Human Rights Crisis?
25 May 2006 by Gil
Oh dear. I know I shouldn’t go here but some stories really seem to crystallize the confused state of affairs that we live in. Apparently a transsexual in Toronto broke a restraining order against his (her?) spouse and had to endure a strip search at the hands of local police. The problem was that the police officers decided that because this person appeared to be a man, he (she?) should be searched by a male officer. It turns out that, according to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, this was a violation of his (her?) human rights.
Now please here me out on this one. This is not a discussion of sexual ethics, this is a discussion of human rights. I was under the impression that human rights referred to things like food, shelter, clothing and freedom from unlawful confinement. Am I supposed to, with a straight face, talk about a transsexual’s ‘human right’ to be strip-searched by a police officer of the gender that corresponds to his or her preference? Has it really come to this?
We live in a society that has abandoned any notion of ‘the good’ that would be binding in an ultimate or normative sense. As such we have decided that human rights are the ultimate arbiter in conversations on the limits of acceptable behaviour. If we can’t say that things are ‘wrong’ (i.e. wrong for everyone all of the time) we have to condemn them on the grounds that they are an infringement on another person’s human rights.
It’s hard for us to appreciate just how unique this kind of a society is. Almost all societies prior to the late 20th century liberal democracy understood issues of acceptable behaviour in terms of responsibilities or obligations. A person was required to act a certain way based on either the demands of the monarch or the fear of God. At a more local level, community relations were governed by a complex system of duties owed to fellow citizens. This was not a perfect system but the average person understood themselves to be responsible to someone or something beyond themselves for their behaviour.
This world has been replaced by one in which we primarily see ourselves as persons to whom things are owed and the basic language for expressing this is the language of human rights. Does this difference matter? Is there a difference between saying ‘I should not do’… and ‘I have a right to…’? As soon as that nasty little word ’should’ enters the conversation, so does the question ‘Says who?’. And since we don’t like the possibility of there being someone out there who could tell us what to do we retreat to the language of human rights where the only reference point that matters is the individual. Yes we still have the abstract concept of ‘the law’ but increasingly (as this story seems to indicate) the law exists solely to protect the rights of individual citizens. This is certainly part of what the law should do but I think it should go beyond that as well.
The last line in this article is absolutely hilarious.
“The tribunal said officers cannot “opt out” of strip-searching transsexuals unless they believe they have significant rights of their own to protect.”
So we have this comical situation of a potential criminal objecting to being searched on the grounds that their human rights are being violated. The officers are powerless to object to this situation unless they can prove that they have ’significant rights of their own to protect’.
Now before I am written off completely let me say that I recognize that human rights language has made an enormous contribution to the welfare of many people around the globe and here at home. Many serious human rights violations have been addressed because of people’s growing awareness of this issue. My question is whether or not there is room for personal responsibility in a world that defines ‘morality’ in such limited terms.
The most recent addition to the US Supreme Court (Samuel Alito) tangled with this issue too — under a slightly different context. He saw no problem with a strip search of a 10 year old little girl. I bet he wouldn’t have any problems with this type of strip search, either.
Ah, but let’s reminisce about the “good ol’ days” — back when you only had a voice in your government if you were a white landowning male… back when women and people of minority were oppressed, and slavery was the standard.
I think I’ll take the late 20th century liberal democracy and it’s occasional quirks.
I readily agree that the 20th century has brought significant improvement for many and we should be grateful for that. I certainly would not, however, characterize some of the injustices you point to as the ‘good old days’ and I hardly think that questioning the language we use to talk about ethics means that I am pining for my ‘rights’ as a white, landowning male.
My question is, ‘What is the best way to talk about injustice?’ Is it best to use the language of rights or responsibilities? Both words assume that injustice is something that should be resisted with full force. Is the difference significant or is it mere semantics? I’m of the opinion that words matter here because they define how we understand ourselves and our role in society.
Has human rights language helped us take a significant step forward in creating a more just society? Yes. But in the process of helping real victims of real injustice, it may be that this language has tempted us all to think of ourselves first as potential victims, and only second, as people who might be able to do something about it.
