--;...; - --- -- _, _, .T__;.,-ff ..'-5 _; _-_| -- _ - ' - ' _ ' - . - - - . _ . - .. . ..,- . J.-.;-:-.:.=-':=;'-__-=- - .|- - - _ . - - - - . - ' ~ . r- 3 --L 1,-,1 '-,e.-=-'----;.=;--'r,=#=s:r:'.-_ .-; '-.-'-:--.--*'."-T-:-a=" -'= _ =j-:'.-: --.,:-,-_:-.=.'._=; -1- 7 -'-;1. - '- ' ' -- -. ' . ' ' -1: =-.,'!. .-1.-' =5=11.-=*"s*".-'4?'l="*'15-T.--5553-5-it,-L.-=;,i:%-". . . . . . ... | _ . .- ..- .. - _ . . ._.. n |- . _- _ . _ . . . . _ , ._ _ . _ . ,__ .. _ . ., . _ . _ ,. -. __ . - __ __ ._:;___ ,-5., |_- ,',__ |_'_::q,,__r_-_:,-_._|;::':I|.r_: i;_-_*I1I-Z_.:2:-I-3%___-|:||,;f,|.,_-;E:||;L_i_,.h:_E;- z ...L..t

Chapter 5

Q

eg g,E5;eerie

n i ieII gees, seen

s see"Nazila Ghanea

Lecturer in Human Rights and international Low and MA Convener, University of London,Institute of Commonwealth Studies.

In recent years the lexicon of human rights has gained Widespread currencyin international affairs. International human rights standards have been putforward as: the central criteria of political legitimacy ,3 a criterion withwhich domestic and foreign policies should be reconciled, a .standard for civili-sation an ethical basis for governance, a means of ernpowerment against

1. An earlier version of this chapter has been published as a book chapter by N. Ghanea-Hercock, Faith in Human Rights, Human Rights in Faith in Thierstien andY.R.Kalnalipoul" (eds.), Reiigiori, Low and Freedornm-1 Global Perspective [Westport: PraegerPublishing, 2 ooo).

2. In this chapter the terrn hunian rights is being used in its philosophical sense, rather thanwith its specic legal connotations, unless stated otherwise.

3. G Luf Human Ri hts in Christian and Isla1nicTh-ought A Report on the Tubingen HunianRights Projecf in%s. Swidle1' (ed)'.., Reiigioixs Libs:-ty and Human Rights, in Nations andReligions p. 23 5 (Philadelphia: Ecunienical Press and NewYorl

E.

l|

|i

F

L

I-

.-"l|

IF

'.|'_.~

_ I08 Nozilo Ghanea

oppression by States, and, the strongest ethical language that exists? With;; the parallel increase in the assertion of religion onto the international agenda,__ the question emerges of how religion and human rights react to one another."_ Will both crusading normative projects collaborate in the provision of a

_ common grounding For a new mindset, or degenerate in a cold war of words_ over their notional normative space in the international arena?

Effective Universalism and Human RightsSince the end of the cold war and the 1993 Vieiinaworld Conference onHuman Rights, the call For a deepened commitment to ensuring that humanrights standards are ellectively implemented worldwide is becoming increas-ingly vocal. Such a universal respect calls for more than the enhancement ofinternational and national human rights monitoring machinery, critical thoughthat may be. Even with the best will in the world and consistent supportacross the board, it is impossible for a centralised international human rightsmachinery to oversee all international, national and local situations--espe-cially when, as van Boven notes, this machinery contains within it all the limi~tations of a preponderantly intengovernrnental organisation? Even if it werepossible For all such abuses to be policed, its cost and bureaucracy wouldbe phenomenal. Van Boven therefore concludes that the UN needs to, enrolalso other organs of society, national and international, in order to build upa broad human rights movement with the active and vigilant participation ofpeople at all levels, notably the grass roots level.-9 Should such a grass rootscommitment to human rights indeed be universal, it could itself act as guard-ian to the guarantee of such standards.

However, what is assumed in such calls For the universalisation ol humanrights is that the human rights discourse will not face any serious challengesto becoming adopted by the masses. One serious hindrance, however, is the

, questionable relationship between religion and human rights. Without trying

g. R. Kiinnemann, A Coherent Approach to Human Rights, Human Rights Quartsri,v.AComparative and Incarnation-aljournal gftlie Social Sciences, Hunianities, and lawVol. :7, No. 2,1111- 339-ass (Mar roar)-

. C.E. Curran, Religious Freedom and Human Rights in the World and the Church, AChristian Perspective in Swidle1'su,o1'a note 3 p. 1 58.

7. See, For example: Haynes, Raligioii in Global Politics (London: Longinan, 1998}.8. T.C. van Boven, United Nations and Human Rights, A Critical Appraisal in A. Cassese

(ed.}, UNl.aivrFui1rlainental Ri,gl1ts,liro Topics in International Lair p. I3o (-Alpheli aan denRijn,The Netherlands: Sijtliollic Noordhoil, 1979).

9. lhitl. 1). I32.

- . . . . . -. ._ . - .- -. -- -. -. .-- - ~ I-' a ';'| -.. - - -.>.. .' :-- '; -.- .-1.1. :s-- '-..'-'1-*1-1~I "s '-'=-' -'- ' -' .-'-2'-'---1----1.+.-s---'- I"" I-Ll =--' a - =-= .=- _ __, .- ---. -1-. -';-:-T ' 1'.t-=. .- 5.-T-~----.-_===L-. 4.--1. .- _"".'|Lf-'L"_.r -- --rs--.-.-= --.=---- -- -- .- .-.-f -- *- -- '_'- -_ - - - . - -=_.-.- _ --= =;- ==.--. --.-.-.-'-'.-7-5;"'-gt'.=-2$--13'-F1-L'!-=.-'fij'r*1-97*-1-5}""_%ii?-?,'i'-75IT=.- 1"-. -' ---'--.-. :- | . ' .* _: .. :.-1. r-L-I. -- '.'----_'__'.._w.'--. . '- =- . ' .- _ . _ ' -. _ _ - - - . --_ - _.1.-- .. _ _ _'--.1 ;',__--...-.'.._-,.-;--_.; ;-,_. . ;5-\.-;~.-.|-.==: --:1-- . .- | .- -1 _ _ ___ _...- ||__-P cw |,3;-;-|-q'.;..- -,_.|-.J,- ...-__|___.--. .- - . ;_ _ _ .., _....-___--___-- .. -- . .- -.. _.--... --. | . . . ._ _ _ - ,, - - _ _. _ H,_ .51-_ _. _ ,|-,,,.___,_.,.._r= --_.._;_,,. -. -.. _;_. ._.. _ .- _ . .- . . |.r .. -_____,'__" ,,r,._.__,__ - _ ..|-...-.1...-Q-mm-n I-

In __ _

Faith in Human Rights I09

to dichotomously position these two against one another, it is clear that thisis an area needing further exploration. One writer has argued that, Religionmust be seen as a vital dimension of any legal regime of human rights . . .Religions will not be easy allies to en-gage, but the struggle for human rightscannot be won without them. Kiing even argues that, there will be no peaceamong the peoples of this world without peace among the world religions . Vs/'l1y this claim for the indispensability of religion to human rights, when somehave actually highlighted religion as a complicating factor in the human rightsdebate?

If religion is so complicating, so dillicult, why deal with it? Why not he content withcasual recourse or wilful reversion to non- or anti-religious arguments derived fromEnlightenment era understandings of secular reasoning? If religion brings as much heatas light,. why not extinguish it, or at least bracket it in polite discourse?"

Even Kiing has to agree that The most fanatical, the cruelest political strug-gles are those that have been colored, inspired, and legitimized by religion .'3Why, then, engage with religion whose precepts hold meaning only for thosewho share its perspectives and which many feel cannot participate fully indebates relating to other value structures?

The value of the engagement oi religion becomes evident when the needfor nurturing a culture of human rights i is appreciated.The coming intoexistence of such a culture needs the creation of a new mindset. As humanvision can be signicantly informed through visions of faith, religion playsa signicant role in deepening the vision oi universal human rights. Hurnanaction is often profoundly motivated through deeply held belief. As, withoutcommitted individuals and groups, human rights will become a dead letter ,"such a rooting of human rights in religions will assist in the widening of boththe enforcement and ellectiveness of human rights.

Ito. Witte_[r, Law, Religion, and Human Rights, Columbia Human Rights Lavv Revieaol. 18,No. 1,p.2(Pall1996}.

I1, lrl. Kiing, Christianity and theliiorlcl Religions, Paths ty"Dialo,que with lslam, Hino"uistn,.andBucldliisin p. 4.4.3 (Glasgow: Collins, 1985).

