Thanks for inviting me back to the conversation, I didn't realize I had been removed from it.

This isn't about national perspectives, it's about fundamental laws of nature. If my "right" has to be implemented by someone else, it's not my right. If all the telecom companies in Finland go bankrupt, or war erupts, or networks go down, do I still have the right to internet access? How? What are the consequences of the violation of this right?

If this is just a general law directing the telecoms to connect everyone to the grid, fine. But don't call it a "right". The word "right" has a specific connotation as something that can never be taken from you without severe consequences.

There is a very fundamental distinction.

I can implement my freedom of speech without help from anyone else. I can yell at a crowded hall or an empty room.

As a consequence, I may face disagreement. Nobody has to tolerate my speech. If you disagree with something I say, you are free to exercise your own freedom of speech or freedom of assembly. You CAN hit me over the head. I still exercised free speech, but you unfortunately don't have the right to injure people and would thus face legal consequences.

My right to carry a gun does not require any action from anybody else. Note that there is no right that guns be available or that the store owner sell one to me.

Being shot is a negative consequence in the same way that being slandered is. Misuse of rights and the consequences thereof are what impose on other people. That doesn't change my fundamental assertion that a right is inherent, not something a large corporation provides to you.

If someone takes my life, my rights have been violated. That doesn't make it not a right. It just means that no one is forced to help me live. If I don't buy food, I starve. If I don't pay rent, I freeze. No one should be obligated to help me beyond their own generosity.

Free speech does not impose anything on anyone. No one has to listen to what you say or respond. You have the right to say what you want, but the government isn't responsible for buying you your soapbox or making people listen.

Increased chance of being shot is a (negative) consequence of the right to bear arms, not an imposition on anyone else in providing you that right.

Who does one complain to when a backhoe cuts their internet connection? The Human Rights Commission?

A right is something that cannot be taken from you, not an obligation on someone else to provide something to you.

If your rights are an imposition on someone else you're doing it wrong.

Why is this even still debated? Israel HAS existed since 1947, and for most of its 7 million inhabitants it is the land they were born in and the only one they have lived in.

You can't support the relocation of 7 million people to make ammends for the wrongful relocation of the Palestinians, who themselves occupy a land previously ruled by the British, the Ottomans, the Romans, the Jews again, etc.

It is pointless to delve into history to try and play the blame game because we're dealing with the lives of people today.

It seems to me that the author feels the Islamic world needs some positive attention, and, like the retarded kid at school, we all need to congratulate Islam on the smallest of achievements and make it feel like it's part of the gang.

"Wow, Islam! You came up with the idea the Earth is round? Good for you! That's really cool!"

"That's a cool picture, Islam! You almost kept all the coloring in the lines!"

One wonders if their U.N. delegation doesn't get picked up in a short bus. I'm sure most people are well aware that Islam was once a cultural and educational center of the world, but it isn't that way anymore. Celebrating these "achievements" like this are just a bit patronizing. Maybe if we started treating them like equals and not idiots we would get along a lot more.