How many of us pay attention to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and more importantly how influential it is in our daily lives? As Canadians we should be proud that it was a Canadian, John Peter Humphrey, who drafted the declaration which was proclaimed on December 14, 1948 at the U.N.
Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which articulates core, foundational values of our society, is based on the UDHR. These values are humanitarian, emancipatory, egalitarian and universalistic.
Simply by being human, we are entitled to rights, which are described as universal and inalienable; interdependent and indivisible; equal and non-discriminatory; with a balance of rights and obligations. These rights include the right to life, liberty and security of person. Along with freedom from fear and want; it includes freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment. Article 22 speaks to the right to social security, of economic, social and cultural rights, “indispensable for his dignity and free development of this personality.” Article 25 addresses the standard of living such as food, clothing, housing, medical care and other necessary social services. Then there are freedoms of speech and of religion.
Sadly, the signing by various countries of the UDHR does not translate into reality and not all these wonderful rights are provided or available to thousands of people. One would assume that poorer or less democratic states would have fewer guarantees, but at times, it has been democratic and powerful states such as the U.S which has meted out “cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment,” to those they accuse of terrorism.
Too many states deprive their citizens of their human rights, and except for the moral authority of the U.N. there are no mechanisms to monitor or to discipline such states.
Some of the Muslim majority countries have not signed the Declaration, and have drafted their own Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in 1990. Most of their rights are similar to those of the UDHR, but the critical stumbling block is that this Declaration states that the rights must be within the context of the “Principles of Sharia.”
This means that neither women nor other religious groups are treated as equals in many areas. To add to the confusion there is no clear definition of Sharia itself. Many Muslim scholars have written on these issues and conclude that the issues are not from the religion but more to do with a “traditional or fundamentalist interpretations of the laws.” Another scholar states that there has to be a “reinterpretation of traditional Islamic law.”
Islamic scholar Abdullahi an Naim has written extensively on Islam, secularism and human rights. He says religions have an element of exclusivity – a closed community of believers – while human rights are universal and inclusive – defined simply by being human. He thinks that these three concepts – human rights, religious freedom and secularism – have to be interdependent as each is essential to a society. For example, secularism safeguards political pluralism which allows for religious people who practice their faith freely.
Human rights are about social justice and human dignity which is also taught by religions. He thinks that there has to be an internal transformation within Islam and by Muslims so that the belief system is congruent with human rights. This is also true for all religious practices which are narrowly defined, exclusive and may conflict with some human rights.
This leads to the question which few want to address – should human rights take precedence over practices of any religious teachings which discriminate against any person or group?
There is general consensus that the state should not interfere in matters of religious practices because this is part of religious freedom. Not only does the state not interfere but it must go further and accommodate the needs of the religious person in the public arena.
However, is there any role for the state/society to stand up for human rights when illiberal or unfair religiously mandated traditions are practiced within the confines of religious spaces? If we truly believe in equality, then we should not turn away from practices which are unjust to women or other religious minorities.
A Muslim and Jewish example is the restriction on women within their mosque or synagogue. What should the state, based on human rights, do about the teachings of some Christians against abortion or same sex relationships?
No easy answers but the questions need to be discussed for the advancement of human rights for all.