1 2. M.E. Marty, Religious Dimensions of Human Rights in ]. Witte ]r and van der Vyver(eCls.), Religious Human lliglits in Global Perspective, Religious llerspectives p. 9 (The Hague:Martinus NijhoElPuhlishe1's, 1996}.

13. Kiing, supra note 1 I p. 4.42.I4. This has been proposed in many UN circles, for example by the LIN Special Rapporteur

on Religious Intolerance. l~le suggests that such a hum an rights culture should be learnedand absorbed progressively through initiatives and measures over the long term, particu-larly through education. See: Doc. E1 CN.a,/' 1996-/-95, Commission on I-luman Rights,gend session, I 5" December I 99 5, report of Mr Abclelfattah Amer, p. 1 g.

I5 I(iinnernann supra note 5' p. 34o.

.-_,_

'5'"

--._..,"-

-\-emWT._,,,._,.,

J i0 Nozilo Ghoneo

Complexity, Diversity and Human RightsIn our increasingly globalised world, varying cultures races and beliefs h

, avehad to adjust to living in much closer proximity. One aspect of dais contrac~tion in vvorld affairs has be th d Fen e nee or the emergence of a nevv ethic thatwill regulate relations betvveen the multiplicity of groups. International humanrights lavv has been codied in arallel vv'th th ip 1 ese orces, as a response to thesocial need For regulation in our increasingly complex societies. janis has del-

d hegate t is task of regulation to international lavv in claimin that the tg , grea esttask, Weighing on modern international lavvyers is to craft a universal and le al

5process capable of ordering relations among diverse people with ditferin reli~ggions, histories, cultures, lavvs and languages.This legal process cannot be

imposed on a void. It needs pillars to uphold it, genuine links that associate itwith particular groups and a congruous platform which connects it to specic

lpeop es. Universality does not imply blandness shallovvness or rootle I. , ssness. nfact, it cannot exist vvithin a vacuum of pretence of universalit As An-Nai

y. inhas stated,

if human rights are to be truly universal they must be based on the broadest anddeepest possible consensus among all cultural traditions.This can be done through anintelligent and purposeful employment of the processes of internal discourse and cross-cultural dialogue. '7'

This ambitious role tor the human rights discourse spills over into the need fora multicultural, multiethnic and multilaith approach that is able to capture theimagination of the public. At the moment, in Mitras vvords,

The question of human rights is asked and pursued in the "Western context. What therights ofhuman beings as humans are is often described in terms ofWestern cate '

gories.This runs the d i 'd ' ' ' 'anger o 1 eological I"1CrCDlDI"11E1llSlI1 ...There is a need to investigatethe meaning of human rights, of grovvth and progress, not simply from the perspectiveof the dominant cultures-but From the perspective of others as vvell. E

16. M.WI janis, preface to M.W janis (ed.), The Inuence ofeiininn on rim rlryglp mam; Ft n -- - ' F Erinternational Lew p. ix (Dortlrecht: Martinus Nijhoit, 199 I).

17. A.A.An~Naim,Tle ' h1 rig t to reparation for human rights violations and Islamic culture{s)'in T. van B-oven, C. Flinterman, F. Griinfeld and I.Westendorp (eds), Seminar on theRight to Restitution, Compensation nnrl Rehobilitotionjor Victims grrosslolotion ofhlumonRiglits one Fundoinentol Freedoms, ilfoosti"icht, i I -15 iliorth i992 p. I 77 (Llt1*ecl1t:Studie-e11Ini'ormatiecentrum Mensenrechten, and Maastricht: University oi'Limhurg Human RightsProject Group, 1992).

I8. K. Mitre, Exploring the Possibilitv of H l M lI int u- us im Dialogue in Svvidler supra note 3 p.I I6.

- :.;: '| :._-';"'__';|II- . -. '- -- ."..'-. .: .. -- L. ; ' .' '=i.'--7-;--'-'-="_-es}.-'1'-:==l&-"i=5-I-'*_ _ _ . _ _. -. ____ - -,;._'.;_ _': -=_ .':::__d.;,:,l_-:_;;-__,-.;_'r':.:.j=._-f,._; =---=. 1if;;;E1;;__'::{i_:'E%f_L::::E_;.-7E:-EI5.-I-3';1\-,5;-:_:=;.5:":.'-!|,!;=-:1}.n:-'-r:-.- -.I------...... - ...

_I.:.I_ ;.E_:.:._ l,-_._,_:_._- -__= _- F, .5 .. _-.__ -;_ __ I ._ - _ I - _ . .. _ _ _|_ __ __ __: _ _ _ ml _- __I_ d1.1 I, . I _ ._ I I, _ _ _ . . _ I I |_ I _ _ __ _, _ __., :__::...:.;_.::..__:,%_.._..;=__1_ 1

1--' :- - ,. ';-, - - - .=_ - . . '* - . _ _ - .; .- -_ _- 1?"-' .- ..' - H-'54, ,;_f'" ll.1-=-':..:'_ .-. -- .-.. -- ~ - _ .. . - - - - _ _ . . , . -- . 1_~, .._..-----._;-__: 1- J __-_-""-. - .__..;._.-,-_.---.'-=1,-. T ' I|'- ' ,. L '- "I ,. -' - _- . - '_ ' : ' -_ _ ' -. . _. -'--. . '- :=" '-' -'5: ,='=' "-r-i"_.'.2'-.-..__F'-.171"-1:;-|'='l';_|*. ,_,. "- g'--'---.- --P r,.. =. _-- . .' _ =- - ' ' -,- " ' . - -. "' -.'r4.; ":"-T 1-'..-.--. . . -'-.',- :, -~ -."rH:-"_"-.-- -'-. -L :1 F 3-*-H -lI-- '-J=-it? I ----7'- .- -= -= .-- -. . - - '- . . .. - - -- . . . . - . . - - . . - . -. . ... - .- . . .. "-I, I. ' . " . -""5;i.5"":i'l-"-:i"l"_'="= F T. . . . . .. ._ ._ __, -,,__,_____.;,,_, q_,. UH

Faith in Human Rights I I I

Longstanding human rights activists shy avvay from such projects vvith theunderstandable fear of unsettling hard-vvon converts to the cause of humanrights. They are overly suspicious about the prospect of feeding into the handsof callous dictators vvho rely on feeble excuses of cultural relativism in orderto defend their extreme policies and practices. Such a project, hovvever, hasnothing to do with those vvho vvant to compromise the basic tenets of human-ity and core and irreducible values of human rights. Its only concern is themedium through which such values are disseminated, the expansion of the lan-guage through which they are novv being proposed, and the genuine engage-ment of other cultures, peoples and religions. Such engagement aims to vvidenhuman rights and make its language, medium and standards accessible to far-flung cultures; to village dvvellers vvho may not vv-ant to lcnovv anything of theachievements of vvestern philosophical debates but vvho may, nevertheless,have an intuitive respect for the dignity of human life.

Though scepticism may exist about such high levels of optimism regardingthe accessibility of human rights, increasing support has meant that its normsare emerging as a key means for upholding the dignity of all human beings.Human rights rest on an account of a life of dignity to which human beingsare by nature suited. "9 As religions are also involved in the provision of uni-versal ethical norms for the dignity of the individual and betterment of society,it is not surprising that religious leaders and believers have, at times, consid-ered human rights as a threat to the sanctity and uniqueness of their voice insocial relations.With both human rights and religion regulating some of thesame turf in so far as normative loyalties are concerned, competition hassometimes dominated over collaboration.

In this clash of normative loyalties, proponents of human rights put itforvvard as a unique language of morality, to he contrasted sharply vvith theself-referential subj ectivities of specific belief systems.They emphasise thathuman rights is a non-ideological moral currency and is therefore singularlypositioned for the moral dialogues necessitated in our times. Within suchreadings of human rights one detects a vvidespread rejection of religion andthe overt positioning of human rights vvitliin an ideology of secularism. The

19. Donnelly, international Human Rights, and ed., p. 21 (Boulder: Weststiew Press, 195-8).to. Bryan Wilson distinguishes betvveen the terms secularisation and secularism by dening

the former as that process by vvhich religious thinking, practice and institutions lose socialsignificance, and become marginal to the operation of the social system, and the latteras an ideology . it denotes a negative evaluative attitude tovvards religion, and mighteven be appropriately seen as a particular religious position, in the sense that secular-ism adopts certain premises a priori and canvasses a normative (albeit negative) positionabout supernaturalism. B. Wilson, Secularisation: Religion in the Modern World in S.Sutlierland and P. Clarke (e-::ls.), The Worl(ls Religioi1s,Tlie Study ofeligion, Traditional and NewReiigiaii, 2nd ed., p. 196 (London: Routledge, I991).

