Article 28: Keystone Article in the IBHR

I think that the one of the most important articles within the International Bill of Human Rights is article 28. This article discusses how everyone has a right to be in an area of the world and in a state of life where all 30 of the articles making up this Bill of Rights may be practiced. I think this is such an important part of this piece of ‘legislation’ because without it in effect, some people would not be able to benefit from the other 29 articles. It seems to me that this is the blanket article that encompasses all of the other articles within it. This article personally effects me, just like every other human living on this earth because of what has already been stated: to be able to take full advantage of the ideals and practices given to each human through this document, this specific article needs to be in effect.
One article that struck me as one that does not allow certain humans to be in a particular situation where they can take full advantage of the International Bill of Human Rights is a BBC.com article about certain political leaders throughout the world wanting to shut down the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp. I understand that the reason these people are in their present situation is because of a crime they have committed and I am in no way saying that they should not be punished for what they did, but I found it interesting that in this article that there is a man, Clive Stafford Smith, who thinks that these prisoners personal and human rights are being violated. He says in the article, “You know when America held people in Guantanamo and said they had no legal rights, we as European said they were humans and had human rights.” So this just brings up the obvious question, at least in my mind: does every human-being, no matter what they may have done to another human (murder, performed a crime against them, etc.) deserve to be a part of and have the International Bill Of Human Rights apply to them? I feel that there can’t be a cut and dry answer for this one that would be black and white. I think there are definitely some gray areas in this particular world issue.
Another interesting article that I found on BBC.com was one that talked about a married couple in India that were going to be tried and possibly go to jail because they allegedly kissed in public. I do not think that a simple kiss in public should be a cause for a trial. Then again in India, it is culturally taboo for such a thing to occur. I believe that a public display of affection, in moderation, is a way of expressing yourself and ultimately a freedom of speech and opinion about how you may feel about a certain person. Article 19 in the International Bill of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (Int’l Bill of Human Rights 9). I realize this seems like a bit of a stretch for this particular article, but I think it does work. People should be able to express themselves however they want to the people they love, unless of course it’s obscene and inappropriate for public. Then again that is part of the culture in India and who’s to say what is the correct way to act and the incorrect way, but I still feel that people should be able to express their love for another if they so choose.

Articles I used can be found at these website addresses:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7868282.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7866478.stm