Civil Rights & Human Rights

Human rights are universal, ascribed to all human beings. Civil rights are the rights accorded to the citizens of a particular society. There is no universal agreement on the extent to which human rights and civil rights are, or should be, the same.

The United States was the first nation to form the idea that all human rights should be civil rights, that the proper role of government was to guarantee that. Other nations which came to democracy later than the U.S., however, have also extended it farther, being far more comfortable with the role of government in assuring such human rights as the right to subsistence, education, and livelihood.

One of the dividing lines between what is called “liberal” and what is called “conservative” is over what human rights can and should be guaranteed by government as civil rights, and what are the province of other social institutions, such as the church or the family, to foster and protect.

Religious conservatives, and even some religious liberals, have historically given religious arguments for human rights, and even claimed that there are no grounds for human rights independent of religion. Most liberals, and even some conservatives, argue that in order for human rights to be universal, they must have a basis that all can agree on independent of religion, or any other cultural content that is not universal.

Another central question of our time, in a world of many different cultures interacting with each other, is what universal rights we can and should enforce.

All of these questions – what is the basis for human rights, what do they consist of, how should they be enforced, and to what extent – are related.

If human rights are truly universal, attributed to something that all human beings share in common, then all human beings who claim human rights are natural allies against all human beings who would deprive any of their human rights. All social institutions, including government, must respect and protect human rights; and if they do not, it is the responsibility of all human beings, even those of other nations, to reform them. Liberals tend toward this view.

If human rights are based on an element contained in only one culture, then only those who adopt that culture can exercise human rights, and no other culture can be expected to provide human rights for its people. Conservatives tend toward this view; they vary between those who feel that the culture that best promotes human rights (their own) should take care of its own and let others choose to join it or not; and those who believe that the culture that best pro motes human rights (their own) has a moral obligation to spread itself across the Earth.

What do you consider to be “human rights” and what do you consider to be “civil rights”? What is the basis for them? In what way can & should they be fostered and protected?

One of the central questions of the modern era has been what values to enforce universally in a world of many individual, and sometimes conflicting, cultures.

In my opinion, all freedom, all rights, all values, are created by affirmation. There is no value, no freedom, no right, inherent in material reality. We decide what we want, and then we make it possible. By our own actions, we open up new options, and close off others.

We are as free as we make ourselves.

The only way to really know that someone is free to do something is if somebody does it. If you want the freedom to travel, then you act on that, creating the means to travel, and overcoming obstacles to traveling where you wish to go. If you do not travel because of illness, because of lack of transport, because men with guns guard the border between you and where you want to go, or because you don’t want to go anywhere, the result is the same: you don’t travel.

Humans will have rights, if we choose to have them, and structure our society so as to make them possible. We will only have the rights, however, that we guarantee for everyone else.

We may structure our government so as to foster individual rights, or we may use some other social institution to do so. Since every human society is going to have some political process to resolve conflicts between us, decide what we shall do as a group, and define the accepted use of force, it seems to me fitting and necessary that the fostering and protection of human rights be a fundamental objective of that process.

Freedom of Speech

I'm Emily, and Anitra has invited me to "blog" here. I'll just introduce myself with the first thing I wrote for StreetWrites:

---

Freedom of Speech allows any person to criticize what is said or done by anyone who has put himself in a leadership role or position of influence, enabling that leader to affect the lives of any or all life over which he has power. Oppression is the cruel or unjust exercise of power or authority, which creates unnecessary burden, damages the human spirit, strips away human dignity, and chisels at the stone of personal empowerment. If freedom of speech is taken by reprisal, recrimination, or punishment when a person speaks concerning how a leader is harmfully affecting innocent life, especially the most vulnerable, the leader is oppressing the speaker and possibly others for whom he or she may be speaking.

In my opinion, we have been losing our freedom of speech as a nation. I have observed and heard a kind of collective intimidation and silence, which only makes things easier for oppressors to continue on their self-seeking, destructive paths. They really do seem to need those who are being harmed, mentally, spiritually, socially, physically, or financially, to just be quiet. Those who speak out are treated like pesky, commoner troublemakers.

Freedom of speech may be hindered or denied in homes, in schools, in work places, in social service agencies, in medical services, or within community, city, state, or national political arenas. We must not give in to bullies of any kind who demand that we shut up when we have a reasonable concern to express. A crucial freedom is at stake. Encourage one another to speak up about SPEAKING UP.