---------_,_..,..,__,.

-..~.._

iF

J-|

l

i|

1

|.I-,lIr

I I2 Nozilo Ghoneo

assumptions underlying this perspective seem to be that the onl vva humanrights norms and standards can ever hope to be universalised islthrtlugh such

secularism. Some have argued that the modern human rights movement itselfwas brought into existence as, an attempt to nd a world faith to fill a spiri-tual void, thus denying the necessary manoeuvrability for the continuinginvolvement of religious values in its development (based, as it was, on sec-ularisms negative evaluation of the religious). Another signicant reason forthis rejection of religion has been due to the problematic consequences of reli-gious claims of exclusivity in an increasingly heterogeneous world. As diversityis the phenomenon of our time, the more neutral setting of the discourse ofhuman rights is being utilised to channel our response to it. Human rights hasattempted to seek consensus in a complex world of believers and non-believ-ers, and a variety of cultures, religions and races; through replacing God as thefoundation of the law with that of the inborn dignity of each and ever huma

y nbeing. Its assets are seen to be its severance from particularities attached toindividual belief systems. Nevertheless, thsuggestion of neutrality for human rights.

A closer focus on the emergence of human rights enables us t l 'o rea ise itshistorical and socio-political underpinnings more vividly. Human rights, like

individual religions, are not timeless categories in so far as their social mani-festation in this world is concerned. The political voices and power structureslurking behind the emergence ofparticular human rights discourses can simi-larly not he underestimated. As Luf has argued, Human rights have not been afeature of all periods and all cultures. They are a phenomenon of the modernvvorld, bearing the marl-as of its experience of reality and its normative ethicalnotions. *3 In their societal manifestation, rather dian their inner essence, bothrights and religion are historical constructs. This bond of historical relativityactually unites, rather dian distinguishes between, the social norms of reli-gion and human rights. Both aspire towards universality in their validity anddis h *' 'course, w ilst actually beai mg the marks of the historical circumstances oftheir emergence.

Furthermore whilst a sketch look at the blood conflicts in histor seems1 l Y lto justify some scepticism about the viability of basing international human

ere is much controversy about this

23. Luf, supra note 3 p. 236.

21. Wit'te, supra note to p. 9.22. This view is voiced bv Kenned R l. J - y, e igion is what we had before we had law. Religion

is the domain of irrationality and charismatic authority, law the realm of reason and thebureaucratic. International law understands its birth as a ooding forth from the darknessof religious strife, antidote to the passions of faith, on guard against their re-emergenceas ideology. D. Kennedy, Losing Faith in the Secular in hi.W Janis and C. Evans (eds),Religion and International Lair p. 3 13 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1999).

H

- . . _ - . - - . . - . ~. "--:=i;'-i-F-'-. -_' :-';'-"_---'_5--- - __ -- _ - _ -_ -'-_-_ ' .. -_ i-.-: j.- .- = ' ._ '_ _ ' - __ --.- .' . - -_ _ ' . _ _ _ - . _- 57-,. '-=,_--_._' ='-_ --_; -_,-= .~,I_-_,' ,- ;. .-1-j-_.1-,1--';:-" .--;','-v--1-1-_.j-_|.1-- :._ ';:--J --2-"'1 +.' -.- .1 -- -'-= -'- -. '---- -'-l =' - -- ' --"'-'- 1;,-__'=,;. ' -,__5'-=1-_;-_'-_.=;5.-|.- -4:_-;n-.-.jn-1;-T;'T_-.|-.*,..;' '-,'-- T__-_'_' -.-. _-.- _- . - ' - . _ . - _ _ - ' - - - _-- _. - .- _a_- . _ __ - '--r-- .__-_ I'-.:-;-_.-_,. _=;-*.__;-_n':r~_ =| _ - 1' -;-;, r-'._.,.~_r.-g-_-;.f

. . -- --1'!-r ' '="=i-15".--eur'-;'-'-"E=-';".+1r-vis--Ha=r-=5:-.1-1: : . - - _ . _. - - _- _ . . _ . -. _- - . - _=_... _ _ . ---'._.|!:'I.,'.\--v| _ -,,.- -._--|--_\|-t.-11" __ _ .?._ _-_- -91 -;- -~ _.-,- _ .-. .-. - . _ - - __. _; _.,- -_ . 1_.-- -.-. - ..-...._ ..-- .... - - - .. - . ._ _ -- ~ |5!'.'f:jiF-;*.-:-_.;,- : -5;_',_-;_-__-;.;-=_+==;--_.;,-.---,_..{'. .- __ _ 7 . = ., . . : --. -! -. - - -- - -- - - -; . - - _ -- ' ;,~f'-fr-f. Ev ___ :___L I3: t --1 __,,-j-|,__ H 1*-_,-.__-.u_-3'. __..:',._ ;.-.-'.. . -.-. -:|-:-.- -- - --r.

_1 1

fu-

_ _;|_ -- ,_ -F _ A'r-+_ "53- '|:"li.-\'." -

l_l,___..-

..- ...... ,_|.|-.||._-_-._-._-.|_i r .; ,-.. . . -|._- .. . 5..--. -._. ..-,- |_ _._-, ,_.._|__.- .._ -_| .- . . ._ .- ,,- _ _ _ ,_ _. _ _ _ ,.__ _ ___ ,_ _ _ _ _ I _ _ I __ |_ :l__ _:__h_; F 5 I _ l__i_l._____r_ __."__._: __:l__d_JLi_|."._|r_____:|____i=1|__ l_I___:rTdr__:_l_-a___si_t kw _,,

Faith in Human Rights I I3

rights standards on the foundations of religious belief, basing it on secularismdoes not necessarily alleviate the problems either. Though such an approachmay have the potential to unite the atheists, agnostics and some vvestern-edu-cated elites from the various religious groups to a nominal commitment; itseems to have had the eiiect of alienating still larger sectors of the vvorldpopulation and whole -civilisations vvhose worldviews are -closely intertvvinedvvith religion. Even of those vvho have not been overtly alienated, associationwith a -man-made standard has not inspired the most committed of followings.International legal norms often inspire little more than tokenism, supercialgovernmental statements made only to attract attention to limited and short-term policy objectives rather than any profound concern for those outsidethe orbit of their immediate political agendas. By trading in the foundation ofGod for its humanist alternative of human dignity", it could be argued thatdepth of commitment has been replaced by an elusive breadth of appeal thathas not been entirely successful. It is not clear that such problematic foun-dations vvill ever be able to lead to -genuine and vvhole-hearted participationby the (especially religious) masses, thus putting the vvhole project of bring-ing about a universal culture of human rights into jeopardy. It is not clear, forexample, hovv it may be able to lead to genuine and Whole-hearted partici-pation by the leaders of the jevvish homeland, Buddhist followers, SouthernBaptists, or the .Shii lnultitudes of Iran. Many believers have felt alienated bysecularisation, and share Mitras sentiment that We, communicate in sharingour spiritual insights in order to counteract the dangers of secularisation,vvhich leads to dehumanisation .14

Whilst acknovvledging the modern day desire for a neutral and universalstandard of norms, one can nevertheless acknovvledge that it is not absoluteneutrality that is implied, or even possible, but that of the identication of, aset of neutralh/jhrmuia-tad common human rights . 1 Since human rights, too,represent a specic value system the purpose is to make it non-discriminatorytowards the other , to, reconcile commitments to diverse normative regimesvvith a commitment to a concept and set of universal human rights .2? It there-fore emerges that although many have associated the neutrality of humanrights vvith its separation from religion such absolute neutrality from religiouscultural or ideological motivations is altogether illusory and indeed counter-productive. Religions, instead, should be encouraged to pour their visions and

24. Mit1'a,supra note I8 p. 123-.g 7 Q *1 " _ -25. Neutral here means 11'npart1a_ oi unbiased.

26. A, A. An-Naim, Toward an Islamic Hermeneutics for Human Rights in A.A.An-Nai1n,].D. Gort, l-l. jansen, l-l'.M. Vroom (eds), Hunmn Riglits and Relig1'o'us lEI'l1I.I.'i-, An UneasyRelationship? p. 2 29 -(Michigaiiz William. E. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 199 5).

27. lhid. p. 219..

1

I J4 Nozilo Ghoneo

moral resources into the progression of human r hlg ts, whilst allowing, roomfor neutral norms and values independent of such traditions .23 If either a

human rights ideology or religious commitments are interpreted in a totalis-ing manner they will exclude one another-to the detriment of both projectsin the long term.

