UN Human Rights Commision to Write USA a Strongly Worded Memo

[c750dt]

According to the likes of Cuba, Mexico and Russia among others, we have severe human rights issues here in the United States. Personally, as lower class citizen with no money, I find the rights issue moot here; I'm still able to go out and not worry about a thing. The cops, through my eyes, are like societies babysitters more than anything else (though if you make enough of a fool to require their service, you'll get some fines and maybe time in a cell).

I think more of a problem is issues including the massive foreclosure rates (to think, those are being done by the banks who received billions in bailout; we fuck up it's hell to pay but they fuck up and they get freebies), unemployment rate (official rate is based on Dept of Labor information; real rate is most likely significantly higher), inflation, people working into their 70s, people having hard time rising above service sector into their 30s and a corrupt political system in which one of two major parties (more comparable to corporations) will always have power somewhere at any given moment.

I love this country but to see leaders of major countries notorious for rights violations totally look past severe political problems and simply say we're messed up because we don't give handouts to certain minorities is an insult.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/04/united-nations-human-rights-council/?test=latestnews

 

[sephreniax2]

I tend to disagree. First of all, the source of this comes from Fox News. I don't want to play partisan politics here, but Fox News is not an objective source.

Secondly, they are right. The U.S. is lacking in civil rights that are provided in countries we call "second world" or "third world." There is currently no federal protection for gay marriage and don't even get me started on this whole DADT shit.

Police also do engage in profiling, even though they may not publicly admit it. The fact that this whole profiling thing is actually an issue shows that it IS an issue. Otherwise why would anyone even bring it up?

All that being said, I think these countries are blaming the wrong thing. The government is not responsible for changing people's social and moral values. Obama cannot mandate that everyone like homosexuals or that police can't be slightly biased toward Middle Eastern looking people. The government (while flawed at times) isn't at fault here. Society has to change. Top down initiatives never work. It has to start at the fundamentals - we have to value every person equally. Until society understands and embraces this, there is no point.

 

[c750dt]

Honestly, I don't consider gay marriage a civil rights issue. I could argue it either way but really don't care if it's ever legalized. Just don't see government acknowledgment as being crucial to my relationships. The main reason I'd vote for gay marriage to be legal if put on the ballot here is because of the tax and financial benefits that come with marriage. However, marriage also means shared debt so that is a double edge sword.

Profiling is fine to an extent. While the phrase "You can't judge a book by it's cover" holds plenty of truth, there are generalized, accepted standards on appearance that most people tend to follow. Some people are just begging for police to question them before they even open their mouth. I believe in fair treatment to an extent but you must agree some people are just shady as fuck. As for profiling against Muslims, no offense but that just happens to be the group we've had the most trouble with in the past ten years. An extra eye for detail is just natural.

I don't consider "Don't Ask Don't Tell" to be relevant to anything. Does it really matter if your army mates know your sexual orientation? I'll tell someone I'm gay if they specifically ask my orientation, if it's relevant to conversation or if I'm speaking with someone I wanna bang. There are some inherent flaws with the system but never the less, there's no reason to go around telling all the guys in your barracks you're gay unless you're looking for a military camo orgy and that only happens on porn sites.

Doesn't matter about the reputation of Fox News for this article. It's a pretty black and white story. The UN Human Rights council had some criticisms to push.

 

[tomba]

A strongly worded memo?

The Americans must be shitting themselves!

 

[c750dt]

Appearance is relevant. Many people like to think it's not. However, nobody's flunked a job interview on grounds of looking too good. Also, at a bar, the better looking men and women naturally get more attention (of course that's not just limited to physical features; not many people will flirt with a guy who's hair looks like birds nest, has bad odor you can smell from a good distance away, stained shirt, etc). If you're walking around on the street with a mohawk, more metal in your face than a 747 and a "Fuck Police" t-shirt, you'll naturally receive more attention from the cops. Look at the attached photo; would you want someone associating with your family and affiliating with you in front of them while dressed in such a manner?

The guys supposedly free to blab about their love affairs in military shouldn't be. It's not like you're necessarily forced to be in the closet even off base. Yes DADT is unfair in a sense but it's a really irrelevant sense. So what if your barracks buddy's able to go around talking of all the people he banged? Are you really going to tell me that jealousy issues should be a factor here? This is military, not K-12 grade school. Whether it be about fuck buddies, floozies, a nice date or true, genuine love, it can stay off base. Serving in the military isn't supposed to be fun or personal. That and have you considered that people may just wish not to hear about your love affairs?

