Jack Donnelly, Alison D. Renteln, and Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim all have different opinions when it comes to human rights and the exact way we should go about discussing human rights. The debate between the scholars and me come from the debate between the two principles of Liberal Universalism and Cultural Relativism. In my own opinion, I believe that it discussing human rights has to involve both theories and a cross-cultural discussion between us all so that we can come to an agreement when looking for a solution in certain cases. The first case to discuss is the whipping of a British school teacher in Sudan for allowing her class of seven-year-olds to name a teddy bear “Mohammed”. From a United States point of view, there is nothing wrong …show more content…
It is very hard to debate the sentence someone should receive when a crime has religion involved. Unlike the United States, church and state are not separated in many Eastern societies, leaving the punishment to suit the crime a little differently there. Because of the religion aspect of the case, I would have to promote discussion amongst leaders to determine how intense a punishment should be for blasphemy. Especially in a case like this where the defendant is not entirely at fault, there has to be some sort of talking before someone gets whipped for a crime. There has to be a mix of Liberal Universalism and Cultural Relativism in order to find a common ground for everyone. Maybe we will come to a cross cultural consensus about the crime of blasphemy and its suitable punishments one day, but the debate will always be constant with religion …show more content…
While anyone can draw arguments using each model to prove their claims, I would personally use the Cultural Relativism model when it comes to these specific scenarios. Maybe they wouldn’t be so difficult to deal with if they didn’t have their religious aspects, but there is nothing that can be done about that. I think when dealing with rights that involve the protection of religion, you have to lean towards a more respectful nature rather than just toleration, even though some of the religion’s practices may be a bit extreme. As long as they aren’t harming a community’s group rights, I believe that the practices should be completely allowed. We as a worldwide community have to open our eyes to other people’s customs and be more culture-conscience. If we don’t recognize that there is naturally less power in a minority group, how can we ever find a way to even the playing field for everyone? Just like everything else in the world, we have to recognize the problems and the circumstances of our situation before we can go about solving them, and I think that the Cultural Relativism is the model to use. Liberal Universalism seems too much about toleration and going off an interpretation of “reason” rather than working to understand each other’s cultures and discussing what needs to be
In “Four Human Rights Myths” Susan Marks discusses several conceptions (or misconceptions according to her) about human rights. She begins her paper with a case study of the 2011 London riots and how distinctively different is their coverage by the British prime minister and two scholars.
What seems to most like the debate of the West versus the rest, the debate of whether to enforce universal human rights of individuals (set forth in documents such as the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)) or to promote difference and recognize group rights, is as alive as ever in recent years thanks to intellectuals like Seyla Benhabib, Martha Nussbaum, Chandra Mohanty, Susan Okin Moller and Charles Taylor. The primary question behind this debate of universal legal principles versus group rights is whether or not a concept of universal justice exists. Benhabib, Nussbaum, and Alcoff believe that it does, while Mohanty does not.The more convincing arguments are put forth by Benhabib, Nussbaum, and Alcoff, who believe in universal principles of justice and also problematize, yet favor universalism over
The First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment clauses guarantee the freedom of religion. Allowance of this fundamental human right creates a clear barrier between life in America and life in illiberal nations like Iran and France. After the revolution in 1979, Iran turned into an Islamic state (“The Veil of Oppression”). Religion police adopted radical dress codes for the public and there wer...
Mahoney, Marvellous Richness of Diversity or Invidious Cultural Relativism? 12 Human Rights Law Journal 1, 5( 1998)
Human Rights Watch (HRW) is a global non-governmental organisation that works in a spirited movement to sustain and uphold human dignity. We aim to push the cause of human rights for all mankind. Our main headquarters are in New York, with additional offices in major cities globally. Our experienced staff members are skillful in many aspects, one of it being accurate when researching of human rights abuse. Our senior management team mainly consists of our Executive Director, Kenneth Roth, and our two Deputy Executive Directors, Michele Alexander and Carroll Bogert.
The key area of law that this question is concerned with, is the breach of convention rights. Specifically on whether Tom and Soraya have a claim under the Human rights Act 1998, which incorporates the rights of the European convention of human rights into UK domestic law. It can be argued that from the number of issues raised in the problem that Tom and Soraya do have a sufficient claim. A number of facts can be highlighted from the case to underline this; Firstly, the possibility of discrimination and racism by the minister introducing the act with the reference to ‘dangerous west Africans’. As well as the possibility of racism and discrimination experienced by Tom with him being referred to as a ‘disease-ridden African’. Secondly in regards to the use of pictures taken from Soraya’s private Facebook account. Lastly, whether the terms within the act is compatible with convention rights and the UK’s obligation under Section 3(1) of the HRA.