On What Basis to Co-operate?If we agree on the need for an engagement bet

ween religion and human rights,the question then arises of the basis on which such an engagement should pro-ceed. What is the frameworl< under which this dialo '

gue is to occui"?What isthe collaboration to lool< lil

II

J

I.

I-

"TL1:"=ijI-.%'-"T..-'.='-:e:.;'=-;='er.-=-rs: 1 -.= - .. -. . .n,3.-',;._.-'~-;;.i'::.--."--+-=-=i'_-.:1|:_'.'.'E-='=.-.;,':-='-.'"-.4.-.:...1'-.'..I-._---__.-..';--1-L3_.,....'I;.f-I.+'- I-.3" .- -. ._ ._ -_ .

Foith in -I-lumon Rights 1 I5

which is to act as the corrective against which the other is to be judged? Howare the essential paradoxes between such universalist principles and particu-larist positions to be reconciled?

Approaches to Religion-Human Rights paradoxesA of o tions exist each relying on varying assumptions about the rolerange p ,of both human rights and religion in human life and society. These are neitherexhaustive nor necessarily mutually exclusive.

A strict demarcation of the public-private divide may sideline religion tothe private domain and assign priority to human rights in the public sphere.Such a position may wish to leave religious matters to each individual todecide, occasionally recognising the right of religious representatives to medi-ate within and on behalf of their own communities. Such a position has theadvantage of clarity. The correlating disadvantage is its simplicity in ignoringsocietal complexities and the arbitrary power implications behind its sub-jective public-private categorisations. Such distinctions also rely on a heavydemarcation between the sphere of influence of both religion and humanrights. Assumptions are being made about the positivist concepts of law andthe privatist concepts of religion that tend to dominate the modern Westernacademy . 3 It is such perceptions that seriously resist the involvement of reli-gion in the human rights debate, and tend to minimise areas of mutual interestbetween them. As the world report on Freedom of Religion and Belief sug-gests, despite the aim of some secularists to wish religion away in the publics here The idea that religion belongs only to the private sphere is meaning-P >less to the vast bulk of believers of all religions in the world.3

Another position is that of making decisions about the role of religion th ut-d d nt on the will of the majority. This makes perspectives on e oepen ecomes of religion-human rights clashes dependent on the democratic will ofthe rnajority within the community concerned.Wlulst on the face of it thisseems to resolve the dilemma, the preference attached to the majority clearlyfalls short of the whole spirit of the human rights regime. As Donnelly ai gues,Human rights are fundamentally I1OI'111'1ELjC}I'llIE11'lElI'l. Human rights are con-

- - " rson a ainstcerned with each, rather than all.They aim to protect cveiy pe , g

30. Witte, supra note 10 p. 3.31. K. Boyle and Sheen (ecls.), Freedom cjRaii'gi'on and Bali-:jIAl"I-si'hi Report p. io (London:

Routledge, 1 99]).32. Wliat is being discussed here is a simple calculation of the preference of the majority. The

' - - ' -it'es as well.ideal of Liberal Democracy, however, is caieful to protect ininoi 1

1-vi---u-1-__,_q,.|____F.

-I-app----,1-..

Ii.

I-

-mm-n

J is Nozilo Ghoneo

majorities no less than against minoritiesf In Fact, the project ofhiunanrights would become meaningless if it did not extend to the protection of thev l bl ' " ' ' ' ' 'u nera e, often minoiity position This position is not abl t, . e o extend its pro-tection to the vulnerable and, in fact, would tend towards the consi te t '

s n rejec-tion of the minority position.Much of the history of modern human rights has prioritised the legal over

the religious. Whilst a number of the original Fathers of international law,such as SaintThomas Aquinas, were theologians there has been t

a s rong moveaway from the theistic strand in some of those natural law roots. Davidsonexplains how the theistic tone in natural law was challenged by a concertedeffort to secularise the basis of the law and, make it a product of enlightened

lsecu ar rational thoughf. Grotius, For example, assisted in natural lawsreplacement of the Deity with right reason and the secularit of th l h

y e aw asbeen a lcey feature of its recent development. Historically it is believed thatsecularisation and positive law was crucial in providing, a denite and s stem-

Yatic statement of the actual rights which people possessed? Some have con-tinued this line of argument in suggesting that the foundation of respect forrights has to be se l .A' ' * ' 'cu ar s Halliday suggests in relation to human rights in theMiddle East,

The central issue is not .. . one of nding some more liberal or compatible, interpre~tation of Islamic thinking, but of removing the discussion of rights from the claims ofreligion itself. Unless this step is taken, the multiple levels of limitation text 1-

. . . -- , cuture, instrumentality and religious hegcm onyvvill prevail. 3?

However, the disadvantage of this strong stance of prioritising the legal overthe religious in the discussion about human rights is that of the ensuing Frus-tration and alienation it leads to amongst the religious. ls it not possible to,instead, remove the discussion of rights from the exclusive control and claims ofone particular religion whilst also nurturing the collaboration of religions andth- l' ' ' ' ' ' 'e re igious in the realisation of human rights?

In contrast, religious norms may be clearly positioned over h. uman rights.As Mohideenremi d. th ' ' ' 'n s us, e simple exclusion of religion Froin the ubl'

p icsphere is Far from alatable F 'h ' 1" - "p iom t e Islamic pci spcctive.

33. Donnelly, supra note i9 p. 155.3441 See Hilaire McCouhreys chapter;1\Iatura1Law R l

, e igioii and the Development ofInternational Lav. in M W-' . . Janis and C. Evans (eds.), Religion and International Lew (TheHague: Martinus Nijholl, 1999).

3;. S. Davidson, Huiiirin Ri hts . B l3 p 2;; ( tic cingham* Open Llniversitv Pies- .' 5.1993)-36. lbitl. p. 29.37. F. Hallida* lslo 1 cl h M

i

y, in ii t e Ifli ofCoi3fi*oiitetioii p. 157 (London: l. B.Tauris, 1:995).

..-g--|-_':. '1-Yfll.-

-:-_..- :.,.-,_-_:--,.s -4;-.---;i-..-;_.==_, ,-.-;-;~;=_*r;-_.t-"--..=_. .-__ .__.__;_ .-__:_-.-l.-.,,_]_ |.:| __;=,r_.__\-_._._,,,|.,:,;.____|_,! .. -.'-Lj =":-- . .-_-,-..=-|~..- =~".- I-'"_--.-' .--- --"-2 |';:'_- ..-I-' '_' -."1--111'-F-nu:-T-i-!-'-*1 -- -' ..'.--:--'-i- -'.-=i -*'$.r."I*t.==- "-.- ."*I"-:1-' ='--s.:-

1:1;.-J_5.T+"_5r-;._:."'. '-_-1--

I I8 Nuzilu Ghooet

However, distinctions may indeed need to be made between those that havea genuine desire to engage in the hum h

an rig ts debate whilst maintaining itsfundamentals, and others who are tryin to thg wart and undermine its verypurpose. Though the line between the two cannot be easily drawn, the dis-

tinction is necessary for religion-human rights reconciliations not to obliter-ate the very contribution provided by human rights. The problem, however, isthat human rights (in its popular rather than legal usage) has come to mean allthings to all people. Nevertheless, perhaps the distillation of a most basic tenetof human rights~that of non-discrimination-could l

at east serve as an ini-tial guiding principle. Howard, for example stron l c d, y on emns fundamental-ists and traditionalists who try to engage in the l'1L11

'i_.".f,I'-L-ii-'.,_-r.5-i}_'I|'iv:-E-F23--r57 l;- - '. 1- _' - - . -. - . . ._-;;.---r=_--_-;- |,-=_-_;-_

120 Nuziiu Ghuneu

distinct, but Witte suggests that they are related conce tuall m th d l. p y, e o o ogi-cally, institutionally and professionally. The two are seen as seamless universes

f Io meaning, existing in a cross-fertilising, harmonising relationship ebbing inand out of each others realms. Thus, while Religions and ideologies are . . .called upon to make explicit how human rights commitment ows from thevery spirit of their teachings," presumably human rights on its part wouldalso be obligated to effectively uphold freedom of religion or belief? This pic-ture, however, does not respond directly to the question of ho t

w o empiricallyresolve conicts and questions of hierarchy.

