The Key Points Related to the Aspects of Human Rights and the Infringement of Human Rights - Case Study Example

Human Rights & Their Limitations Introduction A democratic society, no doubt, bestows many rights to its citizens, the likes of which are conspicuousby their absence in countries having an autocratic system of government. But it needs to be noted that, even in a democracy, there are certain situations where the rights of citizens are suspended, though on a temporary basis. Likewise, the democratic human rights can be infringed upon also when the same is in a clash with vital aspects such as national security. In light of all this, it needs to be conceded that, even in a democratic set-up, the human rights have their own limits beyond which they are rendered powerless while questioning and confronting any actions of the state. This write-up would detail all these key aspects, along with a mention of some relevant real cases. Essentials of a Democracy Before an elaboration is made on the aspect of infringement of rights mentioned in the previous section, it would be worthwhile to be briefly dwelling on the salient features of a democratic society. In this form of government (democracy) topmost priority is accorded to the aspect of individual freedom, as well as to the rights of citizens. A democratic society is marked by elections conducted after specified time intervals, where the citizens exercise their franchise in electing a government of their choice. In return, the elected government provides the right ambience to its citizens – an ambience where they flourish because of the unimpeded presence of the rights and privileges. As a matter of fact, all these aspects are encompassed by both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (1) State and Human Rights As per the International Human Rights Law (IHRL), it is solely the state that is vested with the authority to infringe upon human rights, and that too only within its political jurisdiction. IHRL categorically states that, apart from the aforesaid aspect of national security, the state can infringe on human rights also when addressing issues pertaining to health, ethics and public safety, among others. The Law, leaving no scope for ambiguity, clearly specifies that the state is in no way obligated to provide justification, when it feels that the infringement is imperative from the viewpoint of any of those issues. (2) In light of contents discussed in the preceding paragraph, it can be inferred that there definitely would be many situations where a scenario of conflict is prevalent between the people and the state. Also, it needs to be candidly conceded that not all acts of infringement of human rights, by the state, are in the interests and welfare of the country. As a matter of fact, there are quite a number of real instances where this violation of human rights has been carried out by the state, just for furthering some of its questionable objectives and policies. Though it might not be pleasant to be noting this, but the fact is that there have been some situations where human rights were rendered powerless in combating the near autocratic actions of the state. At this point, it won’t be out of place to be dwelling upon two such instances. Recent Instances of State Infringing on Human Rights In the year 2007, in Niger, a blatant violation of human rights bordering on cruelty was witnessed. For the purpose of crushing the Niger People’s Movement for Justice, which undoubtedly was an armed one, the Government of the country irrationally restricted some very basic human rights assured by international instruments. Here, the irony is that Niger was a part of these instruments. Scores of civilians who were in no way related to the armed combat were ruthlessly imprisoned, and were subjected to severe torture. The government’s security forces took undue advantage of some vague and ambiguous provisions of the law for needlessly victimizing the civilians. (3) The recent decision of the US Government necessitating all the foreign travelers to give their respective biometric information has drawn flak from many quarters. This process, which almost borders on the passengers being subjected to humiliation, can conveniently be deemed as gross violation of the basic human rights. The argument of the US that this initiative is for addressing the aspect of national security pertinent to the terror attacks of September 2000 is no justification for the above aspect of blatant rights infringement. (4) The above scene of Niger effectively emphasizes on the various convenient options available for a state when it intends to violate the human rights under the pretext of addressing some vital and burning issue. Instances such as this one are definitely causes of concern for all the champions of human rights and to the common denizens of the country. When the life in a country is going on unhindered devoid of any grave political or economic developments, people do continue to enjoy the guaranteed human rights without any impediments. In fact, during such normal and pleasant conditions, even the state would do its utmost in safeguarding the rights. But when some sudden and serious circumstance manifests, either at the political or the economic front, it is then that the