Bruce Whealton: Existential Writing

Recently, someone sent me a link to a web link to a website that that discusses the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”  They have a very nicely done video that presents the history of how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came into being, including historical efforts in different countries to establish laws and doctrines that define and protect these rights.  This video is a great introduction to the ideas that define human rights, including the definition and meaning of various concepts such as what is defined by the word “human”, the word “rights” and the phrases “human rights” and “natural human rights.”

So the idea is that Natural Human Rights arose out of the observation that people naturally followed certain laws even if they weren’t told to do so.  These were called “natural rights.”  It started with “Cyrus the Great” as stated on the webpage of the United for Human Rights website.  Quoting from the website just mentioned, it reads, “In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script.

Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights.”

It is interesting and one can be proud as an American that we are part of this history of establishing, declaring and defending a set of human rights.  These rights were declared and defined in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.  The United States had declared their independence from the British because, while the British king had recognized the idea of human rights, the United States felt that they must take a stronger stance in defending a set of human rights for our people (or for all people, at least in principal).

What does this mean, if you think about it?  Well, it means that people fought and gave their lives for these principles, for these rights, in America, and elsewhere as well, of course.  Though, the US Constitution is the oldest written national constitution in use.  From this beginning, until now, this has been a defining characteristic of who we are as a country and nation.  Presidents are sworn to defend this constitution.  One can say that one loves his or her country to the extent to which he or she believes and supports all of these “rights,” because they do define America and who we are.  While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a defining characteristic of America, many of the rights in the Universal Declaration are in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

It has been very perplexing to me to notice that at times, those people or groups, who defend and advocate for these rights, are viewed in a negative light and given negative labels.  These are the rights that define us as a country.  It seems to be a given that if you love your country you will defend the principles upon which that country is founded and defined.  It would make more sense to say that an organization like the American Civil Liberties Union is a defender of these same values and beliefs – the same values that define us as a country.  That truly is something that is perplexing to me.  Even my left, logical brain, sees contradictions in the way that some people and groups have been viewed, or scorned, for believing in these values and advocating for the defense of these values, or rights.  There will always be crises but immediately afterward, we as a nation do realize who we really are and what defines us… that there was always good and moral reasons for establishing these rights for all people and that by writing it into a constitution we can be guided in determining the just thing to do, the best moral decision based on these rights, these principles.

As I had mentioned, it puzzles me when I notice that some of these rights that define us as a country, are found to be inconvenient, disagreeable or when they are challenged and that two people who equally love their country could be on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to the defense of these rights.   Specifically, I’d like to refer to the following rights (I will refer to items from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the assumption that one can find a similar right specified in our Constitution or Bill of Rights) :

1) Article 5.  No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

2) Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. and related to this is,

3) Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

I would find it highly immoral to deny any of those rights.  Yet, our nation did these things.  My left, logical, brain says that is and was morally wrong and unjust.  It is embarrassing for anyone who loves America to realize that this did happen and was done.

4) Article 11 – 1 Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

5) What is most important to be noticed about Article 19, is that this right of freedom of expression, exists regardless of frontiers.  People have gotten angry at those who would protest their countries actions, “on foreign soil” as if that was not their right.  It is, though indeed, one might not find it spelled out in our constitution but neither is it’s opposite:  “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

6) Article 22: “Everyone has the right to social security…”

7) Article 23: “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment… and Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.”

Article 25: “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.”

9) It wasn’t clear that any of these specifically define a right to protection against unlawful search and seizure. 

I believe in these rights because I think they are necessary for justice and a moral society.  Defending and supporting these rights is an expression of righteous behavior and belief.  It seems to me that most if not all of these reflect the values of America and as such define who we are as a nation.  I believe there are good reasons for all of these rights.