I recall the Chomsky-Foucault debate, although the question of human nature
is what I remember most from it. I don't argue that people should be
'granted' the right to revolt - where does that ever happen? But I do think
they are right to revolt if their rights are denied. But if they do not have
human rights because human rights is a mere rhetorical device for idiots,
what then is the basis of their revolt other than a very subjective view of
their own particularism? How then do we ethically distinguish between a
particularism that revolts against a theocracy that demands women be
mutilated or be stoned to death or wear veils, or a particularism that
revolts against a secularism which seeks to abolish such practices?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arianna" <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: Human rights
> 'To call out to justice -- justice does not exist, and human rights do not
exist.
> What
> counts is jurisprudence: *that* is the invention of rights, invention of
> the law. So those who are content to remind us of human rights, and
recite
> lists of human rights -- they are idiots. It's not a question of applying
> human rights. It is one of inventing jurisprudences where, in each case,
> this or that will no longer be possible. And that's something quite
> different.'
>
> I don't see this as that far from Foucault's take on the law and
sovereignty. do
> you remember his debate with Chomsky? wasn't he seriously undermining
there the
> notion that justice is the motive behind struggles-similarly to what
Deleuze does
> here? in fact, even in the later text on confronting governments he talks
of
> private individuals showing solidarity amongst themselves as governed.
there is
> no mention of human rights as a meaningful tool in its legal application.
at his
> time the function of human rights could have conceivably been one of
simply
> denouncing the suffering of the governed. 'the suffering of men must never
be a
> silent residue of policy'. but today, the notion of human rights and its
full
> embodiment in the workings of the executive, through the international
courts and
> police, ought to make one wonder as to the functions of its applicability
and
> more especially its naming and enlisting operations and declarations, as
Deleuze
> rightly points out. in fact, when foucault calls for a revolt against
those who
> hold the monopoly of government - 'which we need to wrest from them little
by
> little and day by day'- is he so far from Deleuze saying that it's a
matter of
> jurisprudence? 'Law isn't created through declarations of human rights.
> Creation, in law, is jurisprudence, and that's the only thing there is. '
>
> this is to say...I don't get your outrage.
>
> you seem to be saying that people should be granted the right to revolt,
which
> would be a nonsense in theory. and in practice, whilst in the positive it
> translates into 'the europeans, or whoever holds the monopoly of rights
> assignment, should grant a right to the palestinians, or to the
chechnyans, or to
> the kurds, or to whoever is in fashion amongst moralists, to revolt...',
in the
> negative - and within the same framework- it also means that that monopoly
can be
> equally legitimately exercised through the creation of sub-humans
(suspected
> terrorists-refugees-etc etc).
>
>
>
> > Glen - but is this not merely to say that rights are mere abstract
> > formalities without the power to implement them? But this leads on to a
> > position that the powerless therefore have no rights to begin with. And
> > without rights to break out of their powerlessness what right do they
have
> > to break out of it? If rights are not specified as such how then do we
claim
> > they have been violated by human rights abusers? Is it not more the case
> > that Deleuze rejects human rights on the grounds that the Foucualdian
> > rejection (and his own) of universals militates against developing a
human
> > right because it then becomes a totalising metanarrative? Yet without
such a
> > totalising concept do humans not abdicate their ethical responsibility
to
> > others by ceding grouind to every tin pot dicatorial regime that wants
to
> > opt out of systems that protect people from torure, rape, enslavement,
> > arbitrary killing etc?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Glen Fuller" <g.fuller@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 2:41 AM
> > Subject: Re: Human rights
> >
> >
> > > I don't think he was antagonistic towards the concept as much as he
was
> > > antagonistic towards its deployment. My reading was that human rights
is
> > > only a weapon in those circumstances where it is recognised as such.
> > Deleuze
> > > is arguing one step before the application or invocation of human
rights,
> > he
> > > is arguing that groups need to be engaged on the level that can create
and
> > > establish justice or rights. It is a 'pure abstraction' unless the
> > > juridicial work (to legitimate the authority of the concept) has
already
> > > occurred - 'the invention of rights, invention of the law'. Negri and
> > Hardt
> > > relate to this in Empire where they discuss the passage from the
virtual
> > to
> > > the actual (i do not have my copy hear, so no reference!). Justice
first
> > has
> > > to be actualised, that is, in the situation 'requiring' justice
(creating
> > > the 'requirement' of justice is the first step of its actualisation),
> > before
> > > the instruments of that justice can be deployed.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Glen.
> > >
> > > PhD Candidate
> > > Centre for Cultural Research
> > > University of Western Sydney
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 4:52 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Human rights
> > >
> > >
> > > > Is Deluze really saying anything here other than accusing as idiots
> > those
> > > > who advocate human rights? What right can he be talking about
creating
> > if
> > > > not a human right? The discourse of human rights has caused immense
> > > problems
> > > > for those who have abused them. Why surrender the weapon?
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Arianna" <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:08 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Human rights
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > yes, we put it here:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpdeleuze10.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > and also recently published it on makeworld paper#4
> > > > > the pdf for it should come online soon.
> > > > >
> > > > > arianna
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Glen Fuller" <g.fuller@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:08 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Human rights
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Arianna,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thankyou for the article, I enjoyed it! Can it be found online?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Glen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Arianna" <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:01 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Human rights
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > foucault's article dated 1984 is only short but predictable:
you
> > > find
> > > > it
> > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > third volume of the essential works, Power, it's entitled
> > > 'confronting
> > > > > > > governments: human rights'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > here is Deleuze on the issue :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reverence that people display toward human rights -- it
almost
> > > > makes
> > > > > > > one want to defend horrible, terrible positions. It is so
much a
> > > part
> > > > of
> > > > > > > the softheaded thinking that marks the shabby period we were
> > talking
> > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > It's pure abstraction. Human rights, after all, what does
that
> > > mean?
> > > > > > > It's pure abstraction, it's empty. It's exactly what we were
> > > talking
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > before about desire, or at least what I was trying to get
across
> > > about
> > > > > > > desire. Desire is not putting something up on a pedestal and
> > > saying,
> > > > hey,
> > > > > > > I desire this. We don't desire liberty and so forth, for
example;
> > > > that
> > > > > > > doesn't mean anything. We find ourselves in situations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Take today's Armenia, a recent example. What is the situation
> > > there?
