Rome and the Rights of Man

Actons speak louder than words.

Now where was I? A few days ago, to commemorate UN Human Rights Day, I was commenting on how poorly our own North American governments do at honouring the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If you recall that post, of if you look it up, you may be struck by how often, when our governments violate basic human rights, the clearest voice calling government out on this is the Catholic Church: on personhood, on the right to life, on freedom of conscience, on the rights of the family. This is no accident.

First, like it or not, the doctrine of human rights has clearly Christian origins, and is based on Christian assumptions. We have rights because, in the words of the US Declaration of Independence, we are endowed with them by our Creator. Muslims are the first to point this out, often arguing that the idea of human rights is discriminatory against Islam if accepted without qualifications. Specifically, in Islam, salvation is more a corporate matter, not an individual one: rights to individual conscience are therefore a problem. For the same reason, Islam has problems with the idea of separation of church and state.

The problems for a religion like Hinduism or Buddhism are worse. There is no question, in Hinduism, that all men are created equal. Of course they are not. Hence the legitimacy of the caste system. While Hindu and Buddhist ideas of reincarnation might seem favourable to animal rights, they are fatal to human rights. If a human is in principle no different in moral being from a tapeworm, and we have the right to kill a tapeworm if it is inconvenient to us, then we also have the right to kill inconvenient humans. And separation of church and state would be at least as big a problem for the Dalai Lama as for the Taliban.

No offense meant to non-Christians; it is just so. We all need to accept it.

And, this being so, there are obvious conclusions to be drawn. For example, it is naive to suppose we can allow large-scale non-Christian immigration without sacrificing our ideal of human rights. They're gone. Is everybody okay with this? And if they're gone, do we have any alternative unifying ideology on the basis of which we can build a society? Because without shared social ideals, a society cannot live at peace or function well, without coercion.

It is also, accordingly, suicidal for genuine believers in human rights to turn on the Church and paint it as the enemy of such rights—as is happening currently with regard to supposed “women's rights” and “gay rights.” This argument is a Trojan Horse, which ends up rendering all rights purely arbitrary.

It also seems to be a pipe dream, this fundamental difference on the foundations of society being so, to think in terms of a united world, with a one-world government, at any time before the Second Coming.

Next, we must realize that the Catholic Church is the great international defender of human rights. Always has been. Conceptually, since Magna Carta, human rights have been rights of the individual against government. Accordingly, you cannot look to any government as the ultimate protector of your rights—that is putting the fox in charge of the hen house. This includes an international government entity like the United Nations. It is precisely the countries most vulnerable to charges of violating the Universal Charter who vie most energetically for seats on the Human Rights panel. This way, they can count on subverting it in practice.

To defend human rights, you need an independent organization, fully international, separate from government, not vulnerable to control by any one government, but with broadly accepted moral authority. 

The Red Cross. Anyone else detect a Christian reference here?

There just isn't another organization that fills this bill nearly so well as the Catholic Church. The closest thing that comes to mind is the Red Cross; but it too is a recognizably Christian organization. Originally, all members of its governing assembly had to be Protestant Christians of Swiss nationality, although exceptions have since been made. It is, in effect, a Protestant facsimile of the Vatican. It suffers by comparison, because it really is quite vulerable to control by the Swiss government, if and when Swiss interests might be involved.

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UN Commemorative Stamp. This and a good army will get your rights respected.

Someone once asked Gandhi whether he thought Christianity was a good idea. “Very good,” he answered. “Someone should try it.”

Similarly, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a bad document. Not perfect, but not bad. The trick is to get governments to actually honour it.

Starting with our own.

For example:

Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person under the law.

The governments of Canada and the US do not recognize children in the womb as persons, and hence do not honour their right to life. You might say this is just a matter of how you define “persons.” If so, this article has no meaning—it means whatever you want it to mean. It would be just as easy to define “person” not to include Jews. A human is a person; full stop.

Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration

This is obviously violated by “Affirmative Action” policies. Note that the Universal Declaration begins by saying all people are equal, and says it in precisely correct terms: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” This has nothing to do with the obviously mad idea that all persons are born equally intelligent and with equal abilities in every respect. Guaranteeing equal results assumes the latter sort of equality, and necessarily violates the former equality. To enforce equality of results, one must enforce inequality of rights.

Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

This has been violated by the Canadian Human Rights panels, which are neither independent nor impartial, and are not bound to observe due process. More generally, this is subverted by the growing tendency towards government by regulation rather than law.

Article 16: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Current Canadian and US marriage law heavily favours women in marriage, especially at the marriage’s dissolution. Neither do men have equal rights within marriage to decide whether to stay at home or to go to work, or to have children or not have children. Note too that there is nothing here that justifies gay marriage. It may be a sensible policy, but it is certainly not a human right.

Article 16: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Eleanor Roosevelt with the Declaration: still news to most.

It is hard to see any evidence of this protection in Canadian or US society or by the Canadian or US state. Government policies seem instead designed, in many ways, to subvert it. To cite one example, poor women have every financial incentive not to marry poor men; the state will reward them for having children while remaining single. There is generally a tax penalty for filing as a married couple.

Article 20: Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

Freedom of association is violated by government requirements preventing business owners and landlords from freedom of choice in renting, hiring, and serving. This means they must associate with whomever the government tells them to, not whom they choose to associate with.

Yes, this even means that, if a business decides it does not want to hire women, or serve blacks, it properly has the absolute right to do so. Nor would this be a problem. So long as the government keeps out, the free market would in fact prevent this discrimination from harming minorities. If business A will not hire blacks, business B suddenly has a competitive advantage by not discriminating—it will get a better workforce at a lower cost.

Discrimination can only endure, and has only endured anywhere, when it has government backing. As it does today in Canada and the USA.

Article 20: No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

This is immediately violated by any closed union shop, and by any professional association that is tied to certification.

Article 23: Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, …

Again, this is violated by affirmative action, closed union shops, and professional associations with obligatory certification procedures.

Article 26: Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

This is violated by compulsory attendance at and financial support of public schools; and government restrictions on the curriculum or hiring practices of private schools.

More on this tomorrow, time permitting…