Universal human rights

Many countries recognize the importance of respect for human rights today, some of them include the latter in their Constitution. The reality is often remote from the ideals proclaimed by the Universal Declaration, given violations occur everywhere in the world.

An Amnesty International report said that eighty-one countries practise torture, around fifty-four hand down unfair judgements and also that seventy-seven restrict freedom of expression.

Respect for human rights is an unreachable goal for some states. Others feel that the latter are part of a too Christian view and then overly Western. They interpret this as liberal model domination. The poorest countries feel resistance to certain economic and social rights. This criticism is made by developed countries as well.

The 1948 Universal Declaration remains a policy document in the absence of a supra-national authority. Thus, it is question of a symbolic statement does not in any way bind the States. They are free to set up or not measures to activate human rights within their borders. Further, these ones evolve over time and must be considered in the light of social, or even economical, changes today.

Segregation is endemic on the planet. Millions of people are rotting in jail for trying to express their convictions. Moreover, democracies violate the rights and even at that basic level of freedom. On the other hand, we are witnessing the further rise of discrimination against minorities : religious, racial, political. They are tantamount to violations of human dignity. We also need to mention the integration of immigrant populations which is often badly managed in host countries. It is thus essential to argue about the model able to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. The multi-communitarianism will develop strongly during this one and discrimination will worsen if the states continue in the present mindset.

A State has the duty to ensure the security of its citizens. It is an essential right as well as freedom or equality. The right to life is protected with it and subsequently all the others. The government of a country has the obligation thus to combat terrorism and in parallel to explore ways to eradicate it. In addition, the counter-terrorism effort has not to copy those who are perpetrating such violence.

Fear of others is a recurrent feeling among many human beings. It results in non-confidence in the stranger. Man is by nature prone to tribalism. Community groups reflect those facts. The immigrant is more or less consciously seen as an invader and even a threat to public safety and also as someone who seeks to impose their own culture or their way of life. He becomes a scapegoat if anything happens. It is obviously an outdated behaviour at this time of cultural intermingling.

Whatever the countries where they are held, the human rights violations inflict similar distress to individuals. Apart from physical and cultural characteristics, people are not fundamentally different. Certainly, social diversity and exchange lower fear and help evacuate fantasy. Thanks to an effort of mutual understanding, problems presumably rooted in the collective unconscious find a solution.

If the present model goes on, human rights will continue undoubtedly to be flouted ad infinitum. According to regimes which govern them, countries display great inequality in this area. Moreover, it must be acknowledged that none has built a social framework really respectful of the human person so far.