowing random nobodies from other countries.

        – Mobilizing against Climate Change – let’s implement idiotic policies just to please a bunch of poorly-educated greenies whilst everyone else (including the environment suffers. Case in point: light bulb bans, RoHS.

        Now, my original point is that whlist I agree that the points that this article is elaborating on is indeed basic human rights, this is just a small portion of the campaign. The points I highlighted above may explain why the initial (seemingly justified) adverse reaction to Ocasio-Cortez’ success. Some of the points are indeed common sense and basic human rights, as Neil’s article rightfully points out, but what I’m trying to say here is that this doesn’t mean it’s all good news.

        • Neil Godfrey
          2018-07-02 09:47:37 UTC - 09:47 | Permalink

          I will leave a reply to your comment for Paxton but I would be interested in knowing the “once-livable and once-tolerable areas [now turned to] ghettos” you have in mind.

        • Neil Godfrey
          2018-07-03 09:50:49 UTC - 09:50 | Permalink

          I cannot resist. Where do you see advocacy for “female supremacy”? Can you point us to an example of the current advocacy of “women’s rights” that you find “redundant?

          Immigration justice. Can you point to any example of a situation where the Australian powers that be have “welcomed everyone and anyone from all over the place…. etc”? I see many instances in the news of migrants being deported, and of very strict conditions having to be met by any who want to settle…. can you give me an example to the contrary?

          Climate change. Are you suggesting that the CSIRO is filled with poorly-educated greenies?

          Support gays. It looks like both the conservative and leftist side of politics supported gay marriage. Is that still a problem for you?

          Guns. John Howard had “no rational basis” for his buy-back policy on guns? Do you really want assault weapons available to anyone who asks here in Australia?

          • daVox
            2018-07-05 10:35:06 UTC - 10:35 | Permalink

            “I cannot resist. Where do you see advocacy for “female supremacy”? Can you point us to an example of the current advocacy of “women’s rights” that you find “redundant?”
            Feminism. Eurydice Dixon. David Leyonhjelm v Sarah Hanson-Young. Women-only recruitment drives in the ADF and AFP and various other police forces. Gender quotas. Demonising men in relation to issues such as rape and domestic violence. The list goes on.

            “”Immigration justice. Can you point to any example of a situation where the Australian powers that be have “welcomed everyone and anyone from all over the place…. etc”? I see many instances in the news of migrants being deported, and of very strict conditions having to be met by any who want to settle…. can you give me an example to the contrary?”
            Look all around NSW. You’ll see people who can’t speak English very well, from all over different countries. I will admit though, the younger generation is showing a lot of improvement in this area. We have welcomed people from all over the place, and whilst it isn’t such a bad thing, moderation of immigration numbers and keeping them under control is essential to the success of a country.

            “Climate change. Are you suggesting that the CSIRO is filled with poorly-educated greenies?”
            I believe I gave a specific example about this, and CSIRO was not one (In fact, I recall being furious when I heard about plans to cut funding for CSIRO back in 2013).
            I don’t deny there are scientists who are genuinely concerned about environmental issues, however throwing “climate change” just to woo the uneducated seems suspicious, and we now have laws that are not well researched, as I mentioned earlier.

            “Support gays. It looks like both the conservative and leftist side of politics supported gay marriage. Is that still a problem for you?”
            No, not at all. If they want to get married, I’m not going to interrupt, and I also don’t see why gay mariage should be outright illegal. However don’t make it out like it’s a huge issue because it isn’t; it affects a small minority of the population.

            “Guns. John Howard had “no rational basis” for his buy-back policy on guns? Do you really want assault weapons available to anyone who asks here in Australia?”
            What would you define as an assault weapon? There was no rational basis for his buy-back at all. People cite the Port Arthur Massacre as the catalyst for this, and since the buy-back, the rate of violent crime has crept up and up, and in 2013 there were over 300 crimes involving firearms. In 2014 there was the Martin Place siege in Sydney. We have a higher rate (per capita) of violent crime than the USA, considering our population.
            This was a non-issue, and there was never a mass-shooting issue before the Port Arthur massacre. As you can see, banning guns and having a buy-back (causing a lot of distress to those who had vintage firearms from when their grandparents/fathers were fighting in wars) was not only irrational, it was state-sanctioned theft.

