The fundamental difficulty in enforcing the aforesaid principles is condonation by either the State or portions of the public. Hate speech may contribute to this phenomenon.
by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne
Writing from Montreal
Deliberate cruelty is not forgivable. It is the one unforgivable thing, in my opinion, and it is the one thing of which I have never, never been guilty. – Blanche DuBois, A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams
Racial discrimination races its ugly head every now and then. A few months ago, East Asians were subject to this atrocity during the Covid-19 virus spread. A few days ago, George Floyd, a helpless African American, was brutally and bestially murdered by law enforcement. It is ironic that these outbursts continually happen despite global consensus against racial discrimination. And yet we seem to be powerless to put an end to this scourge.
 |
| Rights for all or Rights for none |
Article 1 of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965 which entered into force on 4 January 1969 defines racial discrimination as any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the States. Article 2 provides that “Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end: Each State Party undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life”.
This provision directly takes off from The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Paragraph 7 of which states that all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of the Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. It cautions against disregard and contempt for human rights which would result in barbarous acts that could and have outraged the conscience of mankind. It entreats humankind to make way for a world that would have human beings enjoying freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want. The absence of these aspirations could well provoke the victims to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression.
These declarations and rights are overseen by the United Nations Human Rights Council which is s a group of 47 nations presided over by a President, The 117 of the 193 United Nations member States having participated and served the Council over the years reflect the UN’s reach, giving it legitimacy to voice the collective view of States on human rights violations in all countries.
In a United Nations web page, it is said that in simple terms:” The Human Rights Council is a part of the United Nations. It works to make sure that: all people know about their rights: all people can use their rights. rights are things that should happen for everyone; For example, everyone has the right to live, be treated fairly, go to school, and have a say in the way his or her country is run. The Council has a universal Periodic review – a review that is globally popular - which proceeds to introduce new human rights laws and practices, ensure better protection for victims, strengthen rule of law and justice systems, and accountability for abuses.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a multilateral treaty adopted by United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966, which came into force on 23 March 1976, provides in Article 6 that the individual's "inherent right to life" is recognized and requires it to be protected by law. The Covenant further recognizes that it is a "supreme right" from which no derogation can be permitted and must be interpreted widely. It therefore requires parties to take positive measures to … forbidding arbitrary killings by security forces. Article 9 “recognises the rights to liberty and security of the person. It prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, requires any deprivation of liberty to be according to law,[30] and obliges parties to allow those deprived of their liberty to challenge their imprisonment through the courts.[31] These provisions apply not just to those imprisoned as part of the criminal process, but also to those detained due to mental illness, drug addiction, or for educational or immigration purposes”.
The fundamental difficulty in enforcing the aforesaid principles is condonation by either the State or portions of the public. Hate speech may contribute to this phenomenon. In this context truth and justice are unhappily mutually exclusive. While in legal terms, legislative parameters will define acts and qualitize their reprehensibility, in truth, speech and conduct that ingratiate themselves in a society have to be addressed politically. This is the dilemma that legislators face in dealing with racial hatred. Hate speech and hate propaganda primarily erode ethical boundaries and convey an unequivocal message of bigotry, contempt and degradation. The operative question then becomes ethical, as to whether societal mores would abnegate their vigil and tolerate some members of society inciting their fellow citizens to degrade, demean and cause indignity to other members of the very same society, with the ultimate aim of harming them? Conversely, is there any obligation on a society to actively protect all its members from indignity and physical harm caused by hatred? The answer to both these questions lies in the fundamental issue of restrictions on racist speech, and the indignity that one would suffer in living in a society that might tolerate such speech. Obviously, a society committed to protecting principles of social and political equality cannot look by and passively endorse such atrocities, and much would depend on the efficacy of a State’s coercive mechanisms. These mechanisms must not only be punitive, but should also be sufficiently compelling to ensure that members of a society not only respect a particular law but also internalize the effects of their proscribed acts.
As the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights eloquently says: ”The inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family should be recognized as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
Post a Comment