Walk out on Mahmood day 2012

Maddow gets roundly chapped by the know-nothings, but I'd bet that even those guys won't argue with this.

,

###

On Religious Freedom

The concept of the natural rights of man has been recognized for some time. In some of the earliest known writings on the topic the Stoics of ancient Greece described slavery as an unnatural, or external condition of man. The philosophy of sui juris, or the freedom of the human soul was espoused in many writings of the day.

It is a mistake to imagine that slavery pervades a man's whole being; the better part of him is exempt from it: the body indeed is subjected and in the power of a master, but the mind is independent, and indeed is so free and wild, that it cannot be restrained even by this prison of the body, wherein it is confined.

-- Seneca the Younger, De beneficiis, III, 20.

The worst speculative Sceptic ever I knew, was a much better Man than the best superstitious Devotee & Bigot.

-- David Hume in a letter to Gilbert Elliot of Minto, March 10, 1751

###

Those were the first few words of the first missive offered for this blog. That was on 2008.12.10, and the post was titled THE RIGHTS OF MAN (With Apologies to Thomas Paine) and the topic was the 60^th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Just a few months prior to this blog's début a Saudi led coalition of 56 Islamic nations managed to reverse Eleanor Roosevelt’s signature achievement of 60 years prior. They accomplished this by inserting language effectively criminalizing blasphemy under the guise of "religious anti-defamation". It was just this kind of religious intolerance that was the focus of Mrs. Roosevelt’s drive for human rights, yet every effort to override this movement was stymied.

Now just a short few years later we see attitudes swinging more in Mrs. Roosevelt’s favor. On 2011.03.24 Reuters reported on the groundbreaking consensus that had been reached by UN member nations to abandon the blasphemy language inserted in 2008. A new three-page resolution recognizing that there is "intolerance, discrimination and violence" aimed at individuals in all regions of the world emerged after discussions between U.S. and Pakistani diplomats.

Washington, DC – Today in Geneva, members of the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a groundbreaking resolution that seeks to address violence, discrimination and incitement to religious hatred without reference to the controversial notion of “defamation of religions.” Human Rights First said the move marks an important shift away from efforts at the UN to create an international blasphemy code, something that has for the past decade been supported by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

The move by the UN Human Rights Council is important because we can now expect to see a shift from protection of religion to the protection of individual rights. And yes, change will come slowly. The resolution is a good start but recent events [HERE, HERE, HERE] remind us that the Islamic world is unlikely to make any rapid changes.

The cult of Muhammad ibn Abdullah is as firmly entrenched in the Muslin world as the cult of Jesus of Nazareth once was in Christian regions. Over time the greater freedoms allowed in the west promoted increased tolerance and a more secular society, gradually pushing onerous laws out of the books. Christians became a less authoritarian sect, but the Muslims were just on the rise.

Unfortunately when the adherents of one sect or cult feel threatened by encroachment of another we see protectionist laws resurface. The growth of Islam and the threat of terrorism has done exactly that to the west.  

Witness the unnecessary "Anti-Shariah" law now on the books in Oklahoma, and those proposed in several other states. This type of futile reaction tends to strengthen the will of those promoting religious intolerance elsewhere. Fortunately there are cooler heads and the effects of our home grown intolerance is somewhat muted.

In spite of the reactionism here and the intransigence of Muslim states, we are seeing changing attitudes elsewhere. Likely this is due to ever greater and uncomfortable encroachment of religion into public dialogue, as well as news stories such as those illustrated above.  

The change in the UN resolution comes as many of the globe’s borderline religionist states, led by  more secular nations, are leaning toward greater tolerance and political moderation. Initially Argentina, the Bahamas, Barbados, Fiji, the Republic of Korea, the Solomon Islands, Mexico, Uruguay and Zambia all voted in favor of the anti-defamation resolution in 2008, yet in this most recent move those same nations all switched sides.

In a recent Human Rights First report scores of cases were identified providing actual examples of the dangers of enacting a global blasphemy law. More than 70 cases were identified in 15 countries where the enforcement of such laws resulted in death sentences, long prison terms or arbitrary detentions, all based upon suspect accusations. A person accusing another of blasphemy cannot even recount the offense without also being accused of the sin, leaving a court to accept the accuser’s statement with no evidence that the accused might be able to refute.

Fundamentalist citizenry enabled by these laws have been documented attacking, assaulting, and sometimes murdering those accused; often with no evidence other than the accusation. The assassination of Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer by his own body guard, and the murder of Pakistani Minister Shabhaz Bhatti were identified as results of blasphemy accusations, as were outbreaks of mob violence in Indonesia. 

