| |
Celebrating
Human Rights – Reflections By Averthanus L. D’Souza
GOA,
MAY 03, 2008, 09.40 Hrs (CBCI News):
This
year, 2008, is specially notable because it is the sixtieth anniversary
of the adoption and Proclamation of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights by the General Assembly of the United Nations
Organization on December 10th., 1948. On Friday, April 18th, 2008,
Pope Benedict XVI addressed the General Assembly of the United
Nations at the invitation of the Secretary General, Mr Ban-ki
Moon. It was altogether fitting that the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights should be commemorated by inviting a ‘religious’
leader to address the General Assembly of the U.N. because the
concept of Human Rights is derived from the idea of the Natural
Law, which, as so eloquently described by Jacques Maritain (in
his book The Rights of Man) “is a heritage of Christian
and classical thought. It does not go back to the philosophy of
the eighteenth century, which more or less deformed it, but rather
to Grotius, and before him to Suarez and Francisco de Vitoria;
and further back to St. Thomas Aquinas; and still further back
to St. Augustine and the Church Fathers and St. Paul; and even
further back to Cicero, to the Stoics, to the great moralists
of antiquity and its great poets, particularly Sophocles. Antigone
is the eternal heroine of natural law, which the Ancients called
the unwritten law, and this is the name most befitting it.”[1]
Even before the formation of the United Nations Organization,
and the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
in December 1948, the Institute of International Law, in its session
held in New York on October 12th., 1929, adopted an International
Declaration of the Rights of Man which is of particular interest
today. The Declaration reads as follows:
“The
Institute of International Law, considering that the juridic conscience
of the civilized world demands the recognition of the individual’s
rights exempted from all infringement on the part of the State;
That the Declaration of Rights inscribed in a great many constitutions
and notably in the American and French constitutions of the end
of the eighteenth century, enacted laws not only for the citizen,
but for the human being;
That the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States declares that no State shall ‘deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law,
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws’;
That the Supreme Court of the United States, in a unanimous decision,
ruled that, by the terms of this amendment, it applied within
the jurisdiction of the United States, ‘to all persons without
distinction of race, colour or nationality, and that the equal
protection of the laws is a guarantee of the protection of equal
laws’;
That, moreover, a certain number of treaties explicitly provided
for the recognition of the rights of man;
That it is all important to spread throughout the entire world
the international recognition of the rights of man;
Proclaims:
Article
I
It is the duty of every State to recognize for every individual
the equal right to life, liberty and property and to accord to
every one on its territory the full and complete protection of
the law without distinction of nationality, sex, race, language
or religion.
Article
2
It is the duty of every State to recognize for every individual
the right to the free exercise, both public and private, of every
faith, religion or belief of which the practice is not incompatible
with public policy and good morals;
Article
3
It is the duty of every State to recognize the right of every
individual to the free use of the language of his choice and for
instruction in this language;
Article
4
No motive whatsoever based directly or indirectly on differences
of sex, race, language or religion can authorize a State to refuse
to any of its nationals private and public rights and especially
the admission to institutions of public instruction and the exercise
of different economic activities, professions and industries;
Article
5
The equality already provided is not to be nominal but really
effective and excludes all discrimination, direct or indirect;
Article
6
No State has the right to withdraw, except for reasons taken from
its legislation, its nationality from those who for reasons of
sex, race, language or religion it might wish to deprive of the
rights guaranteed by the preceding articles.”
It should be evident, therefore, that the recognition of Human
Rights goes back to much before the Universal Declaration adopted
and Proclaimed by the United Nations in December, 1948. It should
also be evident that Human Rights are not “conferred”
by any human authority, but are ‘recognized’ as being
‘inherent’ in all persons.
In recent years there has been a lot of loose talk about “rights”
by supposedly intelligent (and educated) people. They invent rights
at the drop of a hat – women’s rights, children’s
rights, “gay rights” (whatever that might mean) and
even animal rights. Some of them who have not progressed beyond
writing gossip columns in women’s magazines and contributing
inane articles to newspapers, have had the temerity to assert
that Human Rights are conferred by the State after democratic
debate. They defend socially corrosive behaviour by an appeal
to the number of people who practise anti-social and criminal
activities. The substance of their arguments can be summed up
by saying that if a large number of people do it, it must be good.
This appeal to a “majority” is dangerous because morality
is made subject to the number of people who violate it. On this
faulty premise, society sanctions prostitution, gambling, paedophilia,
alcoholism and other behaviours that are calculated to destroy
society itself. Their argument that it is the State which confers
rights on its citizens is pernicious because, logically, if it
is the State which confers rights, then the State can withdraw
those rights, including the right to Life and Liberty. The logical
consequence of such unintelligent arguments is a totalitarian
State which dispenses rights whenever it pleases and revokes them
to suit its convenience.
