Alastair Su
During the ASEAN summit two weekends ago, while leaders exchanged assurances of economic cooperation, one issue was left ambiguous: that of human rights. Many had expectations that a human rights committee, an issue long neglected by ASEAN, would finally be established this year. Sadly, no consensus was reached and no such committee was formed.
What this reveals is simple. While the concept of human rights is something deeply embedded in the Western psyche, in the Asian and the Singaporean mind, a deficit still exists in our thinking – thus explaining ASEAN’s inability to form an effective human rights group. To many, the whole idea of human rights still remains a very alien, Westernised idea. During the Burmese riots in 2007 for example, only two groups of people participated in the rallies held here: Burmese, and sympathetic caucasians. Meanwhile, Singaporeans stayed at home, indifferent towards the numerous accounts of human rights abuses, at best following the events only on TV.
However, to simply typify this as a case of Singaporean apathy overlooks a larger, more pressing problem. The reason why Singaporeans were not affected by events in Burma was not due to a cold feeling of aloofness or indifference, but plain ignorance. If questioned, most Singaporeans would not be able to tell you what human rights are, even at a basic level. I shamefully confess that I’m part of this list – in the midst of preparing this article, I had to actually google the term “human rights” to make up for my ignorance!
While the origin of human rights goes back many centuries, its defining moment would probably be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, where global leaders gathered to formalise human rights and its definitions. In general, it spans five broad areas – political, civil, economic, social and cultural, prohibiting practices like torture, political censorship, and condemning things like poverty and gender inequality. Since then, its principles have been enshrined in countries like the US, members of the European Union, as well as international bodies like the United Nations and OXFAM. Critics will of course point out that such countries that profess to follow human rights have often displayed hypocritical behaviour, naming examples like Guantanamo Bay and controversial extradition laws, though one can safely argue that such breaches make the exception – and not the rule – in these countries.
Meanwhile though, the recognition of human rights in Singapore remains virtually non-existent. In my 12 years of education here, not once was the topic of human rights raised during any of my national education lessons, a clear omission in education policy on our government’s part. This has in turn led to many generations of Singaporeans raised without a single notion of what human rights really is, and the significance it has for our lives.
Yet, before we go headlong into how this issue needs to be dealt, it is also appropriate to take a step back and consider an important question. Anticipating what would likely be our government’s response, we need to ask ourselves this: to what extent is the whole concept of human rights merely a Western thing? While it was called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, remember that it was mainly Western minds and hands that conceived and penned that declaration almost sixty years ago. Given Singapore’s and Asia’s profoundly different history, culture and psyche, would it be an error to simply import wholesale what may be a foreign set of ideals?
For those in favour of a compromise solution, or an Asian version of human rights if you will, understand there is no such thing as a selective interpretation of human rights, where we import the parts that seem expedient to us – something our government may be tempted to do. Either we take the whole package or leave it; partial acceptance defeats the whole purpose of having drafted a universal declaration in the first place.
Ultimately, the answer to this question is by no means straightforward, it is something we must consider seriously as a citizens of this country. Tarrying with this issue will only prolong the formation of an effective human rights body here – maintaining Singapore’s status as a place that is economically a first-world country, but politically as developed as the sleepy colony we were before a certain party took power.
——–
Alastair Su also blogs at: http://givemesometruth.wordpress.com
——–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Is Asian part of the universal?
Very simple: the PAP govt doesn’t want you to know too much. Just pay your taxes to them on time, that’s all.
Actually we could have human rights, just that most Singaporeans do not have the courage to stand up.
Broadly, the objections to the full adoption of human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human rights are 3 fold:
(1) Philosophical objection against universality. Can any set of beliefs be truly universal and applicable to all?
(2) Communitarian objection against individuality. Should the interests of the group be held to ransom by the interest of the individual?
(3) Cultural objection against Western values and intervention. Does the adoption of Human Rights allow foreign culture to subjugate our own?
Only if these 3 objections are addressed satisfactorily can the human rights movement progress in the ASEAN countries.
Human rights advocates need to convince people here that the whole human rights movement is actually just a movement against social deprivation, economic exploitation, political oppression and racial persecution. Painted in such broad strokes, it will be more palatable than campaigning for the adoption of the specific rights as stated in the Declaration.
This is what I think.
Singaporeans’ apathy to issues that don’t directly hurt them is well-known.
Even if they are hurt themselves, 40 years of conditioning has taught most to close one eye and just put up with the pain as best as they could.