citizens of the country are bogged down by the big question – “Now, how long would it be before the rights are suspended?” The second instance discussed above, though not involving any kind of violence, is still tantamount to displaying utter disregard towards human rights. As a matter of fact, it can even be considered to be a bigger act of rights violation than the one of Niger, as the concerned state claims itself to be the most democratic society in the World. And it is the essence of this very democracy that has been sidetracked by the action involving mandatory collection of biometric data. There is no denying of the fact that subsequent to the terror attacks of September 2001, the US is according topmost priority to the aspect of national security, and rightly so. But for the purpose of tackling the issue, there are many other acceptable ways than coercing innocent people to divulge their sensitive personal information. But most of those ways might be quite complex to be followed, along with a possibility of incurring huge costs. It can hence be concluded that the Government of the US chose to enforce the relatively simple process of obtaining biometric details, notwithstanding the fact that the same is depriving countless law-abiding people of their basic human rights. At this juncture, it would be apt in recollecting a provision of the IHRL, mentioned earlier in this write-up, which provides that when a state is infringing on rights for addressing any key aspects of national relevance, it is in no way obligated to offer a justification for its actions. This very provision has been utilized by the US in the development related to violation of rights of foreign travelers, as it (the US) cited the aspect of national security as the reason for obtaining biometric details! Upholding of Human Rights – Case Studies The contents discussed in this write-up, up to now, would compel most of the people to pessimistically infer that all the issues related to human rights are only in paper, and that in reality there is no solace for them in the event of the rights violation. In this context, it is indeed heartening to be noting that the cloud of “human rights infringement” is not without a silver lining, which encompasses innumerable instances where people stood against even the governments and ensured that they continue benefiting from the guaranteed human rights. At this point, it would be appropriate in recollecting that all the examples of rights infringement, discussed earlier, resulted from some adverse and other-than-ordinary circumstances prevailing in the respective countries. Otherwise, under the normal circumstances, people deprived of their rights have a choice of also standing against the government. Here, it needs to be noted that the first sentence of this paragraph is in no way an attempt to justify the actions of the concerned state. It would now be worthwhile in briefly examining a couple of cases where people were able to defend their rights even when the party infringing on them (rights) was none other than a government/governmental authority. A boy aged thirteen was suffering from Asperger Syndrome, but was unable to obtain any sort of support services related to disabilities. The reason being that, unfortunately, the Victorian Department of Human Services (DHS) has defined the term “disability” in a manner so as to exclude this syndrome. Being fully aware of the rights enumerated in the Charter of Victoria, the boy’s mother appealed to VCAT to re-interpret the term ‘disability’. Subsequently, the Government of Victoria accepted to recognize not just Asperger Syndrome, but also all Autism Spectrum Conditions, as disabilities eligible to receive all relevant services of support. In this case, it has to be noted that the act of the government in re-defining disabilities is attributable solely to the initiative taken by the boy’s mother. The following are the rights and aspects involved in this particular case: Protection of families and children, the right to privacy and equality before the law. (5) In Victoria, a local council made an announcement of its developmental plan for the four-year duration. The announcement encompassed also the aspects of enhanced community services and other development oriented programs, among others. A community group made a note of the fact that this plan of the council made no mention of the aspect of human rights, as well as of the council’s responsibilities in relation to safeguarding the rights. Subsequently, the group made a strong recommendation to the council to modify the plan by including all relevant aspects of human rights. A substantial chunk of the recommendations were accepted by the council. And the modified plan included vital points such as the council’s code of conduct, feedback from people and equitable treatment of all residents, to cite a few. The following are the basic human rights upheld in this particular instance: freedom of expression, equality before law, rights of culture and participation in public life. (5) The contents discussed in this particular section could surely be considered as sources of relief, especially in light of the unpleasant aspects dwelled upon, in the first few pages of this write-up. It needs to be noted by everyone that, barring