Basis
of Rights
All “rights” are derived from the “Personhood”
of the Human Being. Personhood is attributed only to Humans, who
stand at the summit of the evolutionary process. The evolution
of Life, so far, has culminated in the emergence of Consciousness
and of Thought. Along with the emergence of Thought has also emerged
the capacity for Freedom. Rights are co-related to the exercise
of Freedom; which is why only human beings are said to possess
rights. The assertion that animals have ‘rights’ is,
therefore, strictly speaking, inaccurate. The ‘rights’
of animals (or of birds or fishes or insects) is only an allegorical
reference to the rights of Man. The well-intentioned enthusiasts
who promote ‘animal rights’ are basically endorsing
the view that human beings should treat all forms of life with
respect – whether such life is manifest in animals or fish
or birds or even trees. An extension of this principle of “Respect
For Life” is seen in the growing movements in recent years
to protect the environment. Mankind has realized that [his] very
existence depends on his symbiotic relationship with all forms
of life which exist on the planet Earth. Although the concept
is not at all new, its expression has become more pronounced in
recent years. The ancient civilizations, whether Indian, Mesopotamian,
Chinese, Babylonian, Greek or Egyptian, all had an awareness of
the mutual inter-dependence of humans and the different forms
of life around them. Some ancient religions devised elaborate
rituals to express this symbiotic relationship. They personified
the different expressions of life. Thus there were the goddesses
of Earth, the Gods of creation, the protectors of the oceans,
the nymphs of the forests, of the rivers et cetera.
It is only after the advent of the age of industrialization, and
man’s acquisition of ‘power’ through his mastery
over technology, that he has become blinded to his dependence
on all the forces of Nature. Because of this blindness, man began
to ‘exploit’ Nature and all its resources –
and that too in a wasteful way. Man also began to lose his respect
for other forms of life – including animal life. His treatment
of animals, birds, trees and insects became arrogant and callous.
The various movements, loosely described as the ‘Animal
Rights’ movements, which emerged to counter this arrogant
destructiveness, seek to restore the balance in the relationship
between Man and his fellow creatures.
Man’s arrogance was extended to and also found expression
in his disrespect for other humans, - specially women and children.
Man began to “use” (exploit) women and children to
satisfy his own selfish ends – including his sexual appetite.
However,
to claim that animals have “Rights” in the same sense
that humans have rights, is a clear exaggeration of the concept
of “Rights.” Strictly speaking, “rights”
accrue only to the human person.
Natural Law
It has been the consensus of all enlightened societies that “Human
Rights” derive from the Natural Law. It is Nature itself,
and Nature’s Creator, who has imprinted the Law in the very
being of the human person. These rights are not ‘conferred’
on persons by any human authority. In 1956, Prime Minister Winston
Churchill said that: “..here is a law which is above the
King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a
supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great
work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which
men have held it.” The Magna Carta was signed by King John
of England at Runnymeade in 1215.
The first emigrants to America who helped lay the foundation of
the new Nation brought with them the understanding and the conviction
of the charter as formulated in the Magna Carta. In the American
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 the acknowledgement
of the Natural Law is enshrined in very unmistakable terms: “We
hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed…” The Preamble to the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, as adopted and promulgated by the United National
Organization also recognizes this:
“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the
equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family
is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,…”
Thus there is the public and explicit acknowledgement that rights
accrue to human persons because of their ‘inherent dignity,’
and that these rights are “inalienable.” They are
inalienable precisely because they are not conferred by any human
authority. It must be clearly asserted, at this stage, that these
“Human Rights” are antecedent to and precede any political,
civic, economic or social laws. This is why the legitimacy of
political or social laws is evaluated in terms of their conformity
with the Natural Law. Any “positive” (man-made) laws
made by rulers or legislative authorities will be “valid”
only if they conform to the Natural Law. The Natural Law imposes
a Moral obligation both on the citizens as well as on those whom
they elect to positions of authority. No human authority –
whether elected or not – may make laws which violate the
Natural Law. In fact, if such laws are passed, they are not only
invalid, but citizens have a moral obligation to resist them and
work towards their removal. This is implicit in the American Declaration
of Independence: “ That to secure these rights, governments
are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed…”
From this it can be deduced that certain acts of some governments,
such as the sanction of abortions, or the recognition of ‘same-sex’
unions or the clinical murder of the aged or terminally ill, (euphemistically
termed euthanasia) are inherently immoral and reprehensible, besides
being a blatant violation of Human Rights. No government has the
authority to kill or to authorize the killing of any human person,
either by ordinary citizens or by trained professionals such as
doctors or nurses. The Moral Law takes precedence over all Positive
Laws. Legislations passed by Parliaments (or by Kings) derive
their legitimacy only to the extent that they conform to the Moral
Law.
