Bridging the gap.

Monday, November 06, 2006

An International Bill of Rights

In the mean time, let us say this:

The peoples of the world are a diverse group, diverse in religion and social organization, and this makes it all the harder to find common ground and understanding between us. What we offer is for all nations, all factions, all militia groups, any single person or group without exception to join together in signing an International Bill of Rights. This first international bill attempts to thread the fine line between all of the religions and political constitutions of the world and get down to elemental values, if these can be found, that we all agree on. Not an easy task. Perhaps the most important item in regard to a path to peace is simply stating that we collectively prefer peace to war. If we can say that to each other, then perhaps the path to peace will illuminate itself. In addition to a universal goal of peace itself, we humbly offer this:

1. We offer that we exist.
2. We offer that each one of us is in possession of our own thoughts and beliefs and that each of us has the right to possess these.
3. We offer that we have the right to live, and that, at very least, innocent people do not deserve to die.
4. We offer that anyone accused of any crime should have the right to defend themselves and should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
5. We offer that torture, as defined by the Geneva Convention, is fundamentally wrong under any circumstance.
6. We offer that dialogue and diplomacy is preferable to violence in solving any conflict.
7. We offer that men and women and people of all color deserve the basic things listed above.
8. We offer that love is a common value and that the pursuit of happiness, defined by culture, is a common goal.

Can we sign our name to these things? Who among us will sign? And, perhaps more importantly, who among us will not sign? Let all people, whether they are a member nation of the United Nations, an individual or a militia group, be given a chance to sign their name and let those who will not sign be held to the light of these eight points. For if we can establish, in the humility of our own admitted errors in humanity, an International Bill of Rights, then we can begin to sow the seeds of peace on the soil of common ground.

When commenting to this post, please mention the region, or country in which you live. Thanks for participating.



Would you sign your name to this proposed International Bill of Rights?
No
Yes
Create Free Polls

5 comments:

Nessa said...

This is me voting for an International Bill of Rights.

I hope I am joined by many more people who, while not knowing the exact path to walk, wish to take the first step towards peace.

Nessa

Anonymous said...

I am signing the International Bill of Peace. Its time for change.

Kat Ohio USA

Charlene Amsden said...

Add my signture to the International Bill of Rights.

Anonymous said...

On an emotional level, I appreciate the care and consideration, not to mention courage, that has gone into the inauguration of this blog. Thank you all.

Intellectually speaking, there is much to think about here. I'll be back after I've done so.

Meanwhile, re: your International Bill of Rights, have you had a chance to read the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights?"

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

You may find some common ground there.

Al, USA

Anonymous said...

Al, I did check out the UN document and it does have much in common. My personal feeling is that it's 30 articles try way too hard to cover everything from marriage to land ownership, etc. I think it's a great effort except that it is affiliated with the UN. The UN has is's membership which is exclusive and has many follies (an opinoin).

Our attempt, no matter how naive, is to associate these rights with no body, no organization, no political party and see if we can't establish something so basic, that it almost cannot be denied.

As this is not the only venue where this has been presented, you may find it interesting to note that the largest objection to it has been that it states that torture is wrong. Many people wish to hold on to torture in order to get information that might protect them.

I can't think of one other point of objection other than the feeling by some that it will make no differnce and so is therefore ineffectual.

Our thinking is that it's better to begin to say these words as a world community than to throw up our hands and not say them.