---

E. Francisca

Book Review: Eyes of the Heart

Eyes of the Heart: Seeking a Path for the Poor in the Age of Globalization
by Jean-Bertrand Aristide
Common Courage Press, 2000, $12.00
ISBN 1-56751-187-2

Jean-Bertrand Aristide was President of Haiti in 1991, again from 1994 to 1996, and then from 2001 to 2004. Aristide is a controversial figure. To some, he represents populist democracy: an advocate of the poor and downtrodden whose election brought new hope to Haiti, only to be overthrown by special interests protecting the status quo. To others, Aristide represents the worst of Marxism, a fanatic, a dictator, who got rich off the poor, and deposing him brought new hope to downtrodden Haiti.

Two books represent both sides of Aristide's reputation:

• Aristide: The Death of a Nation, by Lynn Garrison, presents the anti-Aristide argument (also anti-Clinton and anti-human rights organizations and anti-left in general).


• Plunging into Haiti: Clinton, Aristide, And the Defeat of Diplomacy,
  by Ralph Pezzullo, presents the pro-Aristide argument.

Aristide himself has nine books in English:

1. Why (1978)
2. Raise the Table (1986)
   
3. 100 Verses of Dechoukaj (1986)
   
4. The Truth in Truth (1989)
   
5. In the parish of the poor : writings from Haiti (1990)
   
6. Aristide : an autobiography (1992)
   
7. Theology and Politics (1993)
   
8. Dignity (1995)
   
9. Eyes of the Heart: Seeking a Path for the Poor in the Age of Globalization (2000)

For more: Searching Amazon

I have just read Eyes of the Heart. It is short (80 pages), passionate, and inspiring. Aristide movingly describes the terrible poverty of Haiti, and cites historical statistics to argue that this poverty is created by outside forces that also create poverty elsewhere. The cure is that terror of the libertarian marketplace, the mobilization of the poor. True political democracy and true economic democracy must go hand in hand.

It is hard to argue with this book unless one claims, as Aristide's critics do, that it is a lie from beginning to end. The book leaves me wanting to know a lot more about Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and about Haiti.

Quotes from the book:

"At home we are hungry. But if we sit home we will surely die. If we go to the street we may also die, but there at least is a glimmer of hope."

"There will never be money enough, but there are people enough... A wealth of experience, knowledge, skill, energy and the power to mobilize resides with the poor. From this creativity, this panorama of human endurance of the poor in Haiti, and the poor in Mexico, and in Brazil, and Southeast Asia and Africa, and more and more of the poor in North America and Europe, we can learn."

"Do not confuse democracy with the holding of elections. Elections are the exam, testing the health of our system. Voter participation is the grade. But school is in session every day. Only the day-to-day participation of the people at all levels of government can breathe life into democracy and create the possibility for people to play a significant role in shaping the state and the society that they want."

"Democracy asks us to put the needs and rights of people at the center of our endeavors. This means investing in people. Investing in people means first of all food, clean water, education and healthcare. These are basic human rights. It is the challenge of any real democracy to guarantee them."

"Remember that history moves in waves. We cannot expect to always live on the crests. We have to keep floating even when the waters ebb."

Links:

• Online Book Club: pro-Aristide, includes forums


• Aristide.org: pro-Aristide, includes forums


• Aristide Timeline at CooperativeResearch.org: attempts to be neutral, is somewhat
  pro-Aristide


• The Left’s Favorite Thug by Rich Lowry of the National Review: anti-Aristide


• Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the prophet of deception, by Yves A. Isidor, first published in The Boston Connection Magazine, June 1999: anti-Aristide


• Enemy Ally: The Demonization of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, at Fair.org, specifically refutes charges made in the anti-Aristide articles


• New York Times archive of articles on Aristide from 1988 to August 17, 2006


• Current news on Haiti and Aristide

Sometime during Aristide's presidency, Real Change published an article about the program for Haitian street youth that he founded, and speaks of in Eyes of the Heart, Lafanmi Selavi. The article is very positive about the organization, and by implication, about Aristide.

A Wikipedia article on Aristide attempts to be neutral, but its neutrality is disputed.

Write On!
Anitra