Arnold - hope you see this. Sorry for the delay, your response somehow passed me by. Apologies.
**London_Calling, you say that Governments have always ignored the idealistic principles stated in the Declaration. Are you saying that’s right, or that we should accept or tolerate that?
I personally deplore the human rights violations that I see in western european countries, as much as the ones I see in other parts of the world. I still disagree with your position that says “Western European countries do not have a perfect human rights record so they can’t criticize another country’s human rights violations.” If some Kuwaiti said to you that (to take an example that may or may not be valid) muslims do not have full freedom of religion in France, would you tell them “that’s none of your business because in Kuwait you don’t allow women to vote?”**
I’m saying it’s difficult, in the real world, to comply with utopian ideology. It would be great if everyone in the world enjoyed the kinds of freedom they personally wish….economic, personal, political but they don’t – those people are in the States and England too.
Having said that, of course I believe it’s an ideal to aspire to. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a time in history when more people enjoyed more freedom than right now – but it’s still qualified in every country.
That’s what the Declaration is to me, an ideal to aspire to and it’s also why I resent politicians waving it around when it suits them in order to generate popular support for another economically driven intervention - with the implication being “we’re better so we better go sort this mess out” It’s also why I think, for the purposes of this debate, it is a red herring.
By the way, I’m not sure what you mean when you say “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is completely unworkable” so I can’t really address that statement.
As above, I suppose. Utopian idealology. Something to aspire to but, as yet, I don’t see it being complied with anywhere in the world.
** Realistically though if you want to fight for human rights you should probably pick your battles if you want to achieve small victories.**
At home isn’t a bad place to start.
** Calling the UDHR “a self-grandising propaganda tool wheeled out by our Governments” is an unnecessary belittling of that document in my view.**
Come on, Arnold – does that sound like I’m belittling the Declaration. It’s the way it’s used by our politicians I object to.
** . First of all, the document was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, not only by western european countries. Secondly, countries that disagree with the rights included in that document are not obligated to join the United Nations. If they do, in my opinion they should strive to adopt the Human Rights ideals espoused by the organization they have chosen to join. And if you want to argue that not all countries in the world respect the UDHR, I am quite willing to agree with you. That doesn’t mean I’m going to throw my hands in the air and say “human rights violations are OK.”**
Of course no country is going to miss out on the planet’s biggest political talking shop because they don’t want to sign up to the Declaration. The UN is chock full of countries in violation, what’s the UN going to do about another. Pass a Resolution, maybe ?
** You say “in Kuwait their law is made - it’s the Koran.” I don’t see how that is relevant. If a country has laws that contravene internationally recognized human rights, then they should change the law even if it has a religious “justification.”**
It’s a religious State, the law is derived from the Koran. It isn’t what we do – some of our laws might reflect the Bible but we soon deviate if it suits society (for example, the Catholic Church and abortion). Our religion and law are simply not bound up in the same way. As I say, change the law and defy the teachings of the Bible at the same time (because Kuwait doesn’t like the rights of the unborn child being violated) and you have a comparison with what you propose.
** And yes, there are more or less liberal interpretations of what human rights should entail. That doesn’t mean that “anything goes.” For example, some countries do not interpret “the right to life” as forbidding the death penalty, other countries do. One should not conclude from that that a government should feel free to commit genocide.**
OK, Kuwait, ”liberal interpretation” “genocide” – lost me on that one.
** As a member of Amnesty International I believe that it is the responsibility of everyone to help protect the rights not only of yourself, but of others. The idea that human rights in other countries are none of our concern is an outmoded way of thinking”**
Maybe this is the crux. The Christian West’s continued attack’s on any interpretation of the Koran they don’t like, based of our own dubious and transient morality (and by implication attacking the fabric of the Muslim society itself) vs. the ‘Right’ of people to live by their own interpretations of their own religious teachings.
IMHO, It has to be a moot point – agree to disagree ?
