Showing posts with label Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Show all posts
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Still Slavery
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
This one has to be the most heartbreaking to write about. Here we almost 146 years after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation - following the battle of Antietam - the bloodiest day in the American Civil War, and the world still hasn't eliminated slavery. One need only look at Nicholas Kristof's page on the NY Times site and see his columns about sex slaves in Cambodia. In one series of columns, he bought the freedom of two girls, hoping to give them a new and better life. After following-up, he finds one of the two is back at the brothel.
It should be no surprise that one effective way to deal with this is to fight poverty and illiteracy. It is a lack of food and resources that drives youth to unfamiliar cities, as it is a lack of money that drives parents to sell their kids. People face uncertain futures and are therefore easy targets for slavery.
Kristof also points out though that President Bush had been doing a good job in bringing attention to the issue and shaming countries into cracking down on the illegal sex trade. (This is a lesson I keep stressing; that the evangelical population in the US can be a great partner for human rights issues.) But despite some of Bush's efforts and Kristof's columns, this issue is barely debated. In the US, the debate over slavery tore our country apart. But now, there is a gross silence - one that ignores if not condones the practice.
To fight this, and so many of the other human rights issues we come across, anti-poverty and attention are two of our best tools for the long-term battle.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
This one has to be the most heartbreaking to write about. Here we almost 146 years after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation - following the battle of Antietam - the bloodiest day in the American Civil War, and the world still hasn't eliminated slavery. One need only look at Nicholas Kristof's page on the NY Times site and see his columns about sex slaves in Cambodia. In one series of columns, he bought the freedom of two girls, hoping to give them a new and better life. After following-up, he finds one of the two is back at the brothel.
It should be no surprise that one effective way to deal with this is to fight poverty and illiteracy. It is a lack of food and resources that drives youth to unfamiliar cities, as it is a lack of money that drives parents to sell their kids. People face uncertain futures and are therefore easy targets for slavery.
Kristof also points out though that President Bush had been doing a good job in bringing attention to the issue and shaming countries into cracking down on the illegal sex trade. (This is a lesson I keep stressing; that the evangelical population in the US can be a great partner for human rights issues.) But despite some of Bush's efforts and Kristof's columns, this issue is barely debated. In the US, the debate over slavery tore our country apart. But now, there is a gross silence - one that ignores if not condones the practice.
To fight this, and so many of the other human rights issues we come across, anti-poverty and attention are two of our best tools for the long-term battle.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Good Enough for Us...
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Does this one seem a little familiar? How different is this really from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" One of the reasons that line from the US Declaration is so popular is that in those seven words, so much is encompassed. What shocks me is that we claim these as rights in the US - they are in fact "self-evident" - but yet on the whole we don't react very much when we realize others do not have these rights.
Because Article 3 encompasses so much, there are so many current events that demonstrate how many people don't have these rights (for example, genocide in Darfur, conflict in Somalia, and political oppression in Burma). So I will start with one that particularly effects me: sexual violence against women.
I went to a panel discussion tonight that was raising awareness of the epidemic of rapes in the Democratic Republic of Congo. What struck me about the panel was that I was the only male audience member there. Granted, that could be just because of how the event was advertised and which groups were notified. But even looking beyond this event, the response and efforts of ending the sexual violence and getting help for those already affected seems to be coming more from women's groups. While there seems to be a lot of ambivalence to go around, I still can't fathom how this could possibly be an issue that affects one gender more than another. Everyone needs to step up and get more involved in this issue, but men especially need to be more outraged.
For those of us that are outraged, the effort that was announced tonight is a great place for us to start working to end the rapes in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The group is called Congolese Women's Campaign Against Sexual Violence in DRC. This effort allows Congolese women to tell us what they need - giving a voice to those involved. They have a website that can be read in English, French and Swahili, and they are asking for people to sign their petition. Hopefully, that is a first step among many we can take.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Does this one seem a little familiar? How different is this really from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" One of the reasons that line from the US Declaration is so popular is that in those seven words, so much is encompassed. What shocks me is that we claim these as rights in the US - they are in fact "self-evident" - but yet on the whole we don't react very much when we realize others do not have these rights.