        • daCox
          2018-07-04 12:31:20 UTC - 12:31 | Permalink

          “Worked well in Sydney and Melbourne, and we have turned once-livable and once-tolerable areas into ghettos and enclaves as a result of years of weakening our immigration laws and allowing random nobodies from other countries”

          Yeah yeah we get your unfortunate personal impressions, but PISA and crime statistics actually show that immigrants as actually perform better in schools and commit less crime than ”’native”” ”’Anglo-Australians”’. Not all immigrant groups, but as a whole, Australia has actually benefitted from its immigration.

          When the rest of the world sees you as taking cruel measures to keep out immigrants and you overall benefit from immigration but still end up whining about it, there’s probably something wrong with you in particular.

          • Neil Godfrey
            2018-07-04 22:47:23 UTC - 22:47 | Permalink

            I recall from my teaching days in secondary schools it was the children of the Vietnamese boat people who nearly always outshone most of the others in class for their diligence and effort and achievement. They were driven to do well, from refugee families obviously keen to make a new start in a new country despite the difficulties.

          • daVox
            2018-07-05 11:24:17 UTC - 11:24 | Permalink

            “Yeah yeah we get your unfortunate personal impressions, but PISA and crime statistics actually show that immigrants as actually perform better in schools and commit less crime than ”’native”” ”’Anglo-Australians”’. Not all immigrant groups, but as a whole, Australia has actually benefitted from its immigration.”
            When did I say Australia should have no immigrants? I’m no anglo-Aussie myself.
            In relation to immigration in Australia,l I am saying is need to be careful about watering down laws and we should be careful about who we accept. Since the 90’s we’ve allowed immigration en masse, and our GDP has suffered, no thanks to this. I don’t mind immigration, but let’s have quality rather than quantity.

            Furthermore, in response to this article, I’m questioning the premise of “immigration justice/remove ICE” which appears to relate to removing immigration controls which appear to be necessary in the current day and age in the US.

    • Neil Godfrey
      2018-07-02 09:28:02 UTC - 09:28 | Permalink

      (gun control, “LGBTIAQ+”, “women’s rights”, “immigration justice”, the fight against “climate change”)

      They all look like very worthy causes that go to the core of human rights issues to me. I also like the idea of socialism (though I suspect we have very different understandings what the word means) but surely any program that has as its goal the protection and enhancement of human lives and justice for all can be embraced by other political ideologies, too.

      • daVox
        2018-07-02 11:16:10 UTC - 11:16 | Permalink

        At one point, they were indeed worthy causes, back when gays were always being bashed (physically), women were actually paid less than men and weren’t allowed to vote in elections, and non-whites were considered an unworthy outcast.
        Now these are just solutions looking for problems that no longer exist (not dissimilar to the way the religious often behave), and often in doing so, inadvertently create more problems.

        • Scot Griffin
          2018-07-03 01:16:25 UTC - 01:16 | Permalink

          Actually, gays continue to be bashed (and killed; think about the anti-gay animus behind the Pulse massacre), women still are actually paid less than men, and, in some areas of the US, non-whites are still considered less than human and treated as if they don’t have rights that they do (e.g., due process under the U.S. Constitution as applied to African-American suspects and immigrants seeking asylum).

          If you think these kind of problems have gone away, you must be living in a bubble.

          • daVox
            2018-07-03 01:56:57 UTC - 01:56 | Permalink

            “Actually, gays continue to be bashed (and killed; think about the anti-gay animus behind the Pulse massacre)”
            This is an exception to the norm now, and such a thing is highly condemned anyway.

            “women still are actually paid less than men”
            Perhaps in Saudi Arabia, maybe. Not in western countries like the US. Women end up with paid maternity leave, and are more likely to choose a more balanced lifestyle than men are, so it seems like they are paid less than men *overall*. If women were paid less than men for exactly the same positions, then companies all over the US would be hiring more women as they would be cheaper. If women want to be paid the same as men overall, they should work as hard as men.

            “non-whites are still considered less than human and treated as if they don’t have rights that they do (e.g., due process under the U.S. Constitution as applied to African-American suspects and immigrants seeking asylum).”
            I don’t think so. What happens is that blacks represent much more of the prison population than whites (source: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6186), and those seeking asylum will often arrive by illegal means. No injustice here, just statistics.

            “I will leave a reply to your comment for Paxton but I would be interested in knowing the “once-livable and once-tolerable areas [now turned to] ghettos” you have in mind.”
            Some portions of Melbourne (where Sudanese gangs are a problem), most of Western Sydney, Lakemba (Middle Eastern ghettos).

