Is the existence of a formal aristocracy a breach of human rights?

[Sculptor]

IN the UK there are individuals that by birth have access to represent their country in the House of Lords. This right they pass on to their children.
Given the provisions of the UNDHR, does this privilege represent a breach of article 2 of the charter.
"...Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. ..."

In other words is a negative breach as valid as a positive breach?

[FlashDangerpants]

It's an anachronistic privilige, but I don't think it contravenes any of the provisions UNDHR nor it's euro equivalent. The legislative chamber is the representational bit over which, nominally, each voter has equal influence. The non representative chamber can be overruled by the representative one.

[commonsense]

IN the UK there are individuals that by birth have access to represent their country in the House of Lords. This right they pass on to their children.
Given the provisions of the UNDHR, does this privilege represent a breach of article 2 of the charter.
"...Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. ..."

In other words is a negative breach as valid as a positive breach?

Distinction by birth seems to contradict both Articles 1 & 2 of the UNDHR, however the case could be made that since Article 2 refers only to the rights contained in the rest of the UDHR articles and not to the privilege of a seat in the House of Lords, there is no breach.

[Sculptor]

IN the UK there are individuals that by birth have access to represent their country in the House of Lords. This right they pass on to their children.
Given the provisions of the UNDHR, does this privilege represent a breach of article 2 of the charter.
"...Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. ..."

In other words is a negative breach as valid as a positive breach?

Distinction by birth seems to contradict both Articles 1 & 2 of the UNDHR, however the case could be made that since Article 2 refers only to the rights contained in the rest of the UDHR articles and not to the privilege of a seat in the House of Lords, there is no breach.

I would argue that if you are in the business of giving out privileges by birth to SOME, then you are denying rights to others. The rights given to Lords is significant since it offers unique access to an important arm of democracy that is denied to the entire population. Thus the entire work of the Lords and the power they hold are never brought to scrutiny of democracy, nor are they required to either consult nor appeal to the democratic process.

[Sculptor]

It's an anachronistic privilige, but I don't think it contravenes any of the provisions UNDHR nor it's euro equivalent. The legislative chamber is the representational bit over which, nominally, each voter has equal influence. The non representative chamber can be overruled by the representative one.

Indeed, not.
The Lords' ability to overrule the Commons is clearly a breach of the democratic process. As for the EU - that is possibly the worst example of democracy in the western world, since the representatives are practically rendered impotent by process and disparateness of view points, and what happens in practice is that the executive has all the power. The president is voted by a small cabal of leaders. IN the EU the executive has the day to day running with no scrutiny in the short term and no personal consequences on the long term.
But the issue I am raising is about "birth", which does not apply to the EU.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's an anachronistic privilige, but I don't think it contravenes any of the provisions UNDHR nor it's euro equivalent. The legislative chamber is the representational bit over which, nominally, each voter has equal influence. The non representative chamber can be overruled by the representative one.

Indeed, not.
The Lords' ability to overrule the Commons is clearly a breach of the democratic process. As for the EU - that is possibly the worst example of democracy in the western world, since the representatives are practically rendered impotent by process and disparateness of view points, and what happens in practice is that the executive has all the power. The president is voted by a small cabal of leaders. IN the EU the executive has the day to day running with no scrutiny in the short term and no personal consequences on the long term.
But the issue I am raising is about "birth", which does not apply to the EU.

the Lords' ability to send legislation back to the Commons with requests for alteration is limited. They do it once, fine, they try a second time, the Commons passes the bill without reference to the Lords under the Parliament Act of 1949. Or you go the traditional route and just tell them you will stuff the house with your allies if they get in the way, as Gladstone did over the Home Rule bills (that failed for other reasons) and Lloyd George did over the "peoples budget". Ultimately the Lords can delay legislation, but they cannot veto it.

The European Convention on Human rights is not an EU document, it's signatories include Russia which the EU does not and it predates the EU by decades anyway.

As for the EU itself - it's not very deomcratic, but it isn't very anything else either. To become democratic would be to remove the powers of national governments and give them to aggregates of their citizenry in a federal arrangement that nobody seems to want. People have to decide what they really want the EU to be before that sort of thing can be arranged. The United Nations is no more democratic than the EU, but it doesn't pose as the sort of institution that ought to be, so nobody criticises it as one.

[Impenitent]

49% of the population should be slaves to the 51%

we voted, it's democracy

-Imp

[Sculptor]

It's an anachronistic privilige, but I don't think it contravenes any of the provisions UNDHR nor it's euro equivalent. The legislative chamber is the representational bit over which, nominally, each voter has equal influence. The non representative chamber can be overruled by the representative one.

Indeed, not.
The Lords' ability to overrule the Commons is clearly a breach of the democratic process. As for the EU - that is possibly the worst example of democracy in the western world, since the representatives are practically rendered impotent by process and disparateness of view points, and what happens in practice is that the executive has all the power. The president is voted by a small cabal of leaders. IN the EU the executive has the day to day running with no scrutiny in the short term and no personal consequences on the long term.
But the issue I am raising is about "birth", which does not apply to the EU.

the Lords' ability to send legislation back to the Commons with requests for alteration is limited.

Nonetheless, the power of the Lords, and the Monarchs are powers denied to other people; denied by fact of "birth". How many ordinary people have the right to quiz the PM every week or to have a veto on acts of parliament? The rights they enjoy are denied to others by birth.
This is indefensible to the UNUDHR. It does not matter is it is "limited".

They do it once, fine, they try a second time, the Commons passes the bill without reference to the Lords under the Parliament Act of 1949. Or you go the traditional route and just tell them you will stuff the house with your allies if they get in the way, as Gladstone did over the Home Rule bills (that failed for other reasons) and Lloyd George did over the "peoples budget". Ultimately the Lords can delay legislation, but they cannot veto it.

The Queen has that power.

The European Convention on Human rights is not an EU document, it's signatories include Russia which the EU does not and it predates the EU by decades anyway.

As for the EU itself - it's not very deomcratic, but it isn't very anything else either. To become democratic would be to remove the powers of national governments and give them to aggregates of their citizenry in a federal arrangement that nobody seems to want. People have to decide what they really want the EU to be before that sort of thing can be arranged. The United Nations is no more democratic than the EU, but it doesn't pose as the sort of institution that ought to be, so nobody criticises it as one.

I was talking about the UN rights bill.
Also, like I said above the EU does not offer rights through "birth" so is not within the scope of this thread.

[Sculptor]

49% of the population should be slaves to the 51%

we voted, it's democracy

-Imp

Neither true nor relevant.

[Impenitent]

if not simple majority rule, define democracy

-Imp