Life as we know it

In the first part of ‘Not fit for purpose‘ I wrote of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) and of how, through the later Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI), many of the Islamic states effectively opted out of any agreement to comply with the articles therein.

Lest anyone think that this be a polemic against the Islamic world alone let me be clear that I extend my critique to all states – be they based in religious or political dogma – that wilfully ignore the efforts of the international community to evolve a modus operandi by which the nations of the world might live at peace with one another. Putin’s Russia – as an example – is certainly not alone amongst secular states in displaying a fine disregard for the rights of others.

My discourse on the UDHR was – however – intended only as an introduction to the topic that I really want to address… that of the urgent need to find a way to prevent extremists of any hue from being able to co-opt the tenets and principles of faiths or political movements to suit their own despicable agendas – as happened the week  before last in Paris. This does – of course – presuppose the veracity of the condemnations of such atrocities as expressed by those whose beliefs and ideals have been traduced. Far be it from me to suggest that there might be occasions on which those who denounce the terrorists in public secretly support their actions in private – or at the very least sympathise with them.

The routes to radicalisation are complex and varied, and countries around the globe have thus far struggled to find ways to integrate those of contrary racial and religious backgrounds in such a way that the resentments and discrimination that can lead to ghettoisation and violence do not find fertile ground in which to breed. Whether these attempts follow the paths of multiculturalism or integration the results have, frankly, not been promising. Prejudice and poverty can be all to easily exploited by the dark forces that seek to prey upon those vulnerable to indoctrination.

Whereas it would be entirely iniquitous to hold religions or political movements responsible for the actions of the misguided minority who violate their teachings or beliefs – or indeed to expect those who follow these tenets in good faith to offer a solution to a problem that is not of their making – it would certainly assist matters if it were considerably more difficult than it is currently for the extremists to debase doctrines and dogmas in pursuit of their own agendas. In an entirely rational world this would involve revisiting and revising sacred and political texts and screeds to ensure that they do not contain ambiguities that might be so exploited.

The suggestion that ancient religious scriptures should be reworked would doubtless raise howls of protest – particularly from those who believe their own faith’s tenets to be carved in tablets of stone… this in spite of the fact that in virtually all instances the texts as we now know them are demonstrably the work of multiple authors and only took their current forms considerably later than the time that it is purported that they were written. It seems somewhat ironic that such canons have become progressively less flexible with regard to interpretation as the pace of change throughout the world outside has increased.

If such revision proves – as seems inevitable – too much to ask, then we should at least require – in the event of this sort of malign traduction – that those who deem themselves to be the guardians of such beliefs issue definitive interpretations of the tracts concerned – so that those on all sides who might otherwise become innocent victims of the extremists be offered at least some protection.

Failure to take any action simply re-inforces the view that such scriptures, screeds and dogmas be no longer fit for purpose in the modern world.

My last screed – posted in the immediate aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris – posited that further comment should perhaps wait until there had been some time for calm contemplation. This – of course – because the initial surge of emotion experienced might just have caused me to asseverate something in print that I might later have regretted.

That time has passed. One and a half have million people have shown their solidarity – on the wintery streets of Paris – with the victims of this crime and with the principles for which they stood. Much of great wisdom has been said and written regarding these terrible events by those vastly more qualified so to do than I. Though there are no easy answers I am well aware that those who burn to understand how such a tragedy could have come about in this day and age in one of the world’s great capitals will already have spent much time reading and researching. They will learn little that is new or of value from me.

This will, naturally, not stop me from addressing at least one issue – so if you feel inclined – read on… if not – feel free to move on!

In the course of an address in October 1995 the then Pope – John Paul II – described the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as “one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time”. Indeed the document – drafted by more than a dozen representatives from around the world and approved by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948 by 48 votes to 0 (with only 8 abstentions) – has garnered general approbation throughout much of the world and forms the basis of the International Bill of Rights which has been signed and ratified by more than 150 countries. The UDHR has influenced or been adopted into most national constitutions drafted since 1948, and the International Bill of Rights has become a fundamental element of international law.

The UDHR is intended to be neither a Western nor a Christian document, aiming to be both supra-national and supra-religious and being at pains to emphasise its universality. In spite of these efforts such criticisms as have been levelled against it uniformly declare that it be both Western and Christian in origin, and claim that it does not sufficiently take account of non-Western religious or political contexts. This – incidentally – in spite of the fact that many of the countries from which such criticism has emanated are in fact themselves signatories – though their compliance with the declaration might at best be described as ‘patchy’.

The truth of the matter is clearly that those states – and indeed religions – that approve neither of democracy nor of freedom of thought and expression are almost inevitably opposed to a doctrine that endorses both as inalienable rights. Neither concept is perfect, of course, but the vast majority of the world’s peoples – if not nations – manifestly believe them to offer the closest that it is possible to approach thereto.

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference adopted its own human rights declaration in August 1990 – the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) –  as a response to the UHDR. Whereas many of the articles of which the CDHRI is comprised might seem familiar – derived as they are almost directly from the corresponding articles in the UHDR – the most important amongst them (including those referenced in my last post) have had added to them clauses such as – “except as provided for in the Shari’a”, “in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah” and “in accordance with the tenets of the shari’ah”. The CDHRI culminates with:

Article 24.

• All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

This renders the declaration subject to Islamic beliefs rather than being the universal code that had been intended and is far, far divorced from the founding purpose of the declaration, the origins of which emanated from the immediate post-war desire that the nations of the world should be able to live in peace, and from the belief that all human beings have as their birthright the basic freedoms by which that aspiration might be fulfilled.

Well – this started out as a simple post. I fear that there is more to be said and that a second epistle will be required…