The tides, hopefully, are turning. On Monday, 2011.12.19, as the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly came to an end, it adopted two resolutions on the right to Freedom of Religion or Belief. One of these called for the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief and the other for combating intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on that person's religion, belief, or lack of belief.

It is a small start, but perhaps this will be the beginning of something grand. We can hope.

More reading on this topic at the links below:

USCIRF Welcomes Move Away from "Defamation of Religions" Concept

Islamic Bloc Drops U.N. Drive on Defaming Religion

Human Rights First Ten-Point Plan for Combating Hate Crime

The Consequences of Criminalizing “Defamation of Religions” [PDF]

###

The Ivoirian solution

A few years ago I spent some time in Cote D’Ivoire, known in the States as The Ivory Coast. I’ve been remembering that time lately as I’ve followed the current situation in that country.

When I was there in 2003 and 2004 the country was far from peaceful. Immigrants in the north, mostly Muslims from neighboring countries of Burkina Faso, Mali, Guinea, Senegal, Niger, Mauritania and Nigeria were taking agriculture jobs from native Ivoirians, causing general unrest and placing the majority Christian government between a rock and a hard place.

Muslims generally do not respond well to being governed by non-Muslims and the situation in Cote D’Ivoire was no exception. President Bedie, a Christian and only the second President since independence from France, was hugely unpopular in the Muslim north. In 1999, to keep the Presidency in Christian hands, the General Assembly passed a resolution that effectively banned a popular Muslim Prime Minister from running against Bedie. Muslims in the Ivoirian Army promptly staged a coup and installed General Guei as President.

In the 2000 elections, Laurent Gbagbo, a Christian was installed as President in an unexpected popular uprising, which again stirred trouble in the north. Over time there was violence that spread into the south, even in the once pristine garden-like capitol city of Abidjan. In 2002 General Guei was killed on the eve of another attempted coup, and President Gbagbo retained his office. The violence, however, never ceased.

Now the tide has again turned and Gbagbo was on the losing end in the November 28 election. Challenger Alasanne Ouatarra won the popular vote by a narrow margin, but Gbagbo is refusing to step down and is using his control over Christian elements in the Ivoirian Army to foment violence, including direct assaults on the building in which Outarra has set up his government in waiting. Here we go again.

Until about 40 years ago there were few elections in Africa as most of the continent was still claimed as colonies by various European countries. As the colonial powers released their hold, elections became commonplace. As a general rule in African politics the incumbent party will win and nothing else happens, but when the incumbent loses violence regularly ensues. In fact, only once in all these years have we seen power peacefully transferred following an election loss.

Following the disputed 2007 Kenyan election, mobs took to the streets attacking each other. Violence raged for months until the African Union intervened. But the intervention was far from satisfactory. The AU engineered a power-sharing arrangement, effectively granting a share of the Presidency to the looser. Perhaps that was the expeditious thing to do at the time, but the arrangement is now on the brink of collapse. It also unfortunately reinforced a precedent; in Africa, if you lose an election, you start a war.

Which is why I find what is happening in Cote D’Ivoire only three years later to be somewhat remarkable. All of a sudden the people of that continent have become fed up with all the violence and are saying enough is enough. Several groups, including the AU, the 16-member Economic Community of Western African States (of which Cote D’Ivoire is a member), the United Nations, France and the United States are all calling on Gbagbo to peacefully step down. ECOWAS has gone so far as to issue an ultimatum to Gbagbo commanding him to relinquish power, or face military intervention.

All of this speaks well for the future of free, fair, democratic elections in Africa. It also speaks well of the African Union’s and ECOWAS desire to support democratic elections. Africans are accustomed to foreign interference. They have always resisted and they always will, but if African initiated diplomacy can convince Gbagbo to peacefully surrender power, or if Africans stand together to oust him, other tinpot despots might reconsider the thought of violence following an election loss.

But if they back down and attempt the Kenyan solution again, we may never see the end of bloodshed on the dark continent.

UPDATE: Too late. ECOWAS blinked.

###

Of Anniversaries and the Rights of Man

This blog turns one year old today. It began out of frustration. I enjoy writing, and was encouraged to submit some of what I’d penned for publication. Never got a bite, so with further encouragement I turned to blogging. Reading back on my own missives I think maybe I shouldn’t have been so quick on the trigger, but I still like the first piece I published.

