Human Rights - their status and importance today

Hey all, finally decided I'd start my own baby up!

Here's my question for y'all:

"Is our current notion of human rights a purely Western construct?

Please feel free to debate cultural relativst versus unversalist theories.

Cultural Relatvism assumes that each culture has their own beliefs about the value of life.
Universalist say that there are some basic rights that transcend all cultures, such as respect for life (hence punishment of murder everywhere).

And do we, as Western nations, have the right to criticise China (for example) and their human rights record when our own countries have clear violations of human rights happening this very day? (example US - Detainees in Guantanamo Bay)

You should also have a look at:
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights' website

Universal Declarations of Human Rights


I am a cultural relativist who believes these values as described in the Decl. of HR, should be universally enforced, starting with Western Nations first. Why? Violations are smaller in scale, more liberal thus more open to the idea of positive change, Western nations most likely to support human rights causes etc etc.

Enjoy!

E_S

 

I agree that human rights is a western construct in that most human rights movments have their roots in the Enlightenment. But I don't think saying "purely" is accurate. Womens rights I believe came first to Russia during the Russian Revolution.

 

I think we should start with the biggest offenders first, the ones who have no intention of being Humane. Why start off with the countries that are willing to be humane? If you could prove that America was being vastly inhumane, and not just have a bunch of anti-Americans say so, I know the US people would take care of the problem themselves.

 

The Guantanamo Bay situation is more a situation of a liberal-aggrivating lack of legal niceities. When it comes to American violations of Human Rights, I'd go to the couple of massacres in Vietnam.

 

But those people were taken care of in Vietnam. It was a crazy time for everyone during that era.

 

This is true; the US does tend to punish it's own when they stray - which is one thing I'd concede in their favour when considering the state of the ICC situation.

However, you totally missed my point, CoolGuy. Let's assume this; we scale nations on a 1-10 for human rights standards; 10 being perfect, 1 being inhumane. I'd place the US at a 7, Australia 7.5 and the PRC at a 4. My point is this, guys, and remember - the US forbade UN inspectors into the Cuban base and we forbade the UN from looking at our detention centers - until we are at an "8" or higher, that is, until our human rights standards are high enough be beyond reproach (that is, violations are outside the norm and effectively dealth with by the UNHCHR or similar organs) can we afford to openly criticise nations like the PRC for their status on human rights? From a cultural relativist POV, I'd say Yes we can afford to attempt to influence cultural means to accept these basic rights, but from a universalist I'd say "Is that not hypocrisy"?

Thoughts?

E_S

 

What I am saying is that we should go after the 4's first. Althought I would rate the PRC at about a 2, but I guess it depends on how you take "aborting" babies minutes before that are about to be born.

 

It's interesting to note that the Guantanamo detainees, who are given sanitary conditions in which to reside, copies of the Koran, a sign showing the direction toward Mecca so they will know which way to face when they pray, permission to grow their hair and beards long, and American taxpayer funded medical treatment, despite continuing, even in captivity, to declare their desire to murder innocent Americans, are the subject of an alleged human rights violation.

What about the hundreds of millions of Muslim women who live under a system of gender apartheid? An Iranian woman is facing charges for kissing a man on the forehead in public. (BBC News Report)

What about forced genital mutilation of women practiced primarily (but not exclusively) by Muslim societies?

What about Muslim women who are divorced by their husbands and then are either relegated to a life of cheap manual labor with no hope of advance or forced to become prostitutes to acquire money for food?

What about the enslavement of Christians by Muslims in the Sudan?

Why is it so popular for Westerners to obsess over trivial or imaginary "violations" of "rights" in the Western world while genuine crimes against human dignity are practiced daily and unapologetically in non-Western countries?

 

Those human rights abuses you named are all your interpretation of human rights abuse. Obviously the countries or communities involved don't agree with you.

Do you have a right to force other to live by your standards?

 

Do you have a right to force other to live by your standards?

Oh, you don't consider those human rights abuses huh? That's funny, I thought human rights abuses were you know...easy to spot. Apparently they're not.

 

Uhhhh... just playing devil's advocate and asking the question.

 

Riiiight. I'm not a huge fan of theocracies. Which is mostly what muslim nations are.

 

So, you think Western Civilisation should force it's way of life onto everyone else?

 

I think it's very important on this issue to distinguish between the actions of institutions of power, ie governments (usually), and the general populace. I do not think it is hypocritical for me as an American citizen, not a member of any government organization, to hold all governments to the same standard.

I do think it is hypocritical to focus on the behavior of other countries and turn a blind eye to that of one's own. I have some amount of power to affect the behavior of my government. Moreover, I would like the government that represents me to be credible when it points out the violations of others.

I believe that the Universal Declaration is, well, universal, not relative.

 

"Althought I would rate the PRC at about a 2, but I guess it depends on how you take "aborting" babies minutes before that are about to be born."

As I understand it, China does not force women to abort. They just tax the hell out of any family with more than one child.

As for the question of atrocities being alright if the communities are commiting them rather than the government: no. Those women aren't consenting to having their clitorises cut off, they're labia scraped out, and their vaginas sown up. I don't give a damn if that's part of their culture, it's wrong. Some things are just wrong, no matter who's doing it or where they're from.

 

According to the Population Research Institute... China still includes forced and coercize abortions in it's population policy.

