A human right is something that everyone has by virtue of being human (in the jargon this is known as human rights being 'inherent').

This cannot really be separated from another proposition: human rights are universal. If every person has these rights because they are human, then everyone has the same rights.

Or do they?

Go back to your two lists of rights - the ones that came out of traditional values in your own society and the ones that did not. Are there any rights on the first list that you think might not be accepted in some other societies? Are there some on the second list that are not widely accepted in your own society?

You probably managed to identify some rights from both lists for which it would be difficult to win universal acceptance. It is important to understand that this does not in itself undermine the idea that rights are universal. It is simply to say that there is some tension between different societies' ideas of what rights are appropriate.

When we think about how this works out in practice, there are two important considerations to bear in mind:

• Neither values nor rights are timeless. They are constantly changing.
• Different sections of society will have different ideas about what rights they consider important - or even whether certain values should be enforceable rights at all.

Changing rights and values

We have already looked at how new rights get made. In the examples we looked at, rights such as freedom from slavery, women's rights, and the right to self-determination were not broadly accepted to start with.

Another good recent example is the death penalty - often seen as an issue where 'European' and 'African' values come into conflict. Most European countries have now abolished the death penalty. Yet half a century ago most still retained it and used it often.

At the time of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights there was no agreement that the death penalty was a violation of the right to life. Yet now opposition to the death penalty is incorporated into international human rights instruments.

The point is that, as human rights activists, we should not take the human rights canon as given. But nor should we go along with those sections of society who are most hostile to rights.

Different social interests

When rights such as the right not to be enslaved or the right to strike were created, this was not the result of a struggle between different countries but instead came out of the different interests of different sections of the same society.

The same is true today. When a political leader says, for example, that freedom of the press is an alien concept that has no roots in the traditions of their own society, some questions must be asked:

• Is the politician actually speaking for ordinary people in their society, or for their own political or social interests?
• And who appointed them as guardian of the country's cultural traditions anyway?

When African leaders talk about the difference between 'Western' and 'African' attitudes to human rights, they often refer to the latitude for criticism that is allowed. They say that it is not African to allow robust or even insulting criticism of the chief.

Whether this is true or not, it is fairly irrelevant. All African leaders sit at the top of a nation state modelled entirely on the Western prototype - whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship. Their police, army and intelligence services are on the Western model - and so are the weapons that they use.

We have not yet heard an African leader who forswore the use of guns because they were not 'African'. So ordinary people are entitled to use 'Western' rights to defend themselves against the power of the state.

Some would argue that this is 'cultural relativism'. They would argue that human values are far from universal and that in fact, they vary from culture to culture. This argument can be used very destructively by states to give legitimacy to the abuse of human rights, in violation of international human rights law.

So, while there is much value in discussing human rights in the context of cultural relativism, we must make sure that this is not used an excuse to violate human rights.

Of course, this is not to say that 'Western' rights and values are better than 'African' ones. Compare the attitude of North American and European countries to refugees and other migrants with that of most African countries.

The hospitable attitude of African countries, compared with the hostile attitude of Western countries perhaps shows a difference in underlying values. This difference is reflected in the more liberal definition of who is a refugee in the OAU Refugee Convention compared with the equivalent United Nations convention.

The lesson to be drawn from this is that no culture has a monopoly of truth on these issues. Human rights activists try to press for the best practice from each different culture to prevail universally.

However, these arguments do not entirely clear up the issue of universal versus local human rights and values. The reality is that sometimes ordinary people, not just politicians protecting their own interests, genuinely feel that international human rights do not correspond to their own values.

There is indeed a contradiction within the universal human rights themselves. They include a whole set of rights protecting the culture, beliefs and religions of different peoples and societies. By definition protecting these diverse sets of beliefs is an admission that not everyone shares the same sets of values, often on rather important issues.

The right to freedom of expression is one that often causes a cultural clash. When one person exercises the right to express their views this may in turn cause deep offence to the beliefs of others in society. Sometimes the offence may amount to blasphemy or pornography, which in many countries are punishable offences.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises that freedom of expression is not a right without limit. Most famously, no one has the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded cinema. But should an individual be restricted in their freedom of expression when there is no immediate harmful consequence?

Is it fair to regard someone as blaspheming against a god in whom they do not believe? Is it fair to restrict the whole of society to one particular view of sexual morality that may not be shared by many?

Or are these rules devised for the greater good of society? And should they be enforced in line with the moral and cultural standards prevailing within that society?

Different conceptions of human rights

Read the following brief report. List the human rights issues involved. For each of these, does there seem to be a difference in the conception of human rights of the refugee tribunal, Mr X and the government of Country Y?

asylumapp.pdf

Answer:

There are three rather separate human rights issues involved in this (fictitious) case.

The rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association. GALC is an organisation that advocates and campaigns for legal change, as well as providing counselling services. This is an entirely legitimate function that is protected under core human rights standards. The issue would be no different whatever the cause that the organisation was taking up.

The right to freedom of expression includes the right of access to a government-controlled (and probably publicly-funded) newspaper. GALC and its members should not be subject to threats of violence - least of all in the government paper.

The right to freedom of sexual orientation. Of course, it was because of the issue that GALC campaigned on that it became the target of verbal and physical abuse. Freedom of sexual orientation is less clearly protected in international law, though it is increasingly accepted that the right to non-discrimination and the right to privacy both protect people in their sexual orientation. This would rule out laws that prohibit certain types of sexual activity.

However, in recent years many African politicians have argued that homosexuality is 'un-African'. The irony is that in country Y, as in all countries of Southern Africa that retain a prohibition on sodomy, this was introduced by the colonial power, not by the independent government.

The government displays an unwelcoming attitude to refugees. We stress that the case is fictitious, but the attitude is sadly typical of Western countries. The Home Secretary accepts that Mr X has received death threats in a country where there have been deaths as a result of political violence. He will no doubt be more deserving of refugee status if the threats are carried out. African countries are not, on the whole, so lacking in generosity.