My favourite human right
There is one human right granted under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that people remember; freedom of speech, (or more specifically, Article 19, Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and express; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers).
This freedom is flouted time and time again, whether it be freedom to criticise religion, freedom to express any political opinion or freedom to write what you want in print among others.
Recently, there have been flickers of a debate into whether freedom of speech is held above other human rights, and whether this is actually to the detriment of these rights. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/apr/22/freedom-of-speech-human-rights The idea here is that if freedom of speech is put above any other human right, then human rights abusers can be let off, but only as long as we are allowed to moan about it.
I wish to add my own two pennies to this debate. I think freedom of speech is becoming too much the face as the human right, so much so people are misunderstanding what they believe is their God given right.
Let me throw this out there for debate; if it was not for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, what is there that should guarantee international human rights?
The UDHM is over and over again used by people to defend their human rights, and quite rightly so. But does this mean they understand the declaration?
Let me introduce to you my favourite human right; Article 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms ser forth herein.
Let me put that in context. A facist saying that we should kick people of a certain race out of this country, even if they were born here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/24/bnp-black-asian-britons) would usually be defended by airing their views through ‘freedom of speech’. Well yes, take that one human right and they can be. But it does not work like that, there are another 29 rights, so now apply article 30, and this statement would breach articles 13, 14 and 15 rights of the groups this facist is attacking. S0, article 16 i.e. freedom of speech, does not count in this circumstance.
This could also apply to religion. Remember those pictures of Mohammed in some western newspapers. Well article 16 would definetly defend this, but, in steps article 30 and BOOM you are now breaching article 18. (Well open to debate).
The point i am trying to make is that to preach your human rights and the human rights of others, you really ought to know and understand them first.
But i feel i should clarify my own ideological positions on the two scenarios i raised.
The first concerning the facist(s), i am split, not between what they are saying is right or wrong; no, i firmly disagree with what they are preaching; but instead by how to deal with this situation. On the one hand i hold dearly the point i made about understanding human rights, but on the other, allowing these views to be aired, then offering the actual facts and a rebuttal would intellectually destroy the facists argument. So instead of pushing their ideas underground and making yourself look like a hypocrite you allow them to preach. However, perhaps instead of allowing them to preach the ‘kicking out’ you allow them to preach the issue of immigration, then allow a debate to commence- if they move towards saying ‘we’ll kick them out’ it is then in breach of human rights and they don’t have a human right to stand behind- then you could ban them from preaching.
The second point about western newspapers reprinting pictures of Mohammed. I am also split. We should not be afraid to upset people and we should be able to print these pictures, but, this should be done with regard to respect. We should respect that other people have these religious beliefs (but not respect when these beliefs are enforced upon others). This shouldn’t however stop criticism of religion.
There is a lot more debate that needs to be taken over human rights, about their place in society and what should be done when these rights are abused, but in my opinion, a greater understanding of these rights is fundamental for people to understand their place in the world and how much freedom they, and others, should have. That is why i am now calling for the preaching of article 30 whenever you encounter a facist trying to hide behind article 16. So go now minions, preach, preach!
Saying something and doing it is not the same thing. Therefore free speech which publishes against other rights is not an infringement nor a danger to those rights. Free speech is held as the highest because it is the least harmful. A speech is infinitely less damaging than a bullet in practical terms which are the only terms for consideration because practical terms are the only one we all share. The is only one universe yet many perceptions of it. You do no build a system of government on perceptions.
Oh and thank you for admiting that the 29th and 30th amendments take away rights. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is a train wreck because it was written by a bunch of cynical desk jockeys. Rights cannot be DECLARED only DISCOVERED and HONORED – there is no legitimate trade of one right for another.
Clearly television and newspapers have been at work here.
In reality you have to pick up and move things in order to cause change. On TV things happen. In newspapers you are told about things happening. This is why love to watch the sunset and see birds and trains go by. It’s easy motion that requires no input on our part. The lightness of it gives us various flavors of the same euphoria.
You don’t know your rights are gone until you try to exercise them.
Thanks for your comment, interesting read.
I didn’t mention about article 29, but in regards to article 30 taking away rights, i can see where you are coming from as this idea was going through my mind when i was thinking about this post earlier today, but i think that if anything article 30 protects other people against human rights infringements when people try and hide behind the UDHM when making them. Perhaps it was something only realised at the last minute and hastily stuck in at the end.
