UN To Recognize Fundamental Human Right To Water

[Judi Lynn]

UN To Recognize Fundamental Human Right To Water
Friday, 9 July 2010, 4:03 pm
Press Release: Council of Canadians
UN Set To Finally Recognize Fundamental Human Right To Water

Ottawa - The United Nations General Assembly is considering an historic draft resolution recognizing the human right to "safe and clean drinking water and sanitation" initiated by the Bolivian government. Other member states have been consulted on the resolution and the final text is expected to be presented to the President of the General Assembly, for tabling by the end of July.

In a letter sent today to all UN Ambassadors and permanent missions, global water advocate and Blue Planet Project founder Maude Barlow urges a decisive and swift passage of the resolution. The letter is available online at: www.blueplanetproject.net.

“This would be one of the most important things the UN has done since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” says Barlow, who chairs the boards of the Council of Canadians and Washington-based Food and Water Watch. In 2008/2009, Barlow served as Senior Advisor on Water to the 63rd President of the UN General Assembly.

“It’s time politics caught up with reality,” says Barlow, noting that nearly two billion people live in water-stressed areas of the world and three billion have no running water within a kilometre of their homes. “It’s time states finally recognize water as essential to life and a fundamental human right.”

More:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1007/S00179.htm

[Flatulo]

1. The UN also recognizes a fundamental human right to food,

shelter, health care, and a guaranteed minimum income.

With all these fundamental human rights, why would anyone ever bother to lift a finger? I could get along very nicely by just eating, sleeping and pooping.

Personally, I find the constant threat of impending hunger and exposure to the elements to be a sufficient motivation to do productive work during my days.

[Judi Lynn]

2. Maybe it's the point of your life to transcend the primitive savage state, rather than enshrine it.

Just a thought.

[Flatulo]

4. The point of my life is to be happy, and toiling for wages so that I

can provide myself and my famliy with a decent home, healthy food and some creature comforts has been very effective at realizing that goal.

Transcending to a higher plane is all well and good for some folks, but is it fair to demand that others toil (to provide the necessities of life)while you're transcending?

Now, I realize that these UN declarations are not worth the paper they're printed on, because absolutely nowhere in the world do the 'rights' enshrined therein actually exist. I mean, if you live in a desert, and there is no water, of whom are you going to demand that water be brought to you?

If you look at the US Constitution, all the rights captured in the Bill of Rights are actually guarantees of restraint on the government's use of force against its citizens. Always restraint, never largesse. So these UN proclamations, while no doubt well-meaning, are positively alien to the the American system of government.

Now, if these UN proclamtions are in the spirit of enforcing protections between states (for example, if State A has water running through it that feeds State B, then State A must not piss into the water and must otherwise preserve the integrity of the resource), then I could get behind that. But I don't actually believe that is the intent of the proclamations. I believe the intent is that people who live in a place where there is no water can 'demand' that they somehow be delivered clean water. As a practical matter, this is ridiculous, and as a moral imperative, it is at the very least questionable.

[Judi Lynn]

6. So many people around who want to sit on their behinds, and then take your stuff, right?

You are to be commended for your high work ethic.

It's too bad you don't apply that same work ethic to learning something about the subjects you attempt to discuss FIRST before discussing them.

http://sammel-surium.heim.at.nyud.net:8090/soundtracks/P9Retro.jpg

[Flatulo]

8. Thankfully, no, not yet. But if every human on the planet were

guaranteed the rights that the UN claims they have, can you not see a potential problem?

It's rather obvious, so if you can't see it, you're either a) caught up in a Marxist delusion of a perectly fair world filled with selfless, non-competetive, happy workers all toiling away for the greater good, or b) you're being willfully oblivious.

[Bacchus39]

12. in this instance it would be both a and b

the physical location of inhabitants and the condition of the country where they live will make all the difference. The UN proposed right to drink clean water is the same as my right to eat pepperoni pizza. As long as a pizza shop is nearby, no problem. The unavailability of clean water or water in general in some regions of the world is going to make this an empty gesture.

Now water purification systems and extraction techniques will go alot farther for the masses than UN declarations in fulfilling their goal.

nice job!!

[Wilms]

7. Why assume that the water should be delivered to wherever people are?

Perhaps making it available in certain areas would draw people there and aid reasonable, sustainable development.

And yes, I agree that one effect would be to stop someone/corporation from DENYING water. And you have to realize, we're running the danger of having water accessed via corporations only. Not good, you'll agree.

