http://musliminsuffer.wordpress.com/
bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
=== News Update ===
Human Rights: A Western Construct?
Faisal Kutty* - December 6, 2006
Fifty-eight years after the universal declaration of human rights was
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, the debate continues as
to whether the document is truly universal.
Upon its adoption on Dec. 10, 1948, former U.S. First Lady Eleanor
Roosevelt, chair of the commission on human rights, expressed her hope
it would become "the Magna Carta of all mankind." Ironically, as was the
fate with the "great charter" of 1215, the declaration has not fully
lived up to its name.
The declaration was challenged from its very inception. The commission's
first draft attracted 168 amendments from various countries. However,
the final document was almost unchanged from the initial draft tabled by
the commission. Forty-eight countries voted in favour, while eight
countries -- Poland, Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, the Ukraine,
Yugoslavia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union -- abstained
and expressed reservations.
The conflicting views on the declaration have become more pronounced
recently as human rights take a more central role in international and
domestic forums. The critics of the current international human rights
standards range from cultural relativists and Islamists to proponents of
Asian values. They contend the existing international human rights
regime is deeply influenced by the western experience. The spotlight on
the individual, the focus on rights divorced from duties, the emphasis
on legalism to secure these rights and the greater priority given to
civil and political rights are all hallmarks of the western bias. In
contrast, the Asian (including Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, Hindu, etc.)
and Islamic conceptions would emphasize community, duties to one another
and society and some even place greater emphasis on economic, social and
cultural rights.
The philosophical and ideological underpinnings defining human
relationship with each other and society in many non-western societies
are at variance with our fixation with individualism or what some would
call radical individualism.
The focus on individual rights -- in some cases to the detriment of the
family and community -- is not consistent with many non-western outlooks
on human rights.
Confucian scholar Tu Weiming writes: "Confucian humanism offers an
account of the reasons for supporting basic human rights that does not
depend on a liberal conception of persons."
However, this in no way implies that such views are totally devoid of
consideration for the individual. The substructures of human rights in
some non-western conceptions attempt to establish equilibrium between
individualism and collectivism in ways that are different from ours. Far
from being a contradiction, as documented by collectivists theorists
such as Harry Triandis, individualism and collectivism can coexist and
in fact can thrive together.
>From the Confucian perspective, for instance, Weiming notes: "Human
rights are inseparable from human responsibilities."
Although in the Confucian tradition, duty-consciousness is more
pronounced than rights-consciousness -- to the extent that the Confucian
tradition underscores self-cultivation, family cohesiveness, economic
well-being, social order, political justice and cultural flourishing --
it is a valuable spring of wisdom for an understanding of human rights
broadly conceived."
The natural law origin of the declaration also conflicts with the
religious view that rights are derived from divine authority. Brazil's
suggestion the declaration ought to have referred to a transcendent
entity was rejected outright during the debate leading to the
declaration's adoption. One argument says the denial of divine authority
is essential to make the philosophy underlying rights protection
universal. How can something be universal when it rejects the view of a
significant component of the world's population -- not only eastern
religions but also adherents of Christianity and Judaism -- who believe
in some form of divine authority? Why should the assumption of secular
elite be imposed on everyone?
The extensive list of fundamental human rights is subject to certain
general limitations, set out in articles 29 and 30 of the declaration.
Article 29 (2), for instance, provides for "limitations as are
determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and
respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just
requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a
democratic society." The different philosophies and views undoubtedly
will produce equally valid interpretations of such restrictive articles
and human rights standards in general.
A strong argument can be made that the current formulation of
international human rights constitutes a cultural structure in which
western society finds itself easily at home. This has led some western
human-rights scholars to arrogantly conclude that most non-western
societies lack not only the practice of human rights but also the very
concept. This clearly overlooks the fact that we can only claim to be
better than others because we use our own values and standards to
measure them.
Dominance cannot be equated with the truth, though it is easy to get
caught up in the old confusion between might and right.
It is important to acknowledge and appreciate that other societies may
have equally valid alternative conceptions of human rights. Exiled
Tunisian Islamist leader Rachid Ghannouchi once told a reporter: "I
think a universal concept of human rights must come from the
philosophical vision of all peoples."
The call for a more inclusive conception is laudable, particularly given
that even proponents of the other views acknowledge that there are
certain universal values. For instance, the jailed former deputy prime
minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim, a proponent of both Asian values
and Islam, writes in his book, The Asian Renaissance, "To say that
freedom is western . . . is to offend our own traditions as well as our
forefathers, who gave their lives in the struggle against tyranny and
injustice."
Claims of universality do not ensure universal acceptance. Accommodating
the various conceptions within the international framework may or may
not be plausible. The difficulty of the task should not prevent us from
grappling with this issue. At least from this exercise we may in fact
learn that there are indeed certain truly universal ideals and
principles shared by us all.
Indeed, the belief that the current international human rights regime is
derived exclusively from the ideological framework of the west is a
major obstacle in its acceptance as a truly universal vision. As
suggested by a number of human rights scholars, the United Nations must
initiate a project to rethink and reformulate the conception of human
rights, taking into account the different philosophies that share this
planet.
The only way to ensure universal acceptance of and compliance with
international human rights law is by removing the crutch used for so
long by human rights violators -- that human rights as we know it today
is a western construct.
* Faisal Kutty is a Toronto lawyer, writer and doctoral candidate at
Osgoode Hall Law School of York University. His articles are archived at
www.faisalkutty.com and he can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
source:
http://www.montrealmuslimnews.net/westernconstruct.htm
===
-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW
_______________________________________________
is-lam mailing list
[email protected]
http://milis.isnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/is-lam