Here

They aren't exactly unbiased but the United Nations Population Fund has shown itself mroe willing to believe Chinese reports then investigate

 

The PRC has a nasty habit of injecting formaldehyde into the soft crown of a babies skull. They also bill families for the round used to execute dissidents. That aside, I give them a 4 because I'd call the Sudan a 2. Also, there's 1bn people, and no matter how bad we perceive it there simply can't be the number of HR violations we believe there are.

rsterling, what status to the prisoners have? They are not criminals under civil law, nor are they refugees or prisoners of war.

see: UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
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
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.
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.

___________________________________

Regardless of their comfort levels, they are still illegally maintained and in doing so there is a clear violation of their fundamental human rights present.

Now, I do agree we need to tackle the world's lacking areas on HR, however, I do believe this is best done by setting an example. That is, make ourselves exemplary models rather that dogmatic hypcrites.

E_S

 

I've been a member of Amnesty International(www.amnesty.org) for around eight years, so I feel quite strongly about human rights.

It is not a 'western' thing. This is a human thing. Amnesty International, as the biggest human rights organisation, has over a million members spread over 140 countries.

It is a complete myth that people in, for example, China, don't want things to change in their country. Remember Tiananmen Square? Everyday on my way to uni I go past the Chinese Embassy, and see Chinese people protesting outside ... but there are fewer of them than would like to be there, because they protest at risk to family members living back in China.

 

Let me tell you, I've been all over the middle east. You have no rights there, especially if you are a woman or not a muslim. I'm sure the same applies to nations like China, even though I've never been there.

I never saw such backwards societies as I did when I was there. Really, it's amazing that people still act this way in the 21st century. ?

I'm certainly glad to be an American and part of the free world.

Human rights should be the cornerstone of society. Our forefathers understood this, and that has why this nation has become so powerful. If you give power to the people and hold the government accountable to the people, then society will ultimately be successful (it may not happen overnight, though). The American experiment has shown this to be true.

 

I don't believe human rights are universal, I believe they should be. The very existence of the UNHCHR and the Declaration is proof enough that nations all over the globe are committed to raising the standards under which all humankind live.

What I must ask is this; what nations, though, can we hold up as examples? Norway? Perhaps, they have the highest standard of living on the planet, bar none. Sweden? Because the countries who typically tend to set themselves as examples, like the US for one, are by no means perfect.

Food-for-thought.

And the idea Amnesty is anti-American is just plain stoopid.

E_S

 

When basic human rights were being violated in Panama, Serbia, and Afghanistan in the last few years, things vastly improved after the intervention by what nation?

Hint: It wasn't Norway.

 

Not the point. I'm not saying America is as bad as the Sudan in terms of Human Rights; you know this too. So stop getting "offended" every time someone makes a legitmate criticism of the US. Just because we're not 100% for you doesn't mean we're against you, does it?

Now, what I'm saying is this; the US is undoubtedly the most influential nation on Earth, correct? How can it therefore point to another nation and say "You have a bad human rights record!" when it has several obvious HR issues going on (Guantanamo Bay, capital punishment), and refuses to allow the world community access to the sites of these alleged violations. Does the US have something to hide? Furthermore, when the US tries to stop other "firendly" nations joining the ICC, or at least entering a reservation excluding Americans from jurisdiction, it does so to prevent US nationals being tried for crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide crimes. Again, if the US is to hold any high ground position on human rights, can it do so with such issues constantly in the background. For if your answer is "yes", you cannot be upset if the People's Republic says "Eh, you're not perfect, stop trying to tell China what to do." Because, indeed the US is not perfect, nor does it tolerate others telling it what to do (ICC).


E_S

 

The majority of Americans do not consider imprisoning suicidal religious fanatics sworn to kill innocent Americans or the execution of murderers who have had a trial by a jury of their peers (and usually several appeals and a lengthy stay on death row) to be human rights violations. The persons in question in both situations are either enemy warriors (but not technically soldiers of a nation-state, so not covered by the Geneva Convention) or brutal killers who face harsh, but fair, justice.

What crime has an innocent baby in China committed before it is slaughtered? What misdeed forces the women of most Muslim countries to be treated worse than any civilized person would treat an animal, let alone a human being?

As I suggested in a previous post, the tendency of human rights organizations to obsess over the alleged abuses of civilized and functional nations like the U.S. while a large percentage of the human race endures utter barbarity is like a doctor worrying about a hangnail on a patient who is in cardiac arrest.

 

Really? Spoken from experience huh? Cause I just had a look at Amnesty's site - aaaand the only mention of the US is on a tiny link, bottom left side of the sight.

They don't tend to over-focus on the abuses of first world nations; they simply don't believe they are exempt from their attention.

And, as I have stated before, it is not up to the United States' populace to decide what consitutes a human rights violation. ESPECIALLY when you have the utmost arrogance to complain when one of your own is placed under arrest without the expected civility usually afforded to first world detainees. There is a clear and obvious violation of the basic human rights of these people, and the refusal of the US government to properly label them POW's is nothing more than an attempt to continue to circumvent their rights. End of story; as I have already posted the exact Articles in the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS which are violated I won't bother restating them. I will simply say; if any other nation imprisoned American citizens for nearly a year in clear violation of their rights, the world would be subjected to the insufferable complaints by the US government; yet it is content to do such a thing to other nationals.

And the whole point about rights in the 1st/3rd world can be illustrated thus; I am a multimillionaire telling people to give up their material possessions and become socialists. I am thus branded a hypocrit. Hence the first world/third world situation.

E_S