Really Wrong About Human Rights

Last week the Philadelphia Inquirer published an interesting “article” by Roger Pilon, vice president of the Cato Institute. Mr. Pilon makes the following points-

1. Muslims have rights, but they apparently lack the ability to make good decisions (and that’s just the first paragraph!).
2. Equality before the law is good. As long as the US says so.
3. Economic, social and cultural rights are socialist plants.
4. Human rights will destroy the world.

Let’s all give Mr. Pilson a hand for making some very excellent points. And by “excellent” I mean completely crazy and without any factual basis whatsoever. Let’s roll up our sleeves and wade into the nutso.

“Even the current controversy over an Islamic center near ground zero isn't about the right to build there; it's about the wisdom of doing so.”

I could go on and on about this, but let’s just leave it at no, it’s not about “wisdom.” If it was then we’d stop building churches in the land of the Crusades.

“Or consider this point: ‘Asian-American men suffer from stomach cancer 114 percent more often than non-Hispanic white men.’ That's a human-rights problem?”

Why, yes, yes it is. Many countries do not provide adequate health care to minority groups. The UN recognized this when they wrote Article 12(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. “

Unfortunately, the US is not a party to the ICESCR. This, however, does not invalidate Article 12(1) as a human right. In fact, even as just a plain signatory the US is obligated to “refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.”

The US is not a state party to a number of human rights conventions, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Does this mean children have no rights? Of course not. The US, like it or not, is a member of a global community and 160 of those members, a clear majority, agree with Article 12(1). Among those that don’t? Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Burma. Pilon has some fun taking pot shots at human rights violators sitting on the Human Rights Council. He falls to recognize that the US finds many of these countries allies in opposition to the ICESCR.

“History has shown that nations that promise everything as a matter of rights have provided little but the oppression required by that misconceived goal. We should not abandon a distinction at the core of our political order that has enabled us to be both free and prosperous — much less do so in the good name of human rights.”

History has shown this? Oh really? Where exactly? Yeah, that’s what I thought. On the opposite side of the spectrum, India is not only a party to the ICESCR, but has also enshrined in its constitution such rights as health care (Article 47) and fair wages (Article 43). So far India has not descended into anarchy.

The tragedy would not be to designate too many rights, but to divide rights into classes or categories. Human rights are indivisible and universal. It is not up to one country or individual to decide which are good and which are less so.