# data[].attributes.body
As people, no matter what our background is we are entitled to have human rights. Things such as religion, culture, or even gender do not determine as to whether or not you should or should not have these rights.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Brian Orend, who is the author of Human Rights: Concept and Context, the definition of human rights must be broken down to understand the term in full. Orend states that it took some time for history to understand that the definition of human rights needed to include every single person. He states this as there was a time in history when human rights only related to men who owned land, which puts into perspective what human rights meant during this time in history. The reason I state that it puts things into perspective is because it shows that everyone but the wealthy man was essentially never acknowledged. Orend mentions that it's more of a modern concept of human rights to acknowledge that every being shares the same integrity and how there must be reasons as to why it must continuously be explained. Personally, I understand why it has to be justified, as there are individuals that defy the existence of these rights and may ask the big question of why. Why does this group of people deserve rights? Why are rights needed? I understand this to mean that rights should never be overlooked or breeched.

The example given within this reading was World War 2 when the Nazis used propaganda to make jewish people look like they did not belong within society. This event was a clear example in the breeching of human rights. In my opinion, after this tragic event, the perspective of human rights has changed enormously; as in 1948 the Declaration of Human Rights was emended. The Declaration of Human Rights was created to let individuals obtain dignity.

# data[].attributes.body
When discussing human rights, there are three authors I would like to mention. Their names are Navanethem Pillay, Kenneth Roth, and Hina Jilani. The reason I mention them is because they took a different approach when discussing human rights. They took more of a personal approach. These three individuals took the time to tell of their experiences with regards to human rights. Each discuss how either they have had their human rights breeched based on their race, gender and social class whilst others discuss how human rights have been breeched within organisations.
As a reader engaging with these three stories, a couple of things were to note, the first being from Navanethem Pillay's story. In her story she noted that as a non-white woman from South Africa, she wrote an essay to a university she hoped to attend that would aid her in her career to become a lawyer. Luckily, she got into that university, but she was poor which encouraged her community to come together to raise money. Pillay came to the realisation that many people within her community did not know that receiving an education was in fact a right. As someone who comes from Ireland, I know myself and many others gladly never had to experience not having education.
Another thing I took to note from reading Kenneth Roth's story was how vital it is to a society that human rights must be taken seriously and that dictatorships cannot be idolised. Roth mentioned how even democratic governments would refuse to put rights in place and would demean those who are not at a level of success. No individual should ever feel as though they do not have access to their rights or at that be victim blamed.
The last thing I noted was from Hina Jilani. In Jilani's story, she discusses how governments should be in support of human rights as it is essential to creating a proactive society. If governments choose to ignore human rights then it could mean that the individuals residing within the area may take matters into their own hands. For example, they may protest in the streets outside political buildings.

(International Human Rights Law by Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah & Sandesh Sivakuraman)

# data[].attributes.body
In order for us to understand human rights we must know where they came from. The earliest sight of codes and principles physically written down came from Babylon in 1754 B.C. This sight became known as the Code of Hammurabi. The  Code of Hammurabi discussed things such as the protection of property, prohibition of murder, along with the presumption of innocence, whilst these do come across as law, there are rights linked to it for example, the right to life, right to bodily integrity in the prohibition of murder, right to property in the presumption of innocence and so on... (LW2207 Lecture one)

Continuing on to Ancient Greece in 300 B.C, we find the Stoic philosophers who were promoters that aimed to have natural equality of humanity. The Stoics are crucial when human rights and the history come into discussion as it was the first real peace of evidence that we have of the beginning of a democratic system that is now in place in today's society. Personally, I find it fascinating that the idea of instilling human rights had been around for many centuries. It's evident that human rights have always been a need within society.
We cannot mention Ancient Greece without mention Ancient Rome. In Ancient Rome, there was Roman man named Cicero, he was very upfront about the intentions of individuals. He believed that people were born for justice but also that this right is based on nature, not opinions. (LW2207 Lecture one)

From my understanding, both Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome were trying to inform individuals of their rights. That every individual was born with these rights and that they cannot ever be taken away. This brings me to my next point of two very distinct rights. These rights are Natural rights and Civic rights. Natural rights are rights that every person has inherited, these cannot be taken away (universal). On the other hand Civic rights exist which are defined as rights provided by the government and these rights can be taken away.
(LW2207 Lecture one)

# data[].attributes.body
McNeilly states that there is a reoccurring debate about whether or not human rights are universal and as we know that if rights are universal this means that they cannot be taken away from an individual. McNeilly goes on to discuss that these debates are generally about what human rights must include. Universality must be understood as clearly as possible as if they are not there is a real possibility that human rights could abolish the liberal system of government which can then lead to regain the nature of rights. It is said that legitimacy, authority, breadth, and jurisdiction of human rights are major topics when the universality debate is being argued. Those involved within this debate have not yet reached a common ground as some are said to have highlighted the risks involved whilst others are willing to accept the rigid attitude. McNeilly's main goal for this reading was to show that the framework for conceptualising human rights would call for changes within our society. The behind the scenes work would also mean the opposition of liberalism. McNeilly states that using a mix of post-Marxist and poststructuralist techniques would aid in the progress. In my opinion, individuals should not accept a meaning for human rights that is going to end up being a contradictory statement as this only allows for liberal governments to go back on statements that may or may not be correct. This will only lead to further confusion that would affect not only the governments but those living within the society. This comes back to the statement that not everyone who has that kind of power knows what's best.
(McNeilly, K. (2015). Reclaiming the Radical in Universal Human Rights: Universality as Universalisation)

# data[].attributes.body
It is important to note that the Commission of Human Rights stepped down in 2006 after being in operation since 1946. The Commission was replaced with the Human Rights Council who did not begin their operation until June 2006. The Council communicated directly to the general assembly who were then made a senior body of the operation. This Council was also set up by the general assembly. Sir Nigel Rodley, explained that within the first two decades of the UN existing they went by three rules, these rules were; hear no evil, speak no evil, and see no evil. Personally, I'm taken back by this approach as it doesn't seem very professional. I did learn that these rules had to be put into place as they were not allowed to mention countries by name. This made me realise how sensitive information is within the UN.
In 1966, the International Bill of Human Rights was adopted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Bill. The original Bill of Human Rights was created on December 10th, 1948 which is now known as human rights day. The main objective of this new commission was to research abuses against human rights but to also point out the patterns noticed within violations. Human rights is something that it vital to recognise within societies. It is clear that the reason this council was set up was to be the example countries needed to follow. I say this as there are countries who choose to ignore human rights. These countries are usually under dictatorships.

(Sir Nigel Rodley, Human Rights Bodies)

# data[].attributes.body
It is clear that human rights must be recognised to the fullest. Nowadays, it is evident that things like the internet and social media would help to gain individuals attention when spreading the meaning of human rights. When hearing stories from Navanethem Pillay in which those within her community didn't know that they had a right to education. I'm sure there are individuals out there in the same position. If there was more of an online presence around the conversation of human rights than I feel more people would feel in the know of what they are entitled to. I learnt a lot about International Human Rights from doing this assignment and it was a very interesting journey.