I thought this to be useful for folks who not get it the value of knowing human rights and freedoms or who may have misconceptions about such.
First off a right means, not under obligations.
I received this today and I share it for what I perceive is of benefit for all and not of disrespect and none is intended to the sender.
Subject Re [Freedom From Debt] Human Rights Defender
Just a personal opinion brother, Sounds like separation from one another and I always ask, what rights do we have?
Someone going to tell the dead man he has a right to breathe, live?
Do we have the right to travel anywhere we wish at any time…how about to the moon?
What rights do we really have, I also think that rights, duties and privileges were given to slaves, just a opinion out of 7 billion of them.
~ love and peace
My responses,
Hi
Thank you for sharing your perspective but keep in mind, it is based on what you know and nothing I have said, meaning, you know where you are coming from but not where I am coming from.
Sure you read the posts but beyond that is the bigger picture that I have yet to make available.
To answer your question what rights and privileges do we have, I never said we do, I referenced such things (term) conferred by or on behalf of Her Majesty but at the same time acknowledging her as an artificial entity and therefore, having nothing to do with me or other living entities. Such are limitations on the, for lack of a better word, rights we are born with.
Therefore, so we are on a similar page, the rights, for lack of a better word, are those conferred on us equally by God free of charge and are the ones I am born with and that I believe all are born with. If somehow that implies separation, so be it.
We do have the ability to choose, for lack of a better word, the right/freedom, to choose to go to the moon or not go to the moon or to travel free of license or under license. To each his own. The word right as I use it and have shared in a post, means under no obligation.
Forgive my choice of words here but they seem to make the point hit home.
It was also posted to the blog that I am not relying on human rights documents or recommending such but that such are binding on the signatories, for or against human beings, therefore, no rights are extended to me by such.
Having said that, as it is published that everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law, if one not for example, waive that right or make known his choice, right, to not enter into recognition as a legal person or juridical personality before the law, the law, the crown, the lawyers, have and do impose the said right as published in the human rights documents because that is where THEY get the right to term, declare, recognize, designate us as a legal person in absence of us indicating no to such recognition. And no on its own is not enough, or has not been enough, not binding. When we see where they get that right we see how we can bind them to our no to the said right.
Men may believe they have the right, choice to make love with a woman and proceed as if she wants it, but if she say no, no means no and if the man carry on to have intercourse it is called rape.
If she not say no prior to intercourse but did not want to have intercourse, it is harder for her to later claim that she did not want to have intercourse to establish rape, therefore, if she does not want to have intercourse it would be for her good to say no.
So we see the silence of the woman leads to, she gets fucked, whereas, if she say no and the man proceeds, he is fucked. hahaha!
So as much as one cannot force another to do or not to do, there may be consequences for doing or not doing.
I hope this clarifies the purpose of the human rights documents. They use it to fuck us unless we say no.
I love you