Interim UnderstandingsIt seems that no ultimate solution can be found to this question of on whatbasis to resolve all conflict th *s at are to evei emerge between human ri hts dg - .anthe endless wealth and diversity of religious or other beliefs The underl 'n

' Y1 5problem in determining a final solution to this question is in the monolithicassumptions it would have to make about both human rights and religions andbeliefs. Furthermore, it would have to risl

P -\- --.r-_ -- 'J||||_ ..;-,. =1 _ -. r-_. . _,_...-_-_ - .., ,. . - . - ._- _ . _ - . _1" L "'-'- '-'..: i-'*'i=-=- "--.-"'_-'-"'-Z -' ' Y r' -'-'---l" - I If ". ' '.I=-'-":"-'-"- "'" T . " '--- - ' . - . ' ' . - -.' - | -.';'I .: - -'- - ----.-*. ..~-- - -. -- - -- -.. -.-. ._- . . .--._;.;,:_|$-_.,,-_.g?_.E,_I.; _.:.,,,,.._:.,? 4:}, ::_."- f. I,|7 __.__,:_- _:.-1:...-:'; _,;__1; _:-:.-_-:I_..- ._- -._.. . ,, ,_ __,_,_ .. I I _ _ . . I I I : . _ _. -_ , ,;-_ __ _"__ _,,:_._:F.__.___.-.__:___:l',T:,, ._;l.___1_._.;_r,_i::__ -L:;.:_g_:;_f;:,;E5.-;ij.;_f_i|:y_-.t_!_:.:Ek..||.;5 __i;'"-Fl -1-w|+|..- ---_|-1-...-i.-_.i__.-:,- . r .---'1.-1-.-.-: .1 -.--..'-.---=: --"I1.-'--n--.--I-r-.-.' r|~- -..-- |-..-. --.. s-.-..-.-_-. ,- ;_-_|,- .. -_.- .. . .1 . . _. ... ., _ - _ . .- _. .._. _ , _. - . ._ ,__ _ _ _, , _ ._ , __ _.__ ___, _.- = _.__,_;_r_-__-,_|._,,_,__,| ,_ _, _|____: lT,E_____._ .._,,._,.,._,.|.___,_,,r __.,r:_ __-|.dT_,_'-|,_,_.:___;,.__ in ,5

-H' ..''""L_i"\-I_lliQi|-u-r1-i__l._-.iL_-__"_i

l

II|

iI

i

Fuith in I-lumen Rights |2|

deterministic conclusions, submitting to Fallcommon ground for a pluralism of ideologies .""iThough religions play a primary role in highlighting the moral values which

followers attempt to translate into daily living, given the fact of pluralism theytoo will be judged by what is considered to be morally acceptable. Withinthe pluralism of our times ull traditions and practices have to pass the testof some sort of universal moral code ,5 and religions cannot expect immu-nity from this process. Within social and political circles, such decisions areoften judged through the lens of human rights. 1-ts Mitra has stated, Modernitygenerates self-reflection and can be an antidote to the dogmatic adherence.to the beliefs of the forebears and mechanical repetition of what they did.llncritical adherence to traditions can stagnate any religion .5 The questionis whether religious traditions will allow human rights to play this role ofinjecting modernity (here being dened as our response to the diversity ofour times) into religious thinking. Willing support for such a process restson the expectation that religious traditions concede that the pursuit of theirmoral code necessitates prior belief in the validity of the grotmds on whichthat code has been built, and an acluiowledgeinent that human rights needs

48. Palk, supra note 4.o p. 6o.49. Kiinneinanii, supra note 5 p. 34_o.go. Preface to A.Ft.An-Nai1n,j.D. Gort, H. jansen, I-].M."~.i'ooi"ri (eds.), Human Rights and

lleiigioiislihlues,An Uneasy Relationship? p. viii (Michigantwilliain ll. Eerdmans PublishingCompany, 19.9 5).

51. An interesting aside in this debate is that of the public accountability of churches, a dis-cussion which arose out of the adoption of the Human Rights Act by the UK parlia-ment in November 1998. This was explored in detail in a paper contributed by CanonMartyn Percy, Inclusion and Exemption of the Churches from the HRH. at a conferenceheld at Imperial College on Taking Religious Convictions Seriously: The Impact of theIncorporation oft-he European Convention on Human Rights, (London, 6-7 january I999,unpublished paper). It was also discussed in L. Wai'd, People power threatens church free-dom, The G-uurcliun, 1;; Pebruary 1998, p. io.

52. Mitra, supiu note i8 p. 116.

________,_,i_i_----.---_

122 Nozilo Ghoneo

to bypass such particularities. However, if the subject matter of human ri htsEis the universal quest for what it means to be human then every human bein

F gshould be able to have a say in the answer to this question. The discussionabout human rights, therefore, needs to be larger and wider than the choice

F l0 re igion, belief or commitment of each individual, and yet not totally alienfrom it. Th ' * ' ' 'e question iemains, Can human rights be intei ieted and ' t

p " jus i-ed from within religious traditions, such that they are supported rather 111, anundermined, as the common core of a universal morality among these tradi-

.5tions? Ti As the UN Special Representative on the human rights situation inIran reiterated (in relation to traditional culture, but equally relevant to reli-gion), Traditional culture is not a substitute for human rights; it is a culturalcontext ' h h h ' ' 'in w 1c uman rights must be established inte iated d, g " , promote andprotected. Human rights must be approached in a way that is meanin ful andrelevant in diverse cultural contexts. The project for a culture of hLTmanrights requires both cultures to rest on the basis of human rights values andfor human rights values to be embedded into various cultures-thus givingrealisation to the new amalgam of a culture of human rights. Only time willbe able to tell how far such projects for the support of human ri hts t'l'

g , u 1 is-ing a variety of cultural and religious symbols and commitments are able t, ocollaborate towards the realisation and pursuit of a universal code of human

rights.The second interim understanding is the acceptance of the utility of human

rights in relation to statecraft. As human rig.hts is a manmade code its ulti-m t l ' 1' ' i * * 'a e c aims 1e no higher than iepiesentmg the latest re ister of a r d d

g g ee annegotiated standards for a decent human existence (ironically this humbl. eclaim is its strength). As social conditions and circumstances alter, its nuances

can be adjusted to register more appropriate measures for changed circum-stances. Human rights allow an in-built elasticity and exibility in interpreta-tion that allows them to move beyond their historical bounds. Human rights

d iiare e ned and concretised at certain points in history as key internationalle al doc " ' ' * ' 'g uments such as the Univei sal Declaration of Human Ri hts and tl

. g 1etwo International Covenants bear witness to However the pur ose of such' :| Ptexts is not to nalise concepts of human rights For eternity, nor limit Future

progress; the purpose is to chart, in a precise manner, historical developments

53. Supra note go p. xiii.1.[.. Doc.ErCN..:tx i99.6:59, Commission on Human Rights, rand session, 2 I March I996,

Report on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, prepared by theSpecial Representative oF the Commission on Human Rights, Mr. iviaurice Copitliorne(Canada), Introduction, section Ft.

gg. Note here, For exa l "l - ' ' Tmp e, t ie notion of the Luropean Convention of human rights as aliving instrument .

-. an I ,_..|._ ___,_=.,.,,~,.->-.1; __. :,,1__-.- .1 .:-

,.,.,:II-__|.. " \_$_.__... J"-'P'*'_._.

... _ J ;,;_=_:t%-;',;'_:#:..a;;,__=-=1? "-E-$1-.... I. _. _ _ ....

_, -i'.2-:vt*.-'='t1'=.a.=1.: '1 '1 _

. . . " .- . . .' .-- '- -_ .--- -I 1:-:-' ._--l,"'.. .-'.: -:'.-."i;i-; r1"-T;-""2-'-'-."'-T -:.';:!j=,. .. _ . _-; ;-_ _ 1-".1 _. ---1__ -' '. _- -_ _'_'.-_,_ --- -.__;;- -' 'j1-;- -.,.:=_:._--.._- -;. .. - 1=.-- - ---- -' --=-'='. .-1. -- - -. _! '- --.-'-;.-_-.-'='-.--,--'-r=':-7-*-__-;- . 1'="' = ' -' "'-'--. ' . :' ;- -- -~75 ' -- - -' T5;'i"J|"'..', -=-'--E-'-i --.-=- " - .'T.i= " --- =-'-E-is-:= ':.-'=.' --"=n".-----."t- -'r--i-'--.'-'r'-!--E-"=-' = 2*-='. '- ='". - - - - - -. .' .-: . - I . -':=.. -= ' =*-::.1=.=i--"-.-=--.1:--~.=;.:.I:. --- .-1..-=-22-s:::-1. .' -r;.:-.-:e-a-:.--..41-_1_ -=' - ft, - .r1- __._'_1\.-.-u=_,_._..*.p '1-_-1E'.'_* 1_1f'_'L'j;;' ;_ - _- - .- _ - _'- .-; _ - ' . -_'- -' _ , ; |. 1 _ _____,-._--1;_.,._,__,;,,_,...._..._-.r.- -.- . _ .. ;--L -' ' '- "' . "|.." '._.-"' '.--;-.-F '1, " I- .:I=";_-_5- "'|-'-.- .-.2--' ,- ...- .._ =-' _ _|_ '-_-> __I_. - _,;.| .' ;,? __ . _ ._-.'_:-..'-.-. - ---1-' ' -"' ' "-'- ' ' ' ' "' ''-'-T..=":"_" _ .-1. '- -|--1'1""-.... T-E I '-J.1-.'-R5:.:JlEi'Ir3.I'..\|"~-:.I"l-;.i'F-!- -!r:+I'1-.-- ._.. .-_-.-__..- .-_- ..-- . . - -- -

