Greetings fellow bloggers!
If you click on the headline above it will take you to a most interesting short article. It has been some time since I have visited you as I have been busy with my manuscript which I have recently finished! It is entitled So Many Humans, Too Few Rights. It should be available soon as I have entrusted it to my literary agent around a month ago..Anyways as to the title of my post!! The French as you know have limited the Muslim dress as a matter of security so as to allow the visibility of a a womans face on camera. Some Muslims and those that sympathize with their religious human rights have a problem with this.
So, is this a matter of cultural relativity, or is it a matter of human rights? Should a states sovereignty and leadership trump religious freedom?
France has a considerable population of Muslims in relationship to their own native French European residents. It is apparent that the French citizenry do not seem to have any particular problem with the legislation. It is those that feel it is a human rights violation and the Muslim population that feel that they are being targeted because of their faith.
Logically, the argument and justification for the French does make sense as a nation states priority from a political science perspective has been argued by many elite that a nation-states top priority is SECURITY.
However, also in-line with that, one of our own Presidents, famous in history of America, has been quoted as saying that an individual has a right to do whatever please he/she as long as it in no way interferes with the rest of the individuals of the nation together as a whole.Again it is the collectivity of a nation that makes it strong, not the divisibility.
Every nation state must respect each others human rights! This will always be the side of the fence that I will take. But when it comes to the security of a nation state that must protect its citizenry, men, women, and children, then I will always take the side of safety of the people. We will have to think about the decisions here in America if it ever becomes an issue which I feel that some day soon it may become one. So, is it cultural relativity or human rights?
William
Showing posts with label Human Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Challenges in human rights: a social work perspective
Challenges in human rights: a social work perspective :
By Elisabeth Reichertcopyright 2007
I was amazed to find such a recently published book on the subject of cultural relativism and human rights. I will get right into the discussion:
"There is no simple alternative to letting individual countries enforce human rights, for a major obstacle to imposing a universal enforcement is that of cultural relativism, which makes the application of human rights a balancing act. Contradicting a founding principle that human rights are universal is the fact that individual cultures define their own values and ethics. Applying human rights universally, without deference to specific cultural principles, diminishes a nation's cultural identity, a human rights violation in itself. In cultural relativism, all viewpoints are equally valid and truth is relative as it belongs only to the individual or to one's culture, ethical, religious, and political beliefs and are true only in relation to the cultural identity of the individual or the society."
Ms. Reicherts analysis is not really a breakthrough in regards to what we have already studied in regards to cultural relativism. However, she does lend credence to the notion of cultural relativism with her statement"applying human rights universally, without deference to specific cultural principles, diminishes a nations cultural identity, a human rights violation in itself." I have not heard a writer or a scholar express this notion until this book. This is an interesting viewpoint and I respect the way in which she draws this particular conclusion. I will like to get my hands upon this book as it looks to be very good reading on the topic of cultural relativism and human rights.
William
Monday, September 21, 2009
Cultural Relativism, A Scholarly Journal Approach
Quoting the author of the Journal entitled Internazionale and Documentation Center "Since its foundation in 1965, I DOC has promoted and served movements and institutions committed to transforming structures that cause oppression and ecological destruction - especially where they affect exploited peoples and countries in the South."
"This final issue is on the theme of human rights and ethnic confrontation in Asia. Some articles are taken from the United Nations Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in June 1993 because it gave voice to some important concepts on this issue. As Caroline Moonhead says: 'Most important, despite the fevered attempts of several governments to prevent it, the concept of the "universality' of human rights, with cultural provisos excluded, was reaffirmed. In simple language, reminiscent of earlier commitments to human rights, the universal nature of these rights and freedoms' was declared to be "beyond question".
This scholarly journals final publication was published in 1994. What I felt was important of course was the mention of and the significance of the relationship between the universality of human rights and the recognition of the notion of cultural relativism. Mind you that this is a scholarly journal and not a media generated article, thus the content should be considered with slightly more merit.
