The topic of human rights has come to the public’s attention over the past two weeks with the 35th installment of the Sir Winston Scott Memorial Lecture. The speaker: Dr. Irene Khan, the former Secretary-General of human rights watchdog Amnesty International; the topic: “Why freedom matters: Challenges and Opportunities for Human Rights in the 21st Century.”
It is refreshing to see that the topic generated interest for the many who attended the lecture, and in online and print media. The injection of human rights debate into the public discourse is both timely and overdue. However, it is necessary to take a step back and consider a few baseline ideas before entering into a discussion on the merits of particular practices in our nation.
Dr. Khan’s speech underscored the universal nature of human rights. The idea behind the universality of human rights is that all human beings have human rights simply because they are, well, human beings. This notion is often criticized, however, on the grounds that the idea of universal human rights ignores the fact that human beings are different. We come from different backgrounds and cultures which lead us to place value on very different things. Some even go as far as to argue that the idea of universal human rights is really a euphemism for cultural imperialism, where the “West” is once again trying to civilize the “barbaric world”.
Even if we accept that the universality of human rights is an unquestionable aspiration, how to achieve this universality remains the question. Human rights cannot simply exist in theory, in international treaties and declarations. They must actually be implemented on the ground, in particular countries and societies. And this is where it gets tricky. Many people feel uncomfortable with the idea of anyone telling them what needs to be fixed in their country, especially when that voice comes from afar, in Dr. Khan’s case, Bangladesh.
In some instances this discomfort is well-founded. Too often, human rights advocates operate with the off-putting stench of self-righteousness. Nonetheless, there is a danger of hiding behind this argument as a way of avoiding examination of practices, policies, and behaviors which need to be adjusted in modern times.
Sure, Barbados cannot be considered a country where the most egregious human rights violations run rife. We have no genocide or crimes against humanity. But there is still much work to be done on the human rights front. Discrimination is still far too rampant in our society. Xenophobic attitudes, race relations, and attitudes towards women could all be improved. The prohibition on homosexuality and the strong discrimination against gays and lesbians in our society needs to be addressed promptly. And there is no denying that we must end the death penalty.
On the positive side, Barbados is an example for many on its respect for economic and social rights. But while a nation can feel proud of its improvements, it should not rest on its laurels. It is not good enough to compare oneself to the worst offender, and then say we’re doing well. The goal should be excellence. A society needs to be able to question itself in order to evolve. It must be willing and able to critique itself rather than to operate with blind patriotism.
Barbados, both its government and its citizens, needs to develop a greater awareness of and commitment to the advancement of human rights. As Dr. Khan noted, the human rights movement began in our region “with the struggle against slavery – the most enduring struggle in human history for freedom and justice.” That such a legacy could be borne out of such a horrific period in human history should be inspiration enough.
*Kaara Martinez is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. She holds a Juris Doctor and a Certificate in Refugees and Humanitarian Emergencies from Georgetown, and a graduate law degree in international human rights law from the University of Oxford.