Well Hammurabi was a king known for his wisdom and justice. Sure he shared more than a few ideas with Draco, but on the whole I don't think he was a bad man. Certainly better than most Mesopotanian leaders of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Well Hammurabi was a king known for his wisdom and justice. Sure he shared more than a few ideas with Draco, but on the whole I don't think he was a bad man. Certainly better than most Mesopotanian leaders of the 20th and 21st centuries.

I don't dispute he was an greatly influential figure in Western and Middle Eastern history, but naming a modern day human rights organization after him seems a little out of place, wouldn't you say?

I don't dispute he was an greatly influential figure in Western and Middle Eastern history, but naming a modern day human rights organization after him seems a little out of place, wouldn't you say?

Not particularly. There've been modern philosophical organisations named after Socrates, modern religious organisations named after Augustine and I even think there's a Magna Carta rights organisation in the UK. I think you're reading too much into the name.

Not particularly. There've been modern philosophical organisations named after Socrates, modern religious organisations named after Augustine and I even think there's a Magna Carta rights organisation in the UK. I think you're reading too much into the name.

Let me ask you this: do you think Amnesty International would advocate this example of rules as something that should be implemented in every legal system around the world? Especially the first example give...how many AI officials would be alive if that rule were in place ?

I know, I already said Hammurabi wrote some thoroughly draconian rules. But you should remember the Qur'an has some fairly novel corporal punishments for criminals.

Despite it's comparative brutality Hammurabi was responsible for establishing one of the world's first legal codes, and his laws were the basis for justice across the region. I'm guessing the Hammurabi HR movement is either a fundamentalist Islamic HR society (they exist, although they tend to have more Muslim names) or a western-style group that sort of ignores Hammurabi's rough justice.

Certainly Amnesty International wouldn't support those laws, but then again they don't support all the laws in most countries today either. There's no pleasing some people.

I know, I already said Hammurabi wrote some thoroughly draconian rules. But you should remember the Qur'an has some fairly novel corporal punishments for criminals. Despite it's comparative brutality Hammurabi was responsible for establishing one of the world's first legal codes, and his laws were the basis for justice across the region. I'm guessing the Hammurabi HR movement is either a fundamentalist Islamic HR society (they exist, although they tend to have more Muslim names) or a western-style group that sort of ignores Hammurabi's rough justice.

Cacto, that's my point! The probable difference in what Westerners think constitutes human rights, and an Arab or Islamic stance on the same.

Certainly Amnesty International wouldn't support those laws, but then again they don't support all the laws in most countries today either. There's no pleasing some people.

Personally I think it's an organization of Iraqi nationalists. Saddam was very big on promoting the history of Mesopotamia, after all. Didn't he name some of his Republican Guard brigades after the Babylonians, or the Assyrians, or Sumerians, or one of those ancient civilizations?

They could be Iraqi nationalists. It doesn't make them either bad or immoral, which I think would be necessary for their name to be ironic. I think I'll leave judgment until I've heard more about them.

It doesn't make them either bad or immoral, which I think would be necessary for their name to be ironic.

How do you figure? This has little to do with what they actually believe.

Here's the irony--> Hammurabi espoused views and imposed a legal system which would be consider inhumane by any modern Western (the type of people that you and I are) human rights organization. This is not an opinion piece about whether Hammurabi was a good figure in my mind. This is not about the views of the Hammurabi Human Rightsorganization. This is about the incongruity of having Hammurabi on the one hand and Human Rights on the other in the same title.

This is about the incongruity of having Hammurabi on the one hand and Human Rights on the other in the same title.

He was a firm believer in human rights though. Look at the codes more closely - he safeguards the rights of both the victim and the alleged criminal through harsh penalties for perjury and deceit. I don't think the two are necessarily analogous, but then I don't have a particularly extensive knowledge about Hammurabi's reign or the group in question's rationale for their name.

Unless I have both I don't feel qualified to besmirch either the organisation or the ancient king.

EDIT: I think I get what's behind your words now - you think that there are universal human rights that cross cultures. Is that right? I don't particularly agree with that claim so the notion of human rights being mixed with Hammurabi or Islam for that matter doesn't really phase me.

I believe in general similarities between notions of human rights but the specifics and the way in which they are observed differs wildly between cultures. Even the US and Australia, who for all intents and purposes espouse the same general ideals, differ on such large areas as capital punishment, euthanasia, the rights of the unborn/born, the best ways for going about racial and economic equity etc etc.

EDIT: I think I get what's behind your words now - you think that there are universal human rights that cross cultures. Is that right? I don't particularly agree with that claim so the notion of human rights being mixed with Hammurabi or Islam for that matter doesn't really phase me.

Again, question isn't whether I believe that or not. It's what modern day human rights organizations believe. The idea of "Human rights" means just that--rights for humans (presumably all humans). Rights that are particular to one country are civil rights. Organizations like Amnesty International or the UN at least claim that certain rights extend to everyone, everywhere, at every time. I hate using Hitler examples for anything, but imagine if Germany (and the modern German state along) were still under Nazism, and a "human rights organzation" called the Hitler Institute for Peace and Justice existed. Would you not see the irony in that? Hitler had his own peculiar sense of peace and justice, but it wasn't something the UN would find particularly appealing..

It's what modern day human rights organizations believe.

It's what some modern day human rights organisations believe. Ask a Singaporean-sponsored group and you might be surprised by the answer. There's a huge amount of literature on this topic which I'm sure you'll come across eventually. The UN itself can barely ever agree on HR, that's why it's so inept on enforcing them.

Rights that are particular to one country are civil rights.

That's not true. Civil rights are the rights accorded a citizen - the right to vote in elections and suchlike. They're generally grouped with political rights for convenience. There is another kind of rights - socio-economic - and they are more or less ignored by the non-socialist West. But states in Scandanavia are bang up for them and hold those rights highly when they go out on their international aid missions.

I hate using Hitler examples for anything, but imagine if Germany (and the modern German state along) were still under Nazism, and a "human rights organzation" called the Hitler Institute for Peace and Justice existed. Would you not see the irony in that? Hitler had his own peculiar sense of peace and justice, but it wasn't something the UN would find particularly appealing..

Mugabe would probably appreciate it and so would a variety of citizen groups in the US and elsewhere. I don't think Hammurabi is in the same boat though. I'm fairly sure he never exterminated an entire people for no good reason.

Basically I get your point. You think the combination of one of the world's earliest but authoritarian lawmakers with the concept of HR is funny in an ironic way. I don't. We may as well leave it there.