> > > > If
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > understand correctly -- please let me know if I don't, though
> > that's
> > > > not
> > > > > > > the point either -- there's an Armenian enclave in another
Soviet
> > > > > > republic.
> > > > > > > So there's an Armenian republic, and then an enclave. Well,
> > that's
> > > a
> > > > > > > situation. First, there's the massacre that the Turks, or the
> > > Turkic
> > > > > > > people, I'm not sure, massacre the Armenians once again, in
their
> > > > enclave.
> > > > > > > The Armenians take refuge in their republic -- I think, and
again,
> > > > please
> > > > > > > correct my errors -- and then, there, an earthquake hits.
It's as
> > > if
> > > > they
> > > > > > > were in the Marquis de Sade. These poor people went through
the
> > > worst
> > > > > > > ordeals that they could face, and they've only just escaped
into
> > > > shelter
> > > > > > > when Mother Nature starts it all up again.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I mean, we say "human rights", but in the end, that's a party
line
> > > for
> > > > > > > intellectuals, and for odious intellectuals, and for
intellectuals
> > > > without
> > > > > > > any ideas of their own. Right off the bat, I've noticed that
> > these
> > > > > > > declarations of human rights are never done by way of the
people
> > > that
> > > > are
> > > > > > > primarily concerned, the Armenian associations and
communities,
> > and
> > > so
> > > > on.
> > > > > > > Their problem isn't human rights. What is it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's a set-up! As I was saying, desire is always through
> > > set-ups.
> > > > > > > Well, there's a set-up. What can be done to eliminate this
> > enclave,
> > > > or to
> > > > > > > make it livable? What is this interior enclave? That's a
> > > territorial
> > > > > > > question: not a human rights question, but a qusetion of
> > territorial
> > > > > > > organisation. What are they going to suppose that Gorbachev
is
> > > going
> > > > to
> > > > > > > get out of the situation? How is he going to arrange things
so
> > that
> > > > > > > there's no longer this Armenian enclave delivered into the
hands
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > hostile Turks all around it? That's not a human rights issue,
and
> > > > it's
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > a justice issue. It's a matter of jurisprudence. All of the
> > > > abominations
> > > > > > > through which humans have suffered are cases. They're not
denials
> > > of
> > > > > > > abstract rights; they're abominable cases. One can say that
these
> > > > cases
> > > > > > > resemble other, have something in common, but they are
situations
> > > for
> > > > > > > jurisprudence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Armenian problem is typical of what one might call a
problem
> > of
> > > > > > > jurisprudence. It is extraordinarily complex. What can be
done
> > to
> > > > save
> > > > > > > the Armenians, and to enable the Armenians to extricate
themselves
> > > > from
> > > > > > > this situation? And then, on top of things, the earthquake
kicks
> > > in.
> > > > An
> > > > > > > earthquake whose unfolding also had its reasons, buildings
which
> > > > weren't
> > > > > > > well built, which weren't put together as they should have
been.
> > > All
> > > > of
> > > > > > > these things are jurisprudence cases. To act for liberty, to
> > become
> > > a
> > > > > > > revolutionary, this is to act on the plane of jurisprudence.
To
> > > call
> > > > out
> > > > > > > to justice -- justice does not exist, and human rights do not
> > exist.
> > > > What
> > > > > > > counts is jurisprudence: *that* is the invention of rights,
> > > invention
> > > > of
> > > > > > > the law. So those who are content to remind us of human
rights,
> > and
> > > > > > recite
> > > > > > > lists of human rights -- they are idiots. It's not a question
of
> > > > applying
> > > > > > > human rights. It is one of inventing jurisprudences where, in
> > each
> > > > case,
> > > > > > > this or that will no longer be possible. And that's something
> > quite
> > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll take an example I quite like, because it's the only way
to
> > get
> > > > across
> > > > > > > what jurisprudence is. People don't really understood, well,
not
> > > > > > everyone.
> > > > > > > People don't understand very well. I remember the time when
it
> > was
> > > > > > > forbidden to smoke in taxis. The first taxi drivers who
forbade
> > > > smoking
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > their taxis -- that made a lot of noise, because there were
> > smokers.
> > > > And
> > > > > > > among them was a lawyer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have always been passionate about jurisprudence, about law.
Had
> > I
> > > > not
> > > > > > > done philosophy, I would have done law, but indeed,
jurisprudence,
> > > not
> > > > > > > human rights. Because that's life. There are no human
rights,
> > > there
> > > > is
> > > > > > > life, and there are life rights. Only life goes case by case.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, taxis. There was this guy who didn't want to be forbidden
> > from
> > > > > > smoking
> > > > > > > in taxi. So he took the taxi driver to court. I remember it
very
> > > > well:
> > > > > > > the taxi driver was ruled guilty. If the trial were to take
place
> > > > today,
> > > > > > > the taxi driver wouldn't be guilty, it would be the passenger
> > who'd
> > > be
> > > > the
> > > > > > > guilty party. But back then, the taxi driver was found
guilty.
> > > Under
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > pretext? That, when someone took a taxi, he was the tenant.
So
> > the
> > > > taxi
> > > > > > > passenger was likened to a tenant; the tenant is allowed to
smoke
> > in
> > > > his
> > > > > > > own home under the right of use and support. It's as though
he
> > was
> > > an
> > > > > > > actual tenant, as though my landlord told me: no, you may not
> > smoke
> > > in
> > > > my
> > > > > > > home. And I'd say: yes, if I am the tenant, I can smoke in my
own
> > > > home.
> > > > > > > So the taxi was made out to be a sort of mobile apartment in
whcih
> > > the
> > > > > > > passenger was the tenant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ten years later, it's become almost universal: there is almost
no
> > > taxi
> > > > in
> > > > > > > which one can smoke, period. The taxi is no longer made out
to be
> > > > like
> > > > > > > renting an apartment, it's a public service. In a public
service,
> > > > > > > forbidding smoking is permitted. All that is jurisprudence.
