Human Rights and the Gospel: A Practical Tool for Justice in Uncertain Times
For many twenty-first century Christians in Aotearoa New Zealand, faced with so many local and international challenges in a society where their voice struggles to be heard, but for whom working for social justice is an imperative, living a life based on gospel values and teaching presents a daily practical challenge. What have we to say, as Christians, about climate change or poverty and inequality or peace-making or welcoming refugees here and world-wide? How to make real the Jewish-Christian commandment to love God entirely and our neighbour as ourselves?
Christians might make use of a secular ‘tool’ whose values are closely aligned: the theory and especially practice of human rights. Even though this has not historically enjoyed the support of mainline Christianity!
Both are international systems focussing on the good of all humankind, now more clearly seen, by both, to be a part of creation. Both seek that good through core values of equality, justice, peace, and care for creation, and attention to relationships, responsibilities and rights.
The Modern Human Rights Project: Origins and Precursors
A note: when human rights advocates speak of “human rights” they are using shorthand for “human rights and duties in a web of community and concern.” “Human rights” as such would not make much sense otherwise.
The term “human rights,” now easily recognisable, if often misinterpreted, was almost unknown before World War II, although many of the ideas and ideals which it articulates and reflects have long been part of many political and religious systems: in the anti- slavery movement from the 18th century with its expansion of the then very restricted concept of “human,” an emphasis followed in the long campaigns for the rights of women; in collective action for the rights of workers in a decent society, first nationally and then internationally through the International Labour Organisation (ILO); in the development of public health systems; and in early national charters/Bills of Rights in France and the USA.
So the concept of rights was not new, indeed it has a long history in law and elsewhere. But all these threads towards emancipation and inclusion come together in the context of the aftermath of World War II.
Enshrining Human Rights
The Charter which established the United Nations in 1945, while modelled on the League of Nations, was intended to avoid its diplomatic failings. But it was the revelation of the appalling treatment meted out to individual human beings, often linked to their membership of a particular group, which led to the prominence accorded to ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’.
Emphasis was placed on “our common humanity,” on the fact that each human person is equally to be respected and accorded dignity; and that everyone has rights to such respect and dignity, even as they—and others—may at the same time have duties. The recognition, acknowledgment and delivery of such rights and duties was intended to usher in that better world to which the UN aspire—still our best hope for international cooperation and action in a world which continues to desperately need both.
Thus, it was “human rights” which were enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the document which gave effect to the ideals expressed in the Charter. The UDHR, as a Declaration, has no direct legal effect on the states which adopted it. Instead, it aims to lay out a moral framework which represents universal values. So began what has been called ‘the human rights project.’
Despite scornful comments about its likely irrelevance, the UDHR has developed as a universal standard, promoting the ideal of a moral framework, and has spawned social and political movements, providing the basis for a range of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) promoting activism “in the name of human rights.” Examples range from small, local groups focused on one particular issue to large international NGOs such as Amnesty International. Such groups employ a variety of methods: service provision, protest, boycotts, research and policy development. They also make use of the expanding legal framework of human rights.
This framework was initiated at the international level and then extended to regional instruments and domestic laws. This expansion begins with two Covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which includes such rights as freedom from torture or medical experimentation and to religious belief and peaceful protest, recently very applicable in Aotearoa; and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), covering rights to health, education, an adequate standard of living, again all immediately relevant for policy-making here. These two foundational documents give legal effect to the UDHR for those states which agreed to be bound by them. New Zealand agreed to (ratified) both in 1978.
[Theologians might note the use of ‘covenant’ which is applied to these two human rights instruments only.]
While these earliest documents concentrated on the importance of achieving freedom, dignity and rights for individuals, it soon became apparent that emphasis on advancing the rights of individuals as members of disadvantaged and marginalised groups was also necessary. Thus, employing the lens of anti-discrimination, several instruments advance the rights first of those marginalised on the basis of gender or race, then gradually to protect children, those with disabilities, migrants and refugees, indigenous peoples. All of these have provided the basis for action in Aotearoa.
International human rights law (IHRL) has also been of considerable influence in domestic laws and policies, in constitutions, bills of rights, legislation and policy making, although the process has in fact been two-way.
Importantly, it is at the local level that the implementation of IHRL must occur. In any context there is almost always a need to balance various rights against each other. But it is also at this local level where any clash or compromise with local history and culture has to be addressed; there are plenty of examples here! The question then arises: how universal can the human rights framework be said to be. The difficulty of how or how far to accommodate cultural differences without compromising universality is referred to in this discipline as “cultural relativism.” It has been a matter of intense discussion in human rights circles for decades—and is, of course, ongoing!
More About Duties
A common criticism of human rights is that they privilege human rights over human duties or even ignore duties altogether, and that duties are more important in any moral system. So there are calls for a declaration of human responsibilities, for example. But this is to misunderstand the nature of “human rights” as the statement above makes clear. The UDHR itself, in Article 29, states that:
“Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.”
This very fact that everyone has rights means that we all have obligations to observe other people’s rights: the recent ‘protests’ here provide a useful example.
Moreover, the international human rights system is designed to sheet home to member states obligations for the promotion and protection of human rights, now encompassing care for creation, peace-making and sustainable development. And there are moves to expand such obligations beyond the original state-centric model to other non-state entities: armed groups exercising effective control; businesses, particularly multinational enterprises; the “international community” as a whole.
Taking Action
Thus, human rights resources provide reliable research, information and paths for action, for Christians working for social justice issues. For example, on the pressing question of poverty in Aotearoa New Zealand: the CESCR, the UN committee which monitors the Covenant, or the Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), an NGO which works locally in many countries, provide information and practical possibilities, as do local NGOs such as Auckland Action Against Poverty or CPAG.
To take another example with strong gospel roots, the treatment of people with disabilities. There is a wealth of material, both here and internationally, stemming from the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)—a Convention for which New Zealand was one of the strongest advocates—and its monitoring Committee, as well as local NGOs and a Commissioner in the NZ Human Rights Commission.
Christians can give presentations, write articles and letters, sign petitions; join these organisations, their boycotts and protests, bringing to all of these their own faith perspectives. They might also explore faith-based organisations, such as Franciscans International, which make extensive use of human rights in their advocacy and actions. And introduce these ideas and practices into their own churches and communities.
~
Margaret Bedggood is member of the Third Order of the Society of St.Francis and a former human rights teacher and advocate.