|Human Rights Defence (Photo credit: Wikipedia)|
There are many groups that promote and uphold Human Rights.
We believe that torture violates Human Rights, jailing someone without a trial violates human rights, not feeding properly prisoners of wars is a violation of human rights.
But we don't believe war to be a violation of human rights, we have laernt to live with it, we read about it in History books and were told and taught about the major and minor wars as if they were part of the deal, soon or later someone is at war, just accept it, it's the way things are, so instead of seeing war and shooting each other as an unquestionable common sense violation of human rights, specifically the rights of those who have not chosen, voted, declared a war but ended up having to live with it so that some may profit from it, we regulated it.
This is our current approach to world problems, for some reason we don't seek solution for the causes of the problems we have, we regulate the consequences, we write laws and treaties about what would be best to not do during a war - what about NOT having a war at all?
Wouldn't that be the best of bests, wouldn't that solve all the problems we have that are war related? Duh.
All the other groups that attempt to regulate Human Rights and prevent their violation are doing the same, we take the consequences and look at how to diminish them, how to keep them within lines we can live with.
We have set up many charities according to exactly this principle, to feed the poor, which incidentally keep growing, plausibly we'll keep growing 'aid agencies' because this is what we do, we seem to be only able to deal with consequences.
How come we have never considered that without agreeing on Life being The Basic -not negotiable- Human Right, everything else that we do is just a palliative, a patch on the real problem that we have not found ways - or even better - have not even cared to seek ways to solve at the root, Poverty, what about eradicating poverty by recognizing that without Life there would be no need to regulate any Human Right because we would be dealing with Dead People and dead people have no business in the claiming of Rights for a 'Life' of dignity purely because -they are Dead.
It's not impossible to see this point, Life is The Value all other rights are attached to, THINK about it for a moment, when in recent or far away times have we ever felt the need to regulate the rights of Dead People, or when did the Dead ask for their rights to be respected and regulated? What about NEVER?
So we can assume that the rights we want to secure are the ones of those who are still living and that as such the point of being Alive is fundamental to having rights, then how come being Alive and kept that way is not The First of all Human Rights and if it is, why do we excuse the death by famine or hardship of those that are NOT guaranteed their basic right to Life, such as Food, water, a shelter, education etc. ?
We need to have a serious reality check about what we are doing and why, if we are not upholding the right to Life and we belong to any Human Rights group, we are kidding ourselves, if Life is not a value we are standing for, then we are razzle-dazzling ourselves into the idea of being committed to something important and vital when we are in fact just accepting and allowing a system that says that we don't have the right to Life on this planet unless we have Money to buy it, and such system exists and thrives in each of our names.
Stand for Life as the most basic fundamental of All Human Rights with Equal Money.