The problem with Human Rights language
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has 30 Articles covering an array of political and economic rights that everyone on earth is (or ought to be) entitled to, as per the United Nations. Here are a few of them:
Hey. Hey United States, Brazil, and Egypt: try going four days without getting vacation pay. Then try going four days without water. Now which one should be enshrined as a right to all citizens, protected by international law and binding by signatories of the UN UDHR? Surely the answer is obvious.
If we're going to include food, clothing, housing, etc. as a part of an adequate standard of living then water should be there too. How is housing a right but water isn't? Seems to me, they are both rights since they are essential to life. But is that exactly what rights are supposed to protect - life essentials? What is the difference between a human need and right? How can the freedom of association, something not essential to sustaining life, be deemed a right when water is not?
If a billion people were being bought and sold as slaves, we'd be calling it a violation of their human rights. However, the billion people without clean drinking water we'll just describe as going through a human need shortage.
- Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery.
- Article 13 (1): Everyone has the right to free movement and residence within the borders of their state.
- Article 17: Everyone has a right to own property.
- Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
- Article 25 (1): Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Hey. Hey United States, Brazil, and Egypt: try going four days without getting vacation pay. Then try going four days without water. Now which one should be enshrined as a right to all citizens, protected by international law and binding by signatories of the UN UDHR? Surely the answer is obvious.
If we're going to include food, clothing, housing, etc. as a part of an adequate standard of living then water should be there too. How is housing a right but water isn't? Seems to me, they are both rights since they are essential to life. But is that exactly what rights are supposed to protect - life essentials? What is the difference between a human need and right? How can the freedom of association, something not essential to sustaining life, be deemed a right when water is not?
If a billion people were being bought and sold as slaves, we'd be calling it a violation of their human rights. However, the billion people without clean drinking water we'll just describe as going through a human need shortage.
Labels: Canada, Human Rights, United Nations, United States of America, Water
posted by Dylan at 3/22/2009
1 Comments:
The Declaration is in many ways a flawed document. Basic needs such as food and shelter (and water!) are not comparable to negative rights like habeus corpus and free expression. Nor are they comparable to 'extras' like education and labour cartels. Failing to recognize apples, oranges, and bananas as different things is one of the biggest problems with human rights discourse in general. All of these things are referred to as "human rights" without adequate distinction.
My personal opinion is that the word "right" should only be used for negative rights.
We shouldn't need to call things like food, shelter and water "rights" to be compelled that all deserve adequate access. These are moral obligations not legal ones. Indeed, human rights language is very effective at removing morality from the issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home