Whose rights?

Supposedly contrary to "womens' rights"

Supposedly contrary to “womens’ rights”

A bit of an uproar yesterday as actress (and very sensible person) Emma Watson has posed half naked to Vanity Fair. Feminists claim this kind of pictures are contrary to womens’ rights.

Why are people always on about womens’ rights, gay rights, disabled people’s rights, and many other rights? These rights are superfluous. We have the universal human rights. They suffice.

Let’s have a look at article 1 of those rights:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

This and the other rights of the Declaration are all that we need.

Of course, to extremist groups these rights are not exclusive enough. And religions don’t care for them either.

humanrightsjpgThat is logical. Religions are per definition brainwashing systems that prescribe and forbid things. They do not share the universal human rights. On the contrary, they contradict them constantly, whether it is by marrying off young girls, torturing young girls by closing their vagina, denying preservatives to people in Africa, declaring holy war against or excluding people with other or no beliefs, excluding women and gay people from their ceremonies, etc.

We don’t need separate rights to separate sections of the population. The general human rights contain all everybody needs.

So, next time you hear someone talk about a specific group’s rights, remember that they are self-centred and limited in their claims.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s