> > > There's
> > > > no
> > > > > > > issue of rights of this or that. It's the matter of a
situation,
> > > and
> > > > a
> > > > > > > situation that evolves. And fighting for freedom, really, is
> > doing
> > > > > > > jurisprudence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So there you have it, the Armenian example seems typical to
me.
> > > Human
> > > > > > > rights -- what do they mean? They mean: aha, the Turks don't
have
> > > the
> > > > > > > right to massacre the Armenians. Fine, so the Turks don't
have
> > the
> > > > right
> > > > > > > to massacre the Armenians. And? It's really nuts. Or,
worse, I
> > > > think
> > > > > > > they're hypocrites, all these notions of human rights. It is
> > zero,
> > > > > > > philosophically it is zero. Law isn't created through
> > declarations
> > > of
> > > > > > > human rights. Creation, in law, is jurisprudence, and that's
the
> > > only
> > > > > > > thing there is. So: fighting for jurisprudence. That's what
> > being
> > > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > left is about. It's creating the right.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > L'Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze, avec Claire Parnet, Vidéo Éd.
> > > > > > > Montparnasse, 1996
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >[...]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Tout le respect des droits de l'homme, c'est vraiment, on a
envie
> > > > presque
> > > > > > > >de tenir des propositions odieuses. Ça fait tellement partie
de
> > > cette
> > > > > > > >pensée molle de la période pauvre dont on parlait. C'est du
pure
> > > > > > abstrait.
> > > > > > > >Les droits de l'homme, mais qu'est-ce que c'est? C'est du
pure
> > > > abstrait.
> > > > > > > >C'est vide. C'est exactement ce qu'on disait tout à l'heure
pour
> > le
> > > > > > désir,
> > > > > > > >ou ce que j'essayais de dire pour le désir. Le désir, ça ne
> > > consiste
> > > > pas
> > > > > > à
> > > > > > > >ériger un objet, à dire: je désire ceci. On ne désire pas,
par
> > > > exemple,
> > > > > > la
> > > > > > > >liberté et cetera. C'est zéro. On se trouve dans des
situations.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Je prends l'exemple actuel de l'Arménie. Il est tout récent,
> > > > celui-là.
> > > > > > > >Qu'est-ce que c'est, la situation? Si j'ai bien compris, on
me
> > > > corrigera,
> > > > > > > >mais si on me corrige, ça ne change pas grand chose. Il y a
cet
> > > > enclave
> > > > > > > >dans une autre république soviétique, il y a cet enclave
> > > arménienne.
> > > > Il y
> > > > > > > >a une république arménienne et il y a une enclave. Bon, ça,
c'est
> > > une
> > > > > > > >situation. La première chose. Il y a ce massacre, là, que des
> > > Turcs,
> > > > des
> > > > > > > >semblants des espèces des Turcs, je ne sais pas, pour autant
> > qu'on
> > > > sache
> > > > > > > >actuellement, je suppose qu'il soit ça, massacrent des
Arméniens
> > > une
> > > > fois
> > > > > > > >de plus, dans leur enclave. Les Arméniens se réfugient dans
leur
> > > > > > > >république, je suppose, tu corrige toutes mes erreurs, et là,
il
> > y
> > > a
> > > > un
> > > > > > > >tremblement de terre. On se croyait dans le Marquis de Sade.
Des
> > > > pauvres
> > > > > > > >hommes ont traversé les pires épreuves vécues des hommes, et
à
> > > peine
> > > > ils
> > > > > > > >arrivent là, à l'abris, c'est la nature qui s'y met.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Je veux dire, on dit: les droits de l'homme. Mais enfin,
c'est
> > des
> > > > > > > >discours pour intellectuels, et pour intellectuels odieux, et
> > pour
> > > > > > > >intellectuels qui n'ont pas d'idées. D'abord, je remarque que
> > > > toujours
> > > > > > ces
> > > > > > > >déclarations des droits de l'homme, elles ne sont jamais fait
en
> > > > fonction
> > > > > > > >avec les gens que ça intéresse, les sociétés d'Arméniens, les
> > > > communautés
> > > > > > > >d'Arméniens et cetera. Leur problème, c'est pas les droits de
> > > > l'homme.
> > > > > > > >C'est quoi?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Voilà un agencement. Comme je disais, le désir, c'est
toujours à
> > > > travers
> > > > > > > >des agencements. Voilà un agencement. Qu'est-ce qui est
possible
> > > pour
> > > > > > > >supprimer cette enclave ou pour faire que cet enclave soit
> > vivable?
> > > > > > > >Qu'est-ce que c'est, cette enclave là-dedans? Ça, c'est une
> > > question
> > > > de
> > > > > > > >territoire. Ce n'est pas une question de droits de l'homme,
c'est
> > > de
> > > > > > > >l'organisation de territoire. Qu'est-ce qu'ils vont supposer
que
> > > > > > > >Gorbatchev va tirer de cette situation, comment il va faire
pour
> > > > qu'il
> > > > > > n'y
> > > > > > > >ai pas cet enclave arménienne livré là aux Turcs menaçants
> > autours?
> > > > Ce
> > > > > > > >n'est pas une question de droits de l'homme. Ce n'est pas une
> > > > question de
> > > > > > > >justice. C'est une question de jurisprudence. Toutes les
> > > abominations
> > > > que
> > > > > > > >subi l'homme sont des cas. C'est pas des démentis à des
droits
> > > > abstraits.