Until the advent of the internet, dissent was limited to quiet whisperings in coffee shops or in the privacy of one’s own home.
Against an all-powerful government wielding a security apparatus that maintains an iron grip on the populace, open dissent was in all practicality impossible, without incurring great risk to one’s own self and his love ones.
Moreover, with totally monopoly of information, news unfavourable to the powers that be never saw the light of day anyway.
As long as the country was prospering, it made no sense to rebel (especially if you couldn’t get access to fair representation in the courts).
With the appearance of the internet, sectors of the population that took issue with government policies started appearing and are apparently making their presence felt. People who bother to look have access to alternative views (and news) for the first time ever.
Despite the government’s effort to discredit or ignore what is written in numerous blogs and forums, its influence must surely grow. That is my hope, that one day the enormous pool of online voices would form such a chorus that the party would no longer be able to push through policies without first giving serious consideration to public opinion.
As for human rights, although most of us may not be familiar with the technicalities, the basic concept of what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is just plain wrong, is not hard to grasp.
With regards to events in Myanmar when cyclone Nargis hit, I believe most Singaporeans were dismayed by the callous and truly brutal nature of the junta (otherwise heaven help us!).
This is basic good and evil. You do not need a western human rights expert to explain that what the junta has done, or rather did not do, went against all human decencies. Surely, even a small child will tell you not giving food to someone who is starving is wrong?
But what is our government doing? If turning its head the other way is bad, how would describe the action of openly courting and consorting with such a murderous regime?
What am I talking about? Do a Google search. Type in “Singapore Burma drugs” or something, and see what you can find. Below is a link to one such site.
http://www.singapore-window.org/804caq9.htm
While we are callously hanging the small time drug traffickers, the “mules”, see what our authorities are doing with the big-time bosses.
On a slightly less sinister front, we are also competing against other asian countries for Burmese energy. Replace the above “drugs” with “gas” or “CNG” or “LPG” in your Google search and see what pops up?
Below are some examples.
http://www.kquee.com/blog/2007/10/01/singapore-companies-with-presenceinterest-in-burmamyanmar/
http://www.indoburmanews.net/archives-1/archive06/06/674/
http://www.irrawaddy.org/print_article.php?art_id=14151
Call me naïve, but I am strongly of the opinion that doing business with the scourge of humanity is plain wrong, whatever the economic benefits. Paying lip service to the international community’s call for ASEAN to do more compel the junta to improve its human rights, while at the same time cuddling up to its leaders and providing them the most luxurious goods and services our country has to offer… well, I have no word for such behaviour.
As for what happened to the Burmese that protested here, again, a simple Google search will reveal much.
Clearly, our government is not about to let its cosy relations with the regime be compromised by some stupid foreigners who believe in such an abstract notion as human rights? Human rights can eat meh?
The brutal truth is that we are a socially-backward lot over here, and not only are we that, but we are also rightfully up there by world-class standard in the art of kidding ourselves.
We do it all the time, year after year; staging great events with hugh fanfare for humane and social causes; to show the world and convinced ourselves that we are such great folks. And then we go back to being the selfish and callous creatures in our daily lives.
to 4), wow, that was so eruditely expressed. sigh, to me, i often find myself asking the questions, because the answers always seem to be far more elusive.
I am indeed surprised.
Last year, I saw the Olympic torch was snatched from a wheel-chaired bound bearer, but no protests were made by the so-called “human rights groups” too.
So ?
It seemed to focus on specifics instead !
I don’t accept the contention that Singaporeans are apathetic.
Instead, I believe that the lack of public/open response from Singaporeans to the events in Burma, Tibet, and elsewhere is because of our self-censorship. This is an appropriate response that we have learned after seeing how the PAP government handles views that do not chime well with theirs.
Evidence of the lack of apathy are the strong comments that Singaporeans have made/are making on these events online and in private conversations.
The real fear among us is of organizing to support a cause which we think the PAP government will see as “rocking the boat” unnecessarily.
the real worst humanrights violators are those leaders and nations (pussies) sleeping with those violating hr. i personally don’t prescribe to the wholesale universal hr., each nation should accept univeral basic human dignity and decency and incorporate its own values.
its all about bottomline, we can shout and yell about these scoundrels but it is the dirty money that make the world economy going, my only hope is that, let those at the bottom of scale partake in some of life luxuries. after all we are majority of the time INDIRECTLY cosuming these cheap natural and human resources.