As for the USA having some issues, I'll agree. There's plenty that needs to be fixed about the country. However, in this instance, I believe it's not just a matter of pots calling the kettle black but on issues that don't compare to their own.

 

[jon13lee]

I'll be honest. I suck at government issues and politics. I personally like to stay away from such major headache causing topics, but there are some issues that strike a cord with me. DADT was developed to "protect" closeted gays, bisexuals, and lesbians. In some sense, did DADT do it's job? Yes. But it denied people their identity. It makes me sad that openly bisexuals and homosexuals are restricted to serve for the nation because of this. If someone is willing to serve and protect our country why should be give a damn of their sexual preference? There are plenty of straight individuals who don't want to get involved with this career choice. Why restrict them?

However, if we look at the other side of the coin, DADT can be necessary at times. The US still has a negative image of being homosexual or bisexual. I can only image what it would be like for a person to admit he is gay when there are some individuals who strongly oppose this kind of life preference. Picture this situation...a female soldier is found out to be a lesbian. Can we ensure her safety from overly masculine men who think they can "change" her view? Can we guarantee that straight soldiers will not harass and abuse those who are homosexuals/bisexuals? It's hard to say what laws/policies are beneficial or if it conflicts with individual's human rights. It has their good and their bad sides.

As for gay marriage, what is the problem? Those against it...are you sleeping with the other person? No. The man who wants to marry his boyfriend is. How can we define what love is? Who said man and woman is the only way to go? The bible? If that's the case, we live in a country that separates the church from the state. Stop imposing your beliefs on others when we have no state religion. A lot of churches say that if we allow gay marriage to exist, then their will be hell fire and brim stone. Okay...other countries had allowed it...they are doing fine. They are not living hell on Earth. Give people the right to love whoever they damn please!

Hopefully I made sense in my ramblings

 

[sephreniax2]

Honestly, I don't consider gay marriage a civil rights issue. I could argue it either way but really don't care if it's ever legalized. Just don't see government acknowledgment as being crucial to my relationships. The main reason I'd vote for gay marriage to be legal if put on the ballot here is because of the tax and financial benefits that come with marriage. However, marriage also means shared debt so that is a double edge sword.

Profiling is fine to an extent. While the phrase "You can't judge a book by it's cover" holds plenty of truth, there are generalized, accepted standards on appearance that most people tend to follow. Some people are just begging for police to question them before they even open their mouth. I believe in fair treatment to an extent but you must agree some people are just shady as fuck. As for profiling against Muslims, no offense but that just happens to be the group we've had the most trouble with in the past ten years. An extra eye for detail is just natural.

I don't consider "Don't Ask Don't Tell" to be relevant to anything. Does it really matter if your army mates know your sexual orientation? I'll tell someone I'm gay if they specifically ask my orientation, if it's relevant to conversation or if I'm speaking with someone I wanna bang. There are some inherent flaws with the system but never the less, there's no reason to go around telling all the guys in your barracks you're gay unless you're looking for a military camo orgy and that only happens on porn sites.

Doesn't matter about the reputation of Fox News for this article. It's a pretty black and white story. The UN Human Rights council had some criticisms to push.

Gay marriage may not affect you as an individual in your particular relationships, but that doesn't mean it's not a civil rights issue. I'm sure plenty of white Americans thought that black civil rights wasn't an issue to them. The lack of legal protection from the federal government IS a human rights violation. And at the end of the day it's about fairness and social equality (at least it is for me).

I agree that profiling in terms of how a person looks (drunk, on drugs, whacked out, in need of help ,etc) is crucial. And it's true that everyone is a little bit racist. But there's that small tinge of apprehension based on race, and there's full blown hate. The line between is pretty small in my opinion.

Also with DADT, I agree that it doesn't matter if the army/your squad doesn't know about your orientation. It doesn't affect your personal competency and your squad performance. So why do people get discharged for saying that they are gay? If it really doesn't matter, why is it an issue to begin with? I'm not sure if I'm making my logic clear, but hopefully you get what I'm saying.

 

[c750dt]

I'm gay and claim a gay-related issue doesn't affect me. That's a little different from if I, also a white person, were to comment on issues concerning only blacks. Never the less, I'm not going to comment further on the issue but will continue to listen to any arguments made.

People tend to confuse profiling and racism. Whether or not they're similar, it's possible to discriminate without hate. I honestly think racism altogether is rather stupid. As long as we continue to acknowledge a working difference between one race and another beyond color (whether it be to say Mexicans are lazy or even supposedly something nice like demanding acknowledgment of blacks), racism will exist. We're pretty much saying there's more of a difference than just color or physical aspects and that the brain must be different too. Whether better or worse, there's no reason one color should receive special or different treatment.

