Review 3

Diversity as Social Control: Distinguishing between Human Rights and “Temporary” Privileges

         Although commonly associated with issues and challenges concerning ethnicity and culture, diversity also represents an equally important political dimension. Specifically, political diversity within and between nation-states is imperative as the means through which discourses of human rights and freedoms are controlled.
 
        Ideally, the concept of human rights should be universal and egalitarian regardless of a nation or state’s political identity. In other words, human rights should be the same for all around the world. However, as a result of this political diversity, it is evident that there is a lack of agreement between the world's nations and states. Furthermore, considering demographic diversities associated with gender, age, sexual orientation, and culture (i.e. ethnicity, religion, language etc.), the difficulty of achieving a global consensus on human rights is evident.
 
        This dream of achieving unity within an obviously diverse world is complicated further by the many different types of rights and their respective criticisms. For example, an important distinction is made between natural and legal rights. In theory, natural rights, such as the right to life and freedom, are believed to exist equally and universally beyond the control of government. However, because of a lack of consensus proponents natural human rights are often criticized. Conversely, legal rights which are codified through government law and legislation may be referred to as culturally relative to national demographics such as religion, gender, age or ethnicity. For example, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) signifies the diversity present within legal rights.
 
        Another important theoretical distinction is made between negative and positive rights. Positive rights require government protection of an individual’s actions regarding socio- economic and cultural rights, which includes the pursuit of work, private property, education, and health care. On the other hand, negative rights prohibit infringements on an individual’s civil and political rights such as free speech, private property, and religion.
      
        In an attempt to establish and enforce human rights standards, regional government and multi-national non-government organizations have been created. These include the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, Organization of American States, and the Council of Europe.

        Despite the intentions of these various organizations, nations and states continue to assert their independent sovereignty. In this respect, it may be said that diversity within a nation is controlled, sanctioned and institutionalized through legislation and laws. More importantly, not only is this aspect of human rights given by the government, but they may also be relinquished and violated. For example, a survey conducted by Gallup International found that only respondents from the Netherlands believed their human rights were not being either fully or partially respected and not at all disrespected.

        Unfortunately Canadians don't have to look hard to find examples of human rights violations in their own country. On September 26, 2008, twenty-five year old Stacey Bonds was stripped searched and physically assaulted by Ottawa police “for no apparent reason” (Dimmock, 2010). Judge Richard Lajoie, dismissed the charges against Bonds stating that the arrest was unlawful and therefore, the subsequent detention can only be an arbitrary detention, and a clear violation of Section 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
 
        Considering the Gallup International survey and the case of Stacey Bonds, the correlation between political diversities and a country’s respect for human rights is made. However, regardless of cultural and political differences, the violation of human rights by sovereign national governments is never justified.

        Although radical, Comedian George Carlin provides an interesting critical perspective of the contradictions within Western discourse on human rights. Carlin suggests that if rights came from God, he would have been looking out for us by  giving us the right to food everyday/and a roof over our heads, so why would he only give us a certain number of rights? For example, the British Bill of Rights has 13 stipulations, the Belgians have 25, the Germans have 29, the Swedish have only 6, and some people in the world have no rights at all, but why would God give different people in different countries different numbers of different rights? Carlin humoursly suggests bad arithmetic or boredom, but the real point he is trying to make is that this decision does not involve divine planning at all, but rather human planning in the form of one group trying to control another group.

         He then draws upon Japanese internment as an example of a government taking away citizens' "rights" just when they needed them the most, highlighting the sad fact that we do not have rights, all we have is a bill of temporary privledges since the government is only interested in its own power and expending it wherever possible. Hence, with respect to Carlin it may be said that the notion of human rights proclaimed and protected by Western democratic states may be regarded as nothing more than “temporary privileges.”

WARNING: Some viewers may find language offensive, viewer discretion is advised.


References

Dimmock, G. (2010, November 29). Strip-search in Police Cell "a travesty," judge rules. The Ottawa
     Citizen. Retrieved from http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.htmlid=3840124                         
     In-text: (Dimmock, 2010).