lIl

||r

I|-

7=-':=' '-"-_'.-"-I.1'.".-I.=" -'-r----==. -'1 . '- -' - . '. - .- . - ' - .-- - -=. - .. . ._ ____- _.-.- _- - .- _-Ir-..F '" 2 . " : .r" . - - -- . . . . . . . ~ - - - .- : :_.: .=_.-- :=.:-+1 +=s1.= -. .".. I .:-I-e -"+-r-'-'ii-- . -' .-'-F: "- "- : '-"'1--'-'-I1-"';' ' '.'.== . --. -J- . :-i.1.' .2 I .' " .. .'.'- . - '_- . -- - - - '. 1 '- " '-_. s:_-I_'|;- __-- -":-|'_-...: 1_ ;_=_'-.-*'-;,-.=:-='| .-;:Lr -t-.;-1_-'_ - "f;- _--|-!"._ -, _, __ -.. ...-_.__ 1 . ,.- . . . - . . . ,_|_| ||l':-_r .-. ' - ,.-=-~_-r.;.. ' - !'-.- .-- . _ :_. . -' - . ;- _ - . . ' - - *_--.- __ .=';---;;..' =_--|._ --; ='=-"- __..-;_ -,,.-.1'.-. |;|_;_-|: ;--= -,. _._ ,- - -.=.;-;__;..'_ I: I 1;-. .-j .., I: .., __. .3. ..J __ 1 . .l __. I I . _ ._ __., I .- _., _ . _. _. _ _ _ -:, __. C 1-_ _____I_|L_ ._...___:_.|_:____l 1,: r-ll-El:-L-_l.1_:__:i:1:-,:_-;_&i':':;:;_.E-_:'_' -J.:____F,, '1' ___. __ . _-.=-- -.e'-'_-=.'-:;.-=-?_-'=':---"-?'-:-.r- -. - ==f .=- -' _ . _' : -- - ' - - - ' .-;;.-;=--.-.- - '-'-f-__-;._'_"';-E1.-',_:--1-J.

JZ4Nozilo Ghoneo

seine common goals and aspirations, often draw on religious resources th ta remainrichly and irreducibly diverse. 6

What is required therefore is this artn h f, , p ers ip o human rights with an end-less richne d d' ' ' 'ss an iversity of religious and other b l' f '

e ie s in support of thehuman rights enterprise.

Prerequisites for Reconciliationand Human RightsThe religious engagement in the human rights discourse

between Religion

presupposes a prioimutual commitment to the t ' 'win requirements of an acce tance t fp o con rontthe past and respond to the h ll ' 'c a enges of the present.

importance of confronting historyA major prerequisite to a mutually benecial discourse between religionand human ri hts is the abilit to confront the ast. It is clear that reli . iousg Y P gengagement in the human rights discourse not only requires the abilit to seewhen h l ~ Yone as iecn wronged but also of when o hne may ave wronged anotheiSuch encount h ers wit the ast not onl fuel a ieatP Y . g " er commitment to prevent-ing a reoccurrence of ll " ' ' 'co ective prejudices in the futur b l. " e, ut a so allow freshstarts to be made and 31 ' ' j evious inter-communal tensions to be laid to rest.

Many such tensions exist between religious communities aroiuid the world,and much can be done by reli ions t hg o s ow a commitment to a foundation ofres ect f "h ' ' * 'p oi tunan rights in future relationshi A

ps. s one writer has stated inrelation to Muslim/' Hindu history in India Kno ' h. wing w at we did or did notdo does not alter th h ' 'e istory of the past but this lcnovvl d. . , * e geif accepted with

courage and honest l ' ly can ead to a different l{1I1Cl ol future t O' . n the part ofhuman rights .a coiitem t f * th ' ', p oi e role of religion and a resolute reliance onsecularisation as the only approach will forbid religious engagement and ulti-mately wealten the foundations of human rights w.ithin communities and by

62. I. Bloom, Introduction in I. Bloom, R Martin and W1. Proudfoot (eds.), iieiigiaiisDivaimy and Hurnan Rights p. ia (NewYorl

_ _ . _ , .. _ . .. _ _ . . _ . .- - _ - : . _,. - __. ._-, _ =:-_.- _.-._-- .7,--. :_:-_:_-.-.-_~_s=.__-- .73"-_ _n1 .--3-,;_|\-,_;._-q. .- '- 11?_,|_ _-'.1_;_-'=--=1-.__jI.-*.- ..'-1H-_|_-'-:_-;.'1V1-_-'.'_-__,;'._-;-J, -=- _ -, !f.'.-_ =\;;I"-'_- - .11 _ -' , _ . _ I . _ . __ -1 _- -_ : _- ' -' -1- Q _. _l;--'-_ .I',;'_i-I-_'l-;-:='--,2;--"3__1,:;" q-_I..._.,=:"=-,;L'-:r,'-r|-}i-_*,--- ._;-:.-E? I ,_T!-..-'-"'-E--=r~'-:\-'-4-T-F---'1'-=-.*?==1Ifu:;----5s'-=zI..'-=-=:----;:.'=.!-mi-..5-L-.===-=.r-.-11.1-=.-.-I-. -..=.-.. '_ _ - ,1 - . . ' . - I-i. - , ' .,: . -. ..-.!,=;.: =- E:'._'5_.;_-;F5,..,_L'E'="J:lF,1T,.'}',-T.;i:F =.,-._.-,1!-.-.-':,:*:'r-'-'*;=,=;~:'_E-E

Faith in Human Rights

many individuals. Whilst human rights may have traversed periods of stringentsecularisation and resistance of religion, the time has novv have come to vveavea more mature and constructive encounter betvveen the tvvo.

Religion and human rights as hermeneutical processesTraclitionalist conceptions oi religious truth see such truth to be self-evidentexplicit and not subject to any interpretation. Due to the recent nature of themodern human rights discourse and its fty or so year old history, it is evidentthat no religion was historically able to comment on human rights or, if it didthat the implications of the concept may be diflerent to current thoughts sur-rounding it. The religious response to human rights is therefore interpretativeand imaginative in nature demanding a reconsideration of religious norms inresponse to a recent innovation. A religious response to such a developmentrequires a particular attitude vvhich is able to accept the assumption that,

Religious traditions are hermeneutical processes: they do develop, change and--sometimesimprove in response to circumstances and in dialogue vvith their context.Critical dialogue does not mean a ight from xed, unchanging positions but rathera mutual search for a better understanding of human life, a just and merciful society,nature, and ultimate realityl

This process of interpretation involves an approach From vvithin the tradi-tions concerned vvhich encourages a positive approach to responding to nevvsocial realities. A commitment to the herrneneutical role of religion is vvhatdistinguishes it distinctly from self-complacency, self-delusion and fanati-cism. As-Van der Vyver states, This mode of human experience carries withit the responsibility to continuously and critically reappraise one s percep-tions of that truth in vievv of nevv l

I 26 Nozilo Ghoneo

On its part, human rights activists should also avoid becoming dogmaticabout, and xated upon, the present achievements of human rights. The wholeutility of human rights relies not on it being fixed in stone and resistant to anyfuture reconsideration. Through dialogue and negotiation reinterpretation andenrichment are made possible, as is greater commitment tovvards the realisa-tion of its ideals. Indeed, vvithout such commitment human rights can neverbecome anything other than a dead letter and benchmark of failed dreams onlyever activated through political and politicised channels.

Human Rights Contribution to ReligionSuch approaches could lead to tvvo inter~related possibilities, one beingfreedomjbr religions, the other freedom within religions. Developments forhuman rights have already been discussed and those vvithin human rights vvillbe approached in the next section.

