According to the United Nations Human Rights (Para 1), all individuals are entitled to human rights regardless of their color, nationality, religion, any status or even language. As a matter of fact, the human rights apply to all equally with no favor or discrimination. The rights make all humans equal since they are built on some tenets such as independence and indivisibility, universality and inalienability, equality and non-discriminator and the fact that they are both obligations just as they are rights. Understanding these rights is very important as it helps the people know when their rights are being abused and also what nature of action to take when these rights are abused. However, looking at these rights can be confusing at times. Below is a discussion of two main rights which have drawn much attention in the present world.
According to the United for Human Rights Organization (1), there is the provision that all human beings are innocent until proven guilty. On the superficial, this seems to be quite a good cause as it can prevent unfair jail terms or people taking advantage of the rights of others. This right makes sure that all the people are protected by the law and they cannot be prosecuted or persecuted in an extra-judicial manner. It is closely tied to the provision of fair trial.
Looking at this provision from a critical angle, it can be argued that it can be used to protect people who commit crime. As a matter of fact, there are people who argue that such a right does more in protecting criminals than in protecting the innocent people (Kendall Para 1). In portraying how this comes about, Kendall claims that the provision of this right has it that in order for one to be proven guilty, he has to be brought before a court of law and charged in a fair trial. However, criminals have learnt that they can use this provision to commit crimes elsewhere. For instance, for a long time, the UK could not allow for the deportation of its citizens to stand trial in other countries. With such an understanding, criminals from the country could use their freedom of movement to move to another country, commit a crime and then run back home where they are unreachable. This means that the innocent people are not protected by the universal rights since they are open and free targets to the perpetrators. The criminals, on the other hand, get away with some very serious crimes.
These loopholes could be responsible for the continuous breaking of human rights. In line with this, the Human Rights Watch observed that in 2011, the condition of the human rights in Iraq remained relatively poor. The US soldiers at times broke the rights of the people by detaining them without trial and at times torturing them in order to get information. Well, in as much as this paper does not advocate for the breaking of human rights, it can be argued that the US soldiers could, at times, be justified in using this excessive force. Some of the people who receive such treatment from the soldiers have intelligence on what moves the terrorists are planning, moves that could lead to deaths and injuries to scores of innocent civilians. When the Human Rights watch goes ahead to condemn these soldiers, does it consider that they could be doing it to protect a lot of unsuspecting, innocent citizens who are preyed on by the attackers? Well, if this perspective of argument is taken, then Kendall’s argument (Para 2) that the rights are for protecting the criminals not the civilians could be taken as valid. This adds an even greater contradiction to these rights.
Another right that the United for Human Rights (1) stands for is the right to marriage and family. Well, this issue is not a very complicated one but it has sparked quite a hot debate all over the world. The rights do not clarify the nature of the marriage addressed. However, in the contemporary society, the issue of marriage cannot be taken that lightly especially with the introduction of the lesbian and gay community which advocates for homosexual marriages away from the conventional transsexual marriages. The concern in this case is that there are people who are totally against the gay marriages. Most of these communities are religious institutions. They tend to shun the gay marriages and see those advocating for it as unethical, morally corrupt individuals. In other words, there is a sharp contrast between the proponents and opponents of the gay marriages. In some states, it is against the law. This contradicts in that the issue of marriage is under the protection of the law, yet, in the eyes of a gay person, the law seems to be taking away this right. This standoff is yet to be resolved and the United for Human Rights does not do anything to break the deadlock.
Generally, understanding the universal human rights is not very easy. At times, it might call for the use of experts in the law to help in understanding the rights in an in-depth manner. That is why the Human Rights Council (Para 1) argues that the best way out is to make sure that everyone is educated on the rights. This could help in resolving some of these controversies seen in the interpretation of the rights.
Works Cited
Human Rights Watch. “World Report 2012: Iraq.” Hrw.org, 2012. Web, 21st Oct. 2012, http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-iraq
Kendall, Claire. “Terror Relocates Rules: Why Human Rights Laws are So Controversial.” The Telegraph, Oct. 4, 2011. Web, 21st Oct. 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8804582/Terror-relocation-rules-why-human-rights-laws-are-so-controversial.html
United for Human Rights. “Universal Human Rights.” Humanrights.com, 2012. Web, 21st Oct. 2012, http://www.humanrights.com/#/videos/marriage-and-family
United Human Rights Council. “Los Angeles Armenians March against Domestic Violence.” Unitedhumanrights.org, 2011. Web, 21st Oct. 2012, http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/
United Nations Human Rights. “What are Human Rights?” Ohchr.org, 2012. Web, 21st Oct. 2012, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx
