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
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
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.
Mahoney, Marvellous Richness of Diversity or Invidious Cultural Relativism? 12 Human Rights Law Journal 1, 5( 1998)
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion.
Cultural relativists promote the rights of cultures to dictate what is morally accepted within one’s own society. Cultural relativism is defined as the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it (Vaughn). This ideology is formed to prevent ethnocentrism, or the belief that one’s culture is superior to another. Though in theory this sounds plausible, it does little to promote an understanding of different cultures. Since the society makes up the laws that dictates and protects its own people, universal laws of protection may not be applied. Cultural rights are important in that they protect individual cultures against the majority states and communities. (Donnelly 219). If it were not for cultural rights, the smaller cultures would cease existing along with their traditions and beliefs.
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...
The role that globalization plays in spreading and promoting human rights and democracy is a subject that is capable spurring great debate. Human rights are to be seen as the standards that gives any human walking the earth regardless of any differences equal privileges. The United Nations goes a step further and defines human rights as,
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.