Importance of freedom for religionsAs has been stated earlier, due to the peculiarly modern? concept of humanrights, the concept per se does not exist in the scripture of any religion. Despitemany religions trying to claim fatherhood to the concept of human rights, itsmodern constructlinl

; -:._"-|: |,- _-.- .| 5., _:_. _-__. -1_=_ --_'.-'.-_.__-_-_ .-_ L.-.,_. ._ ,. _-- .-. . . ,_ -_ - _ - - . - - - _ | _ _. . , _ -_-a-_- __;, _. -_ . __. .___ 1 _ .-,4-;__, :,_;-_ U1-.-,.;-,__ -T-__. ,_,._ ' - !_'.l'_-|'\| -;---5' -,'*..'."":I'.'l.' .'f" l-='=,..".-'11..--, ?\'!5.-I-1'51] ':'.1"-'_'-'|_=_'*.'_i__- _' I-T--' -'_'-'-"'1'; ' '|' ". -. ' - . ' ' '. . I ' ' '1 I ' . I -' '--."-' . 1-.' --"='--:-I:.':'-Li -=":I-1"-':-'-I-'*."i'-!1!"-I-5-f.'-'-;-:ii i_i:,";'_l"?;'-'-ll*I,5'l.;.'-"-l.;lil?;:"ll-.*j=i1v .~-|;|'u':-'-T-,1r-==-i-"'-'=-&'-'11'-t?+-1-;--Ir-'='1::-1'-.:tr-=r-'-.-'.=:-r-t:--=-1.7-'.--.;-I--.---;:.- --.-:_':_ ,1,-.''5." __..!..- _ .. ._ _,___ ,. .. _ ' - l!_.i:;:,2-j,__,',,.3;;__1-L_].1,-f,_'_',,j1_-hffffq'.j_,|u;i_,;,,-u.;_'5+_,-;-,,',l__-_ ;,_ 4:,-. --,

r N_|| _

Faith in Human Rights I27

provision under the law does not necessarily lead to equality of treatment hasbeen established through a number of examples such as the civil rights move-ment, the study of women s human rights and the continued threats againstindigenous cultures around the world.This principle also applies to religiouscommunities, which explains why legal personality and human rights needs tolead to a much fuller, ongoing and more dynamic relationship between statesand their religious communities.

The implications of human rights for internal discoursewithin a religionThe religion-human rights discourse has both an internal and an externaldimension: externally with other believers and "communities and internallywith regards to the respect guaranteed to every one of its own believers. Thetwo are not necessarily correspondent within each belief systemperhapsin the same way that countries that are most vigorous in paying lip serviceto human rights on the world stage are rarely those that translate this most-keenly into a true commitment at home.

A wide chasm often remains between how religions expect to be treatedand how they treat others. It also emerges in relation to how religions treatmembers within or outside their religious community. The most interestingdilemma that emerges is that of new religions that emerge from the midstof previous religions. The reason these groups often suffer the worst fate isthat they span the divide between internal schism and an independent bodyof belief. Such groups perceive themselves as having established a new beliefcommunity whereas the parent community sees them as a distortion andblasphemous offshoot of their group. I-Iuman rights are thus often criticallydenied them as they epitornise the most threatening and dangerous form ofthe other F It is such circumstances that deepen the complexity of free-domof religion and belief still further. It is not just the toleration by believers ofsecularists, atheists, agnostics or followers of particular religions or belie.fsthat is at stake. The task facing believers amongst themselves is itself immense.Generally, The challenge remains considerable to establish an ethic of toler-ance towards those who differ on religious grounds.ii Kiing proposes the ideaof an ecumenical theology towards this end, ecumenical theology can help

71. A vivid example is that of the Balr.-ii Faith as perceived by many members of the Shiiclergy and by the Iranian Government.

72. Boyle and Slieen, supra note 31 p. 13.

Most of our consideration thus far has considered

I28 Nazila Ghanea

to discover and work throu h the conflicts caused b the reli ions confession5 Y g =

5'and denominations themselves . itTensions between the rights and responsibilities of religious believers could

also ' ' ' ' 'give rise to tensions in the day-to-day running of a religious community.Curran states Most of the internal )IOlJlE1Tl5 ex erienced in the church stem> l P

om the tension between authority and freedom. What is the proper use ofauthority, and what are proper roles of freedom? Human rights provide andi eal means of engaging in dialogue about such issues.

just as freedom in th h he c urc can be a way of dealing with most of themajor problems facing the internal life ofthe church, so the langua e of ri ht

E 5 5can be used as an instrument to deal with the major tensions facing the con-temporary church. Rights language is the strongest ethical language that existsprecisely because it makes a claim on other people to do something. Value lan-guage, for example, is not nearly as strong. if

The utilisation of human rights in communicating about how to resolveinternal tensions is one example of how the religion-human rights enga e-

gment may be of benefit to religions.

Religions Contribution to Human Rights

the contribution of humanrights to religion, but what of the potential impact of religion on humanri ht'?W' - ' " ' 'g s itte creates the backdrop to this vision in this wa Human 1' ht

Y lg lsare,b desi n abstr t " ' ' ' ' ' 'y g , ac statements oi individual and associationallivin that" Edepend upon the reli ious visions f ~ ' ' 'g o pei sons and communities to give them

content and coherence? He has furth ' d thei argue at, The deprecation of thespecial role and rights ofreligions has impoverished the general theory ofh ... h _ I} 3,? I g . .uman iig ts . The case that religion may lead to the enrichment of a L

specsofthe human r ht d'- - ' ' 'ig s iscourse now requires analysis.The most likely benetsare likely to be four in numbe : tl - "dr 1c wi ening of the cultural base of humanrights, promoting an understandin f thg o e concept of duties, challenging thestate-centric and individualistic basis of huma "' h " d dn iig ts an eepening the con-cept and commiunent towards third generation rights.

'3_?.c|_. Curran, supra note 6 p. I 55.

.ibirl. p. 158.

. Witte, supra note to p. 3o.lbid. p. II.

Ff

... Kung, supra note I I p. an-.|.r.

. -'- . - "- --.. .- -+. . _ . ' - -:_. .- '-:_:- -_.---.;-1;,'..-'1,-:=~_='--_,.:,.-.-' --;.=.~_=_=_='a-:_1-L-;,-.5-'=_=-:-;;+.l .1-.-i -..= .;.--... . ,-..,_. P-_. - - - - - - -

"1: _,,_.- '-

_ _ L I _ I I I . _ I _ rill-I :_.:.: I__.L_,_,|:-;;_:.E E__.:._,5;.:-ii__._;,:.;r-|__,%T%.:._,=11_.1-2:5: .gg,;|:|-__;_--. _ .-. .- .;- , _ _: ---- :-=--:" ,4; -' --_'_----.' ' ,. .' "F _- - __L',- '*.--.-'- .- ' _'_. ' - ' _ ' .' . . ' ,. I -_ ' '_:_-1;- '!' _.l -I_'__- ,--.;_-:1j"v:'-1.'_";5.=-'.';_.;" " 1-.-{-._}; -" "|-.-. "' --E -.;.I_"':_- ~;___-_.,_. ;,:,:-"-_s_'_-_-. --_.|. ;5_;,I;__3.-=___-_ _, F-'\I_ 39-_ ._:-_ --._.. ; ""._-._- __ - - - I -_,.' - '- _ - - . , .| : . '__ -.-_ --__-,_-- ,";_.';--_-=|,. .',-_.,-- -:_. |-|-._-"4!-L ..__.':'E;'_a_-;7-.r.E"-lq;"'l'.9.""i-I-4 |_.,:;;.--r"'\_I; t.-.1 11iE-'.-a- -.1," ~ . ;-j--.; '=';1I'.:_.,-_--.- -;_;",-; :.;' - 5; - . _ . -' . _ . _ -. _' ' _ - - ' - ' ' - -.' . .-- '__;g = "L;._'-:._: _!-.-=-_'-'-___.-,5:-,1, :.':'17-"'1'-;-..! n_1-.-=-}v,-,E,;1,j"-::.;-;_:-|'.-,.- -1! '=.,I,-175" _' .;==_:-_-=-:- ,-;'.- "_-.--.'-:;-,-.'..'I-, -="- '-,,-='~ . -' . '. ' " " - 1. . - . -- . - - - ' . - .' . . _ ' -; -1 _-;_'r. =. 11;-I-_ '-='.=:~:;.=--.;,.;.'.-- -3;?-.'-.32."-'-_ --;' ---.;==-- -; :1 -:9-:~-,_7LL_;_:__.-..._:.:-_._::;7.15L.__.: 1 rt}-I; _, '_,,:.;_--._;-.:_t_ _- 3: ._I_-_ - |;i__| ::L I __ r _ _. _ _ - - . . I _ -. I .- _ :_.. J __ __:1_,!, _ I-_\___ J:"_::-_.:,i?'_._.,_F_.:_1it__:E=L_--,?ga:;E;g:;;_i-\:-$l'E_=- :._ :3?-,3, 5!_-I-':';_I; ._?;;=;.;.-_=_'f;_':;_=;.;;,,,c -1;;-3;; glib;-; _; ,_, ;: ,'_ ,3; .1-_.=,_, _T_._, __ _ -,._ _ ,_ ._ _ - _ ,. ., _- =, -. _ - , , .. _ ,- -_ .. .-._- ,_-.;._.. -I: ;r __--; _--+.-._.-r_ .=--5-. . -_-:.=1----.|.-\..- .- ;,.,;I;,;,,,_,_,__

