The Oberlin Review
<< Front page Commentary March 14, 2008

What Do Human Rights Mean?

As this is the first installment of what we at Amnesty plan to be a biweekly segment on the current state of human rights in the world, I thought it would be appropriate to lay out a mission statement of sorts as to what will be covered in subsequent issues. The first step in this is to define exactly what we mean by human rights. Firstly, though, let’s define what human rights are not:

  1. Human rights are not partisan. The belief that basic human freedoms are an undeniable, irreplaceable necessity for all people everywhere is neither a Democratic nor a Republican point of view.
  2. Human rights are not radical. Yes, many supporters of Amnesty have strong ideological affiliations, but the organization as a whole is not focused on reaching the unreachable star. It is very unlikely that grassroots action will be bringing sovereign nations to their knees anytime soon. It’s mainly a pragmatic, case-by-case approach designed more than anything to show those who may be currently committing human rights abuses that they are being watched. It is not designed to provoke those committing abuses, as they are far more likely to respond to aggressive action negatively. Our view is that it is selfish to sacrifice others for the sake of one’s own ideology. Amnesty International is not in the business of making martyrs.
  3. Human rights are not unattainable. Despite the pragmatism that governs the way in which Amnesty operates, progressivism is not a pessimistic vocation. There are many success stories and a great deal of hope that the world is indeed moving in a positive direction.

Now that we have that out of the way, we can lay the groundwork for what human rights are:

  1. Protecting human rights is the single most important responsibility of any government. Let’s face it. There are a lot of issues out there that seem more pressing at the moment than human rights: economy, security, etc. Would it really be so terrible to give up a few of them for a bit of stability? Yes, because what is stability worth when it is merely a perpetuation of the intolerable condition of inequality?
  2. Protecting human rights is the responsibility of every member of the human race. Firstly, who are we to decide that an accident of birth should determine our quality of life? Doubtless, we would not be so apathetic if we were on the other side of the issue. Perhaps more pertinent is the realization that our own government and every other government that has of yet existed has been imperfect, especially on issues of human rights. Our current position of privilege is not unassailable and it is important to set a precedent of activism so that when our own rights are threatened, we will have someone to fight for us.
  3. Human rights are a global concern. As a corollary to the previous assertion, we cannot limit our concern for human rights to our own country. Globalization has inextricably connected not only our economies and our media but has also gone a long way toward forging a unified social conscience

From here on out, we will be examining the issues of human rights through specific cases, but keep in mind what they are and are not as you decide for yourself what needs to be done.


 
 
   

Powered by