mrswdk wrote:The USG is going to start focusing on a 'core' set of rights deemed most important while pruning various more-recently-emergent rights such as rights around sexual orientation and women's rights. Which should it repeal first?
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo argued Thursday for a more limited U.S. view of global human rights advocacy based on the principals laid out by America’s Founding Fathers, a suggestion critics assumed meant stepping away from more modern concepts such as support for women and the LGBQT communities around the world.
Pompeo, speaking in Philadelphia, singled out property rights and religious freedom as “foremost” principals in a speech that elsewhere complained about the “proliferation” of protections in international agreements related to human rights.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html
God you’re an Ass.
You know the article is not in anyway related to what you are stating.
It’s not that the USG is going to repeal “rights” in the US.
Only that, in terms of our diplomatic efforts, were are going to focus on preserving more fundamental “rights” more, and put secondary “rights” on the back burner. There are very valid reasons to do this... just two that come quickly to my mind...
1) If you can defend fundamental rights like speech and voting, then likely secondary rights will improve over time.
2) If you (as a nation) have limited political capital to spend you need to focus on the things that are likely to affect the most people and therefore have the biggest impact. Analogy... if you have 3 big bears prowling around your cabin, but you also have an ant infestation... you probably need to focus on the bears first.
