Human Rights etc.

In political discourse, there is a certain cesspit of terms which are condemned as "liberal", in the most sneering and contemptuous use of the word possible. Right-wingers jeer tirelessly when terms in this cesspit are used, and left-wingers give them a wide berth to avoid said jeering. The rest of us are left with the impression that the condemned phrases are weak, empty, pointless phrases, and that the non-ironic use of them is a sign of ideological deficiency. Terms in the cesspit include "political correctness", "multiculturalism", and anything remotely synonymous with "co-operation". Some, clearly, are more deserving than others.

For me, it's a source of great concern that another term which appears to be teetering on the edge of this pit is "human rights". So this is my humble offering of explanation as to why human rights matter.

The impression which a great deal too many politicians and media outlets seem to be able to pull off is that human rights are a foolish wet liberal concept which was doomed from the start, and is only used as an excuse for the state to grow, the EU to take over, and convicted paedophiles to roam free. This is impossibly far from the truth.

Human rights are, by definition, rights which apply to all humans equally. They mean that the justice system cannot favour a certain group of people over another, but that we are all treated fairly by the law. They hold the state and the government responsible towards every one of their citizens, not just the elite. They ensure that no group of people is ever considered just a means to an end by another group. 

The alternative to human rights is legal rights- rights which are provided by and remain subject to the wishes of the state. The concept of legal rights means that what you are worth, and to what extent you are protected by the law, depends on the whim of whoever is running the country at the time. It also mean that different rights could be dispersed to different groups of people.

The absence of constitutional, inalienable human rights leaves people at the complete mercy of their government. To that extent, without human rights, liberal democracy cannot exist, and the ideology of the Magna Carta/French and American revolutions/Enlightenment cannot be put into practice.

It frustrates me that so many people take for granted the right to freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to openly practice a religion, the right to education and healthcare and decent working conditions- and yet sneer at human rights like some irrelevant fringe concept. Or worse, they know more or less exactly what human rights entail, and still want to deny them to others. How many people have we heard claiming that those of the Islamic faith are somehow too dangerous to be allowed to exist in liberty, that somehow allowing Muslims to speak openly as we do is a threat to all we hold dear?
Actually, I'll blog more about human rights + Islamophobia another time. It's too much to stick on the end of another blog post.

Basically, every time you call David Cameron a wanker, every time you apply for a job without your personal and spiritual life being scrutinised, every time you walk past a policeman without him bashing your head in for no reason- thank human rights. That the people who have worked for hundreds of years to make rights for humans a recognised thing. And don't belittle their efforts by taking a Daily Mail, or even a Telegraph stance on the matter.


(Apologies for the anger. I was always going to do a slightly angry blog once in a while.)