My first piece was a memorial to the human rights movement, and a tip of the hat to those who have fought for what I called (with apologies to Thomas Paine) “The Rights of Man”. The post was timed to coincide with 60^th anniversary of United Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10, better known as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So today is the resolution’s 61^st.

Today is International Human Rights Day. The United Nations officially came into existence at the end of World War II, on October 24, 1945, with a mission to preserve world peace and security; develop friendly relations between nations; work toward solving world economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems; and to protect and promote respect for human rights and freedoms.

The UN’s definition of human rights is “those rights which are inherent in our nature and without which we cannot live as human beings.” “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” These is the first statement found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, yet today, the fight against discrimination remains a daily struggle for millions around the globe. Americans take our inherent rights for granted, but many in the world continue to have what we consider basic denied. In the 1948 Declaration, the UN listed the basic human rights:

1. Right to life and liberty

2. Right to freedom of movement

3. Right to equality before the law

4. Freedom of opinion and expression

5. Freedom of assembly and association

6. Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion

7. Right to be recognized as a person before the law

8. Right to presumption of innocence until proven guilty

9. Right to appeal a conviction

10. Freedom of choice in whom a person marries

11. Freedom from discrimination based upon race, sex, color, national origin, or language

12. Right to self-determination

13. Right to wages sufficient to support a minimum standard of living

14. Right to equal opportunity for advancement

15. Right to equal pay for equal work

16. Right to paid or otherwise compensated maternity leave

17. Right to form unions

18. Right to strike

19. Right to free primary education

20. Right to accessible education at all levels

21. Freedom from exploitation of children

The list of human rights originally enumerated in 1948 have been expanded over the last three-score years, and now includes new issues, such as a nation’s right to develop; capital punishment; children in armed conflicts; compensation of victims; disability; expanded discrimination based on HIV or AIDS; enforced or involuntary disappearances; environment; impunity; indigenous peoples; migrant workers; peacekeeping operations; the sale of children, terrorism; and war crimes.

TRIVIA: The UN recognizes six official languages. Do you know what they are? (answer at the end)

The first UN Prize in the Field of Human Rights was awarded in 1968, posthumously to American human rights activist Eleanor Roosevelt, who was active in the formation of numerous institutions—most notably the UN, the United Nations Association and Freedom House. She chaired the committee that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

There were 48 original members of the UN, and the vote on the Declaration of Human Rights was 48-0. There are 192 member nations today, and one must wonder, if the same resolution were voted on today… just how much consensus we would find. So we can debate the effectiveness of the UN, but the founding goals were admirable.

This year marks the 61st anniversary of the adoption of the UDHR. The theme for International Human Rights Day 2009 is “Embrace Diversity; End Discrimination.” Human Rights Day this year will focus on non-discrimination.

“Discrimination lies at the root of many of the world’s most pressing human rights problems. No country is immune from this scourge. Eliminating discrimination is a duty of the highest order.” Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Another admirable goal…

CITATIONS:

United Nations 24-Hour ‘Hot Line’ for Reporting Human Rights Violations

A Summary of United Nations Agreements on Human Rights

Human Rights Watch

About UNICEF: Who We Are

Bill of Rights Day

Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

United Nations Fact Sheet on Human Rights

The United Nations and Human Rights

United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights: Background

The six official languages of the United Nations are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish

~~

THE RIGHTS OF MAN

(With Apologies to Thomas Paine)

The worst speculative Sceptic ever I knew, was a much better Man than the best superstitious Devotee & Bigot.

-- David Hume in a letter to Gilbert Elliot of Minto, March 10, 1751

The concept of the natural rights of man has been recognized for some time. In some of the earliest known writings on the topic, the Stoics of ancient Greece described slavery as an unnatural, or external condition of man. The philosophy of sui juris, or the freedom of the human soul was espoused in many writings of the day.

It is a mistake to imagine that slavery pervades a man's whole being; the better part of him is exempt from it: the body indeed is subjected and in the power of a master, but the mind is independent, and indeed is so free and wild, that it cannot be restrained even by this prison of the body, wherein it is confined.

-- Seneca the Younger, De beneficiis, III, 20.

According to Judge Christopher G. Weeramantry in his book Justice Without Frontiers, even early Islamic law denies any master or ruler the ability to take away from his slaves or subjects “certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being." Islamic rulers could not take away certain rights from their subjects on the basis that they "become rights by reason of the fact that they are given to a subject by a law and from a source which no ruler can question or alter.”

