The forgotten Uyghur people in China
So, what are Human Rights? Human rights are fundamental rights and
freedoms that every person in the world should have. Human rights are norms
that aspire to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal,
and social abuses. Examples of human rights are the right to freedom of
religion, the right to a fair trial when charged with a crime, the right not
to be tortured, and the right to education. A call on courts and citizens to fully and faithfully protect everyone's rights, regardless of
race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin. There must be a presumption
of innocence. The state must prove guilt, not the suspected person, to prove innocence. People should
not be coerced into confessing to a crime or giving evidence against
themselves. Exercising the right to silence should not be used as evidence of guilt or a reason to place them in
pre-trial detention. Human rights are deserved justice that protect the individual's right to enjoy life as he or she pleases. To suppress the freedom of
choice, be it culture induced by the state, is a violation
of human rights or tyranny; a vicious act to mask concern for human dignity.
Rights also define the claims that one legal subject could legitimately make
against another to protect their person, property, business, reputation, and
interest or to compel another to live up to their contracts, promises, and
other obligations.
|
|
The large-scale protests in China are not just a response to Covid restrictions but about fundamental human rights, including freedom of speech. They follow weeks of demonstrations in support of women’s rights in Iran. |
In this essay, I tackle several themes and ask whether Human rights are
universal and whether democracy and the rule of law can stand without
respect for human rights. In that context, I ask questions about the
existence, content, nature, universality, justification, and legal status of
human rights against an almost universal moral code. A shared moral norm of human moralities enshrined in Judaism, Christianity, Islam,
Confucianism, and Buddhism.
With that in mind, cultural exceptionalism by civilised bearers of
responsibility and States is a misdemeanour, and those who practice it lean
on morally hollow legal justification and fail in their ethical duties. It
is unfortunate if Human rights become unavailable within any jurisdiction or
group of people. Without respect for human rights and the right to life, a
country ceases to be democratic. The rule of Law, Democracy, and human
rights are intertwined, where neither religion nor ideology has a place.
Ignoring the conception of democratic rights runs against the grain of an
intrinsic desire in every one of us to be free.
However, although rights and liberties have been part of tradition since biblical and Roman days, many theologians and philosophers today view rights with suspicion, if not
derision. And since Human Rights are generally believed as a social
construct, they are not natural. Around the world, there is tension
between religious freedom and sexual freedom in modern liberal
democracies. Many religious critics view rights as a dangerous invention
of Enlightenment and post-Christian liberalism, predicated on a
celebration of reason over revelation, of greed over charity, of nature
over scripture, of the individual over the community, of the pretended
sovereignty of humanity over the absolute sovereignty of God. These
scholars call for better ideas and language to emphasise core virtues like
faith, hope, and love and goods like peace, order, and community.
When the State positions itself as the keeper of religious scriptures, it must adapt for its citizens' benefit and comply with the rules. In
contrast, they must reconsider local cultural exceptionalism, traditions,
and tribal customs. Despite their antipathy toward the whole human rights system and the Rights of the individual, they must move away from the exceptionalist view that this system of individualism corrodes social cohesion. To reject these ideas is to erode social customs and traditions, and to adopt an unsustainable position once the individual ceases to be subordinate to the group and commits to shared values toward a common culture. The exception is not to be an individual.
While others reject the concept of natural rights altogether, arguing that
only positive legal rights are real. They also believe moral right is objectively real, but ineffective unless translated into positive law terms. They are
dismayed by abstract and universal rights declarations — like the French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens (1789), the United States Bill
of Rights (1791), or the Universal Declaration of Rights (1948) and their
many progenies. They believe these grand rights documents have encouraged citizens and
authorities, lawyers and judges alike, to invent all manner of untethered
rights claims, upsetting long cultural traditions in so doing.
There is no denying, of course, that human rights can only be legal rights.
I argue that the wrong occurs when the constitution that anchors that legality is warped or contradicts moral norms, making dissent punishable
by an ideologically induced law. This is where human rights are governed by
ideologically inspired ideas transcending the rules of a covenant to which
they are signatories. Since it is arguably a social construct, its
suitability to one society may differ from that of another. This creates an opportunity for some states to decouple from the Human Rights Convention.
Here, we enter a minefield of contradictions. First, what makes a law ideologically inspired? Where does that law fit when that ideology
conflicts with other ideologies inspired by ‘norms’ within the different
cultures of the same society? The struggle for freedom exists in every
culture. I am also considering the contrast between the USA and Iran or
Afghanistan, for instance. Is the Electric Chair less humane than stoning a
woman to death? Both deny the right to life by lawful execution. We will get
to that later.
