> I'd love to see how you juxtaposition "the right to not be tortured" or "the right to not be enslaved" next to "the right to be able to use Dreebly Chat"...
Maybe by actually reading the charter and grasping that not every human right set forth in it necessarily concerns matters as grave as torture and slavery.
In fact, to quote it directly:
- 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 (Article 19).
That right is eroded if the media platforms on which the vast majority of people communicate and disseminate information are not accessible to everyone - especially so when literal heads of state have taken to very active participation on said platforms.
- Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (Article 21 (2))
That right is eroded if public services are increasingly gated behind online channels that are not accessible to all. If one can't fill out the online form and then has to resort to a paper filing that might take days or even weeks to be processed, that's not equal access.
- Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (Article 23 (1))
That right is eroded if one's (potential) employers move all their important processes online/into the software realm, behind products that are not accessible to people with disabilities. Yes, if employers are widely making Dreebly Chat (otherwise known as, say, Slack, HipChat, Discord, and so on) an essential work tool, then it's an erosion of disabled people's right to work if Dreebly Chat lacks accessibility.
And those are the more obvious ones from the original Universal Declaration of Human Rights, dated 1948. As I'm quite sure you are aware, the UDHR is and was intended to be the foundation of further articulation of globally-recognised rights and other legal frameworks - including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a human rights instrument that became active in 2008. It goes into interesting detail on how the various articles of the UDHR specifically apply to disabled people.
But I'm quite sure you knew that already.
> But attempting to impose change rather than affect change is the most classic mistake in the book. You must also be young.
And you must also be of that curious class of people that regardless of age believe that legislation and politics are things to clutch pearls over rather than an integral part of society that people directly engage with daily, and then bloviate about how change "should" happen while remaining blind to how it actually does happen (largely through legislative and other political action).