The Moral Law should not be understood as an arbitrary imposition
on Man. Rather it is the expression of the very nature of Man.
Any action which violates the dignity or the integrity of Man
is not only immoral, but is physically destructive. We can clearly
see the political, economic and social consequences of violating
the Natural Law. There is world-wide debate, presently dominating
the media, about the economic crisis facing the world because
of the misuse of technology by the more powerful nations. In spite
of all the technology available to us, the poor are becoming poorer,
and millions of people are facing death due to starvation because
of the inequitable distribution of the world’s food resources.
On the political front, violence has become more rampant and more
sophisticated because of the refusal of the more powerful to exercise
their power with wisdom and compassion.
The most urgent crisis currently facing all of Humankind is the
ecological crisis. The Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore, in his
advocacy for restoring the ecological balance in Nature, now explicitly
acknowledges that the crisis of global warming and the impending
disaster facing Humankind is fundamentally a moral and spiritual
crisis, and the environmental crisis can only be solved by returning
to the moral wellsprings which nourish human civilization.
Person and Society
What needs to be understood clearly is the fact that human rights
are meaningful only in the context of society. When a person exercises
her/his rights, it is only in the context of other persons who
constitute “society.” Rights can exist only in society.
This is why it is said that every right carries with it a corresponding
responsibility. Unless these rights are ‘acknowledged’
and ‘respected’ they become meaningless. The Rights
of Man and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed
by the United Nations provide the basic “framework”
for the enumeration of human rights. “Women’s Rights”
and “Children’s Rights” are further elaborations
of basic Human Rights. This framework is firmly grounded in the
Natural (Moral) Law. It is self-evident that all positive laws
enacted by various governments all over the world ought to be
consonant with the Natural Law. This is why, people, specially
those who live in democratic societies, have a serious moral obligation
to ensure that the laws enacted by their parliaments are in conformity
with the Natural Law. As indicated above, the legal sanctioning
of abortion (which is the murder of children in their mothers’
wombs), euthanasia (which is the clinical murder of the aged,
the infirm, the physically and mentally incapable and the incurably
ill), prostitution (which is the violation of the dignity of women)
and other similar pieces of legislation need to be repealed as
being violations of human rights.
Civic and Political Responsibilities
Human Rights determine the relationship between persons among
themselves in society, as well as the relationship between citizens
and their governments. The Rights of Man and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights enjoins upon governments to ensure that the dignity
and the personhood of the individual citizen is not only respected,
but that all laws and rules which are made, should enhance the
“quality” of political, economic and social life.
The present crises in the economic, social and political spheres
is a clear manifestation of the erosion of morality in the public
domain. Unless governments and public authorities are committed
to restore the Human Rights of all their citizens, the situation,
world-wide, will continue to deteriorate. The Human Rights of
citizens, as indicated (briefly) above, are derived from the Natural
Law, and are not invested by the citizens or their elected representatives
in Parliament. Truth and Morality are not established by majority
votes. Something does not become “true” or “good”
just because a majority says so. History has amply demonstrated
that societies which have succumbed to such “majoritarianism”
have eventually destroyed themselves.
The Common Good
An important aspect of Human Rights, as understood by sound Political
Philosophy, is the concept of the “Common Good.” This
is a rather complex matter, but extremely important in terms of
preserving and respecting “human rights.” According
to this philosophy, Man is essentially a social, and, therefore,
a political animal. Man cannot exist in isolation from other human
beings. The first “cell” or building block of society
is the family, into which humans are born. The close bonds and
relationships which are developed within the family are the basis
for the wider social relationships in which human life is lived.
For many years, there have been elaborate debates about the relative
importance of the individual’s rights vis-à-vis the
rights of the State. Totalitarian philosophies invest the State
with absolute rights, to which all the citizens, individually
and collectively, are subject. Liberals, on the other hand, claim
that the State exists only to serve the individuals. The truth
lies between these extreme positions. While the individual’s
rights have to be respected and protected by the State, the State
also has to be preserved and protected. One immediately calls
to mind the emotional declaration of President John F. Kennedy:
“Ask not what your Country can do for you; but rather ask
what you can do for your country.” In reality, man and society
are both intimately and inextricably united. The individual has
to contribute to the “Common Good” as much as Society
has to contribute to the individual’s growth and development.
The Common Good, however, is not simply an aggregate of the individual
goods of the citizens. It is a reality in itself; but it exists
solely in order to sustain and develop the good of the citizens.
In a real sense, the Human Person transcends Society, because
he is ordained to things beyond human society. Man is created
to live in society; but he is destined for life which is supra-social,
supra-terrestrial and supra-temporal. This is what constitutes
his “dignity” and his ultimate meaning.
Averthanus L. D’Souza,
D-13, La Marvel Colony,
Dona Paula, Goia 403 004
| |