Faith in Human Rights

The widened baseOne oil the major contributions that religious thought can ocer the humanrights movement is to allow a widening of the (perceived and actual) culturalbase of human rights. The rigidly secular reading of human rights has causedmuch alienation amongst faith-based communities. Human rights is thus madeculturally inaccessible to millions of people across the world, and the percep-tion is compounded "that it merely constitutes a means of perpetuating thepolitical power hierarchies existing in the world today-that of the supremacyofWestern secularism. A reassessment of this presentation of human rightswill go a long way towards allowing the engagement of non-western societiesand concepts into human rights.

DutiesAnother reason why many religious writers reject the fundamental thrust ofthe human rights movement is due to its Focus on rights and near silence onthe issue of responsibilities or duties. Examples can be given of a number ofChristian writers and their dislike of the concept of rights. One such writerexplains,

the Bible contains no irrefutable evidence of the id ea that man, by the mere fact of hisexistence, is entitled to make a number of Fundamental demands or claims on othermembers oi society .. . rather than rights or demands written into man s nature assuch, what is involved is an attitude towards ones neighbour, not of inherent 1i hts

'" ' gbut of responsibility and service due to liin"1.79

As with a signicant number of other believers, this perspective seems to mis-construe the term rights as being indicative of individualistic or egotisticaltendencies. Such a deconstruction of the concept sidelines the terms politicaland legalistic terminology and its primary application to state-person guaran-tees rather than person-to-person eztpectations. Nevertheless, whilst uphold-ing the political responsibility assumed by the term rights by national andinternational legal and political bodies it may be possible to also envisage thecontribution that a -corresponding concept of duties may allow to the deep-ening 1 ole of human rights between individuals and groups. This is where the

3'8. Notable exceptions to this include Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of HumanR. l * - * ~' " * ' ' 'lg "its, the Intel -American Declaiation on the Rights and Duties of Man a11d Article 2; oithe African Charter on Human and Peo ales Ri hts' I ' is "-

jr9. ].W. Montgornery, Human Rights &Hunmn Dignity p. to (Michigan :. Probe MinistriesInternational, Zondervan Publishing House, 1986).

J29

I 30 Nozilo Ghoneo

contribution of religion may come in. Could such a duties dimension proveadvantageous to the individual or collective enjoyment of human rights, espe-cially considering its increased aclmowledgeinent of the role of non-stateactors in abuses of rights worldwide? Is it also possible to enhance the con-cept of the duty of the state towards the preservation of human rights and ofensuring the appropriate conditions for the realisation of human rights, per-haps through a more cennal emphasis on the due diligence principle?Widi theclear caveat that individuals or groups should not sacrice the rights that the

Yare entitled to in order to serve the state (otherwise human rights will provemeaningless), much room may yet remain For a role for duties to respecthuman rights. Indeed, the emergence of a culture of human rights and thirdgeneration rights cannot be won without a more integrated realisation of theinterconnectedness between rights and dutiesbetween individuals, groups,communities, families, and with the world environment in general.

Group rightsAnother lriiit of the religion-human rights engagement may include challeng-ing the very individualistic reading of human rights. Group rights have lonepitomised this weakness of the human rights dialogue. The resistance iaceg inthe recognition of minority rights, the rights of indigenous peoples, social andeconomic rights, third generation rights in general, and even the collectivedimension of religious rights as mainstream human rights exemplies this ten-sion between individual and group human rights. ln such a dialogue [betweenreligion and human rights] Western individualism will be subject to correction,and hierarchical social--religious philosophies will be questioned on the matter

Sooi the rights of individuals.

Conceptual developmentsFurther contributions of religion to closer collaboration with human rightscould be of a conceptual nature. It is signicant to note that, to date, reli-gious views have not overtly been sought as contributions to the human rightsdebate. Although a number of religions have ensured that their voice be heardin the process oi the codication of international human rig-hts texts, theirinvolvement has often been reluctantly and randomly accepted as l\lGOsrather than positively welcomed by the international community. It is for this

I--||-|

Bo. Siipii.-i note go p. vii.

- '- - - .-.-..-.*""-' F -:

.1 1--Fur 4.==';,=,f;4*_'.Z= .'5'jj-=1;-{fvis-:5-soeinc:asa#+5I'-"as"--a1-.+;2.:'~;r

Faith in l-lumen Rights |3|

reason that van derl/yver notes, no attempts were made, at least during theinfancy of human rights thinking, to accommodate religious tenets in the cir-cumscription of basic rights and fundamental Freedoms to be protected by therepositories of political power . * Such approaches have failed to recognisereligion as, a povverful tool in the struggle against discrimination and repres-sion in the social, economic, legal and political structures oi a CU1'i'11"[".Il'1llly.This includes its potentially positive role in terms of concepts, commitment,grass roots activism and role in developing a human rights culture. It is thisrecognition of the active community implications and attainments of religionthat particularly implicate it in the emergence of third generation rights.Witte has even argued that, Religious institutions offer some of the deepestinsights into norms of creation, stewardship, and servanthood that lie at theheart oi third generation rights . it

Conclusion

The challenge is therefore an intricate one: that ofallowing human rightsto transcend all diiierences in the subjectivities and practices of peoples ,3whilst also mediating international human rights through the web oi culturalcircumstances .3"""ln the nal analysis, the acknowledgement and implemen-tation of universal human rights should be seen as a co-operative process aswell as . .. a common objectivea global joint venture and not an attempt to

Iii

universalize a particular cultural or religious model .8? Through such a rap-prochement, religions and human rights will be able to collaborate, allowingreligions to give human rights law their spirit-the sanctity and authoritythey need to command -obedience and respect its structural fairness, its. . ,,, . .

Bi. Van dei'Vyver, supra note 68 p. 3e.82. lbicl. p. 35.83. Under this hierarchy, rst generation rights contain civil and political rights, second gen-

eration rights contain economic, social and cultural rights and third generation rightsinclude solidarity rights such as the rights to peace and development. Fora discussion oithis hierarchy see: T. Mero1i,. Hiiinrin Rights ltlli-'II]?.liH5l in the United Nations, A Ci'itiqiie oflnstitimenrs and Processes, pp. I j.:i_I jg (Oxlbrd: Clarendon Press, I986).

314. Witte, supra note I01). 13.35. Falk, supra note 40 p. 4.4..86. Ibicl. p. 4.g.37. An-l\laim, supra note 26 p. 24.].33. Witte, siiprci note I o p. 8.

inner morality .33 This can lend a notable impetus to an appreciation of a wid-

I32 Nazila Ghaneo

ened foundation on which human rights rest. As obedience to a norm becauseof legal compulsion and not by virtue oi personal Persuasion loses it moralsignicance? enhanced religious foundations for human rights could greatlystrengthen its moral appeal. If one goes so far as to recognise the translation ofhuman rights into a universal culture as a necessary prerequisite for its effec-tive survival into the next century, one may even conclude that, The regimeoi law, democracy, and human rights needs religion to survived?

i

39. van dcrVyver, supra note 68 p. 4.o.go. Witte, supra note Io p. 3 i .

" ' ' I - . ' - - ' - . - ' . ' .' -.':;. '4 -"I.--"-.:.-=21-~15-=-.=-er-1-'-iii-ai.'i:-.=.-Jr:-5i.1'n"=-if- ' ' ' ' . - . ' . ' -. -- "=i- ' .'-_ - - .' -' ..- "-i-_'.'-_- -.-'--= ' '1'-- __=,'.;:.~_ -_!-'-.35-.-1--_:r-j_ _~,En_'---=--i-_,:_:-_, -"=.-_=1___-. _ _ L __ I. - _ -_. ,- -. __ 7. _- _|___-I _ -_-,-,- ,. -1:1 - .-._._- .\__,_-.1-,. 4', ,_ _.-l_._~__-.-_.;__-I-.--1___.-..--f5__,F_;,.- - I . .. .. .. . . . .