This is my personal statement, inspired by the declaration of the UN General Assembly Resolution 217A (III) of 10 December 1948.  I would encourage people to consider writing their own or adapting and sharing this.

To read the original U.N. version, Click here.


In light of the cruel disregard for human rights that pervades history, and because of our personal power to work together through enhanced communications, I propose here a framework of basic human rights and urge people to find ways to put this into widespread practice. There is no license to commit acts of cruelty or destruction to humanity under any condition.

Rights are rights.
Everyone needs to recognise and uphold their human rights. We do not need to "win" these rights. We are born with them, we die with them, we just don't always identify them or exercise them. International and religious boundaries are insignificant when it comes to basic human needs and rights.

The principles stated here apply to everyone no matter their age, sex, location, official job, education, political or religious allegiances, personal orientaion, or state of mental health. Sane or insane, empoyed or unemployed, men, women, children, we are all in the same category of species, I think.

It is understood that challenges of cultural difference or momentary circumstance may not be an excuse to ignore basic human rights to dignity, health, and freedom. People must hold themselves, their neighbors, and their leaders accountable to this standard. There should be a human rights oath required of anyone who seeks public office, and travelers crossing between countries and cultures should be aware and acknowledge, affirm, or seek to understand these principles and engage in lively debate, accept the principles, or stay home. If you want freedom for yourself, you should be obligated to accept freedom for everyone else too. This would transmit and reinforce human rights.


  All warfare must be erradicated, and it's apparatus adapted to more constructive purposes. Every effort should be towards adapting the outmoded ideas of warfare, cruelty, needless human bondage and sacrifice. There will be no instant cure for all the world's problems, but allowing barbarous acts against humanity can not be part of the solution. Spending the world's wealth on war is counterproductive to the common good, and allowing exceptions for any form of barbary is repulsive and unacceptable to the human collective conscience.


  Human butchery, and the false laws that man writes to facilitate these acts must be uncovered, abolished, and ignored. No one can be forced to maime or kill another person or subjugate them to slavery.

Sometimes customs that survive for generations are in direct conflict with basic human rights. These include but are not limited to forced marriage, female or male castration, human sacrifice whether for religious or political goals. All of these acts against humanity are unequivocably condemed and forbidden. There are no exceptions.

Punishment for any crime against humanity can not condone or obligate a third party to further acts of inhumanity. It is understood that making third parties carry out acts of cruelty and inhumanity for society is, in itself, an act of cruelty and inhumnity by society as a whole. This must and can be erradicated.

Punishment should never inflict irreparable harm to the body. Ideally, punishment should be self-inflicted by choice by the guilty party. If the person does not recognise and accept their guilt, either they are not guilty and you are mistaken or misguided, or they have not learned yet and will not learn from the punishment. Punishment is not a prize for the righteous to flaunt like a saber against the "guilty". We must not turn ourselves into sadists. This idea of "turning the other cheek" has it's practical application here, because in most cases, punishment is a "lose-lose" situation. Reparation is a better pursuit, a more constructive pursuit, because no matter if a person is guilty or not, they may gain something positive out of an act of repairing harm if the act of reparation does not in itself cause injury in the providing. The goal is to end human suffering, and punishment can not be a bonus or a reward or it becomes a corrupting force in itself.
To regard a demonstration by journalist Christopher Hitchens why waterboarding is torture and why the effect is counter productive as an investigation technique, watch this clip -


It is understood that in times of crisis, a person or people, thinking they are serving a common good, may take measures to isolate people or persons they suspect or know are dangerous.

It must be acknowleged that everyone is capable of misunderstanding and misguidance, and no matter if one is a soldier, jailor, crusader, or theif, that no one has a right to torture or purposefully neglect to the point of danger and torment, another person.

Being a jailor, a judge, a president, a general, the eldest, or any position of leadership does not grant special priveledge to ignore human rights. We as a society can not allow, demand, encourage or reward sadistic acts.

It is better to leave your job when you feel under pressure to unduly sacrifice your health, than to keep your job and blame your boss for your untimely death. To aid in the protection from corruption in the workplace, there should be a "whistle-blower's registry". In light of the effectiveness of the FBI MOST WANTED LIST...if society can create networks to track and hunt criminals, it should be able to create one to protect people of good conscience who find themselves alone in identifying corruption.



