The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Last Thursday the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution proposed by Islamic countries noting its deep concern about defamation of religion (well, one religion in particular) and urged governments to take action to prohibit it. Roy W Brown, of the International and Humanist Ethical Association, responds (via):

For the past eleven years the organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), representing the 57 Islamic States, has been tightening its grip on the throat of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yesterday, 28 March 2008, they finally killed it.

With the support of their allies including China, Russia and Cuba (none well-known for their defence of human rights) the Islamic States succeeded in forcing through an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression that has turned the entire concept on its head. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression will now be required to report on the “abuse” of this most cherished freedom by anyone who, for example, dares speak out against Sharia laws that require women to be stoned to death for adultery or young men to be hanged for being gay, or against the marriage of girls as young as nine, as in Iran.

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan saw the writing on the wall three years ago when he spoke of the old Commission on Human Rights having “become too selective and too political in its work”. Piecemeal reform would not be enough. The old system needed to be swept away and replaced by something better. The Human Rights Council was supposed to be that new start, a Council whose members genuinely supported, and were prepared to defend, the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Yet since its inception in June 2006, the Human Rights Council has failed to condemn the most egregious examples of human rights abuse in the Sudan, Byelorussia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and elsewhere, whilst repeatedly condemning Israel and Israel alone.

Three years later Annan’s dream lies shattered, and the Human Rights Council stands exposed as incapable of fulfilling its central role: the promotion and protection of human rights. The Council died yesterday in Geneva, and with it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 60th anniversary we were actually celebrating this year.

There has been a seismic shift in the balance of power in the UN system. For over a decade the Islamic States have been flexing their muscles. Yesterday they struck. There can no longer be any pretence that the Human Rights Council can defend human rights. The moral leadership of the UN system has moved from the States who created the UN in the aftermath of the Second World War, committed to the concepts of equality, individual freedom and the rule of law, to the Islamic States, whose allegiance is to a narrow, medieval worldview defined exclusively in terms of man’s duties towards Allah, and to their fellow-travellers, the States who see their future economic and political interests as being best served by their alliances with the Islamic States. [...]

On the vote, the amendment was adopted by 27 votes to 15 against, with three abstentions.
The Sri Lankan delegate explained clearly his reasons for supporting the amendment:
“.. if we regulate certain things ‘minimally’ we may be able to prevent them from being enacted violently on the streets of our towns and cities.”

In other words: Don’t exercise your right to freedom of expression because your opponents may become violent. For the first time in the 60 year history of UN Human Rights bodies, a fundamental human right has been limited simply because of the possible violent reaction by the enemies of human rights.

The violence we have seen played out in reaction to the Danish cartoons is thus excused by the Council – it was the cartoonists whose freedom of expression needed to be regulated. And Theo van Gogh can be deemed responsible for his own death.

Comments

[Alcuin]

Forgive me, Mick, but how authoritative is this? Can this body modify the UDHR? How does it affect those countries who have ratified (I assume that is how it works) the UDHR? What weight does this vote have in International Law? As the OIC Cairo declaration is inimical to the UDHR, I assume that no OIC country has accepted or ratified the UDHR. I can well understand Mr Brown's outrage, but is he not tilting at windmills?

This would seem to leave the absurd position of those who have not accepted it changing it, leaving those who have with an unacceptable charter. The obvious position for any democracy is to denounce this vote and treat it with disdain. They should also withdraw their representatives and their funding from it. But they won't. They will continue the useless charade.

Truly bizarre.

[Mick H]

Well, if I understand this right, yes, they can - and have just managed to - modify the UDHR. This is an amendment to a resolution on freedom of expression that forms a part of the UDHR. This despite the fact, as you point out, that the OIC states support the Cairo Declaration, which isn't compatible with the UDHR.

As to the weight this carries in international law, I'm not sure. The "Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression" will now be required to report any infringements, according to this, but whether any sanctions would then be brought to bear on the guilty party isn't clear. But it's not a happy situation.

[dmatr]

A stupid, backward move. Why am I not even remotely surprised?

[raj]

What are the main concerns of Islam towards the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, why do they find it incompatible/biased?

[Mick H]

I think Article 18 of the UDHR is the main problem:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Islam doesn't believe in fredom of religion, or freedom to change religion. Islam is deemed superior to other religions, so to them it makes no sense to want to change.

There's also the question of equal rights for women....

[Raj]

Would you agree mick, that asian countries have reasonable suspicion to see the UDHR as said by Said Rajaie-Khorassani, "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition" ?

Do you yourself think the UDHR is truly Universal?

[Mick H]

Well that's a bit of a large topic for a comment, but I don't think it's unreasonable to characterise the UDHR as a "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition". If that's the first round in an argument about Western imperialism, and respecting other cultures' viewpoints, then I'd say that, despite its origins, yes, the UDHR is truly universal. Freedom of conscience for instance may be originally a Western notion (I'm not sure that it is, but certainly it first gained political maturity in the West) but it applies - it should apply - universally.

[Raj]

is it right to say then currently...

That the UDHR has no effect in muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia as they believe in Sharia Law to over rule it?

and B) that the Islamic Declaration Human RIghts is basically another way of saying the Koran is law, thus SHariah law is dominant?

[Mick H]

Yes, I think that's about right.

[Raj]

Ok thanks Mick. Im currently writing a paper on whether the UDHR is universal or not , based on it's clashes with other Cultures, Religons and if it's gender biased or not.

If there are other valid points you can send my direction that would be much appreciated.