For religion, it's a slightly different issue because religion will dictate habits and beliefs. For the most part, religion is just used as a guideline by well meaning people but never the less, every religion has it's extreme nut-jobs and some religions seem to have more of the latter than others.

DADT will probably be in place indefinitely though it seems lately, the military has become more lenient in their enforcement. Even with philosophical arguments aside, there's unfortunate truth. Some people are homophobes and in the military, some people happen to be homophobes with big muscles and firearms. Even if that's an extreme I'm pointing out, DADT does kind of go in line with buzz cuts, uniforms, etiquette standards and other conformist policies meant to keep the military impersonal and as large body vs. an organization of individuals. After all, our government is an organization of individuals and it's much more personal and look how well and efficient it works. I think DADT will go away in good time but for now, maybe it's best not to touch.

 

[c750dt]

@nilstreet:

There's a difference between "creative" and downright bad taste; especially considering creative can and in most cases looks pretty good. Has nothing to do with judgment or progress since the 1950s.

Sadly, as homosexuals are a minority, there's less people who'd want to hear about a guy banging a guy. Sure, listening to someone brag about banging a girl then acting like a total ass upon hearing about anything gay is an obvious double standard. However, either way, at least in the barracks, neither should receive mention. It's almost like complaining somebody else got away with something you didn't while neither of you should have done (well, in this case, mention) it. DADT will be repealed in good time. However, at the time being, do consider some arguments that it's possibly for the better.

I've made plenty of comparisons. Thanks for noticing. I don't think somebody having issues makes their accusations against another party invalid. It's just, as I've already said, I think the accusations are on moot issues. Let's say I brutally beat up somebody then, to divert attention, I point a finger at somebody else for littering. If it's my turn to defend my issues and viewpoints, I'd like to think I've been doing so with each post in this thread.

 

[c750dt]

See attached photo. Is that good taste? Also, if there wasn't such a thing as bad taste and it was just a matter of personal opinion of appearance, then why do we even need clothing? Let's start a movement to allow for us to just go nude anytime and anywhere so long as weather permits.



As wrong or right as it may be, society has norms. The ones that shouldn't be tend to be overcome. I believe DADT will eventually go away and I believe eventually, gays will get to marry. However, neither issue have as much effect on me as on fellow people. I'm honestly not arguing against any cause. All I'm arguing is that I merely have no reason to concern myself deeply with either and I can easily work around both limitations.

 

[c750dt]

Agreed then. They're inappropriate. Though it's still just appearance.

Never the less, I get your point. One must wonder what made the reproductive organs taboo? I think because what we do with them feels so good and can become an addiction. Just lie booze, cigarettes and drugs, society labels them as something to shield from people before they hit a certain "fit" age. Some standards and norms may not be right and sometimes, they're just plain baffling. However, they still exist. Though most, like clothing in general, the concept of being nice to each other, etc, I'd like to think do us plenty of good.

In pointing at your comment about those costumes becoming normal clothing, I don't think it'd ever happen. Though there once was a time when suits were the norm. We've grown more casual each decade. Even in areas other than clothing society's becoming more liberal. Even with the arguments we've made put aside, gay people are more accepted by the year. Religious fanatics seem to be dwindling. Before we can have a full blown campaign to repeal DADT and allow gay marriage, maybe we need to continue, to this point successful, campaigns to further integrate into the society that makes these rules.

 

[Ard san Aer]

Interesting debating going on here I have to say. I haven't read everyone's messages but what I would say is that the vast majority of Countries no matter who they are abuse some human right in some shape or form. I know this sounds hollow to people but we do not live in a perfect world or a perfect country. I find we all get are backs up when are countries are cricised by others and paint a wonderful picture of the place.

All we here is ppl talk about the various muslim countries attitudes towards homosexuality for example yet look recently in the enlightened west where teenagers committed suicide, film/tv stars are told not to come out. They not be viewed as as bad as stoning a person to death but are they really less worse. BTW this is not aimed solely at the US I'm not picking on anyone here I want that to be known.

 

[c750dt]

TV stars and other famous personalities have to be careful and craft their image no matter what demographic they appeal to. MSNBC, a more liberal type national news station has a lady who happens to be the first openly gay news anchor, at least on national news. She gets pretty high ratings. Fox News, on the other hand, a conservative station, would probably have some negative feedback for having an openly gay major personality. For the TV, it's really a matter of demographics; who will be watching. Though it does seem in many places, gay people are, though not necessarily forced, at least encouraged to chill in the closet.

