> they should be raked over the coals for doing so
Human rights are not granted for free, they are won and they protected collectively. If malicious actor is deliberately and intentionally undermines human rights they should not not be granted them themselves automatically. If some community works to devolve and degrade education, free speech and other rights for themselves, and then claims they are owed those same rights by the outside groups, they should not be granted them automatically, they should earn them. This should be a collective norm in the developed countries - treat outsiders just like those outsiders want to treat themselves. Instead of appeasing and losing those appeasements time after times. "When will we learn?"(c) Churchill about appeasing dictators
Human rights are called human rights because they are inherently granted by the sole virtue of being a human being. By their very concept, they are unconditional and inalienable. It’s what sets them apart from other rights.
It’s too easy to fabricate criteria why they shouldn’t apply to certain people. The concept of human rights was devised to designate rights whose deprivation should be impossible by definition.
> By their very concept, they are unconditional and inalienable.
That is just the theoretical approach. The fact that someone says that human rights are unconditional and inalienable does not mean that they are so in practice.
It is the execution of those human rights, including prevention, education, and punishment, that makes them seem unconditional and inalienable. How do you execute human rights or facilitate their execution in a situation, where they are neither unconditional nor inalienable in practice?
Having a right and receiving justice are two different things.
The point is that you can’t say that something is a human right and at the same time define conditions upon which they don’t apply to some human(s), which the GP comment tried to do.
I understand the second paragraph, but:
> Having a right and receiving justice are two different things.
That doesn't yet make sense to me. What good is a right if it stays theoretical, without an ability to execute that right in practice?
Or, in other words, if a person has a right but there are no ways to execute that right, how is this situation practically different from that person not having a right at all?
There is no human right to university application ina foreign country
>If malicious actor is deliberately and intentionally undermines human rights they should not not be granted them themselves automatically.
I don't get it. Who's the "malicious actor" here? The chinese? Is your point that because the chinese government doesn't respect human rights, that it's fine to discriminate against chinese students?
Against chinese government censored students. It was a discrimination against all students behind the great firewall. Not all of whom are chinese.