I think we can all agree that there have been many great things accomplished by defenders of human rights and that there are many more gains to be made around the world. However I also feel that the fight for human rights has become so entrenched in the mindsets of many people that things have been taken too far.
What irks me is that society is getting to a point of rendering certain groups (i.e. the police) completely helpless. Perhaps they should be required to ask one’s sex before any strip search ensues and based on that answer continue…oh wait that would infringe on a transexual’s rights now wouldn’t because what are they supposed to answer?
Is this conversation generated by a discussion of the language of human rights OR the “comical situation” of a transsexual who had the audacity to claim the same rights as a heterosexual?
Perhaps our only “right” is God’s eternal, unwavering love. Perhaps our ongoing responsibility as a consequence of this right, is to return God’s love. Directly to Him, through worship and indirectly, through the nature of our relationships with one another.
Human rights manifesto’s, apart from Christ, are false gospels. They look to supplant the supremacy of God with the supremacy of man.
Jesus doesn’t speak to me in a language that says I have a right to food. Rather I hear a voice that tells me I have a responsibility to feed.
Love seeks reighteous satisfaction for others as our self satisfying goal.
If liberal democracy rests on the foundation that final moral authority is a relative concept, developed through successive generations of mankind and is not pre-ordained by God through His Son, Jesus Christ, it is ultimitely nothing more than a seductively well disguised heresy.
I think the story highlights the sort of ethical predicament that the 21st century western world has gotten itself into. It highlights some fairly serious epistemological questions - what is the nature of ethical knowledge? can we arrive at it? how can we know it is true? In a world that has largely discarded any notion of God as a source of objective standards for human conduct, the language of individual human rights seems to be the only remaining option, and it is certainly an option that is frequently used - sometimes in rather silly ways as the article demonstrates.
It is certainly important to point out that the language of human rights has done a great deal of global good - I don’t see how this can be disputed. But it is equally important to point out that nothing beneficial comes without a cost - in this case, a rather significant one, namely, the ability to make meaningful ethical claims about human behaviour unless it somehow transgresses someone’s perceived ‘rights.’ I don’t think that pointing this out - or at least raising the question of whether something genuinely important is lost in the transfer from “obligation” language to “individual rights” language - ought to be characterized as somehow being ‘against’ liberal democracy or longing for a return to the days of slavery and oppression (red herring, anyone?)
Becky,
My intent in raising the issue was to talk about human rights language, not to ridicule or demean people who have suffered injustice because of their sexual preference/orientation. It is an admittedly extreme example to use. If this were an isolated incident it wouldn’t be worth talking about but unfortunately it is evident in many areas of contemporary life. Think for example of our culture of litigation, in which any suffering or misfortune is seen as an opportunity to exploit victimhood for financial gain. A very real consequence of this, it could be argued, is that we are a society that is completely incapable of dealing with or understanding suffering. I would say that this is also a result of our reorienting our ethical language.
I can see how this case provides delicious fodder for the rights versus responsibilities debate. And in fairness ‘rights’ language has affect our sense of morality and likely in a general sense for the worse. However, I too, caution using this story as endemic of the problems we are facing. Personally, I think opportunistic-fame seeking individuals and groups take advantage of a poorly kept constitution whose origin, under Trudeau, was intended as levelling force to what was then a tattered collection of special interest groups and power brokers. And let’s not forget the media force in bringing a story like this to light. It must be admitted that in the larger picture of societal interactions, a transsexual person being strip searched has to be a RARE occurrence. It is plain to me that the intention of media is to highlight this ‘Ripley’s believe it or not’-water-cooler-trash to generate more interest in their journalistic products. But I’m not trying to dismiss what you are saying by down playing the significance of this story. I think you challenge us with some important questions.
What is interesting to me is that a story like this one gets headlines while the despicable plight of many of aboriginal reserves go largely unnoticed. And in these cases, I happen to believe that there is a disturbing assault on the basic human rights of these individuals.
