Hi Ricsi,
UNDENIABLE means that it is impossible to deny the existence of
something.
INALIENABLE means that the possessor (in this case, the individual)
cannot be separated from the possession (the individual's rights) because
the possession comes from, and is owned by, a source which is superior to
the possessor.
The American Constitution uses it in this way ("endowed by the creator
with certain inalienable rights"), as it refers to rights given by God
which a human (as inferior to God in authority) cannot take away from the
individual.
The Constitution writers' choice of the word indicates how serious they
were about these rights, and how deliberately they were trying to prevent
future generations from losing those rights. Inalienable means that not
even the possessor has the ability to refuse their own rights. Under the
American Constitution, an individual cannot give up (or refuse)
inalienable rights. To do so exceeds our authority.
This is the core of our 'great debates' over certain modern issues
(including abortion, euthanasia, and even animal rights). Is one right
superior to another (such a life or the pursuit of happiness)? Do those
(inalienable) rights come from God or, if there is no God, at what point
in evolution did humans gain *inalienable rights*? Or, do all animals
also have *inalienable rights*? And what about the plants?
What a confusing world. Just when I thought I had it all figured out,
along comes the UN and gives equal rights to all people (including
oppressors and their victims - alike).
PS - As for Article 5
Why did the UN decide that the people of southern Sudan have less-equal
and more-alienable rights than their ethnic-minority counterparts in
Kosovo?
The UN may proclaim the equal rights of nations large and small, but it
seems that a lot of the people in this world are not reaping the benefits
of being a "member of the human family". It almost seems as if the UN is
part of the problem and not part of the solution.
That may be FACT or OPINION, but the word that comes to my mind is ...
UNDENIABLE.
Maybe you were correct in your original choice of words.
Bob
---
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:55:53 +0100 (CET) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard
Menedetter) writes:
> Hi Steve!
>
> 21 Jan 2003, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> < snip, snip >
>
> S> I can not find it in my copy of the UN Charter. Please
> S> enlighten me as to which section and paragraph of the UN
> S> Charter recognizes "undeniable rights."
>
> Indirectly in the preamble:
> "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and
> worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and
> women and of nations large and small"
>
> Which refers (among other points) to:
>
> "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal
> and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is
> the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world"
>
> I (as not being a native speaker) thought that inalienable
> and undeniable were roughly the same, but anyways I
> meant inalienable.
>
> PS: as for Guantanamo:
> Art. 5
> "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
> degrading treatment or punishment."
>
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
