posted on May, 4 2013 @ 03:09 AM
I do enjoy reading your posts here, but I think you are misinterpreting the intention of UDHR A1... I'll try to explain in a couple of points.
UDHR is an international treaty, not domestic legislation; Its intention is not to be a binding law, but a framework for nations to use in creating
Article 1 is to be taken as an assumption, not a set of criteria. If this assumption is applied universally by lawmakers, the intended result is to
have laws that do not discriminate. So no laws are created so people are not born into serfdom (free), or that their cultural values are not
marginalised by conflicting cultural understandings (with reason).
On another note:
NO! ... Becuase I am unreasonable and hence can not be politically human as defined by that legal document.
I disagree--you have enough reason
to read and interpret that document (tho in my opinion incorrectly) so you are therefore not
EDIT: Ok, so I thought I would consult Acts Interpratation Act 1901 (Cth) to see how "persons" was defined in it (as this would be the legislation
defining "persons" within Australia):
References to persons
(1) In any Act, expressions used to denote persons generally (such as "person", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no-one", "one", "another"
and "whoever"), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual.
(2) Express references in an Act to companies, corporations or bodies corporate do not imply that expressions in that Act, of the kind
mentioned in subsection (1), do not include companies, corporations or bodies corporate.
I really hope no soverin citizen
folk read that
edit on 4-5-2013 by cartenz because: hmmmm