PHA-Exchange> Food for not so childish thoughts (2)

[claudio]

Re: HR Reader 44

From: "George Kent" <kent at hawaii.edu>

 >3. Moreover, HR have no time limit: up until a specific right is fully
realized, this right is violated. This brings into serious question the
setting of goals to 'halve poverty or malnutrition'. [So, should  we
continue to pursue goals such as halving malnutrition by 2015...?].

-Why would the first sentence here bring into question the merits of setting
time-bound targets en route to the goal? I could see questioning any
government that set the targets too low, but the idea of targeting as such,
as a tool of strategic thinking, has merit.

> 6. Rights are to be seen as our exercise of free will and of
 choice and are,  therefore, dependent on the claim holders' capacity to
have their rights enforced.

- This might be clearer if written something like this: Rights holders and
their representatives (e.g., parents for children) should have the capacity
and the opportunity to take action to insist that those who have the
corresponding duties do in fact carry out their duties.

> To have rights is not dependent on having current capacity to exercise or
assert them.

- This seems to contradict your preceding sentence. I would rewrite it as:
"However, rights holders retain their rights even if they are unable to take
any action to demand their realization."

>  There is a fundamental difference between protecting children --because
they are dependent (and deserve our
 compassion)-- and respecting children, because they are powerful.
[Actually, the CRC prohibits those who already have power from exerting that
power over children].

- Where does the CRC prohibit that? I am not sure...  Even parents?