"ATTACKS UPON UNIVERSALITY2. Developing Country Governments are also often a source of attack on the principle of universality. The familiar development/human rights' trade-off arguments are offered. A false antimony between providing bread and securing freedom is postulated. Such governments raise arguments of cultural relativism-while often cynically practicing cultural genocide. They raise issues of nonrecognition of economic, social and cultural rights-while often denying precisely these rights to their peoples. They talk about an unbalance between individual and collective rights at the international level-precisely while perpetuating such imbalance, at the national level, by their own actions.
In the end, such governments fail to secure for their peoples either bread or freedom."
This certainly does not dignify nor lend credence to the notion of cultural relativism. The developing country theory and cultural relativism is unacceptable according to the drafters of this published journal. I do wonder, though, however, how much expertise they do have in this field. The wording of the text does not seem as scholarly as I had anticipated it to be. Either way, I felt this was worthy of a post and the time frame is significant to mention being 1994. Many human rights failures were occurring internationally at this time period in our worlds history. The authors do feel strongly about there opinion!
William
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
This is culture again;Some Indonesian adulterers "to be stoned"
Some Indonesian adulterers 'to be stoned' | Breaking News | News.com.au
Another amazing example how cultural relativism is likely to "trump" global human rights legislation once again! The Australian based paper covered the news regarding the "staunch" Muslim legislation:
Another amazing example how cultural relativism is likely to "trump" global human rights legislation once again! The Australian based paper covered the news regarding the "staunch" Muslim legislation:
"INDONESIA'S staunchly Muslim Aceh province is set to enforce a strict form of Islamic criminal law, including stoning to death married adulterers, a lawmaker says.
"Unmarried people who commit adultery will be caned one hundred times and married persons will be stoned to death," Raihan Iskandar, a provincial lawmaker from the Islamic-based Prosperous Justice Party, said.
Aceh, where separatists had been fighting the Indonesian government since 1976 until a peace deal in 2005, has so far only partially adopted sharia law, which requires modest Muslim dress codes, mandatory prayers five times a day, fasting and the giving of alms to the poor.
Sharia was implemented under a broad autonomy package granted by the central government in 2001 to pacify the hard-line Muslim region's demand for independence.
"This bill only focuses on ethical issues which include consumption of alcohol, gambling, committing adultery and raping," Iskandar said.
This is quite remarkable in a matter of speaking, when compared with Sharia law, which is often criticized by the "west" and other regions globally as being "much to rigid" with its hard-line views, especially regarding the treatment of women. Now imagine the treatment you get if you commit adultery! If your not married you get a serious "caning", but how is that adultery anyways? Isn't that just having sex? Anyways, don't you have to be married to commit adultery? However if your married, you get stoned literally to death? You know that Human Rights groups all over the world are going to have a "field-day"with this Aceh province when this gets back to the Human Rights defenders responsible for monitoring that particular region of the world. I can promise you that! Is this a primitive culture practice in anyone's opinion? Please comment me back if you think this is an "archaic" or a "primitive" cultural practice? I think I may conduct a poll in the next day or so. You think I should? Would anyone be willing to participate in it? We will see.
William
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Cultural Rights; Under the Microscope; CERD Member Launches Analysis
Much to my delight I tripped over a remarkably insightful paper by a (CERD) COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL
AND CULTURAL RIGHTS: "Cultural rights and universality of human rights*.
Right away I was excited with this insightful essay and analysis. So of course I have to present to you my favorite "part" of Professor Thornberry's paper:
"Cultural Rights and Other Rights"
"These last observations take us to another aspect of the substance of the right. On the one hand, we may say that culture is complex, and that the right must be stated in an equally complex manner in order that potentially important aspects are not deleted from consciousness. We also observe that a right to culture must depend upon, influence, and intersect with, a range of other human rights, including general rights to education, language, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and association etc., as well as rights envisaged as applying to specific communities such as minorities and indigenous peoples. On the other hand, as McGoldrick observes, ‘some argue that the use of culture is usually misleading and that it would be better and more accurate to identify specific rights, for example, to expression, association, religion, specific minority rights, etc.’20 McGoldrick cites Eriksson who argues that instead of ‘invoking culture, if one talks about, say, local arts, one could simply say local arts; if one means language, ideology, patriarchy, children’s rights, food habits, ritual practices or local political structures, one could use those equivalent terms instead of covering them up in the deceptively cosy blanket of culture.’21 The argument as I read it is that we should apply a version of conceptual ‘subsidiarity’ to bring the concepts closer to base, closer to the essence of what is required in order to address a situation in terms of human rights. The present author has addressed similar arguments in the context of claims of a right to autonomy in international law, questioning the extent to which the concept was useful if what is required is more minority schools, or cultural facilities, or approaches to the public administration through minority languages: if that is what is needed, why not say so, instead of making vague, unfocused, and perhaps undeliverable and political demands. 22 Similar observations might also be applied to other ‘spacious’ concepts of international law, such as self-determination, a concept of greater emotive force than autonomy.
