And so they would apply their views in their own jurisdiction.
> What happens when those rights are at odds?
Whichever jurisdiction you stand in correspond to the rights that prevail for you.
The way I see it, a country says what the rights of people/humans are, and they defend those beliefs in their own jurisdiction, where they have the absolute power to.
> So I think the main issue is, how can all humans have the same protections if different jurisdictions protect different things?
I think baddox's comment does not necessarily imply all humans in the world. I interpreted it as all humans in a given jurisdiction.
Ah I had not thought of it in this way but that makes sense. I can't disagree that all people in a single jurisdiction should be afforded the same procedural rights (I couch it in procedural rights because substantive rights are stripped from felons for example in many jurisdictions).
Don't different countries have different views of rights? What happens when those rights are at odds? For example, Turkish people can't speak ill against their governments [0]. This contrasts with countries that have fewer restrictions on speech, like America.
So I think the main issue is, how can all humans have the same protections if different jurisdictions protect different things?
Or is "protections" here more about procedural rights?
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_301_(Turkish_Penal_C...