Many states reject Western-sponsored ideas of freedom. Nevertheless, people have human rights regardless of whether they are reflected in the practices, morality, or law of their country or culture. And like many Western states, and for practical reasons, countries around the world are free to impose several qualifications on ideas of universality. First, the right to vote is held only by adult citizens or residents and applies only to voting in one’s own country. Second, a person convicted of a serious crime may be denied the human right to freedom of movement. Third, some human rights treaties focus on the rights of vulnerable groups such as minorities, women, indigenous peoples, and children. Also, in cases like the UK Bill of Rights today, the right to protest, dissent, and demonstrate applies only to peaceful protest and does not extend to violence, damage, or wilful obstruction of motorways. In other words, Human Rights are not absolute or for any one culture to monopolise.
|
| Asylum seekers, Refugees, or immigrants |
The new Bill of Rights aims to replace the Human Rights Act 1998
in line with Brexit ideals. It is arguably designed to "help prevent
trivial human rights claims from wasting judges' time" and to make clear that UK courts do not always need to follow European court decisions. However, public consultation found people were "overwhelmingly
against the proposals", with victims of violence against women, care
home residents, and those whose family members have lost their lives due
to the actions of the police among those raising concerns. The reforms
would undermine the universality of human rights by making it more
difficult for certain groups to bring cases. Also, it contains clauses
that make it easier to deport foreign criminals. The intention is to
ensure a proper balance between individual rights and effective government, in line with British common law traditions, and to reduce
reliance on Strasbourg case law. For the record, a refugee, conventionally speaking, is a person who has lost the protection of his or her country of origin and who cannot or is unwilling to return there because of a well-founded fear of persecution. Such a person may be called an
asylum seeker until granted refugee status.
Exceptionalism goes even further. The Taliban in Kabul, Afghanistan, demand to be left alone to implement their own religious and cultural values at home without foreign interference. Leaders in Kabul insist on not being judged by the norms of others --especially in the West. When America's Western allies tell it that the U.S. capital punishment system is barbaric, local politicians and courts reply that it is their way and no one else's business, precisely what the Taliban says. The United States insists, for example, on the right to execute persons who committed crimes as minors. Never mind that this violates U.S. obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It is the American way, representing American values and ethics. Many other countries, such as Egypt, Sudan, Turkey, and China, practice a variety of cultural exceptionalism, some more exaggerated than others; such was the case in South Africa's system of Apartheid as is today alleged in Israel.
|
|
Pakistan Arrests “11th Imam of Islam” Under the most stringent laws in the world and carry a possible death sentence |
On the other hand, the safety net created by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights treaties setting out civil, political, cultural, and economic
rights, as well as the rights of children, women, ethnic groups, and
religions, made no room for cultural exceptionalism. In my opinion, wavering
ideas of what is Right for you is not right for us; runs unsteadily
towards injustice since the freedom of an individual is inalienable. The
challenge now is to create a globalised culture that universalises the idea that human rights drive decision-making and overcomes false beliefs that their provisions weaken
state sovereignty. On the contrary, Human rights, democracy, and the rule of
law create an environment in which countries can promote freedom, protect
individuals from discrimination, and ensure equal access to justice for all.
Freedom is a natural desire, but for many, freedom is a struggle, divorced from understanding what it is to be free, to have no
fear.
With freedom, however, comes responsibility, and in this modern digital age, control of the internet is an essential part of the universal order. It
ensures the rights of all concerned while protecting children from harmful
influences. Surveillance and regulation of the internet are an added part of the
Bill of Rights I referred to earlier. One method is Artificial
Intelligence (AI). However, using this method may erode individual freedoms and human judgment through automated
control. Human rights remain central to what it means to be human.
Governments need to ensure they are used as shields, monitoring what can be
harmful and overseeing accountability and remedies for any breach of those
standards. Protecting us in the digital age will determine whether the internet liberates us, not enchains us. Action to control harm
neither constrains freedom nor encroaches on privacy.
|
| Women have been stripped of the Right to be a Woman. |
In conclusion, I believe the government’s à la carte approach to human
rights would not do and would not sustain a democratic system. Policing Human Rights does not create authoritarianism but ensures a balance
with the Rights of every individual. Obligations under the European
Convention on Human Rights ensure that these rights continue to be upheld by the State’s Rule of law, as set out in the Convention. This moves away from shared ideas of conformity versus autonomy and builds an interrelationship within state society in line with democratic values.
Democracy is a universally recognised ideal based on shared universal
values, irrespective of cultural, political, social, and economic
differences. Alongside its core values of the Rule of Law and equality before the law, it preserves and promotes the dignity and fundamental
rights of the individual. Sadly, Human Rights are in retreat; seeking utopia
is not real. The widespread exceptionalism, discrimination, torture, and
abuse of the individual are increasing in this ever more turbulent
world.
According to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the situation is so desperate for Afghan women that they commit suicide at a rate of one or two a day.
No comments:
Post a Comment