| |
Most people recognise that the
issue of human rights is one of balance. One person's rights should be
protected only to the extent that they do not infringe the rights of
another. In my experience, insisting on exercising one's rights is not
effective unless one takes account of this balance. So often we see
people infringing the rights of others, in the name of protecting their
own rights or those of others.
Sometimes
we have to deny people their rights because the rights of another are so
badly infringed, and this can be illustrated with two examples.
-
In the
United Kingdom, female circumcision is outlawed on medical advice that
it causes the child considerable pain, and in later life, considerable
mental anguish. However, the parents may genuinely protest that their
right to raise their child according to their religious beliefs if
being infringed. In outlawing female circumcision, we have come down on
balance for the child's right to grow up free of mutilation, pain and
mental suffering.
-
Assume a
teacher is giving special attention to a very troublesome thirteen
year-old pupil. The pupil lets it be known in confidence that he loves
his mother but hates his father and is initiating a "dirty tricks"
campaign to make the mother believe that the father is having an
affair. He is succeeding and over a number of weeks, having placed
blond hairs and lipstick on his father's jackets and shirt collars, the
mother is about to start divorce proceedings. If the teacher does not
act against the child's right of confidentiality, the parents are sure
to have their rights severely diminished.
What are the criteria we use in
deciding to allow the infringement of one person's rights? For me, this
ultimate criterion is our valuing of human dignity. Although many people
are not aware of it, the ultimate human question is: "Am I of value -
do I count - does my life matter?" Humans, whether we are aware of
it or not, are continually seeking affirmation of our meaning, our
purpose - our worth. The point is, that some acts infringe human dignity
more than others.
Seeing human rights in terms of
valuing human dignity provides four main ways towards even more
effective way of protect human rights.
1. It becomes clear that our
rights are being mildly infringed everyday by people who lie,
manipulate, cheat, and who belittle, mock and physically attack others.
Protecting human rights involves acting according to straightforward
human values such as honesty and caring.
2. It is possible to see when
protecting one person’s right requires severely hurting another’s right.
In these cases the first right is not legitimate and exercising it
should not be permitted A values approach to protecting human rights
entails moral courage.
3. When the ethical issues are not
straightforward, we can rely on the value of protecting and enhancing
human dignity. For example, if my mother is critically ill and in pain,
and wishes to die in dignity, should this not over-ride any of my rights
as a son?
4. A values approach can guide us
in whether or not we should exercise a right even though it is
legitimate and legal. Knowing that my neighbour is about to sit
important professional examinations, I abide by his request to stop
noisy domestic repairs for one night to assist him study.
For me, a
very effective route to protecting human rights would be to identify a
code of values, which if adhered to would automatically protect rights.
The idea would be not to indoctrinate or impose such a code, but through
Socratic discussion, bring people to realise that the protection of
their rights depends almost entirely on their protecting the rights of
others.
Bill Robb is a management and
education consultant based in Aberdeen, Scotland. For more information
and resources on values education or to invite Dr Robb to speak at your
event go to www.valueseducation.co.uk. This article was originally
published in the Human Rights Education Newsletter No 14 pp3-4,
1996.
|
|
