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!

Reading Amnesty International ‘Adopt’ Two Prisoners of Conscience

By Me! From: http://blogs.amnesty.org.uk/ Specifically: http://blogs.amnesty.org.uk/blogs_entry.asp?eid=2792

Reading Amnesty International (RAI) have continued their work to help those unjustly imprisoned by ‘adopting’ two West Papuan prisoners of conscience.

Defined by Amnesty International, a prisoner of conscience is a person who has been imprisoned because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality or political ideology, and who do not promote or partake in violence.

The West Papuans RAI have adopted, Yusak Pakage and Filep Karma, were arrested in 2004 for raising the Morning Star flag, the West Papuan flag of independence.

Although Pakage and Karma were arrested in 2004 for this offence, it was not until 2008 that a Presidential Decree declared it a crime to show a regional flag of independence in Indonesia, with which subsequent arrests have followed.

On 19 July 2008, 46 people were arrested by Indonesian police at a Morning Star Flag raising ceremony in what Paula Makabory from the Institute for Papuan Advocacy and Human Rights has described as “peaceful” and which was “not an act which could over throw the Government”. These flag raisers where apparently set upon by the local police who started ““beating them, kicking them with boots and torturing the demonstrators. The men in the group were then stripped to their underwear” (http://intercontinentalcry.org/46-arrested-for-raising-west-papua-independance-flag/)

Yusak Pakage and Filep Karma attended a peaceful protest on 1 December 2004 where the Morning Star flag was raised. Filep Karma, a civil servant, was arrested at the site. The arrest of Yusak Pakage followed later that day when a small group of protestors went to the police station to argue for Filep Karma’s release.

Karma and Pakage were sentenced to 15 years and 10 years imprisonment in May 2005.

Although RAI will not made any official comment about whether West Papua should be independent, RAI do express sincere concerns about the suppression of Yusak Pakage and Filep Karma’s freedom of expression and peaceful protest, guaranteed to them by international declarations such as the International Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

RAI also express their distress at reports that have come out of Indonesia of the inhumane treatment that these prisoners of conscience have experienced while locked away.

Reports have surfaced that Yusak Pakage along with five other political prisoners have been subjected to beatings, one such beating resulting in Pakage’s eyelid being torn.

Reports that have also suggested that these prisoners have been starved for days on end, locked in confined and darkened rooms and have been subjected to humiliations by being forced to remove all their clothes.

Regardless of the opinions as to whether West Papua should be independent, RAI know that the treatment of these prisoners of conscience is in complete violation of their human rights.

RAI will keep up to date with the status of Pakage and Karma and will work to ensure the knowledge of these abuses are kept within the public domain. Dr Sean O’Leary from RAI has commented that “we are asked why we write letters on behalf of people like Filep and Yusak. The Indonesian government wants us to forget about them – they want to be able to put such ‘troublemakers’ in prison and out of sight.  It is up to us to keep the spotlight on them, to publicize their plight, so that the World knows what is really happening in a ‘civilized’ country like Indonesia and everywhere else where such injustice occurs.”

Dr O’Leary went on to say that “If we do not stand up for other people’s freedom of speech when we can do so, how can we say that we ourselves deserve it?”

Feeling dirty

I thought I was alone in this sentiment: things are getting so bad (environmentally) that I half hope the Tories do get into power. However there is someone else who at least considered it, George Monbiot. That made me feel in better company. Monbiot did go on to say “my first thought was ‘I hope the Tories get in’. My second thought was ‘What the hell am I saying?’”

It is not just New Labour’s environmental credentials that are non-existent by agreeing to a third runway at Heathrow (something Cameron has said he would scrap); it is their complete disregard for our privacy and rights that is really scary. Jacqui Smith is the female Stalin. She scares the hell out of me with her perusal of 42 days, ID cards, DNA, email and text message databases, CCTV systems and now secret gag orders. I painfully remember that it was the Tories who all (but one) voted against 42 days in the Commons.

I know the consequences of me thinking this. I am a Green Party supporter. I consider myself wholly a hippy, liberal, wishwashy, self-hating, weed smoking, terrorist supporting, [add further nonsense claims about left wingers] leftie. I believe the Tories are essentially a party who only look after their own. But my regard of human rights and civil liberties coupled with my passion for the environment have caused me to internally conflict with my dream of economic equality and an increase in nationalisation of important services (banking, rail, reverse privatisation of NHS).

I could have said nothing. If I just voted Green in the next election as I will do, the Tories would have gotten into power anyway, and then people wouldn’t know I had been having this internal conflict. However it is out there now- I have a secret wish for them to get into power.

At least then it might make New Labour turn back to the Labour of old and kick out the business orientated, environment hating, self-demigod believers that inhabit the party at present, and then we would have a more recognisable party that represents truer social democracy, and who have a chance of getting into power. (See, I am trying to justify to myself all of what I said before).

I feel so dirty.