It could be a Constitutional right, or a statutory right. For example, you have a right to a keep and bear arms (in the US), but that is a Constitutional right, not a human right.
The Constitution defines what the founding fathers of the US considered human rights. I suppose statutory rights could fall under the category of "not human rights". And, I guess some folks consider some statutory rights to be directly contradictory to human rights (water shutoffs in Detroit or foreclosures of homes during the banking crisis, for example).
What kind of right do you believe internet use would fall under?
Some have argued that prohibiting Internet access to an otherwise free person (not a prisoner) is cruel and unusual punishment. In 1992 that was laughable. In 2015, it's much less laughable.
A 'human right' is a right that every human on the globe should possess. The right to vote in a democracy is not a human right - only citizens of that democracy can vote in it. It's reasonable to say that French citizens have the right to vote in France, but not that the entire globes should, for example.
I'm not sure if you're trying to play language games to be obtuse for some reason, but the right to be involved in one's government absolutely is a human right.
To say "the right to vote in a democracy is not a human right" is arguably not false, just going on narrow definitions of "vote" and "democracy," but the right to be involved in one's government? Oh yes.
Just because it is denied so many does not mean it is not still a human right.
... you're saying that people who aren't citizens of France should be able to vote in French governmental elections? You're opposing "only citizens of that democracy can vote in it"? Why is it a human right for a Russian or a Fijian or an Argentinian to vote in the French elections?
I can't make out what your problem with my comment is.
Eh? I didn't say not in their own government. I said that people who are not French citizens can't vote in the French elections, and it's not a violation of human rights that they can't. I didn't say that Russians shouldn't be able to vote in Russia.
Stop strawmanning my words.
Edit: to be clearer - being able to get involved in your own government is a human right. Being able to vote in the French elections is a civil right, reserved to French citizens.
All cats are animals, but not all animals are cats.
Why is it pedantic to be confused by a naysayer who is twisting your words to say something you did not say or mean, and try to reclarify it? If someone accuses you of possibly playing language games to be obtuse, why is trying to clarify the issue considered pedantic?
Edit: it's also a bit weird to accuse someone of pedantry when the topic at hand is the subtlety of difference between terms ("what defines a human right as opposed to other rights").
reply