Reading Response - Dave - Sept. 17

Some points:

1776 US Declaration of Independence: The anti-England language sounds like rhetoric, if not propaganda. In the Hamilton and Jay critique of this declaration there is commentary on p.112 that some of the laws that men were being arrested for were arbitrary violations and were “breaches of no said law.” This reflects many of the students comments about many of the declarations of the various constitutions we are reading about how vague the language is. The authors of this article seem to also critique that those in power are adhering to their own interpretations of law and rights. I was also quite impressed to see the writers concerned about the need for more, and clear language about the freedom of press.

Amendment III, U.S. Constitution: “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner.” I noticed in one of the other declarations something about soldiers being quartered and misread it as the other quartered – all four limbs being tied to a horse. Makes more sense now. It looks like in the 17th century soldiers were perhaps abusing authority, or were given lots of authority over citizens to a point where citizens were regularly taken advantage of.

In the French constitution (p. 118, Human Rights reader), part 1: “social distinction may be based only upon general usefulness.” Not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds like a huge loophole for dignitaries.

One of the parallels I noticed with many of these declarations is the “innocent until proven guilty” concept. Vague concepts of “born free” and “right to happiness” seem to be included.

Article 22, UN Declaration of Human Rights (regarding right to social security) seems to me to quite absent in many regions of Latin America (maybe a bit of an understatement?)

Overall, my feelings reflect some of the comments that have come in and what was mentioned in class. Though there are many good ideas in many of the declarations through the various regions and historic periods, much of the language can be vague and arbitrary. Serious issues, such as genocide, should be taken more serious. I’m a former accounting student, and I can tell you the text for the Canadian Tax course is as thorough and challenging as anything I’ve studied at UBC. Perhaps we don’t have the fine print of the UN declaration for genocide in our courseware, but I sure hope it exists and is as meticulous as the tax guide. Obviously there are problems with the actual effectiveness of the UN. I don’t know a lot of fine details about the organization, so I won’t go on a rant. But situations like Darfur seem to be a pretty good litmus test.


tag: last301