I do think that freedom of speech is a very powerful thing. It just depends on how it is used. One of the big debates regarding freedom of speech in Britain at the moment is with the rise in the popularity of the BNP- they are very much like the Nazis in 1930’s Germany. There is a debate as to whether we should deny them a platform to voice their facist views, or to put efforts into showing people why they are wrong (as in my opinion they are). The fear some people have is that if you give them a platform then they will gain more popularity and their policies would become more and more mainstream, most of which include things like kicking everyone who is not British out of the country and those who are a different race out of the country, this of course infringes upon people’s human rights, and more seriously, those who are in Britain after successfully gaining asylum because their lives are in danger in their country of birth would be forced to go back to this danger, and possibly death. That is one of the indirect dangers of allowing this party freedom of speech.
I agree that human rights need to be discovered and honoured, but unfortunately in this day and age they need to be declared, there needs to be something legal (which the UDHM is sadly not) that enforces countries and governments to respect human rights (ooo the irony), there needs to be a frame of reference for those suffering human rights abuses and for those defending human rights abuses can point to, not just for protection, but for strength. It is a bit like the American Consititution, but universal.
It means we sane ones have to work harder.
I’m trying to figure out ways for communities to build their economies by using various and innovative currency bases (gold, Ithaca hours, allocated fiat like Berkshares). Waiting for the collapse is retarded. There’s 1.5 to 6 Quadrillion in poison derivatives hanging over us. We either bust the zombie banks or we build an alternate economy.
Suffering breeds these cranky wannabe revolutionaries like cockroaches.
When communities start to rise again these cranks will have nothing to complain about nor anyone to gather. I fear that they would be useful to bankers who like to set off fake uprisings.
The trouble with declaring rights is that you keep having to start from square one. Interracial marriage? Ok. Gay marriage? Still pending? Transgender marriage? THE END IS NIGH! At least when it’s built on an ideal rather than on a specific complaint you only have to start from the half way point.
Ah, you bring me to a question which I’ve been grappling with recently.
My blog is designed to be a space to gather views by listing local blogs which offer political comment, so if I found such a blog covering Berkshire I would face this question.
I’m tempted by the idea of engaging in robust debate and I’m not afraid of controversy, but I know there is an inherent risk in this. So do you think I should support a ‘no platform’ policy?
Hey, sorry it has taken me a while to reply, it’s because i have actually been thinking about this question myself.
Because of the nature of your site it is very difficult to give a platform to such a blog. Reason being is that i think whenever such groups air their opinions and quote twisted facts, each time they should be countered. What becomes difficult is that when New Labour say something or the Tories say something, you can just show what the other main party thinks or says in reaction. Due to the no-platform policy the main parties (and indeed most other people) take then it is sometimes very hard to find a direct response to anything written by such a blog.
But i think the problem of a no-platform policy is that people who support parties suffering this policy would become more angry (and active) and people who only hear of one or two policies because of the no-platform policy may support such parties because they don’t know the real nature of the party. Most importantly though is that it diverts resentment to the main parties- how many times do we hear people saying that they won’t vote (or won’t vote for the main parties) because they don’t listen/respresent the ordinary/working-class (British) person. Giving a no-platform policy towards a group that you have to admit are very effective at grass-roots activism is only going to exasberate this resentment.
Saying this, a no-platform policy is a good way of showing protest and standing up for what you believe in and hence stating the point that ‘this is not acceptable/this is not what society should become’. And i can see no reason how freedom of speech can defend what such parties do/say.
To conclude, i don’t know. The best way to fight against the rise of facism is to provide an alternative that people can believe in. Until this time comes it is up to people who oppose such parties to argue and debate the issues/twisted facts that are presented. If such a blog did exist in this area then i would suggest that any publicity diverted towards it is strongly countered with relevant arguments/facts against what they are saying. This is why it is a bit difficult for your blog as you will need to break away from what political parties say and instead look at non-party political sites such as Unite Against Facism, Amnesty et al, but from my experience you will suddenly get a lot more people describing your blog as liberal, lefty bias.
You make some interesting points (especially as I’ve only just quoted you as balance to Adrian Windisch…).
However I actually don’t mind anyone accusing me of any bias as this gives me an opportunity and excuse to disprove them. Anyone can check my sources – if they think my treatment of them is unfair then they can comment to say so.
So maybe you’d like to open the debate…
I have to tell you publishing RL is causing me some trouble, as my readership is growing and I’m coming under pressure to promote a more coordinated line. So this question is highly relevant right now – what kind of editorial policy is best?
I’m tending against ‘no-platform’ because I don’t have the capacity to respond to everything and can argue prioritisation as a means to ignore, but I feel at some point it is necessary to address the concerns of all sides.
For example I would very much have liked to expose the anti-immigration position in relation to the Gurkha debate, but they’ve been noticably silent because they know it wouldn’t win them any popularity contests and this would highlight a massive inconsistency in their agenda…
I guess it all depends on the context and whether it’s possible to cover all the angles.