> > > > > > > >C'est des cas abominables. On dira que ces cas peuvent se
> > > ressembler,
> > > > > > mais
> > > > > > > >c'est des situations de jurisprudence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Le problème arménien là, c'est typiquement ce qu'on appellera
un
> > > > problème
> > > > > > > >de jurisprudence. C'est extraordinairement complexe. Que
faire
> > pour
> > > > > > sauver
> > > > > > > >les Arméniens, et que les Arméniens se sauvent eux-mêmes de
cette
> > > > > > > >situation? Et en plus, ce tremblement de terre s'y met. Un
> > > > tremblement de
> > > > > > > >terre qui a aussi ces raisons, des constructions qui
n'étaient
> > pas
> > > > bien,
> > > > > > > >qui n'étaient pas faites comme il fallait. Tout ça, c'est des
cas
> > > de
> > > > > > > >jurisprudence. Agir pour la liberté, devenir révolutionnaire,
> > c'est
> > > > > > opérer
> > > > > > > >dans la jurisprudence. Quand on s'adresse à la justice, la
> > justice
> > > ça
> > > > > > > >n'existe pas, les droits de l'homme ça n'existe pas. Ce qui
> > compte
> > > > c'est
> > > > > > > >la jurisprudence. C'est ça l'invention du droit. Alors, ceux
qui
> > se
> > > > > > > >contentent de rappeler les droits de l'homme et de réciter
les
> > > droits
> > > > de
> > > > > > > >l'homme, c'est des débiles. Il ne s'agit pas de faire
appliquer
> > des
> > > > > > droits
> > > > > > > >de l'homme. Il s'agit d'inventer des jurisprudences où, pour
> > chaque
> > > > cas,
> > > > > > > >ceci ne sera plus possible. C'est très différent.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Je prends un exemple que j'aime beaucoup, parce que c'est le
seul
> > > > moyen
> > > > > > de
> > > > > > > >faire comprendre ce que c'est la jurisprudence. Les gens n'y
> > > > comprennent
> > > > > > > >rien, enfin, pas tous. Les gens ne comprennent pas très bien.
Je
> > me
> > > > > > > >rappelle, moi, le temps où il a été interdit de fumer dans
les
> > > taxis.
> > > > > > > >Avant, on fumait dans les taxis. Il y avait un temps où on
> > n'avait
> > > > plus
> > > > > > > >le droit de fumer dans un taxi. Les premiers chauffeurs de
taxi
> > qui
> > > > ont
> > > > > > > >interdit de fumer dans les taxis, ça a fait du bruit, parce
qu'il
> > y
> > > > avait
> > > > > > > >des fumeurs. Et il y avait un, c'était un avocat.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >J'ai toujours été passionné par la jurisprudence, par le
droit.
> > Si
> > > je
> > > > > > > >n'aurais pas fait de philosophie, j'aurais fait du droit,
mais
> > > > justement,
> > > > > > > >pas du droit de l'homme, j'aurais fait de la jurisprudence.
Parce
> > > que
> > > > > > > >c'est la vie. Il n'y a pas de droits de l'homme, il y a la
vie,
> > il
> > > y
> > > > a
> > > > > > des
> > > > > > > >droits de la vie. Seulement la vie c'est cas par cas.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Donc, les taxis. Il y a un type qui ne veut pas être interdit
de
> > > > fumer
> > > > > > > >dans un taxi. Il fait un procès au taxi. Je me souviens très
> > bien,
> > > > parce
> > > > > > > >que là, je m'étais occupé d'avoir les attendus du jugement.
Le
> > taxi
> > > > était
> > > > > > > >condamné. Aujourd'hui, pas de question. Il y aurait le même
> > > procès,
> > > > il
> > > > > > ne
> > > > > > > >serait pas condamné le taxi, ce serait le usager qui serait
> > > condamné.
> > > > > > Mais
> > > > > > > >au début, le taxi a été condamné. Sous quels attendus? Que,
> > lorsque
> > > > > > > >quelqu'un prenait un taxi, il était locataire. Donc,
> > l'utilisateur
> > > de
> > > > > > taxi
> > > > > > > >a été assimilé à un locataire. Le locataire a le droit de
fumer
> > > chez
> > > > lui.
> > > > > > > >Il a le droit d'usage et d'appui. C'est comme s'il faisait de
> > > > location.
> > > > > > > >C'est comme si ma propriétaire me disait: non, tu ne va pas
fumer
> > > > chez
> > > > > > > >toi. Si, si je suis locataire, je peux fumer chez moi. Donc
le
> > taxi
> > > a
> > > > été
> > > > > > > >assimilé à un appartement roulant dont l'usager était le
> > locataire.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Dix ans après, ça s'est absolument universalisé, il n'y a
> > > > pratiquement
> > > > > > > >plus de taxi où on peut fumer au nom de quoi. Le taxi n'est
plus
> > > > assimilé
> > > > > > > >à une location d'appartement, il est assimilé à un service
> > > publique.
> > > > Dans
> > > > > > > >un service publique, on a le droit d'interdire de fumer. Tout
ça
> > > est
> > > > > > > >jurisprudence. Il n'est pas question de droit de ceci ou de
cela.
> > > Il
> > > > est
> > > > > > > >question de situation, et de situation qui évolue. Et lutter
pour
> > > la
> > > > > > > >liberté, c'est réellement faire de la jurisprudence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Alors là, l'exemple de l'Arménie me parait typique. Le droits
de
> > > > l'homme,
> > > > > > > >ça veut dire quoi? Ça veut dire: ah, les Turcs, il n'ont pas
le
> > > droit
> > > > de
> > > > > > > >massacrer les Arméniens. D'accord, les Turcs n'ont pas le
droit
> > de
> > > > > > > >massacrer les Arméniens. Et après? C'est vraiment des
débiles. Ou
> > > > pire,
> > > > > > je
> > > > > > > >crois que c'est tellement des hypocrites, là, toute cette
pensée
> > > des
> > > > > > > >droits de l'homme. C'est zéro, philosophiquement c'est zéro.
Et
> > la
> > > > > > > >création du droit, ce n'est pas les déclarations des droits
de
> > > > l'homme.
> > > > > > La
> > > > > > > >création, en droit, c'est la jurisprudence. Il n'y a que ça
qui
> > > > existe.
> > > > > > > >Donc: lutter pour la jurisprudence. C'est ça, être de
gauche.
> > > C'est
> > > > > > créer
> > > > > > > >le droit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >[...]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >L'Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze, avec Claire Parnet, Vidéo Éd.
