question on human rights

[Jadian]

My constitution prof recently claimed that those who believe human rights are inherent must also believe that they transcend time and circumstance. Therefore the defense of "culture" can not excuse a human rights abuse. What do you guys think?

(note #1 - define which rights you are speaking of, ie right to free speech, right to safety of person, right to education, since we tend to mix up our Human Rights with our Charter/First Amendment/etc rights. And does it make a difference?)

[AsIs]

This is a conflicting issue, my heart and my head disagree.

Going by my heart, yes! All the rights we hold dear in our *culture* should be available to everyone everywhere. Noone should be hungry, alone, afraid, etc.

But my head is stuck in the prime directive. Who are we to impose our judgement of what rights are to some other culture. Eventually the world will be *Americanized*. You can see it already, with the global economy, borders are blurring. That said, we do not understand the cultures that we are conforming to our ways. I am speaking specifically of the Middle East right now, but really this extends to most countries outside of the larger nations.

There are many issues here. Due to physical differences, cultural, societal, etc. imposing our standards could have dissastorious consequences. In the end it will all turn out, but those that will have suffured in the process might be too high a cost. Case in point, Native Americans. By bringing them into the colonial structure, their way of life has been all but oblitorated. Whose to say thier way of life was less better than the colonialists?

It's easy when you look at a oppressed country to say, "oooo, that's bad! We have to change that." But do we really have the *right*? What happens when we are not the super power and a oppressive regime is? Do they then have the right to impose thier will?

What if we find life elsewhere? They decide that free will isn't all it's cracked up to be? These humans would be more effective and less traumatized if they had more structure, did what they were told instead of choosing for themselves. After all, choices involve conflict. Isn't one of the goals of life to avoid conflict?

Well, that's my rambling two cents.

[dwim]

Asis, you made some good points, however, I think I'd rather have the conflicts in my life from my choices then go "ok I'd do that" or "I'd do this" for a specific person all the time... or otherwise, I just might not have anything to write from.

But I like your reasoning about the whole "oh my god that's bad over there, we gotta change that..." in other countries thing. However, Americans are generally helpful. They beleive what they got is a good thing, and they want to share this good thing (i.e. "democracy" and "free will") and sometimes, the help can be a disastrous thing. ANd I think "Americanized" may be the wrong term (it is after all, inflicted by the media somewhere and you know they get things skewed a bit) I think "commercialized" is the term it should be. There is no small town in America anymore, it's all Wal-Marts and Speedway and Blockbusters and Best Buy dotted here and there. Where are the Mom and Pop stores, the five and ten cents store? WHy do more and more towns seems to be like a ghost town with barely anyone walking downtown, taking their time shopping on a Saturday afternoon? Right now, everyone wants things fast and they don't want to slow down because their show is coming on in the next thirty minutes....

Bleh, too much...

[JaceSan]

Originally posted by dwim:
Where are the Mom and Pop stores, the five and ten cents store?

<font size="2" face="Comic sans ms, Helvetica, sans-serif">They went the way of the buffalo, kemosabe.

[Jadian]

The reason I asked for a definition of which rights you were pondering was because I'm not sure how "freedom of religion", for example, would necessarily contribute to "americanizing" a country. I understand implementing a Westren-style democracy might, but I don't think that's a Human Right.

So here's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

1. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2. Marriage shall be entered into only with free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

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 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.

3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.


*

Now, for example, should this: "1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution " trump some culture's view that women are property of their husbands, not persons, and not entitled to equal rights? Is that "Americanization" or is that simply an inherent part of being a member of the human race that is not yet recognised worldwide?

It's difficult to know what the women in those positions would say, especially since the position itself creates a certain silence. We an't speak for them. But by giving these women a voice, or insisting they have the chance to speak and be counted equal to men when they do, are we guilty of cultural insensativity or are we helping some humans step up to the same level as others?

[AsIs]

cultural insensitivity

As much as I don't like it, personally, that is their way of life.

By giving them a voice, do we improve their life? In many cases not. It is sad by our standards, but you can't wave a magic wand and make things so. It takes time for things to change.

If you take a abused kid and put them in a normal home, they will feel out of place. They won't know how to react. And this *good* situation, not handled correctly, could go bad.