I think many of the dramatic problems including suicide, depression, drug addiction and even domestic disputes and violence stem not entirely but largely from having such a style of life that people are bored enough to do anything to feel some self-importance. Never the less, having a theory on cause means the problems still exist.

You have very good points.

 

[topdog]

Re: DADT

I have been watching DADT since it began and have met quite a few (maybe around 15) people who were discharged by the policy. So I'll just throw in my perspective.

...DADT was developed to "protect" closeted gays, bisexuals, and lesbians. In some sense, did DADT do it's job? Yes. But it denied people their identity. ... if we look at the other side of the coin, DADT can be necessary at times.

DADT was designed to "protect" Congressional Republicans and Congressional / White House Democrats from voter backlash. When it was enacted everyone knew it was contradictory and logical nonsense - but it was a political compromise. It was a way to give each party half a loaf. The practical effect on the gay soldier was the last thing on anyone's mind.

... I don't consider "Don't Ask Don't Tell" to be relevant to anything. Does it really matter if your army mates know your sexual orientation?

...Also with DADT, I agree that it doesn't matter if the army/your squad doesn't know about your orientation. It doesn't affect your personal competency and your squad performance....

DADT isn't about just shutting up about your love life. It forces people to lie (which is against the Military Code of Conduct). Even simple conversational questions have to be danced around:

• "Are you married?"
• "Are you seeing anyone back home?"
• "That Angelina Jolie is hot! What movie star would you like to bang?"
• "What are you doing this weekend?"
• "Did you go out last night?"
• "Who's that guy that drove down to see you last week?"

The natural personal banter that bonds soldiers together, is off limits to gay soldiers - which isolates them. This decreases performance, and puts them at risk. Trust between soldiers is crucial. But if the gay soldier acts in an honest and trustworthy manner, he or she has violated DADT and risks discharge.

...The guys supposedly free to blab about their love affairs in military shouldn't be. It's not like you're necessarily forced to be in the closet even off base....

Yes - DADT applies to actions and comments made both on and off base.

Picture this situation...a female soldier is found out to be a lesbian. Can we ensure her safety from overly masculine men who think they can "change" her view? Can we guarantee that straight soldiers will not harass and abuse those who are homosexuals/bisexuals?

Can we ensure the safety of the heterosexual female soldier from unwanted advances? Yes or no, sexual harassment and rape regulations apply to both.

...DADT will probably be in place indefinitely though it seems lately, the military has become more lenient in their enforcement...

I don't think so. The Secretary of Defense and all the heads of all the services (except Marines) want to drop DADT. The Pentagon will have a report completed this month that will outline how that can be done. In addition a Federal Court declared that DADT was unconstitutional two months ago. That is going through appeals, but the conclusion that DADT treats gay soldiers differently than straight soldiers seems obvious and inevitable.

This policy is going away and the DoD knows it. They are just hoping they can get enough time to cope with the implications.

 

[c750dt]

People have been trying to do away with DADT for a little while now. Politicians saying something then just totally blowing it off is nothing new. I mentioned earlier that DADT will be done away with in good time I'll still stick to my prediction that it'll be around for a little while longer.

If you're asked what you're doing this weekend, or who you just saw, and you really must not fudge the facts, tell them you saw a friend. It's not like you have to tell them the guy's relation to you (they'll probably hear guys name and not bother thinking the same as if you mentioned a girl) and I'm very sure they're not looking for sexual details or even relationship details once you've mentioned the guy's name or that it was a guy. Come to think of it, in all my years in the work force, I've never once had a problem figuring out how to answer those questions without lying. Surely you can find more than your boyfriend to talk about.

In the book DADT may apply to off base actions. However, as long as you're not in uniform, it's not like they'd have a very easy time enforcing. Well, so long as the person doesn't go around bragging and squealing like a teenage girl. I mean yes, some (possibly even uncomfortable) restraint will be required in many situations but it's like that for many things. If you're on the news doing something really dumb, your boss probably will fire you if he was watching that newscast.

As for your view on unwanted and inappropriate advances: less instances is better than more. Just because it still happens doesn't mean there's room for more.

Well, most of my responses for the past few posts have me feel as if I'm repeating myself. I'll listen to arguments but for the most part, I think everyone in this thread has explained their views. I'm going to formally agree to disagree from here. Everyone here presents good arguments.