It’s one of those foundational “where do our rights come from” debates.
Are rights:
A) Granted by a government
B) Derived from nature and recognized by the People
I’d it’s (A), then they can be taken away by a change in the law. They’re just you’re because some monarch or bureaucrat decides you no longer should have it.
If it’s (B) then you always have the right and the monarchs or bureaucrats denying it to you is an assault on your human rights.
While a trousers in school debate isn’t exactly life or death, I see the title’s wording as suspect. It says the girls are now “granted” the right, which means the government decides if you have rights. That’s (A), while I would hope an article writer would want (B), and say the girls’ right to wear trousers has been “recognized” by the courts, which means it should never be taken away without the removal being an act of supppression of human rights.
Given you recognise it’s a foundational debate, why would you expect a journalist to have the same view as you on it?
Anyway I think it’s pretty clear a lot of rights only make sense in a social system - there’s no inherent natural right to things that don’t exist in a state of nature.
It’s one of those foundational “where do our rights come from” debates.
Are rights: A) Granted by a government B) Derived from nature and recognized by the People
I’d it’s (A), then they can be taken away by a change in the law. They’re just you’re because some monarch or bureaucrat decides you no longer should have it.
If it’s (B) then you always have the right and the monarchs or bureaucrats denying it to you is an assault on your human rights.
While a trousers in school debate isn’t exactly life or death, I see the title’s wording as suspect. It says the girls are now “granted” the right, which means the government decides if you have rights. That’s (A), while I would hope an article writer would want (B), and say the girls’ right to wear trousers has been “recognized” by the courts, which means it should never be taken away without the removal being an act of supppression of human rights.
Language and fraking matters here.
Given you recognise it’s a foundational debate, why would you expect a journalist to have the same view as you on it?
Anyway I think it’s pretty clear a lot of rights only make sense in a social system - there’s no inherent natural right to things that don’t exist in a state of nature.
deleted by creator