How much does your country's human right diffrenciate from the others? And why?
157145
Legal rights.  In the USA, you are innocent until proven guilty.  In Mexico, you are guilty until proven innocent.  This is a big distinction from the two countries.  The heritage of each nation affected how the laws were written and used by its people.
412171
It hasn't.\nHuman rights are a bit more basic, the big three are the right to life, the right to be free from slaveryand the right to be free from torture. \nCivil rights are things like the ability to earn the same wage as someone else doing the same job, other, more legal, governmental, or civil types of issues.
565818
First, because your country was endowed by God with vast natural and human resources.\n\nSecond, you have had great leaders who really cared for your country.\n\nThird, you have a government which is, though imperfect, still  adheres to much of humanitarian tenets.\n\nHowever, all that is being eroded by your demented values, such as sexual promiscuity, greed, and corruption not only of the flesh but also the spirit.
613173
For starters, the location.\nLanguage, Culture, Demographics, Government...everything about those countries are almost different.
790840
The term "human rights" generally refers to the basic protections that most civilized countries afford.\n\nThe most common include freedom from slavery, freedom to marry who you choose, freedom of expression and worship, freedom to own property, freedom from torture and persecution, and so on.\n\nThe details vary by country and applicable law, but the basic idea is that people should be allowed to live their lives in such a way as they choose, as long as they don't harm others in the process.\n\nSadly, many countries (including the US recently) have abandoned this concept in the name of conformity and security.
1021861
Some more than others.  Those here legally have more right than those here illegally, who should have none as they are in the constant commission of a crime
90714
pretty sure that has something to do with the nature of political leaders. do they ever follow the wishes of the people, in any country?
693707
I think that the right to self-determination is largely misunderstood. It applies in places like Sudan, where one group holds the reigns of power and is trying to impose its personal beliefs on a group that doesn't share those beliefs. It arguably applies less in countries that have representative democracies and constitutions that abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think ethnic nationalism is one of the 20th century's greatest, and most dangerous, fallacies and, while I support democratically-decided secessionism, I don't necessarily see it as a good thing (in all cases).\n\nBut that's not your question. I had a professor at university who said, 'You know, before 1948, we weren't Palestinians. We had no emotional attachment to that word. We were Arabs. The creation of Israel also created Palestine. It was only under Israeli control that we developed a sense of ourselves as a distinct people.' The problem with this, of course, if it's true, is that the Palestinian sense of self is entirely dependent on oppressive factors from an outside people. Their national identity is built upon outside factors. East Timor, similarly, exists as an 'ethnic group' largely because of power plays hundreds of years ago between the Netherlands and Portugal. I'm not sure how healthy that is.\n\nYet it exists. Timorese identity exists because Indonesia exists. The point I'm (vaguely) trying to make is that it's probably the struggle for autonomy that creates a national identity, not the autonomy itself. In Switzerland, they have a strong sense of themselves as distinct ethnolinguistic groups, but the lack of a struggle has probably hindered the development of a sense of seperate 'nations', since the Swiss government has always gone out of their way to accommodate the linguistic differences.\n\nIn many cases, I think that once autonomy is achieved, a lot of the passion is lost. They used to emphasise their differences in order to foster a sense of regional identity, but once the regional identity is recognised, it becomes business as usual and then people start to emphasise their similarity with their neighbours. Conflict creates the 'us-and-them' mentality; that mentality dissipates when the conflict ceases.\n\nNot much of an answer, I realise, but it's the ideas that come into my head.
943802
I think that that is true in general, and i happen to know the bill of rights and what the number 2 at mcdonalds is. But yea, on average, most people take the USA for granted and dont even bother to learn what upholds our rights.
905349
You cannot compare the party systems in our two countries. They are not defined the same way.
756606
It is a hybrid nation comprising off-spring of people mostly from Europe who were trading human beings in the most cruel way from Africa. By Industrial Revolution they have developed into a rich country with out values. Human Rights and its advocacy is a mere hypocrisy which is exposed in its conduct in Iraq, Vietnam and else where in the world.\n\nThey now suffer from insecurity that they would be outnumbered by new settlers. They have to develop genuine human values to stand up to the New challenges.
70950
There are many things but keep in mind that your country is multi-cultural .... you have to give freedom to others....
976633
No no no no no! Every country should be it's own, and be seperate. Countries shouldn't be mixed together. If they are, people lose their convictions that set them apart in the first place. (i.e. "nutrality". btw, nutrality is the first step towards humanism and a Godless nation)\nIf cultures are swirled together, it  leaves a mellow, confused country that is fighting itself because of citizen unrest.
569844
If you watched movie Equilibrium you might guess. Your country has become shadow of democracy ruled by certain designated circles which use and not used to real democracy.
49946
I see very little outside of the United States, so I will limit my remarks to my country.  Our culture has become very diverse.  As a consequence, there seems to be a wider span of beliefs and thoughts about the proper and socially acceptable behavior.\nOn one hand are those who are steeped in traditional moral value, but have been lead to believe that military action in the middle east is acceptable behavior.  On the other hand are the rising minorities who are coming to the realization that the “American Dream” may remain just a dream for them.\nToo far?  We, as a society, are too divided to solve our own problems.  We are rapidly building walls between ourselves and each other as well as the rest of the world.  We seem to have forgotten tolerance in favor of getting “in each other’s face.”  The seeds that we sow now shall be reaped at some future time, perhaps when our national debt is owed to the rest of the world.
969962
I don't think we are as divided as is being said. I think we disagree on certain issues in politics, political leaders and parties. I think that everyone is individuel in their choice of religion and expressions of religious freedom. I think most of us are in agreement of social issues in America. Other issues for me is our own unique experiences in daily living. As a nation and country we do pull together and rise from the ashes together. As Americans we will always disagree but as a united nation, we were never in danger of being divided.
533841
Why someone is required to make a comparison between these two countries.........they are two different countries and are distinct in thier identities...No comparison is possible in the countries...if u are talking about the western power's strategy they don't compare the countries they compare thier own advantages and interests associated with countries.... and about distinction that they can't made...when the countries have accepted both the countries there is no question of not distinguishing between the countries..