            • Neil Godfrey
              2018-07-03 09:38:42 UTC - 09:38 | Permalink

              You specify Lakemba as an example of a “once livable and once tolerable area [now turned to] a ghetto.” But when I check the wikipedia article on Lakemba and look at a Youtube video of the place everything I see looks just like any other place in Australia – I’m thinking in particular of Brisbane suburbs, beginning with Fortitude Valley, and regional towns like Toowoomba.

              Have these particular web links hidden the unlivable ghettos from public view?



              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakemba,_New_South_Wales

              I did not think that state and council laws would make it possible for any region in Australia to degenerate into an unlivable, intolerable ghetto.

            • Paxton Marshall
              2018-07-03 21:45:49 UTC - 21:45 | Permalink

              DaVox: “If women want to be paid as much as men overall, they should work as hard as men”.

              And you’re saying they don’t? Based on what evidence? There is evidence that in the US women are paid about 80% as much as men in the same jobs.

              And you really think LGBTQs have the same rights and are treated with as much respect as straights? They, like racial and ethnic minorities face slurs and disrespect more often than you like to think. Discrimination in hiring, discrimination in housing, discrimination in how they are treated by police. The US Supreme Court just ruled that it’s ok for businesses to refuse to serve gays. This leaves open the question of whether it’s ok to refuse to hire gays also. But you can bet that is happening in many places.

              Are you really that unaware that you don’t know these things, or are you just looking to put a respectable face on bigotry?

              • daVox
                2018-07-05 10:52:52 UTC - 10:52 | Permalink

                “DaVox: “If women want to be paid as much as men overall, they should work as hard as men”.

                And you’re saying they don’t? Based on what evidence? There is evidence that in the US women are paid about 80% as much as men in the same jobs.”

                And there is evidence that women are, on average, physiologically and psychologically different to men, and will therefore choose different careers and lifestyles, attributing to lower aggregate earnings.

                How about you provide evidence that they don’t get paid the same amount for the same amount of work. The only statistics I’ve seen involve “female lawyers vs male lawyers”, “female doctors vs male doctors”, “female engineers vs male engineers” while not specifying what kind of engineer/doctor/lawyer/etc is being compared, and without specifying specialities and other factors that could contribute to reduced wages or earnings.

                As I said earlier, it is against the law to pay women less than men already, and if women really were cheaper, companies would hire mostly women.

                “And you really think LGBTQs have the same rights and are treated with as much respect as straights? They, like racial and ethnic minorities face slurs and disrespect more often than you like to think. Discrimination in hiring, discrimination in housing, discrimination in how they are treated by police.”
                I’m considered an ethnic/racial minority, and this is a load of rubbish. Again, that kind of discrimination is already unlawful. Now what is wrong with “racial slurs” other than hurting someone’s precious feelings? “Ooh, he said a bad word I’m telling!”
                Allow me to also introduce you to s.7D of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth): http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda1984209/s7d.html

                “The US Supreme Court just ruled that it’s ok for businesses to refuse to serve gays. This leaves open the question of whether it’s ok to refuse to hire gays also. But you can bet that is happening in many places.”
                I really don’t see why this has to be a matter for the law anyway. If one business is dumb enough to refuse someone because they’re gay, another business will be happy to hire or service them. I’d be more than welcoming in that regard, more business for me!

                “Are you really that unaware that you don’t know these things, or are you just looking to put a respectable face on bigotry?”
                Please point out the bigotry. I’m not advocating hating/discrimianting against gays, but merely pointing out that the “issues” you mention aren’t what they appear.
                What I do know is that the conditions are a LOT better for gays than they were before (and I’m glad!) but constantly babying them like they’re always victims isn’t doing them any justice.

        • daCox
          2018-07-04 12:35:55 UTC - 12:35 | Permalink

          “At one point, they were indeed worthy causes”

          You’d be saying the same 30 years ago too about what is actually a worthy cause and what isn’t and trying to prove why exactly things have gone too far with regard to say, interracial relationships.

          That’s fine and all but don’t do it under the pretense of being anyone but a regressive and reactionary idpol-loving (right-wing SJW) nationalist.

    • Scot Griffin
      2018-07-03 01:12:06 UTC - 01:12 | Permalink
  • daCox
    2018-06-30 17:05:10 UTC - 17:05 | Permalink

    “funnel the rights away from normal everyday citizens into the hands of highly vocal minorities”

    How the regressive, reactionary mind works in a nutshell.

  • 2018-07-03 10:10:52 UTC - 10:10 | Permalink

    Might it be ‘social democrat’ in its pristine sense?
    Be wellcome, in any case.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.