Benj. Mako Hill wrote: [sip] > In fact, 27(2) *has* been used to justify high protectionist schemes. > > You need to remember that the UDHR reflects a very particular historical > moment. *Many* of the articles represent at political balance between > the principles being argued for by the US and its allies (usually > typical "liberal" views) and those being argued for by the Soviet Union > and its allies (more social good oriented rights). You know, free speech > versus universal employment or food type of things. The result is > exactly what you see here and you can probably guess which section was > being argued for by which side.
Not exactly; there really wasn't much argument or negotiation over the UDHR, and the Soviet block certainly wasn't involved in it. The document was drafted largely by J.P. Humphrey, with help from a few others. It was, of course, partially an indictment of the Soviets; the Soviet block accounted for 6 of the 8 abstentions to its ratification. [snip] > This, and the article that defines marriage as a between and a man and a > woman, sort of turn me off the document as a whole. While I certainly agree with you in principle on Article 16, I'd argue that it isn't intentionally exclusionary. Actually, it's syntactically possible to read 16(1) as ordaining gay marriage--if Humphrey had been actively opposed, I think he'd have been a bit more particular. The implied limitation is more a result of the era than of malice. > Regards, > Mako Pace, -C > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
