There was a time when the demarcation line between the idea
of Human Rights and the adherence to Human Rights, was so clear the debate on
the subject was elementary. Things have changed, and the journey that brought
us to where we are today is a long and complicated one.
The moment that the human species discovered it had evolved
enough to conduct itself by reason, and not by instinct alone, was the moment
that the question of relationships between individuals enjoying different
levels of power sparked the Human Rights debate. The discussion must have
started when parents asked themselves how much responsibility they had toward
protecting their children not only from external threats, but from themselves
as well; they who had absolute power over the little ones.
Another major development in that vein must have taken place
when land owners and their hired hands came to an understanding as to the
duties and obligations that each had toward the other. And then, as the human
species developed scientifically, technologically, industrially, economically
and organizationally, the relationships between individuals as well as between
them and the authorities of the state, evolved to become a Social Contract and
a body of laws meant to enforce the social contract and maintain social
tranquility.
Each of those developments created a whole new web of
complex relationships (between governor and governed, boss and worker, teacher
and student, server and patron, and so on and so forth) where Human Rights
could be violated or perceived to have been violated. This is when the
demarcation line between the idea of Human Rights and the adherence to Human
Rights became blurred.
Needless to say that a great deal of confusion ensued, and
hasn't been straightened out to this day. An example of the difficulties
involved in navigating through the maze of the issues involved, came in the
form of an article under the title: “What Went Wrong With Human Rights” and the
subtitle: “The conflation of 'natural law' with 'positive law' handed communism
a philosophical victory after the end of the Cold War.” It was written by James
Taranto and published on August 18, 2018 in the Wall Street Journal.
Taranto is discussing a book that was written by Aaron
Rhodes on Human Rights, not his own views. He also met with Rhodes, and spoke
with him about the US withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council, quoting him
as saying that the Council is controlled by Islamic theocracies and influenced
by China. Those countries are forming a vision of their own, says Rhodes. It is
human rights without freedom; one that's based on economic and social rights
where freedoms are restricted in the interest of peace and stability, Rhodes
went on to say.
In fact, this conforms with what he has argued in his book:
“The Debasement of Human Rights: How Politics Sabotage the Ideal of Freedom,”
in which he also said that the UN made an error in its 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights where it conflated “natural Law” with “positive
law.” Rhodes defined positive law as the law of states and governments, whereas
natural law is a higher law that is also universal, he added. He went on to
explain that natural law was a force acting as a constraint on positive law.
I did not read the Rhodes book, so I cannot pass judgment on
it. But James Taranto quoted enough of it to indicate that Rhodes, who
complained about politics sabotaging the ideal of freedom, is himself so deeply
drowned in politics, he cannot hide that his philosophy is tainted by his
hatred for Communism and what he calls the Islamic theocracies. But this
inconsistency pales when compared to the serious flaw that's plaguing his
philosophy on Human Rights; a philosophy he shares with many others.
Here is what Aaron Rhodes has said: “This [idea of Natural
Law] is a vision that is very deeply embedded in Western civilization.” On his
part, James Taranto explained that it found, “premodern expression in the ideas
of the Greek Stoics and the Roman statesman Cicero, as well as in biblical
canon law.” Maybe so, but before that –– something like billions of years
before that –– the species that did not obey the Natural Laws of
self-preservation became extinct very quickly. Those that obeyed the law which
ordered not to kill a member of one's own species, went on to flourish and
evolve into myriad other species, including us, homo sapiens. In fact, the
natural laws were written into our genetic code before anyone had heard of the
Greek Stoics or Rome's Cicero.
Life being the most fundamental of Human Rights according to
the body of Natural Laws, the two most backward jurisdictions and highest
violators of Human Rights in the world today, are Israel and America – the
first being the butcher of Palestine, the second being the murder capital of
the world. When it comes to Human Rights, these two should hang their heads in
shame and keep their mouths shut.
Meanwhile the rest of the jurisdictions around the world are
picking up ideas from among the best practices in the field of human relations
as detected in the workplace, the classroom, the marketplace and every place
where people gather and interact with civility and peacefully.