Due to a Podcast I found an initiave that is collecting signatures to add 6 new rights to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
1 of those Articles is named “Globalization” and it requests the right “to be offered only those goods and services that are produced and provided in accordance with universal human rights.”
The initiator of this is a german author called Ferdinand von Schirach and the corrssponding booklet will be published in Germany on 13. Apr, so probably it might take a bit more time to have it available in other languages. However, the voting seem to have already started under the following web page
And just to add: I’m not connected in any way to this initiative nor do I have any special insights, just wanted to share as I would think that this might be interesting to the one or other
More legislation, more rules, more enforcement ~ more energy going to administration less ~ reason to be personally responsible ~ a consumer and capitalist dream wrapped up as social evolution.
Well that may get someone on board as criticism is the foundation of advancement it’s just what do those criticised and the critics have in mind?
actually those new fundamental rights were not phrased to critisice the already existing, but to add to those. As this is actually about rights not legislations, I think its not about enforcement but empowerment for each EU citizen. Sure that might help to enforce companies to follow (already existing) laws and change behaviour, however, why should that be negative?
Whether something is negative or positive depends upon the point of view and when I see one I see many and my response only seems negative as the offering is touted as positive using the word ‘rights’.
Rights are a privilege for the successful consumer
In this case I see the push for enforcement as a weight I do not want to carry. I can do far more of what I want when others are not trying to get me to do what they want, so negative or positive it’s the same. It’s more to do with the nature of animals that want to make a nice bed for 70 or 80 years and the human mind that does not invest in good or bad.
But wait: if they’re rights, and not legislation, wouldn’t they be givens that the law simply acknowledges?
Universal human rights precede law. Laws ought to recognize such rights and not trample on them, but if they’re really rights I don’t think legislation can grant them—people already possess them. That’s where we get the idea that certain laws or restrictions of rights are unjust, not simply illegal. (And in some extreme cases, like during hyperinflation or political repression, legislation often actively seeks to restrict or remove fundamental rights such as private property or freedom of movement, through capital controls or prohibiting emigration.)
However, if what’s in view are privileges, then they’re certainly able to be created, granted or revoked by legislation.
Tying this to Fairphone, my understanding of the idea of making phone manufacturing more “fair” is that the company seeks to make sure, to the greatest extent that they can, that workers in their supply chain are treated with regard to their human rights, even when a worker’s local jurisdiction may not recognize those rights in the local laws.
