A Shared Vision? Human Rights and the Church
From: Centre for Contemporary Christianity in Ireland 2000
This is not to say that the drafters of these documents or the advocates of these rights are consciously seeking to impose their views on others. It is to say, however, that these documents, with their expanding concepts of rights and their increasing emphasis on conformity with the principles on which this rights culture is based, lend themselves to this kind of use. Smolin concludes, "It is certainly too soon for the religious community to give up on international human rights law. All political and legal regimes and movements are imperfect; international human rights law possesses tremendous positive potential. At the same time, many religious communities have probably been far to sanguine, and even naïve, about international human rights law. They have failed to perceive its potential totalism, or appreciate the way in which secular ideologies have come to color its goals, language, and processes."13
Not only at international level, but also at national level, an authoritarian impulse is noticeable in human rights discourse. A recent example from South Africa illustrates this danger. The South African Human Rights Commission subpoenaed more than 30 white journalists and broadcasters to answer accusations that they were guilty of racism. The accusation did not relate to any specific actions or claims, but suggested that they were responsible for 'subliminal racism' in their journalistic output. One of those called by the Commission, Phillip van Niekerk - editor of the Johannesburg Mail & Guardian - suggested that "the commission is quite clearly using the charge of racism to stifle criticism of those in power in business and in government."14 After much outcry, including the resignation of one member of the Human Rights Commission Trust, the subpoenas were withdrawn but the investigation continued.
Human rights can as easily be manipulated for political or social ends as any other idea. It is the comprehensive nature of human rights claims and the increasingly unquestioned acceptance of the human rights tradition that makes the potential for abuse so serious.
The legalism of human rights
No functioning society can rely on the law alone as a means of defining relationships within that society. Relationships are mediated and defined through a host of social institutions operating in a multiplicity of ways. Some function on the basis of agreement, consensus and compromise; others on the basis of mutual trust and respect. Between the individual and the state are families, schools, trade unions, churches, community and voluntary groups, businesses and many more. The danger with human rights ideology is that, as it spreads, it threatens to subvert the myriad structures and relationships that constitute civic and political society. All relationships become absolute, based not on negotiation, compromise or respect, but on legal resolution of competing claims to rights. This is destructive socially and politically. That the human rights tradition tends to reduce all relationships to legal ones is not surprising given the central role that the law has played in defining human rights. Thus we speak of international law and international courts. Human rights charters are incorporated into national law, argued over by lawyers and interpreted by judges. Human rights institutions tend to be incorporated into the law faculties of universities.
Again, some examples will illustrate this problem. The dispute between the Orange Order and the Garvaghy Road Residents' Association in Portadown over the route of the Order's parade from Drumcree Parish Church has regularly been expressed in the language of rights. These demands for rights are mutually exclusive and allow no scope for a resolution of the situation based on compromise, negotiation or consensus. The demand for rights - even though it may be largely rhetorical - works against the attempt to use other means of social engagement and negotiation to address the issue. These legal models - conflictual by their very nature - provide little scope for mediation, compromise or agreement.
A second example comes from a recent article in the magazine Fortnight.15
Chris Moffat, in a brief article looking at the challenge facing the education
minister in the Assembly, twice makes reference to human rights. "There is already a widespread recognition," she claims, "that selection at 11+ is not compatible with human rights." She further claims that "integrated education is a human rights issue too." Now there is no doubt that both selection and integrated education are core issues in social and political
debate on education. However, to translate them from the realm of politics
to the realm of human rights is to attempt to foreclose on the social and
political debate necessary to do justice to the complexity of both issues.
The appeal to human rights is a secular version of the religious appeal,
'Thus says the Lord.' Its intent is to claim a higher authority that brooks
no challenge and allows for no debate and no alternative. |