> > > > > > > >Montparnasse, 1996
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 12:26 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Human rights
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > what is the best material available on Foucault's attitude to
> > human
> > > > > > rights?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> > > > > > > This message may have contained attachments which were
removed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> > > > > > > multipart/alternative
> > > > > > > text/plain (text body -- kept)
> > > > > > > text/html
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
is what I remember most from it. I don't argue that people should be
'granted' the right to revolt - where does that ever happen? But I do think
they are right to revolt if their rights are denied. But if they do not have
human rights because human rights is a mere rhetorical device for idiots,
what then is the basis of their revolt other than a very subjective view of
their own particularism? How then do we ethically distinguish between a
particularism that revolts against a theocracy that demands women be
mutilated or be stoned to death or wear veils, or a particularism that
revolts against a secularism which seeks to abolish such practices?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arianna" <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: Human rights
> 'To call out to justice -- justice does not exist, and human rights do not
exist.
> What
> counts is jurisprudence: *that* is the invention of rights, invention of
> the law. So those who are content to remind us of human rights, and
recite
> lists of human rights -- they are idiots. It's not a question of applying
> human rights. It is one of inventing jurisprudences where, in each case,
> this or that will no longer be possible. And that's something quite
> different.'
>
> I don't see this as that far from Foucault's take on the law and
sovereignty. do
> you remember his debate with Chomsky? wasn't he seriously undermining
there the
> notion that justice is the motive behind struggles-similarly to what
Deleuze does
> here? in fact, even in the later text on confronting governments he talks
of
> private individuals showing solidarity amongst themselves as governed.
there is
> no mention of human rights as a meaningful tool in its legal application.
at his
> time the function of human rights could have conceivably been one of
simply
> denouncing the suffering of the governed. 'the suffering of men must never
be a
> silent residue of policy'. but today, the notion of human rights and its
full
> embodiment in the workings of the executive, through the international
courts and
> police, ought to make one wonder as to the functions of its applicability
and
> more especially its naming and enlisting operations and declarations, as
Deleuze
> rightly points out. in fact, when foucault calls for a revolt against
those who
> hold the monopoly of government - 'which we need to wrest from them little
by
> little and day by day'- is he so far from Deleuze saying that it's a
matter of
> jurisprudence? 'Law isn't created through declarations of human rights.
> Creation, in law, is jurisprudence, and that's the only thing there is. '
>
> this is to say...I don't get your outrage.
>
> you seem to be saying that people should be granted the right to revolt,
which
> would be a nonsense in theory. and in practice, whilst in the positive it
> translates into 'the europeans, or whoever holds the monopoly of rights
> assignment, should grant a right to the palestinians, or to the
chechnyans, or to
> the kurds, or to whoever is in fashion amongst moralists, to revolt...',
in the
> negative - and within the same framework- it also means that that monopoly
can be
> equally legitimately exercised through the creation of sub-humans
(suspected
> terrorists-refugees-etc etc).
>
>
>
> > Glen - but is this not merely to say that rights are mere abstract
> > formalities without the power to implement them? But this leads on to a
> > position that the powerless therefore have no rights to begin with. And
> > without rights to break out of their powerlessness what right do they
have
> > to break out of it? If rights are not specified as such how then do we
claim
> > they have been violated by human rights abusers? Is it not more the case
> > that Deleuze rejects human rights on the grounds that the Foucualdian
> > rejection (and his own) of universals militates against developing a
human
> > right because it then becomes a totalising metanarrative? Yet without
such a
> > totalising concept do humans not abdicate their ethical responsibility
to
> > others by ceding grouind to every tin pot dicatorial regime that wants
to
> > opt out of systems that protect people from torure, rape, enslavement,
> > arbitrary killing etc?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Glen Fuller" <g.fuller@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 2:41 AM
> > Subject: Re: Human rights
> >
> >
> > > I don't think he was antagonistic towards the concept as much as he
was
> > > antagonistic towards its deployment. My reading was that human rights
is
> > > only a weapon in those circumstances where it is recognised as such.
> > Deleuze
> > > is arguing one step before the application or invocation of human
rights,
> > he
> > > is arguing that groups need to be engaged on the level that can create
and
> > > establish justice or rights. It is a 'pure abstraction' unless the
> > > juridicial work (to legitimate the authority of the concept) has
already
> > > occurred - 'the invention of rights, invention of the law'. Negri and
> > Hardt
> > > relate to this in Empire where they discuss the passage from the
virtual
> > to
> > > the actual (i do not have my copy hear, so no reference!). Justice
first
> > has
> > > to be actualised, that is, in the situation 'requiring' justice
(creating
> > > the 'requirement' of justice is the first step of its actualisation),
> > before
> > > the instruments of that justice can be deployed.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Glen.
> > >
> > > PhD Candidate
> > > Centre for Cultural Research
> > > University of Western Sydney
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 4:52 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Human rights
> > >
> > >
> > > > Is Deluze really saying anything here other than accusing as idiots
> > those
> > > > who advocate human rights? What right can he be talking about
creating
> > if
> > > > not a human right? The discourse of human rights has caused immense
> > > problems
> > > > for those who have abused them. Why surrender the weapon?
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Arianna" <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:08 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Human rights
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > yes, we put it here:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpdeleuze10.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > and also recently published it on makeworld paper#4
> > > > > the pdf for it should come online soon.
> > > > >
> > > > > arianna
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Glen Fuller" <g.fuller@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:08 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Human rights
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Arianna,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thankyou for the article, I enjoyed it! Can it be found online?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Glen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Arianna" <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:01 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Human rights
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > foucault's article dated 1984 is only short but predictable:
you
> > > find
> > > > it
> > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > third volume of the essential works, Power, it's entitled
> > > 'confronting
> > > > > > > governments: human rights'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > here is Deleuze on the issue :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reverence that people display toward human rights -- it
almost
> > > > makes
> > > > > > > one want to defend horrible, terrible positions. It is so
much a
> > > part
> > > > of
> > > > > > > the softheaded thinking that marks the shabby period we were
> > talking
> > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > It's pure abstraction. Human rights, after all, what does
that
> > > mean?
> > > > > > > It's pure abstraction, it's empty. It's exactly what we were
> > > talking
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > before about desire, or at least what I was trying to get
across
> > > about
> > > > > > > desire. Desire is not putting something up on a pedestal and
> > > saying,
> > > > hey,
> > > > > > > I desire this. We don't desire liberty and so forth, for
example;
> > > > that
> > > > > > > doesn't mean anything. We find ourselves in situations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Take today's Armenia, a recent example. What is the situation
> > > there?