In response, apart from the obvious point that the concepts are with us in international law and doubtless here to stay, we may counter that human rights language does not have the precision of tax legislation and that its concepts are ‘open’ to a great extent. Hence the statements of treaty bodies and others that the convention in question is a living instrument which should be understood in line with changing circumstances which include fresh developments in human rights often the result of uncovering new situations, demands, or foci of oppression. The principle of effectiveness in the interpretation of treaties can also be called into play as a demand that we give instruments the best reading we can in order to achieve their purposes effectively. Human rights have to be worked through: solutions to human rights problems do not usually suggest themselves immediately, and even in the long term treaties are subject to ongoing processes of clarification. Even the more spacious concepts of human rights – take self-determination again - have a role such that their ‘deconstruction’ would leave holes in the fabric of international human rights which would not easily be ‘filled’ by smaller-scale alternatives. So complexity and conceptual scale in the case of cultural rights could be addressed through attention to their multiple aspects, through keeping alive the ongoing programme of furthering understanding of the right rather than ‘deconstructing’ it at every opportunity. In any case, a human rights strategy often has to make choices among norms as to which best addresses the essence of the case, choosing intelligently between the specific and the general norm. The specific Erikssen critique of ‘culture’ as an umbrella concept might of course also relate to cases where ‘culture’ is claimed as a justification for practices unlikely to be consistent with human rights."
Eloquently stated , but to simplify some key points of this translation first off I like the point he is making regarding :"The argument as I read it is that we should apply a version of conceptual ‘subsidiarity’ to bring the concepts closer to base, closer to the essence of what is required in order to address a situation in terms of human rights."
Where he is headed in my opinion is that the human rights community in terms of dealing with specific cultures that might not exactly fall in line with international law, there is a need to be more specific to not have all cultures fall under an umbrella of human rights so to speak. Otherwise "all" cultures practices that have "hints" of human rights abuse, will be labeled not as "cultural practices" but as "human rights abuses". He would like to see this avoided if possible! This is my interpretation of his well put together paper; or at least this portion of his message, in a nutshell.
He really wishes to legitimize the fact that cultures do exist and that they are indeed relevant to a particular society. Remember he works for CERD correct? So he is obligated to not allow discrimination against economic or social or cultural rights! So there will be times when he has to stand up in the gigantic dilemma he has with human rights rhetoric on a consistent basis and have his arguments make sense and sound legitimate! This is kind of like a United Nations checks and balances type of system which I think is a good thing. They have got the right man on the job. For once I am not in disagreement with an authors point of view can you believe it? Its true, you can disagree, without being disagreeable. In this case that wont even apply. I hope you enjoy this post.
William
AND CULTURAL RIGHTS: "Cultural rights and universality of human rights*.