Finally, as a moral imperative, the idea that a nation provide for it's citizenry to a reasonable degree is hardly questionable. While I don't think there is a "right" per se, reasonable people can imagine this as a social priority within the reach of many nations.

If you want to call yourself a 'civilized' nation, you'll have to act like it.

[Flatulo]

9. It's that particular phraseology that bothers me. In the US, our rights

are guarantees that our government behave a certain way. If they violate those rights, we can seek redress from the courts. But none of those rights speak to things like food, shelter, medical treatment, etc.

Even the 'general welfare' clause of the COnstitution is considered by almost no one to be speaking to things like food and shelter. Rather, it grants the government the power to pass laws to ensure that citizens do not screw each other over and beat each othr toa pulp.

Now, let's take health care as an example. It would be in the best interests of a smart government to have a healthy population that can be productive. Even if you completley put aside arguments about compassion, it has been shown rather pursuasively that a single-payer system would be cheaper and more effective than the mess we have now. On this basis, I support a single-payer system.

But to phrase health care as an absolute right is a very slipper slope. For example, do I have a right to have perfect teeth? To not go bald (something dear to me)? To have a stiff dick on command? To have accss to growth hormone so I can be as tall as the next guy? To have perky boobs?

And who is to pay for providing all of these 'rights' to me? I can envision a scenario where benfits become so generous that the argument for working becomes rather weak. Is it moral for me to rely on the efforts of others for all my needs (assuming I am able-bodied and work is available)? I think not.

I'm sure that in this particular forum, where there is a very strong Marxist contingent, these thoughts will be rather repugnant, but I'm putting them out there because this is a discussion board. I hope I haven't offended anyone, and I would appreciate civility in any responses.

[Wilms]

10. In the main, I don't disagree. I'm not 100% behind the framing.

But as I've said, any modern nation that wants to call itself civilized would make these basic things available to everyone even if only because the gov't hasn't done enough to make sure some people aren't screwing over everyone else.

Had they, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[CJvR]

3. Positive rights.

Positive rights are a bit hard to guarantee, suppose there are 10 people and only enough water for 9 to survive?

[Flatulo]

5. That's more or less my point... the US Constitution grants certain

rights to the citizenry. Each of these rights guarantees government restraint, not largesse.

[Mika]

11. Let them eat cake.

Bah. Humbug.

A self made man in a self made state. :eyes:

---

[Judi Lynn]

13. Harper, Don’t Obstruct UN Vote on Right to Water: Council of Canadians

Harper, Don’t Obstruct UN Vote on Right to Water: Council of Canadians

OTTAWA - July 8 - Canada should be denied the seat it is seeking on the UN Security Council if the Harper government obstructs a crucial upcoming vote on the right to water at the General Assembly, says Council of Canadians Chairperson Maude Barlow.

The UN General Assembly is poised to vote on a draft resolution declaring the human right to "safe and clean drinking water and sanitation" presented by the Bolivian government and endorsed by several other countries. The Council of Canadians and other organizations fear that Canada is working behind the scenes to weaken the resolution before it goes for a vote at the end of the July as it has on previous occasions at the UN Human Rights Council.

"This is the first time the General Assembly has been asked directly to deal with this issue and presents a huge test for the world," says Barlow. "When the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights was written, no one could foresee a day when water would be a contested area. But in 2010, it is not an exaggeration to say that the lack of access to clean water is the greatest human rights violation in the world."

"This would be one of the most important things the UN has done since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," says Barlow, who in 2008/2009, served as Senior Advisor on Water to the 63rd President of the UN General Assembly. "Canadians need to be aware that the Harper government is one of the primary obstacles to the international recognition of the right to water."

"The Harper government has consistently obstructed progress on the right to water at the UN," says Council of Canadians National Water Campaigner Meera Karunananthan. "With much of Canada gripped by a serious heat wave, the Harper government still seems oblivious to the realities of increasing water scarcity and climate change. It's clear most Canadians support the right to water, so the question is why doesn't Harper?"

A 2008 poll by Environics Research Group found that 88% of Canadians want the federal government to recognize clean drinking water as a basic human right.

More:
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/07/08-2

[Flatulo]

14. Still struggling to comprehend this...

"it is not an exaggeration to say that the lack of access to clean water is the greatest human rights violation in the world"

Yeah, it's right up there with slavery, female mutilation and immolation, kidnapping and murder, and Internet decapitations.

So who is doing the violating? Will names be named in the (no doubt) upcoming lawsuits?