exceptional situations leading to infringement of rights by state, otherwise, people have diverse courses of action for defending their rights, as has been observed in the two cases mentioned above. Here, again the focus needs to shift on to a democratic scenario for developing a further understanding of the aspects of human rights and rights infringement. The scenario of human rights being rendered totally powerless in combating the excess and unjustified use of authority by the state is more prevalent in countries having an autocratic system of government such as military dictatorship, than in societies guided by tenets of democracy. Of course, there is no denying of the fact that there are plenty of unwanted deviations even in world-famous democracies. But in this context the most key aspect is that, in a democratic society there is a limit beyond which the state cannot afford to function in an autocratic manner, without leading to intervention of international human rights groups. Most importantly, in a country that is essentially driven by the noble principles of democracy, even when rights are violated, the deprived people have access to relatively less complicated means of defending their rights. On the contrary, it is rather disheartening to be noting that the contents mentioned above do not hold good for most of the countries that are governed by autocrats, where a democratic set-up is nothing but just a distant dream for the common people. Despite the fact that human rights groups and agencies are present in most of these countries, yet, they are unable to bring about any noteworthy transformation in the state of affairs. The primary reason for this is the absolute power that is wielded by the governments, and which serves as a strong impediment for safeguarding human rights. In these dictatorial societies, the denizens are bogged down by the fear of persecution similar to one witnessed in Niger, in the event of raising their voice against excesses of the government. Hence, there is still a lot to be done by the international human rights groups in these countries, for improving the condition of the people, with respect to enhanced position to the aspect of human rights and human dignity. Conclusion This write-up thoroughly examined most of the key points related to the aspects of human rights and infringement of human rights. Based on all relevant cases described here, it has to be concluded that plenty of work is still left to be done by the international human rights groups, especially in the underdeveloped regions of the globe. In these zones, most of the people are unaware about the human rights guaranteed to them, and thus making themselves highly vulnerable to actions of violation of rights, either by the state or by any other authority. It also needs to be candidly admitted that, in certain situations, human rights are bogged down by some limitations in challenging actions of the government that deprive people of even the basic rights. Simultaneously, it also needs to be observed that the picture is not entirely gloomy, from the viewpoint of rights, as has been seen in the instances of Victoria, where the people succeeded in defending their rights and other related aspects. There is an age old adage emphatically stating that knowledge is power, and it holds good even with regard to awareness of human rights. It is for further enhancing this very awareness that various human rights groups should toil. This education on rights provided to common people should encompass the all-important aspect of recourses available for them in the event of infringement. At this point, it has to be stated that the aggrieved citizens of the State of Victoria (the two examples discussed earlier) managed to safeguard their rights, mainly because of the high level of knowledge they were having on the aspects pertinent to human rights. For the future, it can be hoped that the enhanced awareness levels would lead to the witnessing of many such instances of people winning over powerful entities, for upholding their human rights. SOURCES 1) “Democracy and Human Rights”, unis.unvienna.org/pdf/Democracy_Human_Rights_2008.pdf, Internet, Democracy and the United Nations, 2002 2) “The legalization of human rights: multidisciplinary perspectives on human rights”, books.google.co.in/books?id=7Xyr2twq8W4C&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=human+rights+can+be+infringed+by+state&source=bl&ots=jaBkizFGcl&sig=ZW-BAiNsBy_O6fLM9vUCMDYYHag&hl=en&ei=1gezS6-5O4yOkQWx--iWBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=human%20rights%20can%20be%20infringed%20by%20state&f=false, Internet, Saladin Meckled-Garcia, Basak, ND. 3) “Amnesty International Public Statement”, asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR430012007?open&of=ENG-2F5, Internet, Amnesty International, September 2007. 4) “USA Violates human rights”, english.pravda.ru/topic/usa-671/, Internet, Pravda, May 2009. 5) “FOCUS AREAS – CHARTERS OF RIGHTS”, hrlrc.org.au/content/topics/national-human-rights-consultation/case-studies/, Internet, human rights law resource centre, 2010. (Kindly note that even when information has been taken from the sources, the same has been rephrased entirely in my own words, leaving no scope for plagiarism) Read More