Right away I was excited with this insightful essay and analysis. So of course I have to present to you my favorite "part" of Professor Thornberry's paper:
"Cultural Rights and Other Rights"
"These last observations take us to another aspect of the substance of the right. On the one hand, we may say that culture is complex, and that the right must be stated in an equally complex manner in order that potentially important aspects are not deleted from consciousness. We also observe that a right to culture must depend upon, influence, and intersect with, a range of other human rights, including general rights to education, language, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and association etc., as well as rights envisaged as applying to specific communities such as minorities and indigenous peoples. On the other hand, as McGoldrick observes, ‘some argue that the use of culture is usually misleading and that it would be better and more accurate to identify specific rights, for example, to expression, association, religion, specific minority rights, etc.’20 McGoldrick cites Eriksson who argues that instead of ‘invoking culture, if one talks about, say, local arts, one could simply say local arts; if one means language, ideology, patriarchy, children’s rights, food habits, ritual practices or local political structures, one could use those equivalent terms instead of covering them up in the deceptively cosy blanket of culture.’21 The argument as I read it is that we should apply a version of conceptual ‘subsidiarity’ to bring the concepts closer to base, closer to the essence of what is required in order to address a situation in terms of human rights. The present author has addressed similar arguments in the context of claims of a right to autonomy in international law, questioning the extent to which the concept was useful if what is required is more minority schools, or cultural facilities, or approaches to the public administration through minority languages: if that is what is needed, why not say so, instead of making vague, unfocused, and perhaps undeliverable and political demands. 22 Similar observations might also be applied to other ‘spacious’ concepts of international law, such as self-determination, a concept of greater emotive force than autonomy.
In response, apart from the obvious point that the concepts are with us in international law and doubtless here to stay, we may counter that human rights language does not have the precision of tax legislation and that its concepts are ‘open’ to a great extent. Hence the statements of treaty bodies and others that the convention in question is a living instrument which should be understood in line with changing circumstances which include fresh developments in human rights often the result of uncovering new situations, demands, or foci of oppression. The principle of effectiveness in the interpretation of treaties can also be called into play as a demand that we give instruments the best reading we can in order to achieve their purposes effectively. Human rights have to be worked through: solutions to human rights problems do not usually suggest themselves immediately, and even in the long term treaties are subject to ongoing processes of clarification. Even the more spacious concepts of human rights – take self-determination again - have a role such that their ‘deconstruction’ would leave holes in the fabric of international human rights which would not easily be ‘filled’ by smaller-scale alternatives. So complexity and conceptual scale in the case of cultural rights could be addressed through attention to their multiple aspects, through keeping alive the ongoing programme of furthering understanding of the right rather than ‘deconstructing’ it at every opportunity. In any case, a human rights strategy often has to make choices among norms as to which best addresses the essence of the case, choosing intelligently between the specific and the general norm. The specific Erikssen critique of ‘culture’ as an umbrella concept might of course also relate to cases where ‘culture’ is claimed as a justification for practices unlikely to be consistent with human rights."
Eloquently stated , but to simplify some key points of this translation first off I like the point he is making regarding :"The argument as I read it is that we should apply a version of conceptual ‘subsidiarity’ to bring the concepts closer to base, closer to the essence of what is required in order to address a situation in terms of human rights."
Where he is headed in my opinion is that the human rights community in terms of dealing with specific cultures that might not exactly fall in line with international law, there is a need to be more specific to not have all cultures fall under an umbrella of human rights so to speak. Otherwise "all" cultures practices that have "hints" of human rights abuse, will be labeled not as "cultural practices" but as "human rights abuses". He would like to see this avoided if possible! This is my interpretation of his well put together paper; or at least this portion of his message, in a nutshell.
He really wishes to legitimize the fact that cultures do exist and that they are indeed relevant to a particular society. Remember he works for CERD correct? So he is obligated to not allow discrimination against economic or social or cultural rights! So there will be times when he has to stand up in the gigantic dilemma he has with human rights rhetoric on a consistent basis and have his arguments make sense and sound legitimate! This is kind of like a United Nations checks and balances type of system which I think is a good thing. They have got the right man on the job. For once I am not in disagreement with an authors point of view can you believe it? Its true, you can disagree, without being disagreeable. In this case that wont even apply. I hope you enjoy this post.
William
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Stop Making Sense:Critical Thinking, Cultural Relativism, and Human Rights
This notion of cultural relativism; how its related to human rights, and to whom it really matters, proposes unlimited opinions and discussions. It really doesn't matter who you ask, your age , or your background, ethnicity, etc, etc, unless you have heard this "discussion" before now, how would you even begin to start to begin to make sense out of this blog whatsoever? Well, and in no way is this meant to insult anyone's IQ or anything crazy like that, but there has got to be a way to better understand how to "cut through" all of the gibberish and get to the "ingredients" in order to "bake the cake". Where am I going with this whimsical talk really? Well, to me its paramount that one develop what the "experts" refer to as "critical thinking" skills. Sounds easy right? Why then do you have to go beyond high school for umpteen years and spend thousands and thousands of dollars to become a "critical thinker". Is it even important? Well, you really don't have to. But it wont hurt you either. I think that it is something that you are born with; you just have to be able to "hone" your skills so to speak.