Hi Alistair,
Actually, several other Singaporean groups did hold events to protest against Burma’s treatment of the Saffron Revolution: student groups across three university campuses distrubted and wore red ribbons in protest, as well as local activists who did events in conjunction with the SDP.
The situation, however, can definitely be improved.
Qoute ‘ Feeling the pulse of economy, not the pulse of the people’ thats their motto of governing and administration. They do not care about the plight of the people in the end is the money and profits thats matters.
“If questioned, most Singaporeans would not be able to tell you what human rights are, even at a basic level.”
But author, how u prove what u said?
Here’s something i once read to think about:
Human rights are NOT A GIVEN. No authority will ever serve it to you on a silver platter. It’s the nature of powerful people to oppress others. Human rights must be FOUGHT FOR, BLED FOR, SACRIFICED FOR. And if a future generation forgets how hard-fought it is, they will be doomed to repeat their lesson.
While the origin of human rights goes back many centuries, its defining moment would probably be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, where global leaders gathered to formalise human rights and its definitions.
Singaporeans are ignorant of the UNDHR, including most pro-human rights bloggers talking about it as if it is some messianic document . The US and other Western powers still with colonies in Asia and Africa, then talked about human rights in airy fairy absolutist so-called universal but actually ethnocentric terms.
Ultimately, the answer to this question is by no means straightforward, it is something we must consider seriously as a citizens of this country.
Well said. Everyone should read, understand and critique the UNDHR and see its gleam, as well as its grime which is just as important.
http://www.udhr.org/UDHR/default.htm
“The reason why Singaporeans were not affected by events in Burma was not due to a cold feeling of aloofness or indifference, but plain ignorance. If questioned, most Singaporeans would not be able to tell you what human rights are, even at a basic level.”
- you hit the point on the nail , most Singaporeans have no clue to what human rights are, even at the basic level… so what are the opposition like the SDP fighting for – a lost cause? seems to be their main agenda? when most people don’t give a sh..t about it.
“Critics will of course point out that such countries that profess to follow human rights have often displayed hypocritical behaviour, naming examples like Guantanamo Bay and controversial extradition laws, though one can safely argue that such breaches make the exception – and not the rule – in these countries.”
- Hypocritical behavoiur of these countries make the exception – who are you kidding who. I don’t believe that you have done enough homework.
“Ultimately, the answer to this question is by no means straightforward, it is something we must consider seriously as a citizens of this country. Tarrying with this issue will only prolong the formation of an effective human rights body here – maintaining Singapore’s status as a place that is economically a first-world country, but politically as developed as the sleepy colony we were before a certain party took power.”
- since most of the Singaporeans have no clue to what human rights are even fundamentally, what are you trying to achieve? Why do you think Singapore need to form a human rights body? for what purpose? You have not elucidated what human rights in basic terms are, for the people to understand in your article which you are clearly aware of the limited knowledge and understanding (of such terms) of the population in general. What are the areas in which you believe that Singapore does not have human rights? Is this pertaining only to Singapore or ASEAN as a whole? Are you recommending for Singapore to copy the act of America or some other western countries in terms of human rights? What makes you think what they do (sometimes hyprocritically) is suitable for Singapore and ASEAN as a whole.
Methinks that the erudite questions posed by 4) smallvoice 585 requires serious consideration and thought. Otherwise, we will be guilty of mob behaviour, i.e. simply advocating human rights because its the politically fashionable thing to do from the so called ‘enlightened’ Western perspective.
(1) The universality charge is most certainly interesting, seeing how the whole concept of human rights was born out of the Western Enlightenment movement in the 19th century which is packaged with other beliefs and crucial assumption, i.e. that human nature is the same everywhere. But if different cultures and societies have different anthropologies, then the whole foundation of ‘universal human rights’ based on a ‘universal human nature’ is false.
