> Why do you care about human rights?
I dunno, perhaps the same reason Winston Churchill cared about them.
I dunno, perhaps the same reason Winston Churchill cared about them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767
"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes" - Winston Churchill
India in the Modi era is pretty inspired by Churchill.
It is quite bizarre to imply that pre-colonial India was a haven for human rights but that Britain, the country with the most advanced legal system and which had recognised the notion of human rights nearly 900 years earlier, did not.
That is your infer, not my imply.
In this case though I am saying I did not imply what you inferred. My comment is regarding the individual, not the country he was in charge of.
Correct, you have just explained that you don't understand what inference is.
Whatever you're implying, I'm unable to infer :)
So let's put that word aside and focus on understanding what the person above you is trying to communicate.
They made an accusation against Churchill, and you responded with a defense of Britain. This reveals that you misinterpreted their comment. They wish to correct your musunderstanding and make it clear that they were not talking about Britain, only Churchill.
Pop quiz: How long did it take the United States to recognize the human rights of those born into slavery?
People are selectively blind about who the human rights apply to all the time, it's nothing new whatsoever.
1. Tear gas is still violence.
2. He called them uncivilized tribes. That's shitty regardless of context.
2) sure, not relevant here though
One which didn't seem to care too much about lives of its Indian subjects apparently.
But maybe that's the fashion nowadays among sophisticated thinkers?:
" I want you to think very seriously over this question of poison gas. I would not use it unless it could be shown either that (a) it was life or death for us, or (b) that it would shorten the war by a year.
2. It is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody used it in the last war without a word of complaint from the moralists or the Church. On the other hand, in the last war bombing of open cities was regarded as forbidden. Now everybody does it as a matter of course. It is simply a question of fashion changing as she does between long and short skirts for women."*
Yeah, no. Magna Carta wasn't recognition of _human_ rights (we still had literal slaves and also separately serfdom), it was basically a bunch feudal lords insisting that the courts which the King owned personally treat any case against the King himself with the same regards as any other defendant.
Both sides reneged very quickly, leading to one of the many English Civil Wars that UK history lessons completely ignore because it's not as exciting as Cromwell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barons%27_War
What a bizarre question. Like... what?
Border officials the world over are like this. They have broad leeway to assume everyone is a threat, and to provoke, inconvenience, belittle and annoy them until they are satisfied. Obtuse, trollish rudeness is but one tool in the toolbox.
--
Responding more generally rather than specifically to your point, if you'll forgive me:
I am inclined to believe that while our British border officials are wholly embarrassing, the situation is no worse than it is in every single western democracy.
Let us all not pretend that border police confiscating the journalists' possessions they don't really have the explicit right to confiscate is particularly unique to any country; it's absolutely not. This is an internationally common thing and it is very much a sign of the times.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-border-...
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/journ...