Because Article 3 encompasses so much, there are so many current events that demonstrate how many people don't have these rights (for example, genocide in Darfur, conflict in Somalia, and political oppression in Burma). So I will start with one that particularly effects me: sexual violence against women.
I went to a panel discussion tonight that was raising awareness of the epidemic of rapes in the Democratic Republic of Congo. What struck me about the panel was that I was the only male audience member there. Granted, that could be just because of how the event was advertised and which groups were notified. But even looking beyond this event, the response and efforts of ending the sexual violence and getting help for those already affected seems to be coming more from women's groups. While there seems to be a lot of ambivalence to go around, I still can't fathom how this could possibly be an issue that affects one gender more than another. Everyone needs to step up and get more involved in this issue, but men especially need to be more outraged.
For those of us that are outraged, the effort that was announced tonight is a great place for us to start working to end the rapes in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The group is called Congolese Women's Campaign Against Sexual Violence in DRC. This effort allows Congolese women to tell us what they need - giving a voice to those involved. They have a website that can be read in English, French and Swahili, and they are asking for people to sign their petition. Hopefully, that is a first step among many we can take.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Sounds Good
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
This article seems to beg that we talk about the status of Palestine or even Palestinian refugees. Even though I enjoy a healthy debate, I actually think I am going to sidestep that topic right now. Instead, I want to discuss the implications of this article as it relates to state sovereignty. As it stands, the United Nations respects sovereignty seemingly above all else. We can see this right now in Sudan, where the government is doing all it can to prevent or stall the United Nations peacekeeping force. As the government in Khartoum obstructs this effort, the UN has little recourse.
Article 2 says that all people are entitled to the protections laid out under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights without distinction made on the basis of the status of the country or territory. So the people in the Darfur region of Sudan are surely entitled to those protections. But as long as Sudan is allowed to prevent UN peacekeeping efforts, the people of Darfur are not actually being protected by the UDHR. So arguably, they are not entitled to the protections because of their status as residents of Sudan.
When the world has the will, it can ignore sovereignty claims. NATO bombed Serbia to protect ethnic Albanians and the US protected the Kurds after the first Gulf War (granted that was after the genocide had happened). But we can't continue to rely on the whim of the US or NATO to protect people that the UN can't reach because they live in a country that won't let peacekeepers in. In order to follow the spirit of Article 2, state sovereignty needs to take a back seat to protecting the universal rights of all people.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
This article seems to beg that we talk about the status of Palestine or even Palestinian refugees. Even though I enjoy a healthy debate, I actually think I am going to sidestep that topic right now. Instead, I want to discuss the implications of this article as it relates to state sovereignty. As it stands, the United Nations respects sovereignty seemingly above all else. We can see this right now in Sudan, where the government is doing all it can to prevent or stall the United Nations peacekeeping force. As the government in Khartoum obstructs this effort, the UN has little recourse.
Article 2 says that all people are entitled to the protections laid out under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights without distinction made on the basis of the status of the country or territory. So the people in the Darfur region of Sudan are surely entitled to those protections. But as long as Sudan is allowed to prevent UN peacekeeping efforts, the people of Darfur are not actually being protected by the UDHR. So arguably, they are not entitled to the protections because of their status as residents of Sudan.
When the world has the will, it can ignore sovereignty claims. NATO bombed Serbia to protect ethnic Albanians and the US protected the Kurds after the first Gulf War (granted that was after the genocide had happened). But we can't continue to rely on the whim of the US or NATO to protect people that the UN can't reach because they live in a country that won't let peacekeepers in. In order to follow the spirit of Article 2, state sovereignty needs to take a back seat to protecting the universal rights of all people.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Freedom, Security and False Dichotomy
The principle of freedom and equality stated in Article 1 of the UDHR constitutes one of the core elements of the international human right law. Although, this was not a new concept- ancient Greek philosophers wrote extensively about the rule of law and individual’s freedom- the Declaration was the first international human rights document that included both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights.
