|
Criticism
Islamic criticism Predominantly Islamic countries such as Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into the account the cultural and religious context of Islamic countries. In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.<20> On 30 June 2000, Muslim nations that are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference<21> officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,<22> an alternative document that says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah".<23>
Property Rights Criticism Libertarians and some conservatives believe the positive rights that must be provided by others through forceful extraction (for example taxation) negate other peoples' inalienable rights.<24>
Education Many proponents of alternative education, particularly unschooling, take issue with Article 26 where it stipulates that "...education shall be compulsory." In the philosophies of John Holt and others, compulsory education itself violates the right of a person to peacefully follow their own interests:
No human right, except the right to life itself, is more fundamental than this. A person’s freedom of learning is part of his freedom of thought, even more basic than his freedom of speech. If we take from someone his right to decide what he will be curious about, we destroy his freedom of thought. We say, in effect, you must think not about what interests you and concerns you, but about what interests and concerns us.
– John Holt, Escape from Childhood
This instance of the word "compulsory" is the only one in the entire document. The word "compel" is used twice, however, both times with negative connotations.
The Right to Refuse to Kill Groups such as Amnesty International<25> and War Resisters International<26> have advocated for "The Right to Refuse to Kill" to be added to the UDHR. War Resisters International has stated that the right to conscientious objection to military service is primarily derived from, but not yet explicit in, Article 18 of the UDHR: the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.<26>
Steps have been taken within the UN to make this right more explicit (see Conscientious Objector); but those steps have been limited to secondary, more "marginal" UN documents. That is why Amnesty International would like to have this right brought "out of the margins" and explicitly into the primary document, namely the UDHR itself.<27>
To the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights one more might, with relevance, be added. It is "The Right to Refuse to Kill." <28>
– Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, and Nobel Peace Laureate, Sean MacBride, 1974 Nobel Lecture
Bangkok Declaration In the Bangkok Declaration adopted by Ministers of Asian states meeting in 1993 in the lead up to the World Conference on Human Rights, Asian governments reaffirmed their commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They stated their view of the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights and stressed the need for universality, objectivity and non-selectivity of human rights.<29>
|