This post is all about a little presentation on developing and better explaining this notion of "critical thinking". The purpose I am presenting this to you my readers is so that you might see that it may be a good tool to enhance your skills or to just see what the heck he is talking about?
Please refer to the right sidebar(if you want to) and page through my post regarding critical thinking skills. I really hope someone, any reader of this post takes the time to do this exercise and then comment me on it. I have linked this page post to a site which explains this notion with much greater detail. I know if you read this much you will enjoy the site all that much more.
William:)
This post is all about a little presentation on developing and better explaining this notion of "critical thinking". The purpose I am presenting this to you my readers is so that you might see that it may be a good tool to enhance your skills or to just see what the heck he is talking about?
Please refer to the right sidebar(if you want to) and page through my post regarding critical thinking skills. I really hope someone, any reader of this post takes the time to do this exercise and then comment me on it. I have linked this page post to a site which explains this notion with much greater detail. I know if you read this much you will enjoy the site all that much more.
William:)
Saturday, August 29, 2009
cultural relativism , A Look Back To Look Ahead, Answers Or Questions?
Here is a document I found 1 of only 4 in a state department search that dated back 2001 until present day of the US State Department Archive with search terms"Cultural Relativism Country Reports" The others can be found at the US State Department site and I will leave you a link if you are interested in them . This one was quite simple and to the point. So I decided to post it along with one from the United Nations Archive regarding Uganda. But first things first. Lets have a look at this one a bit. This article is dated this year May 2009.
UNCLASSIFIED
CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Q: How do we respond to the use of religion and culture as an excuse for
honor killings, FGM, other gender related violence, or other forms of human
rights abuses?
There are existing international standards about fundamental human
rights, which include the right to security of the person regardless of gender.
Religion cannot and should not be used as an excuse for violations of
fundamental rights. We do not pull our punches when discussing topics
such as honor killings, female genital mutilation and other abuses with
countries that attempt to excuse reprehensible behavior. Furthermore, we
have a wide range of programs to help address such concerns.
UNCLASSIFIED Source:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/124128.pdf
It's to bad that there is no elaboration as to what those programs are right? I know many of us that are interested in this topic would like to know that answer "programs". I believe the response from the State Department but I am also submerged in human rights abuse and cultural relativism at the moment so a bright and shiny light would be nice about now and I just do not see one anywhere so far...... I am sure that there are plenty of good intentions on the US part, but we can not be there every second to oversee militia type govt in action or military coups every other year as new leaders come and go etc etc....Mostly all in the name of some type of greed or other act of human rights disregard or just disdain and ignorance.
My second post is pretty good because it actually dates back all the way to 2000 but is being used by the United Nations to propose to China for an upcoming Summit of sorts."Uganda is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and diverse country, where different societies have different traditions, values, customs and practices. Developing legislation that standardizes values and norms with the respect to women’s rights often meets stiff resistance on grounds of cultural relativity. Fully translating international human rights standards into domestic laws has to navigate the intricacies of cultural relativism." Source:http://www.uneca.org/acgd/beijingplus15/Questionnaire/DAW/English/Uganda.pdf
The Article is entitled:
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IMPLEMENTION OF THE BEIJING DECLARATION AND
PLATFORM FOR ACTION (1995) AND OUTCOME OF THE
TWENTY – THIRD SPECIAL SESSION OF THE UN
GENERAL ASSEMBLY (2000)
A REPORT IN PREPARATION OF THE FIFTEENTH (15)
ANNIVERSARY OF THE ADOPTION OF THE BEIJING
DECLARATION AND PLATFORM OF ACTION IN 2010
GOVERNMENT OF UGANDA
Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development
P.O Box 7136
Kampala, Uganda
Telephones: 041-4-347854
041-4-348755
Fax: 041-256374
E-mail : ps@mglsd.go.ug
2009
Anyway, what I found most interesting here; is the usage by the top supranational organization; the United Nations, using the term"cultural relativism" in a modern day report which is going to be used for a very important country transaction. It goes to show once again that this social science notion is still alive although not widely used as evidenced by only 4 articles in a 10 year span in the State Department Archive.