(2) This objection can be formulated in another form or way, i.e. that human rights must be consistent with the society or government ability to provide it. If there are such things as human rights, then that implies that someone, or some institution has the responsibility to enforce, protect and provide for these rights. Every right incurs a ‘social cost’, an additional burden on society to provide for that right. Thus, a ‘right’ to free health care implies that some institution has the responsibility to pay for it. The unfettered right to protest will have significant social and economic cost, i.e. Thailand and the disruption of business in the capital. Thus, the social implication and cost of every human right requires careful consideration and assessment.
to belinda, i think the general notion on the ground is that singaporeans don’t know what human rights are — and don’t give a damn about them. perhaps you have met many other singaporeans who share your beliefs on the blogosphere, but we must remember these are still the minority (hopeful growing though :) ) would love to do a survey or something, but need more time :)
i think on the whole, my message was basically the same as Rubati’s. My personal stand on the human rights issue is still a question mark. i am young and i have much to learn in this world – i don’t want to subscribe to it for the sake of it. i don’t believe in freedom for the sake of freedom for example.
sigh, at this stage, i have more questions than i have answers…
16) soojenn
What makes you think what they do (sometimes hyprocritically) is suitable for Singapore and ASEAN as a whole.
Very good questions raised in your last paragraph, throwing back questions at the human rights fans on what exactly human rights.
17) Rubati
Nicely done, particularly the Enlightenment roots. Human rights declarations are all biased with somethings blatant hypocrisy. The magna carta for one – i bet slaves and peasants did not have access to the same rights enshrined in it.
Rights at a social cost. Interesting and true, opening up the discussion on the responsibility to pay for that cost. The Rights vs Responsibility debate, one cannot come without the other.
Rights are only right when justice is uphold. Need Rights be termed international, human, basic, parliamentary, diplomatic and what not ?
Please honour justice and virtue and Rights will be naturally respected.
Rubati,
1) That shows the classic Western Enlightenment bias, ironically. The Enlightenment did not invent Human Rights, it “stole” human rights from Christian and Islamic doctrine. And incidentally, the Enlightenment occurred in the 17th and 18th Centuries, not the 19th Century. The 19th Century was the Century of the Industrial Revolution.
Even if Human Rights were invented by the Enlightenment, this does not mean it is exclusively Western. After all, just because Sir Isaac Newton is an English Scientist, does it mean that gravity does not apply in Asia?
2) In principle, you sound correct. However, the idea of calling them “human rights” is that all humans are supposed to share equal responsibility for enforcing, protecting and providing them. Respect of Human Rights incurs “social costs”, but it also provides “social benefits”.
Even disruption of business can provide a social benefit if the business itself was guilty of violating human rights in the first place.
You must look at both sides of the coin too.
Hal,
1) Don’t confuse implementation and principle.
2) Slaves, not really (but then there weren’t really any slaves in England before the colonisation of the New World and Africa). But The Magna Carta is supposed to provide protection for peasants too.
And once again, HR was not invented by the Enlightenment!
3) Universal Rights and Responsibility are a dualism. You cannot have Rights without Responsibility, and neither can you have Responsibility without Rights. Pitting them against each other is misguided.
Emphasizing too much on responsibility – which tends to be Singapore and Asean’s Problems – tends to lead to selective rights e.g. protecting the rights of the Government or MNCs against those of the Opposition.
Emphasizing too much on Rights – as in Taiwan and sometimes the USA – tends to lead to a false sense of freedom from responsibility, which ironically results in the violation of others’ rights.
Ultimately, you are correct to say that “one cannot come without the other”, but youa re also hypocritical, because you – along with Hal and Rubati – seek to degrade rights in favour of responsibilities.
Justice,
There is only true Justice when Each Individual Responsibility to Other Individuals and Groups is matched by a Respect of those Individuals and Groups for that Individual’s Rights.
Arix
Well met.
1) Don’t confuse implementation and principle? On the contrary, I hinted of the need to forge principle with implementation. Please point out where I have might have given that impression I can’t differentiate between the two so that I have a chance to clarify.
2) No slaves in the sense of the African slave trade. I agree with you. Improper terms on my part. I am sorry if I used the word “slave” and it jolted readers to think of Kunta Kinte.
You know what you are talking about but yet seem to take a romanticised liberal interpretation of “free men” in the Great Charter to mean all under the sun in England 1215. The context of the Latin document was that it was the result of a rebellion by the nobles. The document was the nobles’ effort to check King John’s divine right of kings and a reiteration of Henry I’s Charter of Liberties aka Coronation Charter. The Magna Carta was between nobles and the King and remember that England was under feudalism then. Hence, no Kunta Kinte but many Baldricks. Lots of serfs and bondsmen who served their lords and were practically slaves in the modern sense. They were not synonymous as ‘free men” under the Magna Carta as the nobles certainly did not want them to have rights. I state that the Magna Carta itself was hypocritical as it suited the nobles’ vested interest. They were the free men in question and “free men” must be understood in its feudal context. Not all men were “free” then.
