Many different appellatives have been addressed at the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Some said it is a milestone on the long road to the recognition and de facto respect of human rights. Others said that the declaration is like a fig leaf. Remembering the mother of all fig leaves which was used by Adam and Eve to cover you know what is helpful to understand the reference. This latter day citation is attributed to the use despotic governments of all sorts make to hide the skeletons in their collective cupboards. They can try to hide them but the leaf is much smaller than the skeletons!
The Pol Pots of this world
There is some truth in this assertion or comparison. Many governments which signed the Declaration do not respect basic human rights in their countries.
Since the signing of the Declaration the trampling on human rights has not ceased. Pol Pot was not deterred by the declaration. The Killing Fields give ample witness. Pinochet and other Latin American dictators went right ahead with their programmes of eliminating “the enemies of the people”. Apartheid reigned for decades. The multiple scars it created are still visible. Mugabe forges ahead denying the existence of all the obscenities that everyone else can see. The ethnic cleansing done in the Balkans is a clear example that no continent is exempt from perpetrators of human rights violations. Saudi Arabia and other fundamentalist states prop the fig leaf with barrels of oil to make people forget the harshness of their regimes. They say that they respect the declaration but only after they eliminate the first two letter of the word “human”.
The list goes on.
Now a movement is afoot to enshrine in the Declaration a crime most hideous i.e. abortion. The killing of the innocent should, according to them, be considered as a basic human right. What perversion! One hopes that this despicable initiative will be resisted by all means.
Indictment of relativism
But can we take the position that the abuses that are made discredit the Declaration or make it superfluous? Let us take the example of the Ten Commandments as comparison. Am I right in guessing that these have been breached on the odd occasions by some people at some occasion? The cynic can say that they were jotted down to be broken and that such an indication was given by Moses himself while the scalpel’s incisions were still fresh. (Tongue safely out of cheek and so I can write on.) Are the commandments rendered less valid because of these transgressions? I definitely don’t think so. They still set a standard and give a direction. Most do their utmost to follow them in their daily doings. Human fragility being what it is most of us err from time to time.
Similar things can be said about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
But there is another argument which I think can be made and is very valid in our contemporary culture. The Declaration gives the lie to the contemporary dogma of dogmas i.e. moral relativism. Such relativists say that every human being is a law unto oneself. They say that there are no universally recognized principles to guide our moral behaviour. Relativists add that my truth is as valid as your truth and that what I feel is good is in fact good for me – and who are you to say something to the contrary.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights shows that this is not true. It clearly manifests that for the men and women of our generation there are several things which are universally acceptable and there are several things which are universally to be condemned. A number of things are considered to be good while their neglect or outright refusal is considered to be bad. In our pluralistic and relativistic culture the Declaration is providing us with a common set of moral values that all countries subscribe too.
We can speak of crimes against humanity only if we believe in principles and rights which are considered to be universally valid. Those who break such principles do so at their own expense. This can take the form of ones pangs of conscience. It can also take a judicial sanction. It is true that retribution is not always possible and that many get away with their doings. But that’s besides the point that I am making. Their actions are still considered to be vile and wrong.
The Declaration is therefore valid indeed.
The role of the Church
The Church lagged behind in accepting a developed theology of human rights as part of its official teaching. We had to wait till 1963 when Pope John XXIII published the encyclical letter Pacem in Terris. Since then the Church, in many countries, became a strong defender of human rights. In several parts of the world it was and still is the main defender of human rights. Poland, Latin America, Zimbabwe, the Philippines are just few examples.
Pope Benedict’s visit to the United Nations earlier this year celebrates the validity of this declaration and the Church’s commitment.
On December 10, in the Vatican the Pope again praised the document for being "a convergence of different religious and cultural traditions." He also noted that "the rights recognized and expounded in the declaration apply to everyone by virtue of the common origin of the person, who remains the high point of God's creative design for the world and for history."
But as the Pope said, the declaration will remain fragile if its ethical and divine origins are ignored.
As The Tablet editorially noted this week:
“Many secularists, while favouring human rights in practice, have had difficulty describing a non-religious philosophical foundation for them.”
On the other hand the Church “can supply the necessary doctrinal leaven to the human rights dough, to the great advantage of the common good.”
Till next time I wish you all good bye and good luck.
PS. The Universal Declaration can be accessed from http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html