Are we human enough to discuss human rights?

While working on some research for an International Relations (my discipline) course on access to essential medicines, I came across the infamous Alma-Ata Declaration of 1978 and was pleased to find exactly what I was looking for:

“Article I: The Conference strongly reaffirms that health, which is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, is a fundamental human right…”

I thought for a moment about what a group of IR students would say about the ‘right to health.’ You see, IR students like to debate this whole idea of “basic human rights” (BHR). When deciding whether or not something is a BHR, we like to put all our cards on the table: colonialism, culture, religion, historical context, socioeconomic conditions, etc.. We like to calmly indicate that we wish to speak; when given the opportunity we speak slowly, so that everyone can understand how damn insightful we’re being while demonstrating our deep, inclusive understanding of said right/region/issue. It usually goes something like this:

“I would challenge the idea that (INSERT BHR) is a universal human right. Look at (INSERT COUNTRY)- the majority of their population is/believes in/practices (INSERT RELIGION/CULTURE/SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITION) and their (RELIGION/CULTURE/HISTORICAL/SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT)) wouldn’t value or support (INSERT BHR,) and in fact, contradicts that right entirely.”

We then sit back and observe the effect of the incredible insight we have just provided to our peers/the points we have just scored with our professor.

What is that you say? There are human rights that are transferrable across all of these things? NUH-UH! Everything can be contested! Don’t believe me? Let me provide an example. Last term in a fourth-year level seminar we were discussing what constitutes basic human security by mining our way through dozens of definitions from various states, organizations and documents. The definitions covered everything: death, injury, reasonable access to sufficient sources of food and water, safety from political persecution, freedom from movement, the list goes on.

We contested everything: women’s rights in Middle Eastern countries (“how could we possibly say they should prosecute sexual violence, or stop public stoning? Their beliefs just don’t support that”, or my favourite, “I don’t think we can say that women’s rights are universal human rights”), Female Genital Mutilation/Circumcision  (“a bigger infringement on rights”, one argued, “would be to oppose this culturally accepted practice”), and food/ political expression/ health/ happiness (these items were the subject of many eye rolls… “duh, these are solely WESTERN values”). At the end of it, we could all agree on one basic human right: the right to life, as in, you should be allowed to walk down the street without being shot down.

Read the rest of this post here.

Related Topics

terryman

2 Responses to “Are we human enough to discuss human rights?”

  1. Sina

    My concern is not the fact that people do not recognise the basic human right. I personally think people who argue, for instance, condition of women or sexual minorities in the Middle East is not in violation of basic human rights, are actually trying to exonerate themselves from the ethical responsibility of accepting it otherwise.

    Now, the bigger question is how can we actually overcome those “religion/culture/socioeconomic context” to establish the basic human rights that have been lost?

    About the original article, I think everyone is human enough. The problem is not some people are “half-human” or “zombie”. If we feel something has to be changed we have to be creative enough to solve it. For the case of the medicine for instance, we do not need to pass a law forcing pharmaceuticals to give up their patent rights (as a charity) because we want to help poor nations. What if we come up with a new business model based on the social enterprise (not charity) principles to make it possible for that very pharmaceutical to provide the medicine. There are lots of financial or public relations benefits for a company to do so.

  2. Elysa

    Sina, I think you should look into Bill C393 a bit more, and then maybe re-read the post. The problem I was having (and the reason why I wrote the post) was that the Bill had the opportunity to do something very concrete and beneficial to those who can’t access essential medicines, and was voted down because pharmaceutical companies didn’t want patent law *altered, not erased, altered. Under the Bill pharmaceuticals would get royalties, just like they do now, for generic drug sales. The only change was that the licensing process would be speeded up. It’s not charity at all, more of an alteration that would allow generic companies to reproduce without the red-tape that prevents them from doing so. Unfortunately, most Canadians chose to not look into it, kind of how you did, and then assume it was charity, or harming the pharmaceutical industry.

    Your first comment, about people exonerating themselves from their responsibility, is the exact point the post discussed. By arguing these aren’t “acceptable” rights based on certain contexts, people perhaps feel less responsible (and guilty) for them not being enforced. Also, I do think that through apathy and laziness people lose their humanity, and that’s why so few people are working to re-establish the basic human rights that have been lost.

Leave a Reply

Basic HTML is allowed. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS