One at a time, please
Beware of ‘religious and cultural specificity.’ Beware especially when religious and cultural specificity is invoked in the context of human rights. Religiously and culturally specific human rights are not the real thing, they are impostors wrapped up in burqas. The International Humanist and Ethical Union knows.
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) representing the 56 Islamic States renewed its attack on the Universality of Human Rights at the 6th Session of the Human Rights Council that ended on 14 December. On Human Rights Day, 10 December, Ambassador Masood Khan, speaking on behalf of the OIC, claimed that the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam “.. is not an alternative, competing worldview on human rights. It complements the Universal Declaration as it addresses religious and cultural specificity of the Muslim countries”.
No, it doesn’t; it doesn’t complement, it competes; it contradicts, it denies, it deprives, it prevents.
Even a cursory reading of the Cairo Declaration shows just how widely its definition of human rights differs from those of the UDHR. No “complementary” document (the word implies adding to, not subtracting from) should restrict the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration. Yet this is precisely what the Cairo Declaration does. Under Shari’ah law a woman has no personal autonomy. A women’s word or the word of a non-Muslim counts as half that of a Muslim man; and they are valued as half that of a Muslim man. No woman is considered an autonomous individual but needs a guardian: her father, husband, son or another male relative, and may not make autonomous decisions. Freedom of religion is limited to freedom to become and remain a Muslim. Apostasy and any actions or statements considered blasphemous are harshly punished, in some states by death.
Oh that kind of religious and cultural specificity.
On 18 December 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution “Combating Defamation of Religions” by 108 votes to 51 with 25 abstentions…The resolution expresses “deep concern about the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief”. But the only religion mentioned by name is Islam…The Western delegations stood firm, however, in their opposition to this resolution. The Portuguese delegate, speaking for the EU, explained clearly why: “The European Union does not see the concept of ‘defamation of religions’ as a valid one in a human rights discourse. From a human rights perspective, members of religious or belief communities should not be viewed as parts of homogenous entities. International human rights law protects primarily individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion or belief, rather than the religions as such.”
Human rights are for humans, not for groups. Human rights are for individuals, not for groups. The IHEU ends on a depressing note…
Notwithstanding these objections, those opposing the resolution found themselves on the losing side of a two-to-one majority in favour. The implications of this resolution for freedom to criticise religious laws and practices are obvious. Armed with UN approval for their actions, states may now legislate against any show of disrespect for religion, however they may choose to define “disrespect”. The Islamic states see human rights exclusively in Islamic terms, and by sheer weight of numbers this view is becoming dominant within the UN system. The implications for the universality of human rights are ominous.
The UNDHR is such a watered down document that it is almost useless. If I recall correctly, “Freedom of Expression” and “Freedom from and of Religion” is buried down somewhere towards the end of this document.
Isn’t there a modern version of UNHDR that has some teeth and beef, anywhere?
Yes there is the U.S. bill of rights? I agree the U.N declartion probabably ranks as the most cynical document writen since the emancipation proclomation, none of the enshrined rights can be actioned if they conflict with the goals and purpose of the U.N.
Eh? I wouldn’t call it useless! Not in a world where most of those rights are so thoroughly ignored and flouted by bullies and exploiters of all kinds. I wouldn’t call it all that watered down, either. If it were, the Cairo declaration would doubtless not have been ‘necessary.’ Freedom of religion and opinion-and-expression are articles 18 and 19.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
The UN passed two Covenants based on the UDHR in 1966, ‘and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.’ [Wikipedia]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
I wouldn’t call the UDHR or the Emancipation Proclamation cynical, either!
You wouldnt call the e.p. cynical O.B what else could it be it offered to free slaves only in areas where Lincon held no durisdiction and only then if the states in question remained in rebelion.even Lincons most ardent supporters refer it as pragmatic.
That’s a very tendentious reading, Richard, you can’t just treat it as self-evident.
That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. I dont see how this can meen anything else O.B. surely if Lincon had set out to free the slaves he would have also included the slaves being held in the union states?
Unless I’ve completely bolluxed my U.S. history (not utterly improbable)one does have to admit, Richard, that at the end of hostilities between the states, the proclamation became the basis of an amendment to the constitution, which received its two-thirds ratification before the end of 1865.
If I recollect correctly, the only “Union” states where slavery was allowed were a couple of border states? And, weren’t some of said border states in rebellion?
Brian the border states were slave states and remained so untill the 14th amendment, had Lincon had any intrest in freeing slaves he would have started there,elliot whatever the e.p became after hostilities ended does not alter the fact that at the time of writing Lincon held no control over the areas it pertained to making it meaningless.
Richard and I certainly agree on that.
“Emancipation as an act of war” : sounds positively Po-Mo!