Tweet
DIVIDING OF OUR RIGHTS
Joshua R. Parsons
MU The Parthenon , WV
April 3 2007
What divides rights from privileges? Are there "certain inalienable
rights," due to all mankind as Mr. Jefferson once wrote?
A popular notion, which many believe, is that rights are for everyone
without thought or effort or obligation, where privileges are only
things which we, as "good and moral" human beings, strip from those
who are not so "good and moral." For example, education is a right,
and voting is a privilege.
Our Founding Fathers and framers were brilliant intellectuals. Yet,
I must argue that so-called "inalienable rights" do not exist and
never have. It is a whitewash of the human reality.
Case in point, Orhan Pamuk, Nobel Prize-winning Turkish author, in
February 2005 stated a historic fact to a Swiss newspaper: "Thirty
thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands
and nobody dares to talk about it."
What Pamuk is speaking about is the Armenian Genocide that took place
in 1915. Moreover, the Turkish government does not acknowledge such a
genocide ever occurred, even in the face of most historians worldwide.
In June 2005, the Turkish government passed Article 301 of their penal
code. This states, "A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the
Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable
by imprisonment of between six months and three years." Furthermore, if
a Turkish citizen denigrates Turkishness while aboard, "the punishment
shall be increased by one third."
Charges were brought after the fact against Pamuk, and another dozen
or more Turkish citizens. From which Pamuk then experienced his books
being burnt, photos being destroyed and publicly being booed by his
fellow citizens and once readers. He also received threats against
his own life.
Turkey finally dropped charges against Pamuk in January 2006 because
of widespread global outcry and pressure forced by the European
Union. The EU's upper-hand came by Turkey's longing to join the EU.
Keeping this instance in mind, one must agree that American rights
(freedom of speech and expression, in this case) are not universal,
and we cannot expect them to be so. If we are to respect each nation's
identity, then we must accept each nation's chosen identity.
All rights are only privileges granted by the government or the
authority in charge. A nation's laws guarantee a citizen's rights;
thus, his or her rights are assured only as long as the nation's laws
remain unchanged.
We may possess the romantic ideals of human rights. Yet, these ideals
are not natural laws, they are societal laws. If one, therefore,
knows his or her history, one will know societies fail all the time.
The main purpose for this column comes out of witnessing people's
myopic tendencies. Some people believe all human beings have the same
rights, but that sadly is not true. The natural law of survival of
the fittest stands in testimony of this reality.
I, for one, would not want to imagine living in a nation where freedom
of expression is not the First Amendment, yet billions do live in
nations contrary to ours.
>>From the First Amendment comes freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, freedom of being oneself. As Americans, we are honored,
for all privileges must pass through the First Amendment.
However, as Americans, we must understand that the First Amendment
itself is a privilege granted to us by the framers and upheld by
politicians and statesmen still today.
Joshua R. Parsons
MU The Parthenon , WV
April 3 2007
What divides rights from privileges? Are there "certain inalienable
rights," due to all mankind as Mr. Jefferson once wrote?
A popular notion, which many believe, is that rights are for everyone
without thought or effort or obligation, where privileges are only
things which we, as "good and moral" human beings, strip from those
who are not so "good and moral." For example, education is a right,
and voting is a privilege.
Our Founding Fathers and framers were brilliant intellectuals. Yet,
I must argue that so-called "inalienable rights" do not exist and
never have. It is a whitewash of the human reality.
Case in point, Orhan Pamuk, Nobel Prize-winning Turkish author, in
February 2005 stated a historic fact to a Swiss newspaper: "Thirty
thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands
and nobody dares to talk about it."
What Pamuk is speaking about is the Armenian Genocide that took place
in 1915. Moreover, the Turkish government does not acknowledge such a
genocide ever occurred, even in the face of most historians worldwide.
In June 2005, the Turkish government passed Article 301 of their penal
code. This states, "A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the
Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable
by imprisonment of between six months and three years." Furthermore, if
a Turkish citizen denigrates Turkishness while aboard, "the punishment
shall be increased by one third."
Charges were brought after the fact against Pamuk, and another dozen
or more Turkish citizens. From which Pamuk then experienced his books
being burnt, photos being destroyed and publicly being booed by his
fellow citizens and once readers. He also received threats against
his own life.
Turkey finally dropped charges against Pamuk in January 2006 because
of widespread global outcry and pressure forced by the European
Union. The EU's upper-hand came by Turkey's longing to join the EU.
Keeping this instance in mind, one must agree that American rights
(freedom of speech and expression, in this case) are not universal,
and we cannot expect them to be so. If we are to respect each nation's
identity, then we must accept each nation's chosen identity.
All rights are only privileges granted by the government or the
authority in charge. A nation's laws guarantee a citizen's rights;
thus, his or her rights are assured only as long as the nation's laws
remain unchanged.
We may possess the romantic ideals of human rights. Yet, these ideals
are not natural laws, they are societal laws. If one, therefore,
knows his or her history, one will know societies fail all the time.
The main purpose for this column comes out of witnessing people's
myopic tendencies. Some people believe all human beings have the same
rights, but that sadly is not true. The natural law of survival of
the fittest stands in testimony of this reality.
I, for one, would not want to imagine living in a nation where freedom
of expression is not the First Amendment, yet billions do live in
nations contrary to ours.
>>From the First Amendment comes freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, freedom of being oneself. As Americans, we are honored,
for all privileges must pass through the First Amendment.
However, as Americans, we must understand that the First Amendment
itself is a privilege granted to us by the framers and upheld by
politicians and statesmen still today.