The 60th Anniversary of this revolutionary document makes me reflect on the state of human rights in the world today and the leadership void. The United States has been a champion of human rights. Yet, Washington’s credibility as a proponent of human rights has been diminished drastically by the practices used in the “war on terror.” The threat of terrorism has resurrected the unthinkable subject of the legitimacy of torture. Bush administration’s engagement in rendition programs, the use of abusive interrogation techniques, and stripping Guantanamo Bay detainees- and any other non-citizens declared to be an “enemy combatant” of the habeas corpus effectively limited the United States’ role as a human rights defender. The administration’s strategy of sacrificing human rights in the name of protecting global security is based on a false dichotomy.
Unless the US restores its moral ground, there is a desperate need for a new leader that would stop the atrocities that take place around the world every day, every second.
The disregard of international law by many democratic governments, the unimaginable abuses in Darfur, Burma, Sri Lanka and many other countries, the disappointment of the Human Rights Council – we still have a long way to go…
The 60th Anniversary of this revolutionary document makes me reflect on the state of human rights in the world today and the leadership void. The United States has been a champion of human rights. Yet, Washington’s credibility as a proponent of human rights has been diminished drastically by the practices used in the “war on terror.” The threat of terrorism has resurrected the unthinkable subject of the legitimacy of torture. Bush administration’s engagement in rendition programs, the use of abusive interrogation techniques, and stripping Guantanamo Bay detainees- and any other non-citizens declared to be an “enemy combatant” of the habeas corpus effectively limited the United States’ role as a human rights defender. The administration’s strategy of sacrificing human rights in the name of protecting global security is based on a false dichotomy.
Unless the US restores its moral ground, there is a desperate need for a new leader that would stop the atrocities that take place around the world every day, every second.
The disregard of international law by many democratic governments, the unimaginable abuses in Darfur, Burma, Sri Lanka and many other countries, the disappointment of the Human Rights Council – we still have a long way to go…
Equal in Dignity
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
This first article, with the phrase, "Equal in dignity and rights" tempts me to write a long tirade against American foreign policy. Our decisions in Iraq and Pakistan make it plain that we don't see the world the way this article asks us to. Iraqis aren't equal in dignity if we aren't concerned enough about their deaths to have an accurate count. And Pakistan isn't equal in dignity if we are happy to support a president who is eroding democracy because he supports our "Global War on Terror".
But instead, maybe it would be more fun to start off our celebration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on a more idealistic tone. So maybe we could right now imagine what the world would look like if our governments really did believe that, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
As I close my eyes, I see a world that lives up to its promise of troops and support in Darfur - a world that is truly committed to preventing genocides, like those of the Armenians in Turkey, the Holocaust, in Cambodia, the Balkans, Rwanda, and the Kurds in Iraq. I see a world that moves immediately to crisis like the ones in Congo, Somalia, and Kenya. And I see a world that starts a project on the scale of the Marshall Plan to help move Afghanistan from a country of perpetual war and refugee crises, to one that might be stable and without extreme poverty. Finally, I see a world that uses all available resources to end extreme poverty.
What do you see?
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
This first article, with the phrase, "Equal in dignity and rights" tempts me to write a long tirade against American foreign policy. Our decisions in Iraq and Pakistan make it plain that we don't see the world the way this article asks us to. Iraqis aren't equal in dignity if we aren't concerned enough about their deaths to have an accurate count. And Pakistan isn't equal in dignity if we are happy to support a president who is eroding democracy because he supports our "Global War on Terror".