> > > > If
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > understand correctly -- please let me know if I don't, though
> > that's
> > > > not
> > > > > > > the point either -- there's an Armenian enclave in another
Soviet
> > > > > > republic.
> > > > > > > So there's an Armenian republic, and then an enclave. Well,
> > that's
> > > a
> > > > > > > situation. First, there's the massacre that the Turks, or the
> > > Turkic
> > > > > > > people, I'm not sure, massacre the Armenians once again, in
their
> > > > enclave.
> > > > > > > The Armenians take refuge in their republic -- I think, and
again,
> > > > please
> > > > > > > correct my errors -- and then, there, an earthquake hits.
It's as
> > > if
> > > > they
> > > > > > > were in the Marquis de Sade. These poor people went through
the
> > > worst
> > > > > > > ordeals that they could face, and they've only just escaped
into
> > > > shelter
> > > > > > > when Mother Nature starts it all up again.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I mean, we say "human rights", but in the end, that's a party
line
> > > for
> > > > > > > intellectuals, and for odious intellectuals, and for
intellectuals
> > > > without
> > > > > > > any ideas of their own. Right off the bat, I've noticed that
> > these
> > > > > > > declarations of human rights are never done by way of the
people
> > > that
> > > > are
> > > > > > > primarily concerned, the Armenian associations and
communities,
> > and
> > > so
> > > > on.
> > > > > > > Their problem isn't human rights. What is it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's a set-up! As I was saying, desire is always through
> > > set-ups.
> > > > > > > Well, there's a set-up. What can be done to eliminate this
> > enclave,
> > > > or to
> > > > > > > make it livable? What is this interior enclave? That's a
> > > territorial
> > > > > > > question: not a human rights question, but a qusetion of
> > territorial
> > > > > > > organisation. What are they going to suppose that Gorbachev
is
> > > going
> > > > to
> > > > > > > get out of the situation? How is he going to arrange things
so
> > that
> > > > > > > there's no longer this Armenian enclave delivered into the
hands
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > hostile Turks all around it? That's not a human rights issue,
and
> > > > it's
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > a justice issue. It's a matter of jurisprudence. All of the
> > > > abominations
> > > > > > > through which humans have suffered are cases. They're not
denials
> > > of
> > > > > > > abstract rights; they're abominable cases. One can say that
these
> > > > cases
> > > > > > > resemble other, have something in common, but they are
situations
> > > for
> > > > > > > jurisprudence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Armenian problem is typical of what one might call a
problem
> > of
> > > > > > > jurisprudence. It is extraordinarily complex. What can be
done
> > to
> > > > save
> > > > > > > the Armenians, and to enable the Armenians to extricate
themselves
> > > > from
> > > > > > > this situation? And then, on top of things, the earthquake
kicks
> > > in.
> > > > An
> > > > > > > earthquake whose unfolding also had its reasons, buildings
which
> > > > weren't
> > > > > > > well built, which weren't put together as they should have
been.
> > > All
> > > > of
> > > > > > > these things are jurisprudence cases. To act for liberty, to
> > become
> > > a
> > > > > > > revolutionary, this is to act on the plane of jurisprudence.
To
> > > call
> > > > out
> > > > > > > to justice -- justice does not exist, and human rights do not
> > exist.
> > > > What
> > > > > > > counts is jurisprudence: *that* is the invention of rights,
> > > invention
> > > > of
> > > > > > > the law. So those who are content to remind us of human
rights,
> > and
> > > > > > recite
> > > > > > > lists of human rights -- they are idiots. It's not a question
of
> > > > applying
> > > > > > > human rights. It is one of inventing jurisprudences where, in
> > each
> > > > case,
> > > > > > > this or that will no longer be possible. And that's something
> > quite
> > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll take an example I quite like, because it's the only way
to
> > get
> > > > across
> > > > > > > what jurisprudence is. People don't really understood, well,
not
> > > > > > everyone.
> > > > > > > People don't understand very well. I remember the time when
it
> > was
> > > > > > > forbidden to smoke in taxis. The first taxi drivers who
forbade
> > > > smoking
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > their taxis -- that made a lot of noise, because there were
> > smokers.
> > > > And
> > > > > > > among them was a lawyer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have always been passionate about jurisprudence, about law.
Had
> > I
> > > > not
> > > > > > > done philosophy, I would have done law, but indeed,
jurisprudence,
> > > not
> > > > > > > human rights. Because that's life. There are no human
rights,
> > > there
> > > > is
> > > > > > > life, and there are life rights. Only life goes case by case.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, taxis. There was this guy who didn't want to be forbidden
> > from
> > > > > > smoking
> > > > > > > in taxi. So he took the taxi driver to court. I remember it
very
> > > > well:
> > > > > > > the taxi driver was ruled guilty. If the trial were to take
place
> > > > today,
> > > > > > > the taxi driver wouldn't be guilty, it would be the passenger
> > who'd
> > > be
> > > > the
> > > > > > > guilty party. But back then, the taxi driver was found
guilty.
> > > Under
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > pretext? That, when someone took a taxi, he was the tenant.
So
> > the
> > > > taxi
> > > > > > > passenger was likened to a tenant; the tenant is allowed to
smoke
> > in
> > > > his
> > > > > > > own home under the right of use and support. It's as though
he
> > was
> > > an
> > > > > > > actual tenant, as though my landlord told me: no, you may not
> > smoke
> > > in
> > > > my
> > > > > > > home. And I'd say: yes, if I am the tenant, I can smoke in my
own
> > > > home.
> > > > > > > So the taxi was made out to be a sort of mobile apartment in
whcih
> > > the
> > > > > > > passenger was the tenant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ten years later, it's become almost universal: there is almost
no
> > > taxi
> > > > in
> > > > > > > which one can smoke, period. The taxi is no longer made out
to be
> > > > like
> > > > > > > renting an apartment, it's a public service. In a public
service,
> > > > > > > forbidding smoking is permitted. All that is jurisprudence.
