The Human Rights : Does 1948's Declaration directly comes from 1789's Declaration ?

Marla_Singer

United in diversity
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
13,643
Location
Paris, East side.
Most people in here believe the French Revolution was just a blood bath. According to some of you, it changed France into a despotic country in which has emerged a monster named Napoleon. To summarize, 1789 is like 1933 in Germany. And Napoleon is just Hitler.

The point of this thread is only to prove that the French Revolution has been a positive step in Europe's History. And to prove it to you, I just wanted you to know where the Universal Declaration of Human Rights come from :

DECLARATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS


Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

- PREAMBLE -
The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the Human Rights are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred Human Rights, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following Human Rights :

Article 1 : Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

Article 2 : The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible Human Rights. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

Article 3 : The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

Article 4 : Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

Article 5 : Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

Article 6 : Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.

Article 7 : No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

Article 8 : The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.

Article 9 : As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.

Article 10 : No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

Article 11 : The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the Human Rights. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

Article 12 : The security of the Human Rights and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

Article 13 : A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.

Article 14 : All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.

Article 15 : Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.

Article 16 : A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.

Article 17 : Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.
 
Now before you'll bash me, I just wanted to add that, of course, the Human Rights are directly inspired from the American Bill of Rights. And I also wanted to add that the first declaration of Individual Freedoms is indeed the Magna Carta.

My purpose isn't to hijack previous improvements, my purpose is simply to prove you the French Revolution isn't just a bad event and that some good things did happen during it. :)

Now go on Lions ! Bon Appétit ! ;)
 
Of course it does.
It's not a coincidence if the Declaration of 1948 was signed in Paris.

You could also add that the Magna Carta comes from the ideas of Ancient Greece.
And the Bill of Rights was also HEAVILY inspired by the French thinkers of the XVIIIth century.
 
Our modern "human rights democracy" has three main sources imho with each source contributing a roughly equal share. First there's the American colonies - they developed "self-government" and autonomy because they were so far away from Europe. The English are important in their development of the "rule of law", not men, ie the Magna Carta and the unwritten constitution, and also for the "parliamentary system" which spreads power among representatives simultaneous with a centralized state. And France had Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire, Montesqieu, the Revolutionaries, etc, who developed the idea of "universal rights and freedoms".

Without any of these three components, what we call "human rights democracy" today would not exist.
 
The real Reign of Terror in France took place between 789-1789 AD.

The bloodbath was unnecessary, but the French were about as used to democracy back then as Iran is today. In any case, the Revolution overall was good.
 
Some good things happened during it, not many of those rights were in reality upheld by those that followed on from the people who drew up the document though.
 
The French revolution spawned a lot of similar ideas and declarations, IIRC (although I could be wrong - it is a long time since I read this) Benjamin Franklin visited France before the American Declaration of Independance and much of the American constituion was based on the ideals of the French Revolution. (confirm anyone?)
 
According to some of you, it changed France into a despotic country in which has emerged a monster named Napoleon. To summarize, 1789 is like 1933 in Germany. And Napoleon is just Hitler.

Way do people always compair him to Hitler!?!?
 
Originally posted by Hawkster
The French revolution spawned a lot of similar ideas and declarations, IIRC (although I could be wrong - it is a long time since I read this) Benjamin Franklin visited France before the American Declaration of Independance and much of the American constituion was based on the ideals of the French Revolution. (confirm anyone?)
Both the American constitution and the French philosophers and revolutionary ideals were inspired by the Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois (in addition to the Magna Charta already mentioned). Benjamin Franklin spent a lot of time with them.
 
Originally posted by Chauliodus


Way do people always compair him to Hitler!?!?

Because he was a dictator who emphasised the personality cult and set out on a mass conquest of Europe? Oh and they both invaded Russia. :D
 
Originally posted by Kentonio

Because he was a dictator who emphasised the personality cult and set out on a mass conquest of Europe? Oh and they both invaded Russia. :D
Yeah... and actually, both failed to invade Europe exactly because of their attempt to invade Russia ;)

I don't want to start a debate on Napoleon but he was an ambiguous leader. Actually, when I'm asking to everyone around me, their opinion on him is also ambiguous. Thanx to him, France has built solid pillars to its model of Democracy (Code Civile, etc...) ; however, Napoleon rejected some of major Revolutionary improvements (the worst coming in my mind was to come back on the abolishment of slavery from 1794). Napoleon was definitly ambiguous... but Hitler was definitly not. I must also add that I don't consider Hitler as a german monster but more as a european monster or as the result of a European perverted vision of Nationalism.

Now about the links between America and France. I'm actually truely proud of it. Of course everything started at the 17th century with John Locke and the birth of a true philosophy of the individualism in England, but still.

The thing is that French philosophers (with Kant) from the 18th century deeply inspired most of american founding fathers and especially Franklin and Jefferson. After that, France (when it was still a kingdom and for reasons that has no link with democracy) helped America to get its independance. The 1780's years were great years of political debates in America. And actually, now I think it has influenced a lot more the French Revolution than I expected it at the beginning. Thus, even if the 1789 declaration of the Human Rights is of course inspired of the French previous philosophers, it is also inspired from the American Bill of Rights. French revolutionaries wanted a text as strong as the american one and that was the spirit of them when they've written those rights. So yes, I consider there was indeed a mutual exchange between France and America in the building of modern Democracy. And of course, 17th century british thinkers were the basis of both of them. :)
 
I'm afraid I'm still going to take a lot of convincing before I agree that Napoleon helped found democracy in France. IMO he did as much if not more to damage the revoltionary ideals as he ever did to further or sustain them. He also was mostly responsible through his despotic and unrealistic attitude for the deaths of a fair few hundred thousand french soldiers with little cause such as in Russia and Spain, neither of which he should ever have invaded or attempted to control.

Oh and he was a hypocrite, anyone proclaiming to be the son of, and defender of the revolution should not have put his brothers on two thrones, his son on a third and his marshals on others, all as Kings. I personally find that he did some good, but at the end of the day he was a meglomaniac and a hypocrite, not a good advertisement for the revolution.
 
Back
Top Bottom