The term ‘human rights’, has a very broad meaning and it depends on how people define them based on social context and background. According to Dembour (2010), there are different types of scholars that take different perspectives on the concept of human rights. She divided them into four different groups. These scholars take distinctive positions toward concepts surrounding human rights such as its foundation, realizations and universality (Dembour, 2010). This is only one example amongst others that shows how complex human rights are. Given the complexity of human rights, it is interesting to look at whether a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods, i.e. mixed methods research, should be applied in this field of study. This essay will focus on the use of mixed methods research in the field of human rights and its complications. This essay will be divided into three different sections; the first section will discuss the application of quantitative method in human rights study and its strengths and weaknesses. Then the second section will focus on the application of qualitative method in human
Non-government organisations (NGO) are a diverse group of private organisations set up to engage in a wide variety of activities such as building schools, reporting on human rights, advocacy of the poor, climate change and disease prevention. NGOs are usually set up as charities or not for profit, meaning any profit they do make goes back into funding the services they provide. The number of NGOs is rapidly increasing and world wide there is an estimated 10 million NGOs. To give a bit of scale, in a country like India which has a population of 1.2 billion people there is approximately one NGO for every 400 people in the country. One of the most prominent and well known NGOs working across the globe is Amnesty International
It is important to understand cultural relativism and universalism by definition for this assessment to understand why relative universalism is simply a reclassification, and how it fails to facilitate further innovation. Both quotes from the World Conference of Human Rights, which were previously used as one of Dahre’s supporting points, say that the UDHR is universal. Subsequently, the conference also stated that external factors such as culture, religion, and other particularities, “Must be borne in mind”. Comparing these two defining quotes to Dahre’s Relative universalism shows a striking similarity. Relative universalism is said to be the integration of universalism and relativism without trying to find “Some moral space in-between”. What Dahre believes to be the solution already exists in the fundamentals in the relationship between relativism and universalism. The difference is that Dahre essentially argues to stop the pursuit of a middle ground. When referring to the “middle ground” it is interpreted as being the solution of the dichotomy between culture and universal human rights. Both perspectives, Dahre’s and the current dichotomy, have the same goal of balancing the two. Dahre’s solution in contradiction admits what universalists wont, that the pursuit of a middle ground does not exist. Although Dahre seems a bit monotonous in his assertions of
While on one hand there is a growing consensus that human rights are universal on the other exist critics who fiercely oppose the idea. Of the many questions posed by critics revolve around the world’s pluri-cultural and multipolarity nature and whether anything in such a situation can be really universal.
Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory & Practice. 2nd. Ithica: Cornell University Press, 2003.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, etc.” (textbook citation). The right to be free from discrimination based on sex is a very important part of this universal human rights legislation, as it is also outlined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESR citation). When this specific portion of these human rights legislations is read, the majority of individuals will think of the rights of women. This is because for much of history, women were not given all the rights and freedoms set forth in universal legislations simply because of their sex, and articles had to be implemented into universal human rights legislations to ensure that this form of discrimination did not happen again. The human rights of women are an extremely important subsection of international human rights. Women have been placed as second-class citizens for much of human history, and although women are not overtly discriminated against in human rights legislations anymore. Women face gender-specific violations of their human rights in society, and governmental bodies often neglect to give women the justice they deserve for the violations they have faced (India rape test article). Much of the time choices are taken away from women and they are easily victimized within society. Every society in the world has faced some sort of gender-specific discrimination at some time in human history, and in some countries the violations of women’s human rights are ongoing and extreme. For this reason, the human rights of women are an extremely important topic, as the struggle to have th...
Since the Second World War, there has been a significant improvement on how countries and people ought to conduct themselves. The creation of the social rights as part of international human rights laws has become fundamental aspects in shaping the conduct and relationship between countries and their respective population. The laws or legislation have been designed with an objective of protecting and promoting human rights at various levels such as domestic, regional and international (Moeckli et al, 2014). Nations are required to respect and ensure that relevant authorities can subscribe to the laws. Social rights play a notable role in the global civil society (GCS). GCS can be described as the numerous groups that operate in the local and international borders. Moreover, GCS are always beyond the grasp of the government and other powerful authorities. Social rights support the GCS in various ways. Thus, there is need to examine ways in which social rights
Universalist argue that the thing which is hindering human rights universality is cultural relativism. Cultural relativism means that human moral values differ from one society to another base on diverse cultural perspectives. Individual actions and their moral values derive from their own culture. Therefore, morally right is culturally context-dependent and people behave according to their own culture (Ayton-Shenker 1995, p.2 and Anjum 2013, p. 169). This mean that cultural relativism does not allow one culture to influence the beliefs and customs of others (Wright 2014, p.5). Some people use relativism to interpret, protect and promote human rights in a diverse way according to different cultures (Ayton-Shenker 1995,
The two main principles of human rights are incontrovertibility and universality. Incontrovertibility, the topic of this paper, refers to the idea that human rights are innate, meaning they are given at birth with no corresponding duties, and as such they cannot be given or taken away by the state. Universality, the second property, dictates that every person is entitled to human rights, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, class or any other factor.