> > > There's
> > > > no
> > > > > > > issue of rights of this or that. It's the matter of a
situation,
> > > and
> > > > a
> > > > > > > situation that evolves. And fighting for freedom, really, is
> > doing
> > > > > > > jurisprudence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So there you have it, the Armenian example seems typical to
me.
> > > Human
> > > > > > > rights -- what do they mean? They mean: aha, the Turks don't
have
> > > the
> > > > > > > right to massacre the Armenians. Fine, so the Turks don't
have
> > the
> > > > right
> > > > > > > to massacre the Armenians. And? It's really nuts. Or,
worse, I
> > > > think
> > > > > > > they're hypocrites, all these notions of human rights. It is
> > zero,
> > > > > > > philosophically it is zero. Law isn't created through
> > declarations
> > > of
> > > > > > > human rights. Creation, in law, is jurisprudence, and that's
the
> > > only
> > > > > > > thing there is. So: fighting for jurisprudence. That's what
> > being
> > > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > left is about. It's creating the right.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > L'Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze, avec Claire Parnet, Vidéo Éd.
> > > > > > > Montparnasse, 1996
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >[...]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Tout le respect des droits de l'homme, c'est vraiment, on a
envie
> > > > presque
> > > > > > > >de tenir des propositions odieuses. Ça fait tellement partie
de
> > > cette
> > > > > > > >pensée molle de la période pauvre dont on parlait. C'est du
pure
> > > > > > abstrait.
> > > > > > > >Les droits de l'homme, mais qu'est-ce que c'est? C'est du
pure
> > > > abstrait.
> > > > > > > >C'est vide. C'est exactement ce qu'on disait tout à l'heure
pour
> > le
> > > > > > désir,
> > > > > > > >ou ce que j'essayais de dire pour le désir. Le désir, ça ne
> > > consiste
> > > > pas
> > > > > > à
> > > > > > > >ériger un objet, à dire: je désire ceci. On ne désire pas,
par
> > > > exemple,
> > > > > > la
> > > > > > > >liberté et cetera. C'est zéro. On se trouve dans des
situations.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Je prends l'exemple actuel de l'Arménie. Il est tout récent,
> > > > celui-là.
> > > > > > > >Qu'est-ce que c'est, la situation? Si j'ai bien compris, on
me
> > > > corrigera,
> > > > > > > >mais si on me corrige, ça ne change pas grand chose. Il y a
cet
> > > > enclave
> > > > > > > >dans une autre république soviétique, il y a cet enclave
> > > arménienne.
> > > > Il y
> > > > > > > >a une république arménienne et il y a une enclave. Bon, ça,
c'est
> > > une
> > > > > > > >situation. La première chose. Il y a ce massacre, là, que des
> > > Turcs,
> > > > des
> > > > > > > >semblants des espèces des Turcs, je ne sais pas, pour autant
> > qu'on
> > > > sache
> > > > > > > >actuellement, je suppose qu'il soit ça, massacrent des
Arméniens
> > > une
> > > > fois
> > > > > > > >de plus, dans leur enclave. Les Arméniens se réfugient dans
leur
> > > > > > > >république, je suppose, tu corrige toutes mes erreurs, et là,
il
> > y
> > > a
> > > > un
> > > > > > > >tremblement de terre. On se croyait dans le Marquis de Sade.
Des
> > > > pauvres
> > > > > > > >hommes ont traversé les pires épreuves vécues des hommes, et
à
> > > peine
> > > > ils
> > > > > > > >arrivent là, à l'abris, c'est la nature qui s'y met.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Je veux dire, on dit: les droits de l'homme. Mais enfin,
c'est
> > des
> > > > > > > >discours pour intellectuels, et pour intellectuels odieux, et
> > pour
> > > > > > > >intellectuels qui n'ont pas d'idées. D'abord, je remarque que
> > > > toujours
> > > > > > ces
> > > > > > > >déclarations des droits de l'homme, elles ne sont jamais fait
en
> > > > fonction
> > > > > > > >avec les gens que ça intéresse, les sociétés d'Arméniens, les
> > > > communautés
> > > > > > > >d'Arméniens et cetera. Leur problème, c'est pas les droits de
> > > > l'homme.
> > > > > > > >C'est quoi?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Voilà un agencement. Comme je disais, le désir, c'est
toujours à
> > > > travers
> > > > > > > >des agencements. Voilà un agencement. Qu'est-ce qui est
possible
> > > pour
> > > > > > > >supprimer cette enclave ou pour faire que cet enclave soit
> > vivable?
> > > > > > > >Qu'est-ce que c'est, cette enclave là-dedans? Ça, c'est une
> > > question
> > > > de
> > > > > > > >territoire. Ce n'est pas une question de droits de l'homme,
c'est
> > > de
> > > > > > > >l'organisation de territoire. Qu'est-ce qu'ils vont supposer
que
> > > > > > > >Gorbatchev va tirer de cette situation, comment il va faire
pour
> > > > qu'il
> > > > > > n'y
> > > > > > > >ai pas cet enclave arménienne livré là aux Turcs menaçants
> > autours?
> > > > Ce
> > > > > > > >n'est pas une question de droits de l'homme. Ce n'est pas une
> > > > question de
> > > > > > > >justice. C'est une question de jurisprudence. Toutes les
> > > abominations
> > > > que
> > > > > > > >subi l'homme sont des cas. C'est pas des démentis à des
droits
> > > > abstraits.