3) I agree and there is no question that rights and responsibilities in the human rights debate are a reductive dualism now. Nicely argued about the need for balance but I think you misrepresented me in saying that I am hypocritical and degrade rights in favour of responsibilities. There is a constantly changing trade off between the two. Sometimes in somethings rights should precede responsibilities, and sometimes in somethings vice versa. Responsibilities are also vital in the human rights debate, but often it is neglected when bloggers dramatise ad nauseum the unidimensional paramounce of human rights.
Any action and deed found reasonable, virtuous, beneficial to all and do no harm to anybody, any object and spirit should be accorded Rights in any name; fundamental, natural, human and even divine.
The Rights are naturally there, just that they are being abuse all the time throughout history by the unscrupulous, wicked, sadistic and evils. The righteous are also there throughout history to fight the abuses and these two forces will face each other till the end of time, if time can end.
#23 is statement of eternal truth.
You mentioned that Human Rights “span[s] five broad areas – political, civil, economic, social and cultural, prohibiting practices like torture, political censorship, and condemning things like poverty and gender inequality.”
The rest of your article seemed to be advocating a wholesale adoption and acceptance of such rights. However, as soojenn has rightly pointed out, you have not even argued for a definition of human rights that should be adopted. What kind of rights should be seen as “fundamental”?
As a matter of legal interpretation, the UDHR is not even considered “law”; it is merely a statement of intent. The “law” as relating to Human Rights being universal and inalienable etc is actually contained in 2 separate documents; the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant for Economic and Social Rights (ICESR).
This brings me to a related point. It is naive to think that countries should accept wholesale the definition of human rights in the UDHR. If you wish to raise USA as a beacon of Human Rights, note that the US is not a signatory to the ICESR, which means it doesnt accept wholesale the entire conception of Human Rights enshrined in the UDHR. Go google the 2 Covenants and see how many countries ratified both to get an understanding of how “universal” the the UDHR conception is.
Even if assuming that everybody should accept the UDHR as being obligatory as a whole, the question then is the standard that countries are held to. It doesnt mean that if you fail to protect, for example, the freedom of speech to the level that is protected in USA, you would have violated human rights. Indeed, even countries in Europe would think that the US conception swings too much to the other way. This is another misconception that one should bear in mind. What standard should we expect of others, if we demand a universal standard for protecting human rights?
Hal (#22),
1) Thanks. I like people who acknowledge their opponents’ views.
2) You were responding to soo jenn’s point about the hypocrisy of the West. Just trying to remind you that Hypocrites don’t always lie; they seldom practice what they preach, but that doesn’t mean what they preach is false.
As a future note, the sections in my replies are tagged with the para number/order of the paragraphs in the tract/post I am replying to. SO that you can know which statement I am referring to, exactly.
3) Accepted.
4) Look at this site: http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/people/villeins.html.
I admit I did make a mistake, but so did you. The Magna Carta covered three classes: Barons (+ Bishops), Free Men and Villeins. “Free Men” are a sort of medieval middle-class, neither Barons or Villeins. Villeins are the bound peasantry, or the serfs. Although we must be careful about applying the term “serf”; the strong religious atmosphere did provide some protections for the VIlleins, differentiating them from modern-day slaves.
The Magna Carta did not help VIlleins much, but there was some help. It limited fines and compelled lords to pay (adequate) compensation for goods taken from the Villeins, so that Villeins could survive.
The Principle of the Magna Carta was to be fair to all, within the boundaries of a Feudal System. This was as much by religious inclination as by political will. Yes, the Church is responsible for many abuses throughout the years, but there is still some virtue which manifests itself out in Documents like the Magna Carta.
5) I guess that paragraph was too short to give fair comment on. But you have misrepresented me too. My argument is that Rights and Responsibilities are a dualism. Symbolize by a coin: Heads for Rights, Tails for Responsibilities, but both heads and tails are part of the same coin.
Every Right implies the need for a Responsibility to meet that right. Likewise, Every Responsibility is only given meaning when there is a Right to fulfill. So it is spurious to argue that there are either Rights or Responsibilities, because it is either both or neither. The real question is: who should hold the Responsibilities to provide for the Rights?
Neither precedes the other; they exist alongside each other, or do not exist at all.