As human beings, cultures aside, we identify with what is familar. Even if it is misery. Put in a unfamilar situation, we are uncomfortable and unpredictable. This can lead to disaster.

And specifically on marriage, what makes that a ineliable right? Who decides what constitutes a marriage? The church, the goverment, the garbage collector? By imposing our defination of a marriage on another culture, we are playing domineering power. And that is culturally insensitive and violates the prime directive!

[Jadian]

Where would you draw the line?

Continuing with the marriage theme, what if it's the "culture" for a man to beat his wife senseless? If we don't have the authority to say "Stop!", who does?

Or to use your analogy, should we leave the abused child in its abusive home so it doesn't feel out of place?

I really am curious about your thoughts on this - it's a racetrack in my mind right now.

[erisesoteric]

There are no self evident human rights.

There are no inalienable human rights.

The only "rights" that we have are those that any given society chooses to give to its members.

In my opinion, it is in the interests of enlightened self interest for "any given society" to adopt the declaration of human rights... but that is my opinion.

The truth is, human rights are balanced by human *responsibilities.* I have the *right* of free speech in this country, what this means is that I have the *responsibility* to defend it as best I can. A culture cannot be expected to grant its members rights until they are able and willing to accept the responsibilites that go with them.

So, I'd have to say, your professor is wrong.

[AsIs]

Re: Abusive Situations (As defined by us)

My position is that there is no magic wand. I say do nothing, UNLESS you (in this case as a nation) are willing to follow it up.

If you take a abused child and throw him in a normal family and leave it at that, then I say no.

If you take a abused child and stay involved with that child to make sure that a) the outcome is positive, b) that the child's emotional needs are being met, c) follow thru with the resources to facilitate rehabilition. Then yeah, go for it.

One of the biggest problems with US foreign policy is we are the kings of quick fixes. Here, let us liberate you, see ya. What? You hate us now?

In concepts, it is easy to yes to all of this. But for it to work, followthru is necessary, commitment is necessary, resources are necessary.

All of this is hard to do in a political environment that is our democracy. Every four years regimes have the potential to change. At most eight years is the longest you have one administration.

What I do advocate is subtle change. Change doesn't happen by saying, for example: Blacks are equal. In the beginning there is a backlash, then relucktance, then acceptance. It takes decades. Depending on how it is handled, longer.

I am not for slavery, second class citizens or abuse. What I am saying is that you have to fix things over time, not all at once. You can't just say, "Your free".

While I am up on my soap box, I had to defend the South in a High School Civial War trial. What I learned during that trial was interesting. In the South you had Slaves. They were fed and housed, however awful or good, but had no free will. In the North, you had free will, but you had sweat shops where people were working in unsafe conditions for low wages. Wages so low that there were many children working in these unsafe conditions. These family's had no guarantee of food and shelter and clothing.

Which was better? Were either of them? Yet, the North was the considered the moral leader in that war.

In my heart I am for fixing all ills. But my head realizes that it is not that simple. And the things that scares me most is that if I agree with the ignore cultural arguement is what happens when someone decides to impose their culture on me?

Edited to add: Regarding man beating his wife. Let's use the US version for a example. Say we lock up said man. Are we now willing to support said wife? We have locked up her breadwinner. We have quite possibly thrown her out on the street. Again, for me, it breaks down to whether there is follow thru. I am not for the wife being beaten. I am also not for her being reduced to what I consider a unacceptable standard of living. So the issue is more complex than stop hitting her. And I thank g-d for women's shelters in this country that do give women havens to get out of abusive relationships. They should be funded more. They should have more money to offer more services.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 08, 2004 06:51 PM: Message edited by: AsIs ]</font>

[usmu]

The prof's argument is logically correct, although it rest on one assumption. No matter how define human rights if they are inherent to being human they transcend time and circumstance, making culture cry an invalid defense. The unspoken given being that being human transcends time and circumstances.

Whether this is true might, or might not be, up for debate. And this is where things get interesting because if this assumption is false, it a raises the same question as before but from a philosophically speaking very different point of view. It's no longer whether we evolved into human rights but how our look on humanity and being human evolved and what role, if any, culture played in that.