The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Events In Egypt Reviewed

From out in EMail Land I received a missive of which this was part:
And to what extent are we to excuse or allow others to violate what are ostensibly universal human rights (per the United Nations)?  Apparently, despite signing various accords and treaties, we have no way to make people accept their commitments to the exercise of free speech (or free exercise of religion)—to the point of having violence done to those who would do so.  Worse, to have violence done, when the exercise of speech and religion is not even in their countries, but in the speaker's own.

At what point do we expect to have folks actually abide by their commitments?  Or is this, to borrow a phrase from George W. Bush, the soft bigotry of low expectations?  Do we simply assume that others are not, cannot, live up to their commitments?
And, apparently, they can't live peaceably with Egyptians of other faiths, in their own country.

Are Human Rights Universal? free polls 

Regards  —  Cliff


Craig H said...

And then Benghazi... The first mistake is assuming civilization has arrived in the same way in all the places in which we trade around the world. Truth is, lack of education and religious extremism have a pernicious foundation in many even seemingly civilized countries, and they remain extremely dangerous places. We are hated that we indulge ourselves self-expression, not to mention that we "indulge" women and others basic human rights. We must respect all this, even while we abhor it. We are not dealing with civilized men as we know it.

I'd observe that universal human rights is not a universally held concept. We aspire to it. Others, most violently, do not. It is in our best interest to temper our diplomacy to accept this truth, oppose it how we may, and teach our citizens not to think they can travel the world with impunity.

Camille Paglia asserts that "liberation" for women has done them a disservice insofar as it suggests to them that they can walk into dark parking garages alone without risk. Even here in this country, all are not safe, even where they should be. Camille's approach is to accept the situation, and take precaution against it, as offensive as that continues to be to so many women who insist that things should not be that way.

No, they should not. But they are.

Renee said...

A man could be jumped and robbed, instead of raped. We should be safe, but we have to gage risk sadly.

It is amazing what we tolerate from each other in the exchange of ideas.

Craig H said...

Not only that, but here he (and she) may be stabbed, shot and even killed. I do not mean by referencing gender in the parking lot example to suggest right and wrong should be different to men vs women, but to point out that the same situation is unfairly more dangerous to people based on things about themselves which they cannot change, like their gender. A sad commentary on our society, but women are more vulnerable to violence just because they are women here. It's hubris for us to denigrate other societies for the inequality of women, when we can't even safeguard women from gender-based mayhem in our own supposedly advanced culture.

Which is all just the ugly side of humanity. The better side is with us, too, even in the darkest places.