When bloggers dramatise “ad nauseum” the “unidimensional paramounce” of Human Rights, what they are actually dramatising is the Responsibility of Government Officials to provide for these Rights, or provide means for others to take Responsibility to preserve these Rights. So no, bloggers do not forget about Responsibilities.
zz (#25),
2) Read the UDHR. It provides the whole list of Fundamental Rights. But if you want to know the umbrella Fundamental Rights, they are: Freedom of Expression and Freedom from Want.
3) The UDHR is conveyed as a list of Shared Values. While Shared Values are not legally binding, they are culturally binding. The ICCPR and ICESR are specific derivatives of the UDHR.
4) If 75% of the world still believed that the World is Flat, does that mean that the idea that the Earth is Round is not “universal”?
5) Actually, the answer is principle is very simple: Protect our Rights without infringing on Other People’s Rights. The controversy is always over whether Infringing on Other People’s Rights to stop them from Infringing over Other People’s Rights should be considered as Infringing on the Infringer’s Rights.
That is the paradoxical reason why there is no coercion on countries to sign the ICESR and the ICCPR, and why even the signatories are permitted to issue reservations which seem to call to question the idea that the UDHR is Universal. In order for the UDHR to be true to itself, it cannot force others to accept it fully without reservations even though it is Universal, otherwise it would no longer be Universal, because it is treating itself as the Sole Exception to the Law.
Arix,
when you go into the argument of it being “culturally binding”, the question then comes as to whose culture is binding upon whom. The UDHR is indeed very persuasive in informing the interpretation of rights, but as it stands it is more akin to a statement of aspiration and not reality.
Both the ICCPR and the ICESR are not exactly specific derivatives of the UDHR. What was intended was a general declaratory statement (the UDHR) followed by specific treaties having legally binding effect on each general area of rights (ICCPR etc). This means that be that as it may, we cannot ignore the ICCPR or the ICESR when we talk about human rights. the UDHR is not the be all and end all of all human rights discussion. In fact, I would suggest that its priority may not even be that high as specific treaties like the ICCPR and the ICESR, given that the latter two are specific international treaties signed and ratified by member states of the UN.
“If 75% of the world still believed that the World is Flat, does that mean that the idea that the Earth is Round is not “universal”?” This is a fallacious argument, as you are not comparing apples with apples. Your statement itself is not exactly accurate. That “the earth is round” is not an idea; it is an objective fact, verifiable by science, insomuch as the existence of gravity is verifiable. I am not saying that there are no universal rights; what i’m saying is that there is no consensus as to what rights are universal and what rights are relative. Rights as a concept may presumably be deemed to be objectively in existence (although some would disagree with me); it is the content that is open to subjective interpretation. What we need to do is to identify this core area of rights, and then move on into debating whether rights that are not previously part of the core should nevertheless be accorded such “core” status.
zz (#28),
1) Your point is valid, but irrelevant to my argument. My argument was that while HR can be binding, they are not “binding” in the sense that people can use legal mechanisms to enforce it, but are “binding” in that people believe in them and therefore will practice them i.e. in culture. So long as it is an aspiration, it is “culturally binding”. Sorry, I can’t find better terms in the English Language.
2) You misunderstand the meaning of “specific derivatives”. A derivative is something that contains a copy of sections or the whole of something else. The Civil-Political Rights defended by the ICCPR and the Economic-Social Rights defended by the ICESR are both enshrined within the UDHR. What each of these treaties do is to further elaborate on details of implementation and enforcement for each class of rights. In this way, they are “specific”, because they deal with only a portion of the rights enshrined within the UDHR.
As an analogy, we could use a set a physics textbooks, where one of them is a General Physics textbook, another a Quantum Mechanics Textbook and the third an Astrophysics textbook. General Physics will contain overviews of all the subfields of physics, including Quantum Mechanics and Astrophysics. Each of the particular Quantum Mechanics or Astrophysics will only contain details about their respective subfield, but in greater detail. In this way, Quantum Mechanics and Astrophysics textbooks are “specific derivatives” of the General Physics Textbook.
So the UDHR is like the General Physics Textbook, whilst the ICCPR and the ICESR are the Quantum Mechanics and Astrophysics Textbooks.
3) This is a complicated concept, but I will try to keep it simple. The Universal/Relative is really an inaccurate characterization of the issue. What the issue of Rights is is a taxonomy problem. Basically: you know this plant is a plant, but you don’t know which classification of plants to put it under.