However, there were numerous articles dealing with "cultural relativism" term specifically in the United Nations archives! What preliminary conclusions might we draw from this notion alone? Did I mention when I searched with the term social culture the hits were endless almost at the State Department website? So it seems there has been a trade off for the word social culture for cultural relativism. At least this is my preliminary analysis. Because in meaning as I perused the articles, it appeared they were referring to the same notions as culturally relevant social practices by a country in one aspect or another. I may be way off in left field or I might have hit it over the fence; who knows right?
More good food for thought...
William
UNCLASSIFIED
CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Q: How do we respond to the use of religion and culture as an excuse for
honor killings, FGM, other gender related violence, or other forms of human
rights abuses?
There are existing international standards about fundamental human
rights, which include the right to security of the person regardless of gender.
Religion cannot and should not be used as an excuse for violations of
fundamental rights. We do not pull our punches when discussing topics
such as honor killings, female genital mutilation and other abuses with
countries that attempt to excuse reprehensible behavior. Furthermore, we
have a wide range of programs to help address such concerns.
UNCLASSIFIED Source:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/124128.pdf
It's to bad that there is no elaboration as to what those programs are right? I know many of us that are interested in this topic would like to know that answer "programs". I believe the response from the State Department but I am also submerged in human rights abuse and cultural relativism at the moment so a bright and shiny light would be nice about now and I just do not see one anywhere so far...... I am sure that there are plenty of good intentions on the US part, but we can not be there every second to oversee militia type govt in action or military coups every other year as new leaders come and go etc etc....Mostly all in the name of some type of greed or other act of human rights disregard or just disdain and ignorance.
My second post is pretty good because it actually dates back all the way to 2000 but is being used by the United Nations to propose to China for an upcoming Summit of sorts."Uganda is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and diverse country, where different societies have different traditions, values, customs and practices. Developing legislation that standardizes values and norms with the respect to women’s rights often meets stiff resistance on grounds of cultural relativity. Fully translating international human rights standards into domestic laws has to navigate the intricacies of cultural relativism." Source:http://www.uneca.org/acgd/beijingplus15/Questionnaire/DAW/English/Uganda.pdf
The Article is entitled:
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IMPLEMENTION OF THE BEIJING DECLARATION AND
PLATFORM FOR ACTION (1995) AND OUTCOME OF THE
TWENTY – THIRD SPECIAL SESSION OF THE UN
GENERAL ASSEMBLY (2000)
A REPORT IN PREPARATION OF THE FIFTEENTH (15)
ANNIVERSARY OF THE ADOPTION OF THE BEIJING
DECLARATION AND PLATFORM OF ACTION IN 2010
GOVERNMENT OF UGANDA
Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development
P.O Box 7136
Kampala, Uganda
Telephones: 041-4-347854
041-4-348755
Fax: 041-256374
E-mail : ps@mglsd.go.ug
2009
Anyway, what I found most interesting here; is the usage by the top supranational organization; the United Nations, using the term"cultural relativism" in a modern day report which is going to be used for a very important country transaction. It goes to show once again that this social science notion is still alive although not widely used as evidenced by only 4 articles in a 10 year span in the State Department Archive.
However, there were numerous articles dealing with "cultural relativism" term specifically in the United Nations archives! What preliminary conclusions might we draw from this notion alone? Did I mention when I searched with the term social culture the hits were endless almost at the State Department website? So it seems there has been a trade off for the word social culture for cultural relativism. At least this is my preliminary analysis. Because in meaning as I perused the articles, it appeared they were referring to the same notions as culturally relevant social practices by a country in one aspect or another. I may be way off in left field or I might have hit it over the fence; who knows right?
More good food for thought...
William
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)