Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: debate: should western democracies be forced to abide by human rights laws

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 23:49, 9 August 2011 (edit)
Jackemsley (Talk | contribs)
(Pro)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 23:50, 9 August 2011 (edit)
Jackemsley (Talk | contribs)
(Pro)
Next diff →
Line 56: Line 56:
====Pro==== ====Pro====
-''as with any degree of power, a universal and impartial body should restrict the power of governments and states, whatever their political persuasion or ideology. it is important that there is a foundation layed out by the un for which all states, whether western democracies or otherwise, can build heir ethos on.''+''as with any degree of power, a universal and impartial body should restrict the power of governments and states, whatever their political persuasion or ideology. it is important that there is a foundation layed out by the un for which all states, whether western democracies or otherwise, can build their ethos on.''

Revision as of 23:50, 9 August 2011

shoud western democracies be forced to abide by human rights laws

Contents

===Background and Context of Debate:

in todays society, there is increasing pressure on western democracies such as the us, the uk and other european powers to abide by human rights laws passed by th un. these laws help give the people of the earth basic rights and outline specific ways in which governments are to treat their people. but are there too man rights in this bill, and are western democracies getting bogged down in the beaurocratic red tape of human rights?===

are their too many sections in the human rights act?

Pro

human rights laws are the most important moral code on the earth, however in recent years they have been destroyed and their morals corroded by the beaurocratic red tape that threatens to discredit the bill. instead of being fundamentally about the rights of human beings, it branches out into a kind of code of conduct for nations, becoming less for the people and more of a list of do's and dont's for the political elite





Con

if a bill or piece of legislation is layed out with just grass root, simple principles, it is open to mis-interpretation and loophole exploitation. it is therefore neccessary to cover all angles of human rights to avoid being caught in a loophole.





is it right that western democracies should mould their own home affairs policies on those outlined by the un?

Pro

as with any degree of power, a universal and impartial body should restrict the power of governments and states, whatever their political persuasion or ideology. it is important that there is a foundation layed out by the un for which all states, whether western democracies or otherwise, can build their ethos on.





Con

Click "edit" and write arguments here





Write Subquestion here...

Pro

Click "edit" and write arguments here





Con

Click "edit" and write arguments here





References:

Related pages on Debatepedia:

External links and resources:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.