Human Rights and Human Norms 2

A prevailing debate between the Universality of Human Rights and Cultural Relativism

After the Second World War, a Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) evolved

as an act for freedom and equality. The UDHR was held by many politicians and representatives from many countries, with different cultures and religions, including the “United States, United Kingdom, Iran, China, Egypt, and France”, to intersect one main matter. This cosmo-political act is to insure that Human and civil Rights are applicable to all nations and regions all over the globe. However in 1981, Iranian representative in the United Nations Said Rajaie-Khorassani claimed that the declaration of human rights was based on Jewish-Christian beliefs and cultures, and could not be tolerated by the Islamic people, and their traditions (Littman, 2003). Countries like Iran claim that human rights are established fundamentally on a Western moral. Iran makes a very perfect example on human rights violation in the Middle East, all the way from freedom of thought, speech, and religion, to sexual discrimination. Moreover, in the Far East, former prime minister of Singapore and former prime minister of Malaysia, Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir bin Mohamad, stated that it is much more important to achieve social stability in the state than to maintain democracy, and having an authoritarian government is more significant than achieving individual freedom. Certainly every nation has its own laws and regulations. Besides every region has its own traditions and values. But when it comes to human rights, it is a universal privilege that humanity has to possess. The universality of human rights is to hunt down all the inhumane and barbaric actions made and done by state leaders and mainly dictators. Cultural relativists claim that this universality is considered cultural imperialism, dominating the world culture and ruining all kinds of ethnic norms and traditions.

The universal declaration of human rights is often rejected by some ethnic tyrannies and cultural relativists such as Iran, China, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. The main issue here is not to uphold a system with its own ethnic mores, traditions, but first to understand that human and civil rights are a universal principal that should be on the top of the priority list. It is not just a privilege that relies on region, religion, or political standing. Human and civil rights are benefits and freedoms that are applied universally to all, without any kind of barriers. That is the keynote terminology of the UDRH, a “universal” organization. Some of the most basic rights posted by the Universal Declaration of human rights are the freedom of expression and speech, equality,

Human Rights and Human Norms 3

political and civil freedom, and the freedom of clean food and water. Opponents against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights claim that it is westernized and its origin is based on a narrow foundation.

Middle Eastern opponents in 1990 founded the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI). It was established as a counter-act to the UDHR. It is based on the Islamic Shariah. Creating an exceptional organization oppose the main theme of the human rights act. The CDHRI is established on discrimination; it is only based on Islamic shariah. The universal declaration cannot discriminate people according to their religion. On the other hand, the far eastern region did not provide themselves with their own declaration. Their viewpoint is the elimination of freedom to maintain social civilian stability The assumption of cultural relativism, and the evil cause of the universality of human rights, as it is really a “cultural imperialist” act, is totally irrelevant. These false accusations stated by rulers are made just to alienate the people from the main cause and benefit of human rights, as these human rights protocols could reduce a rulers power, and their suppression on the state. And by facts, it is obvious that the people, mainly in the Middle East are not very pleased with the oppressiveness and tyrannical system. If a region rejects women uncovering their hair or a personal individual belief rejects it, then it is the responsibility of those women to uncover or cover it. The ban of veil uncovering in Iran is wrong. This is an individual responsibility. On the other hand, in most European countries, the Islamic veil wearing is not banned, though it is beyond their cultures and Christian-Jewish beliefs, but still it is not banned. The right to wear or not wearing the hijab is a personal matter between a woman and her belief. Using a ruler’s belief and power to suppress people is opposing the right of freedom of expression. The censoring the internet in the Gulf region is also unacceptable. The rejection of the right to knowledge of any kind in the GCC is in opposition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If there are some sensitive sites that counter religion or the cultures of the Gulf countries, the solution is to enlighten their nation. Religion is a personal connection between an individual and God, and that has nothing to do with ruling the government. If a ruler’s belief forbids them from viewing specific sites, then that’s their own belief and ethical obligation. “The culture of a ruler must be changed in order for these particular curses to be removed” (Afshari, 2001).

They are called human rights, not religious or cultural rights. Statistics state that 47% of the world’s population is living under freedom. In the Middle East, only 2% of the population is

Human Rights and Human Norms 4

living under Freedom (Karatnycky, 2005). For a simple example, in this University, where we students participate in for enlightenment, have no right or freedom of expression. When a security officer is roaming through the university looking for someone to seize his ID for eating during the holy month of Ramadan is totally intolerable. To ban eating in public and closing all food facilities during the day until prayer time is also unacceptable. What about the people who don’t share the same belief, are they too obligated for sacrificing their own right to eat. Having a secular state is not against Islam or the wellbeing of the Islamic society. Sharia should be a set of protocols that refer to us as individuals and as a community, but not as a government (Akyol, 2008). Going back to the public eating example, it is a very basic example. But if we really think about it, it reveals a lot more. It reflects upon the rights of minorities in the Middle East. The rights for the minorities have been neglected; like the Arabs in Israel, the Copts in Egypt, the Druze in Lebanon, Sunni Arabs in Iraq, and the Baha’is in Iran (Karatnycky, 2005). The Baha’is leaders in Iran are killed, and illegally captured and disappeared. As stated in Afshari’s book, “in the summer of 1980, all nine members of the national spiritual Assembly were abducted and executed without their families being able to recover their bodies. They disappeared” (Afshari, 2001). The minorities in the Middle East are exposed to the “most sever political discrimination of any region in the world” (Karatnycky, 2005). In the Middle East, we as governments should appreciate minorities and give them the right to live and practice their religion, if they were religious groups. If it’s a sect in the population, then they should also have equal rights as any other citizen, without any kind of discrimination.

Women Rights in the Middle East are also violated. In Saudi Arabia, women are prevented from driving their cars. Being a Muslim myself, I assume women driving their cars is not a violation of Islam or any kind of religion. And they say cultural relativism? What does that even mean? Women driving cars has nothing to do with culture and traditions either. Total equality between men and women is a right, and giving men the privilege to drive and women not to is a disturbance of the notion of the universal Human Rights and civil freedom. Even according to Islam, women and men are equal (Monshipouri, 1998). In Iran for example, some women rejects wearing the Islamic veil. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s their right to choose what to wear. Women cannot be forced to wear the veil in Iran. After the revolution in Iran, the state went through a sever Islamization, forcing women to wear hejab (veil). Here is a moving story about the women’s experience in Iran through the fierce