All people have a right to survive and attain and maintain health.
To achive this, they can not sacrifice their neighbors.
When seeking to balance the individual rights and needs with the common good,
the individual can not be forceably sacrificed for the common good.

Society can not send people on a suicide mission, subject them to poison,
or otherwise endanger their health, no matter whether the goal is political, humanitarian, or pure greed.

People are not dispensible. We all have the same basic rights.
The right to water, food, and habitation, without endangering or sacrificing others is a common and constructive human basis of life. "Dog eat dog" and "Me First!" are not good doctrines for human prosperity.

Sharing contributes to a healthy society and as a community we should include in the design of our infrastructure methods to encourage, facilitate and recompense sharing.
Functioning conduits for sharing nourish the vital organs of society.



The right to think and express freely, without engaging in knowing libelous slander serves the goal of mental health and prosperity in a healthy society.

People have a right to be wrong, but not knowingly untruthful to handicap and harm others.
People have a right to discuss and exchange ideas.
People have a right to seek to influence others.
People do not have a right to persecute others because of their expressions or beliefs.

People do not have a right to limit anyone in the pursuit of knowlege to understand differences of opinions.
People do not have the right to violate another person's privacy to satisfy their curiosity, unduly influence their personal life, or for intellectual theft.

When someone's expression of their beliefs is a challenge to a society, local or global,
but it does not solicit dangerous acts to humanity, people in a healthy society have options :

They can respond intellectually in debate,
They can ignore the person or their ideas,
They can choose NOT to actively disperse those ideas in their media,
They can mock the ideas,
but they are obligated NOT to physically pursecute or attack the person or persons.

People have a right to challenge society's ideas.
In the case of expression of ideas which are contrary to human rights and human dignity, if the expression does not demand obeyance or solicit actions that would deny other people's rights, and the manner of expression does not conflict with other people's rights to privacy or peace, and the expression does not traumatise children, then it is the duty of the public to neotiate and accord space for people to exercise their freedom of expression. Anger sincerely expressed can shed light on important and real social crisis.

Society has a right and an obligation to assure security from militant or depraved abuse of the public's attention, but it is not the right of the public or it's agents to deny human rights to the author of unpopular ideas. Mental illness in a person or group of people is not a license to commit acts of cruelty or destruction.




Situations of severe human crisis that cause people to take flight should be a catalyst for aid, education, intellectual and economic engagement to cure the corruption (whether natural or man made) which causes the flight. People in distress can not be treated like criminals.

To the extent that people have a right to privacy and personal choice in a private space, so communities have rights to protect resources of common use. At some point it does become criminal to withold basic needs to desparate people, and it is the obligation of society to work together to recognise and deal with that challenge, not to blindly label people in need as threatening criminal invaders and ignore the problem to the point where a revolution is necessary. As there is often a surplus of money, food, and every resource necessary for existance, there is no excuse to turn the hungry away empty handed. We need to re-tool society before it re-tools us. We need to better identify the flow of resources and surplus to better offer comfort stations where they are needed. As a world community, we should prepare for this, not wait for disaster to happen. The money we now spend on war we could spend on maintaining and encouraging peace. Countries should wean themselves off of military destruction and retool for military hospitality.




We need to learn and practice tolerance, but not subjugation.

No law of man may subjugate a person physically or mentally to participate in any acts of emotional or physical slavery. This includes but is not limited to marriage, military servitude, religious servitude, unwilling sexual orientation, forced and extended isolation. All people have a right to emotional honesty and freedom in their private and public life as long as it does not abuse another person's equal emotional freedom and rights.

No one should be forced to make their personal life public for purposes of serving in a public office. Persecuting a public figure for their personal life, when their personal choices do not infringe upon the rights of another, is a humane abuse and also a corruption of power, no matter if it is from or against an individual or a group.

No person or group, whether it is a private enterprise or a public office, has the right to make an emotional slave of their empolyees, or their leaders or bosses.
Shareholders of a public or private company do not have the right to impose their personal views of life on their leader. People in every walk of life have a right to their own emotional freedom.


Yours truly,