But instead, maybe it would be more fun to start off our celebration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on a more idealistic tone. So maybe we could right now imagine what the world would look like if our governments really did believe that, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
As I close my eyes, I see a world that lives up to its promise of troops and support in Darfur - a world that is truly committed to preventing genocides, like those of the Armenians in Turkey, the Holocaust, in Cambodia, the Balkans, Rwanda, and the Kurds in Iraq. I see a world that moves immediately to crisis like the ones in Congo, Somalia, and Kenya. And I see a world that starts a project on the scale of the Marshall Plan to help move Afghanistan from a country of perpetual war and refugee crises, to one that might be stable and without extreme poverty. Finally, I see a world that uses all available resources to end extreme poverty.
What do you see?
Monday, December 24, 2007
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Big Picture: My Take on the UDHR
This blog is joining in the initiative to spend the next year raising awareness of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – culminating with the 60th anniversary on December 10, 2008. We have decided to use this forum to delve into the document and look at each of the 30 individual articles of the declaration. We hope that if people see how fundamental these rights are but how often they are violated, people would be more moved to act.
What I have noticed already is that many of these rights are things that Americans hold dear. And the major violations throughout the world are things we wouldn't stand for here. Whether it is 27,000 rapes in one province in one year, forcing children to fight a war, an overall lack of rights for women, sex trafficking, or torture, if it was happening in the US, there would be immediate outrage and action.
The uphill battle we have as advocates for human rights across the world is that people choose to distinguish between Americans and others – between us and them. Our goal then is not only to raise awareness that this document exists, but to make people believe that humanity everywhere shares a common bond. There needs to be outrage when rights are violated no matter where it is happening and who it is happening to. This will not be easy and is likely to be not just a yearlong effort, but a lifelong effort. But for my mind, I can't think of a more worthwhile mission.
What I have noticed already is that many of these rights are things that Americans hold dear. And the major violations throughout the world are things we wouldn't stand for here. Whether it is 27,000 rapes in one province in one year, forcing children to fight a war, an overall lack of rights for women, sex trafficking, or torture, if it was happening in the US, there would be immediate outrage and action.
The uphill battle we have as advocates for human rights across the world is that people choose to distinguish between Americans and others – between us and them. Our goal then is not only to raise awareness that this document exists, but to make people believe that humanity everywhere shares a common bond. There needs to be outrage when rights are violated no matter where it is happening and who it is happening to. This will not be easy and is likely to be not just a yearlong effort, but a lifelong effort. But for my mind, I can't think of a more worthwhile mission.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Celebrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
This year’s Human Rights Day gives special recognition to an important document created 59 years ago. Today, we will stat a one-year long celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United Nations Secretary General and High Commissioner for Human Rights are devoting the upcoming 2008 year to reflect on the state of human rights around the world. This year-long commemoration is an opportunity to promote the mechanisms that are imperative to protecting human rights and universality of the Declaration.To take part in the United Nations efforts to raise awareness of the Declaration, the Human Rights Committee is embarking on an important blog initiative. Starting today, December 10, 2007, our blog will raise awareness on the significance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by relating today’s human rights events with articles from the Declaration. Every two weeks, we will bring you an Article from the Declaration and express our impressions of the meaning of the Article and how it relates to current events of today. Starting with Article 1, we will share with you the latest news, initiatives and inspiration for change. Until we have reached Article 30, we hope to encourage you to speak out and get engaged in important human rights issues. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is pivotal instrument that can help bring hope and understanding to every basic right that should be given to everyone. Join us and celebrate!
About the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States had a strong voice in developing the text of the Declaration. Eleanor Roosevelt led the drafting of the UDHR and was perhaps the most prominent American involved in the promotion of universal human rights. She hoped that the document would become “the international Magna Carta.” The UDHR defines set of rights, including civil/political liberties and social conditions of freedom, to be enjoyed by all humans but does not have any enforcement mechanism. Polling data shows that awareness of the UDHR is low. The 1997 poll conducted by the Hart Research found that only 8% of respondents could name the document and 24% had previously heard of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)