> > > > > > > >C'est des cas abominables. On dira que ces cas peuvent se
> > > ressembler,
> > > > > > mais
> > > > > > > >c'est des situations de jurisprudence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Le problème arménien là, c'est typiquement ce qu'on appellera
un
> > > > problème
> > > > > > > >de jurisprudence. C'est extraordinairement complexe. Que
faire
> > pour
> > > > > > sauver
> > > > > > > >les Arméniens, et que les Arméniens se sauvent eux-mêmes de
cette
> > > > > > > >situation? Et en plus, ce tremblement de terre s'y met. Un
> > > > tremblement de
> > > > > > > >terre qui a aussi ces raisons, des constructions qui
n'étaient
> > pas
> > > > bien,
> > > > > > > >qui n'étaient pas faites comme il fallait. Tout ça, c'est des
cas
> > > de
> > > > > > > >jurisprudence. Agir pour la liberté, devenir révolutionnaire,
> > c'est
> > > > > > opérer
> > > > > > > >dans la jurisprudence. Quand on s'adresse à la justice, la
> > justice
> > > ça
> > > > > > > >n'existe pas, les droits de l'homme ça n'existe pas. Ce qui
> > compte
> > > > c'est
> > > > > > > >la jurisprudence. C'est ça l'invention du droit. Alors, ceux
qui
> > se
> > > > > > > >contentent de rappeler les droits de l'homme et de réciter
les
> > > droits
> > > > de
> > > > > > > >l'homme, c'est des débiles. Il ne s'agit pas de faire
appliquer
> > des
> > > > > > droits
> > > > > > > >de l'homme. Il s'agit d'inventer des jurisprudences où, pour
> > chaque
> > > > cas,
> > > > > > > >ceci ne sera plus possible. C'est très différent.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Je prends un exemple que j'aime beaucoup, parce que c'est le
seul
> > > > moyen
> > > > > > de
> > > > > > > >faire comprendre ce que c'est la jurisprudence. Les gens n'y
> > > > comprennent
> > > > > > > >rien, enfin, pas tous. Les gens ne comprennent pas très bien.
Je
> > me
> > > > > > > >rappelle, moi, le temps où il a été interdit de fumer dans
les
> > > taxis.
> > > > > > > >Avant, on fumait dans les taxis. Il y avait un temps où on
> > n'avait
> > > > plus
> > > > > > > >le droit de fumer dans un taxi. Les premiers chauffeurs de
taxi
> > qui
> > > > ont
> > > > > > > >interdit de fumer dans les taxis, ça a fait du bruit, parce
qu'il
> > y
> > > > avait
> > > > > > > >des fumeurs. Et il y avait un, c'était un avocat.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >J'ai toujours été passionné par la jurisprudence, par le
droit.
> > Si
> > > je
> > > > > > > >n'aurais pas fait de philosophie, j'aurais fait du droit,
mais
> > > > justement,
> > > > > > > >pas du droit de l'homme, j'aurais fait de la jurisprudence.
Parce
> > > que
> > > > > > > >c'est la vie. Il n'y a pas de droits de l'homme, il y a la
vie,
> > il
> > > y
> > > > a
> > > > > > des
> > > > > > > >droits de la vie. Seulement la vie c'est cas par cas.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Donc, les taxis. Il y a un type qui ne veut pas être interdit
de
> > > > fumer
> > > > > > > >dans un taxi. Il fait un procès au taxi. Je me souviens très
> > bien,
> > > > parce
> > > > > > > >que là, je m'étais occupé d'avoir les attendus du jugement.
Le
> > taxi
> > > > était
> > > > > > > >condamné. Aujourd'hui, pas de question. Il y aurait le même
> > > procès,
> > > > il
> > > > > > ne
> > > > > > > >serait pas condamné le taxi, ce serait le usager qui serait
> > > condamné.
> > > > > > Mais
> > > > > > > >au début, le taxi a été condamné. Sous quels attendus? Que,
> > lorsque
> > > > > > > >quelqu'un prenait un taxi, il était locataire. Donc,
> > l'utilisateur
> > > de
> > > > > > taxi
> > > > > > > >a été assimilé à un locataire. Le locataire a le droit de
fumer
> > > chez
> > > > lui.
> > > > > > > >Il a le droit d'usage et d'appui. C'est comme s'il faisait de
> > > > location.
> > > > > > > >C'est comme si ma propriétaire me disait: non, tu ne va pas
fumer
> > > > chez
> > > > > > > >toi. Si, si je suis locataire, je peux fumer chez moi. Donc
le
> > taxi
> > > a
> > > > été
> > > > > > > >assimilé à un appartement roulant dont l'usager était le
> > locataire.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Dix ans après, ça s'est absolument universalisé, il n'y a
> > > > pratiquement
> > > > > > > >plus de taxi où on peut fumer au nom de quoi. Le taxi n'est
plus
> > > > assimilé
> > > > > > > >à une location d'appartement, il est assimilé à un service
> > > publique.
> > > > Dans
> > > > > > > >un service publique, on a le droit d'interdire de fumer. Tout
ça
> > > est
> > > > > > > >jurisprudence. Il n'est pas question de droit de ceci ou de
cela.
> > > Il
> > > > est
> > > > > > > >question de situation, et de situation qui évolue. Et lutter
pour
> > > la
> > > > > > > >liberté, c'est réellement faire de la jurisprudence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Alors là, l'exemple de l'Arménie me parait typique. Le droits
de
> > > > l'homme,
> > > > > > > >ça veut dire quoi? Ça veut dire: ah, les Turcs, il n'ont pas
le
> > > droit
> > > > de
> > > > > > > >massacrer les Arméniens. D'accord, les Turcs n'ont pas le
droit
> > de
> > > > > > > >massacrer les Arméniens. Et après? C'est vraiment des
débiles. Ou
> > > > pire,
> > > > > > je
> > > > > > > >crois que c'est tellement des hypocrites, là, toute cette
pensée
> > > des
> > > > > > > >droits de l'homme. C'est zéro, philosophiquement c'est zéro.
Et
> > la
> > > > > > > >création du droit, ce n'est pas les déclarations des droits
de
> > > > l'homme.
> > > > > > La
> > > > > > > >création, en droit, c'est la jurisprudence. Il n'y a que ça
qui
> > > > existe.
> > > > > > > >Donc: lutter pour la jurisprudence. C'est ça, être de
gauche.
> > > C'est
> > > > > > créer
> > > > > > > >le droit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >[...]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >L'Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze, avec Claire Parnet, Vidéo Éd.
> > > > > > > >Montparnasse, 1996
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 12:26 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Human rights
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > what is the best material available on Foucault's attitude to
> > human
> > > > > > rights?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> > > > > > > This message may have contained attachments which were
removed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> > > > > > > multipart/alternative
> > > > > > > text/plain (text body -- kept)
> > > > > > > text/html
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>