In his article, The Wrongs of Human Rights, Jonathan Fisher asserts that “[t]he Jewish jurists who helped inspire the human-rights movement must be spinning in their graves…” at the notion that today’s human rights legislation and jurisprudence focus on entitlement at the expense of responsibility. Monsieur Rene Cassin, the French Jew, Nobel Laureate and drafter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was one such jurist who might beg to differ.
M. Cassin drafted the Universal Declaration, the foundational human rights document which serves as the basis for today’s European and UK human rights legislation, in response to the horrors of World Wars I and II, the atrocities of the Holocaust, and his respect and appreciation for the underlying principles of Judaism. In fact, he saw the Universal Declaration as an extension of the Ten Commandments.
Today, the Universal Declaration and the European human rights legislation that it has birthed provide the protections that minorities, including the Jewish people, use to guard against discriminatory treatment (and worse) that they historically have been subjected to. This at times may involve finding a balance between competing rights and freedoms, such as the freedoms of expression and religion and children’s rights, as European human rights legislation is currently attempting to do. Existing European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence is cloudy in the area of freedom of religion – particularly with respect to alleged discriminatory or indirectly discriminatory measures affecting the exercise of this right – because of the importance and complexity of these issues, and because the Court has tended to afford States a large margin of appreciation in weighing them, not because of a fundamental hostility to religious freedom.
It is important to remember that the Jewish people stand to benefit from many of the protections afforded by European human rights institutions, as there are a range of measures in European states that directly or indirectly discriminate against minorities including Jews, Muslims and the Roma. It would be great to see these communities collectively challenge provisions and rulings that affect their common interests. The case of Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, is a positive example of how Jewish leaders can successfully challenge discrimination at the European Court of Human Rights level.
Perhaps most important for the Jewish community to remember is that today’s human rights protections provide us with the freedom to debate these issues and challenge what we may not like through legislative processes and the courts. For this reason, I am confident that the existence of the current debate leaves Monsieur Cassin resting comfortably.
23 September 2012
Dear Ms Leven
I am very concerned to learn that “responsibilities” are to be in a “Human Rights” Act for although we are all aware that with Rights come Responsibilities, the Human Rights which are espoused in worldwide legislation are FUNDAMENTAL and not limited by responsibilities per se.
For if we abide by our Human Rights legislation then we automatically will “do the right thing” and of course it is our responsibility to ensure that Human Rights are protected.
To me there is a concern, however, as to the competing nature of Human Rights. Whose counts more?
If a person can be thrown into a mental asylum and be “trialled” with drugs for 3 months without anything so much as by your leave, I believe that we are a very long way from having Human Rights in the UK under the present Mental Health Act 1983 [2007 as amended] and the equally odious Mental Capacity Act 2005 which is abused by professionals claiming that people have no capacity whereas in fact what they are really saying is that because these people do not agree with their own views, they MUST be incapacitous.
This needs to be addressed – urgently – as it is a major Human Rights Abuse in my opinion.
Thank you
Rosemary Cantwell