Folks today figure human rights are something we have been able to take for granted for a very long time; probably since the days our Founding Fathers crafted that most durable of documents. But all our Constitution and Bill of Rights achieved was to recognize these rights. Ask a veteran who witnessed the carnage of Nazi death camps, the relative of a holocaust victim, or a survivor of the atrocities in some of the former Soviet republics. More recent examples are to be found in Laos, Rawanda, Congo, Darfur, and Somalia.

The oldsters who survived the Great Depression understand that what we today consider “natural,” “God Given,” or “inalienable” rights may be just that, but it takes human intervention to protect and guarantee these rights.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

-- First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Our current concept of inalienable rights, and that same idea voiced by our Founding Fathers, has roots in the teachings of the 17th century English empiricist philosopher, John Locke. When Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” he was shamelessly plagiarizing Locke. The original Locke quote, however, mentioned nothing about happiness. Locke professed that man had the natural rights to “Life, Liberty, and Private Property.” Recognizing that most potential American citizens owned no property, Jefferson edited it slightly to make it more palatable to the huddled masses.

On to Modern History, and the reason for this post:

Today is a day of which we should be quite proud. It is the 60th anniversary of the day the whole world came together to recognize the rights we now take for granted. United Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10, widely known as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a proud achievement of the body, spearheaded by a proud lady, Eleanor Roosevelt. It passed a floor vote of the fledgling United Nations general assembly 48 – 0. Quite the success.

What a difference 60 years makes.

A few months back, at the June 16 U.N. Human Rights Council session, a gentleman by the name of David Littman attempted to deliver a joint statement by the Association for World Education, International Humanist and Ethical Union.

“In the context of integrating the human rights of women throughout the United Nations system we wish to draw attention to four examples of widespread violence against women that we believe merits far greater attention from the council. One, regarding FGM [female genital mutilation], we are making available our detailed written statement…”

That was as far as he got before being gaveled silent by President of the Council, Romanian Doru Costea. What followed were a series of points of order offered by the representatives of Egypt, Pakistan, Slovenia and Iran that essentially led to President Costea silencing Mr. Littman. The crux of the argument, so eloquently parlayed by the representative from Egypt, was that “Islam was being crucified.” Thus ended the most recent effort to stand up for the rights of women in Islamic culture.

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own"

-- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

Now on to Current Events:

Back in November world leaders gathered at the United Nations for a special session of the General Assembly with the aim to “advance interfaith dialogue.” Saudi King Abdullah had been quietly organizing a 56 nation (Islamic, of course) effort in support of a U.N. resolution that would criminalize blasphemy. The whole deal started back in March at a conference in Spain. King Abdullah was promoting

“respect for religions, their places of worship, and their symbols ... therefore preventing the derision of what people consider sacred."

While the authors of this proposed resolution claim to have no particular religious bias, it is of interest that Islam is the only religion specifically named. The resolution...

“expresses deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.”

While the idea of protecting folks from offensive speech might be attractive to some, a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor by Donald Argue and Leonard Leo reminds us that appearances can be deceiving. The authors call this proposed declaration a “cleverly coded way of granting religious leaders the right to criminalize speech and activities that they deem to insult religion.” The Law of Unintended (or perhaps intentional) consequences May come into play here, as this just might be a means of sustaining the state religion. I can think of a lot of zealots who would like that one, but I find it a bit frightening.

Argue and Leo correctly advise that we “should have no illusions that their efforts will miraculously promote mutual respect between religious communities or end abuses of religious freedom.” In fact, quite the opposite is much more likely, and in fact has already happened.

“A British primary school teacher in Sudan has been given a tough lesson in cultural sensitivity. 54-year-old Gillian Gibbons has been arrested and accused of blasphemy with police claiming that she insulted Islam's prophet by allowing her class of six and seven-year-olds to name a teddy bear [Muhammad].”

-- The World Today - Tuesday, 27 November, 2007. Reporter: Barney Porter

So, what sounds good on the surface will much more likely cause more division and repression than it could ever prevent. The rights of man are precious. Instead of limiting free speech, perhaps we should learn to practice tolerance. Instead of enacting laws restricting the rights of those we abhor, perhaps we should learn not to abhor the person or the act.

More than ever there is an urgent need to work toward fulfillment of Eleanor Roosevelt’s dream of rights guaranteed for every human of ever culture, race and creed.

Every human has the responsibility to practice tolerance and promote the ideals embodied in our Constitution and this Universal Declaration of Human Rights Resolution. This resolution encompasses the fundamental philosophies of every religion and of every rational philosophy; a determined effort is needed to bring the dream to fruit.

Imagine

...