What about Basic Human Rights

There was an article online today about a report into the French prison system and the appalling conditions within it. The quotation from the report used is "totally at odds with a modern society's requirements". It seems that certain inmates of the French prison weren't being treated with the respect for their human rights, seems they didn't all have access to a hot shower every day.

The opinion I am going to express is probably going to be "totally at odds with the definition of human rights within a modern society'. But I'm really not someone with ideas fostered during the Spanish Inquisition, but I do put forward the notion that possibly it is hypocritical of any society that has a tradition of laws and the rule of law to have much to say about "human rights". I think that if you don't follow the accepted laws and moral standards of a society then you lose the right to have the same rights as those who do follow them.

In case you are unfamiliar with it I am going to quote a section from the American Declaration of Indepenence and its reference to basic rights which expresses the concept as well as anything else I have found

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I think that anyone would agree that this more or less forms the basis for rights within any of the civilized nations of the world. But having said that, many civilized nations have laws that provide for execution of criminals, so that does away with the life part, we also confine people to prisons which definetely throws liberty out with the bathwater, and the Government of Canada has deliberately put some laws in place that most definitely have made me unhappy. For an example you can't keep a clam that is under 3 inches long, this makes me very unhappy when I am digging them, because most of what comes up is only 2 3/4 inches long and I have to discard them. Now I don't necessarily disagree that for the public good these are good laws, but each infringes upon rights in the strictest sense.

Here is one of my pet peeves. On PEI if you want to do some plumbing in your house it has to be done by a licensed plumber. So if I wanted to put in a sink and I went ahead and did the work myself (which I am quite capable of doing I am breaking the law) If I had to hire a plumber it would definitely infringe on my pursuit of happiness, whatever happened to a mans home is his castle as a founding principle of English common law.

So all I can say then is that there are no absolute rights, that everything is fair game and if these self evident rights can be compromised by legislative means, this makes human rights "subjective" because we compromise even the most basic ones.

The question that I have to ask myself then is this, "is it reasonable to conclude that if a person wishes to conduct their affairs outside of the rules that society has set for itself that the basic rights that everyone wants for themselves are reduced because of their "opting out". I think the answer has to be yes because we have already established by precedent this is within the rights of society as represented by our Governments and courts in putting restrictions on the ability of non conforming members to the pursuit of life , liberty and the pursuit.

So I say this, it is impossible to pass a law without infringing upon the basic rights of someone

Last time I heard this kind of an argument I think alcohol and mind altering drugs were involved If you don't agree then "no soup for you" and you can take it up with the "soup nazi" who claims it is his right not to sell to the likes of you.