So while this may sound somewhat calloused whether or not a guy/girl gets to be strip searched by the right type of person doesn’t register with me.
I do think this topic gets far more interesting and I dare say important when we look at the unnoticed people who are suffering legitimately. So let’s throw the torture practices of the BUSH-CHRISTIAN army, or the neglect of our own native communities into the pot on this one…
Why isn’t it the Chretien-Martin-Harper neglect of the Native communities? Oh right, because it is so important to blame Bush for everything that is going wrong in the United States. He’s always nailed for being stupid or dumb, yet somehow he’s smart enough to be personally responsible for all of the issues of the day…he must be pretty tricky then!
actually my intention was not to necessarily blame Bush for the evils of the world or the entire USA. I was actually making a veiled reference to the fact that Bush beleives that he is appointed by God to govern the USA and that under this ‘apointed’ governance the army allowed some heinously criminal torture of Iraqis. sorry for the confusion
Fair enough comment indeed. If I came across strongly it is not because I am a Bush supporter, merely that it has become a habit, myself included, to lump the issues with the U.S. to one man. Whether we are to say if he has been ‘appointed’ by God or not is not an area I would go into but he sure has placed a lot of weight on his shoulders by making such a contention.
I like this discussion… I really agree with Dale on this one. The media has a very important role to play - highlighting the stories that are sure to get the most extreme reactions. I think it might surprise many that the vast majority of those who are strong defenders of human rights also defend the correlation between rights and responsibilities. One cannot exist without the other. How can one fully respect the rights of a group or an individual without taking on some responsibility for that individual on oneself? The two are inseperable. It is, of course, the “rights” that get the most attention. From the political side of things, it is always more marketable to talk about rights and fail to mention responsibility.
I guess the difficulty is to define when is someone really a victim and when is someone not a victim…and who decides that? To me when I hear a CRIMINAL is complaining that they were searched, is comical and ridiculous…(just exercising my right and responsibility to comment :O )
Jessica,
It seems to me that if ‘rights’ predominate then the blame always gets shifted off the an impersonal ‘them’ (government, church, system, whatever). If the focal point of ethics is the individual then I think we will always be more tempted to see ourselves primarily in terms of what we’re owed rather than whom we owe. So I’m not sure I share your optimism that all rights advocates are equally enthusiastic about their responsibilities. Allowing the word ‘responsibility’ into the conversation immediately begs the question, ‘Responsible to whom? Or what?’ I would argue that, at the moment, there is no commmom moral vision that would unite people in a sense of shared responsibility. It’s much easier to want what’s mine than to find a compelling reason to serve another person.
Are you saying that the public consciousness of the line between entitlement and injustice has ceased to exist?
I think that still is a common understanding of what injustice is. So when we see Darfur, or the Blood reserve - that still looks like injustice to most people.
And are you saying that individual focused ‘rights’ language that was/is designed to protect/prevent injustice has now given us a public sense of entitlement about our personal preferences on everything from living conditions to moral paradigms?
If you are I think we are in a pickle for sure. Are we not to take from Scripture that our main aim is to redress injustice? Should people ever be satisified that injustice happens to them or others?
While the people around Jesus were interested in labelling people (the first step in discrimination) Jesus was interested in the individuals - Zach., Mary, Matthew, Nic.
Is there a biblical mandate to honor the individual?
Gil; I do agree with you on several points. Those deamed “responsible” in terms of granting and protecting are often those impersonal powers. Though rights may be thought of as an individual thing (there are many cases of “group rights”: ie. Aboriginal issues), the whole basis of rights is the “pricelessness” of the individual. It’s not a bad concept. But as long as we speak about rights, responsibility is not far behind - maybe a common responsibility that people may rally around is the pricelessness of individuals. We are an individualistic society - it has serious pitfalls but also serious benefits. I guess as a Christian part of the redemptive mission is to be one that lives out this responsibility to restore the pricelessness of indiviudals because as individuals we are image-bearers - though the whole rights dialogue may be flawed.