There is often talk of human rights, but it is also necessary to talk of the rights of humanity. Why should some people walk barefoot, so that others can travel in luxurious cars? Why should some live for thirty-five years, so that others can live for seventy years? Why should some be miserably poor, so that others can be hugely rich? I speak on behalf of the children in the world who do not have a piece of bread. I speak on the behalf of the sick who have no medicine, of those whose rights to life and human dignity have been denied.

Human beings have rights, because they are moral beings: the rights of all men grow out of their moral nature; and as all men have the same moral nature, they have essentially the same rights.

The first time you stand up for right and it is refused you, shall you quit? Then you do not believe in it. We must continue speaking and claiming our human rights to live on this earth that God has made, so that we may think our thoughts and speak them — that we may have our part in the American life and be as any other human beings are.

Human rights include the rights of all, not only man, but woman, not only white but black; wherever there is a being called human, his rights are as full and expressive as his existence, and ought to be without limits or distinction of sex, country, or color…and only ignorance, superstition, and tyranny — both the basis and the influence of the Bible - deprive him of it.

We believe human rights should be available to everybody equally and not to some, and that if we say that we’re committed to freedom, human rights, and democracy, it doesn’t mean to a particular country or people. It means all over. So we try to espouse that perspective.

Human rights are not reserved for some countries and not for others. These are aspirations that everyone has. There are always improvements to be made in rights and freedoms.

Human rights are not things that are put on the table for people to enjoy. These are things you fight for and then you protect.

Universal human rights constitute a holistic system of interdependent entitlements and freedoms. Yet, "universal" does not mean homologated or insensitive to cultural specificities. The ubiquitous slogan that “all rights are equal” is but a platitude that manifests an absence of a sense for proportions and discernment. Indeed, human dignity, the source of all human rights, necessarily dictates priorities -- a hierarchy based on common sense and mutual respect: First and foremost, the right to live in dignity, a commitment to promote and protect the sanctity of life, which encompasses physical integrity, the right to food, water, housing, healthcare, freedom from war, a human right to peace. Secondly, the right to freely develop one’s personality i.e. the right to be who we are, the right to our identity, the right to set the priorities of our lives – that essential right of self-determination, free from artificial constraints imposed by government or society -- and as a corollary the duty to respect the rights of others. Codification of human rights has not been concluded, since continuing standard-setting remains necessary to better protect the practical expression and exercise of our human dignity. All human rights can be subsumed under the two categories above, with the caveat that the letter of the law must not be politicized to subvert the spirit of the law -- the primacy of the dignitas humana.

We declare our right on this earth...to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.

We believe that the right to subsistence and development is the most basic of all human rights. In particular, amid the epidemic situation, the right to life is the most important of all human rights.

When one speaks of a ‘human right’, does one mean that this right possesses an intrinsic value, an absolute value or an instrumental value? That it is of such importance that its realisation should take precedence over all other considerations, or that it just counts among the things that are indispensable? That it gives a power or a privilege? That it permits an immunity or that it confers an immunity?

Either there is or there is not a mechanism for enforcing human rights. If there is not, it would seem that calling them 'rights' simply means that we think it would (morally) be a good idea if they were enforced, although, of course, they are not. A 'human right' is an inherently vacuous conception, and to speak of 'human rights' is a kind of puffery or white magic.

And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights — the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation — the right to breathe air as nature provided it — the right of future generations to a healthy existence?

Human rights are not just cultural or legal constructions, as fashionable western relativists are fond of claiming. They are universal values. To deny the benefits of the new regime of rights to other cultures is to patronise them in a way that is reminiscent of the colonial era. If the new regime on torture is good enough for the US, who can say that it is not good for everyone?