Universal/Relative is superfluous, because they are the heads and tails of the same coin. Relativity requires a Universal Standard to judge “relative to”. Universality requires Pluralism, the ability of the Universal Standard to be Relative to a variety of contexts i.e. Acculturation.
The debate on the Universality of Rights is a red herring. The proper discussion should be on who holds the Responsibility to preserve these Rights for various people.
What is classified as a Human Rights Violation, when examined closely, is actually arguing that the Rights are respected for some people, but not for some others. Take the oft-contested Right of Free Speech. A Government will argue that it has the Responsibility to preserve that Right for itself and its friends, but need not exercise the same Responsibility for preserving the Right for its critics, which implies that the critics and their supporters have the Responsibility for protecting that Right themselves.
The entire Human Rights Debate essentially reduces to one question: If I want something, should I get it myself or get it from someone else? (Note: “Something” includes permission.) The corollary to this question is: If someone wants something that I have, should I give it to that person, or give it to someone else, or keep it for myself?
Arix,
Your point is not entirely convincing to me because you still have not defined what is the exact content of rights. Human Rights discourse is not simply about the tension between your rights and your critics rights. This discussion is relevant within the context of “how” to protect; it doesnt answer the prior of question of “what” we should protect.
For example, you raised a point about the right to free speech. There’s also the right to life and liberty, to equal protection etc. But is the right to work, to proper accommodation, to food etc a fundamental or universal human right? Note that these are rights that are provided for under the ICESR, and hence the question is as to whether we should recognise them as “core” rights, or obligations that governments should achieve to the best of their ability?
However, I get the sense that we are probably arguing from a cross disciplinary point of view. I’m essentially arguing from a legal standpoint, but I guess you are arguing from a philosophical point of view?
sorry, I forgot to add upon your “textbook” analogy. My point was, in terms of recognition and legal authority, the UDHR is not even a ‘textbook”. It is like an extended preamble to the ICCPR and the ICESR. So my point is, the UDHR should not be treated as the “holy grail” of human rights discourse, because that is simply not the case.
zz (#30),
1) The best answer for “What to protect?” is “What is it you would like protected for yourself?” That is, unless you are non-human. Human Rights is about protecting Human Life to the extent where the Self can be fully Realized in complete Freedom. (Check out Maslow’s Hierarchy if you cannot understand this.) If you can answer the requirements of Self-Realization, then you know what Human Rights are.
2) I didn’t raise a “point”. I raised an example to illustrate a point. But on your point, you confuse me by attempting to differentiate between “fundamental” and “universal”. Both words mean almost the same thing.
But reading your clarification, I think I can respond. Yes, Human Rights are core rights that a society cannot be healthy if it lacks a sufficient implementation of any of them. And yes too, Governments are required to fulfill Human Rights to the best of their ability.
But No, if you think that “best of their ability” means that Government Officials can be excused from any failures. In addition to acting through existing Institutions – that would define their “ability” – they are required to amend existing Institutions as well so as to allow these Institutions to respect Human Rights.
And no also to the idea that Human Rights Protection is limited to Governments. Businesses and other Institutions are required to play their roles too.
3) I am arguing from a philosophical view. However, I do not see why a legal standpoint would be any different from a philosophical standpoint when it comes down to basic principles.
zz (#31),
I seem to get the impression that you haven’t read many preambles before. Preambles state reasons and motives, or specific identifiers (e.g. time, date, place, parties). The UDHR comes with its own preamble, in fact.
The UDHR is not an “extended preamble” because it contains prescriptions of specific goals that must be achieved, not a vague statement of why some goals (in another document) must be achieved. The ICCPR and ICESR are elaborated versions of sections of the UDHR.
The UDHR is not an Act, but can be more accurately described as a Manifesto. Since the UDHR contains statements pertaining to all the rights, it can therefore be regarded as the “holy grail” of Human Rights Discourse.
Incidentally, I just came up with a better analogy.
The Ten Commandments are ten statements in the Biblical Book of Genesis. The Roman Catholic Church publishes a document called the Catechism of the Catholic Church in which one particular section deals with the Ten Commandments, and elaborates on the various details of what constitutes their violation. For instance, it adds on “Abortion is murder” under “Thou Shalt not kill”. (And please, this is NOT the subject of debate.)
In this respect, the Ten Commandments is to that section of the Catechism what the UDHR is to the ICCPR, ICESR and similar documents.
I hope that this gets across my point much better than the textbook analogy.