A "great and inspiring instrument"

Amid all of the news stories regarding the significant problems which face the planet as we approach the end of the first decade of the 21st century, a recent landmark anniversary of what many consider to be a major achievement of the previous century seems to have passed by relatively unnoticed.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was 60 years young on December 10th last year (in fact, Human Rights Day is 'celebrated' on the same day every year) but, given the general lack of press coverage, I think all but the most ardent of news junkies can be excused for missing the big event.

The idealist in me can't help but be saddened by this. The Declaration is an incredible document - in the words of the United Nation's third Secretary-General, U Thant, which I have borrowed for the title of this blog, a "great and inspiring instrument". It is well written, remarkably free of the pomposity that is all too common in legal documents and, most importantly of all, encapsulates some incredibly important rights. It also remains hugely relevant to life today. After all, it's not as if we live in a world that is free from human rights abuse. Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth. If the daily news isn't depressing enough, I would suggest Human Rights Watch's website for a comprehensive but sombre summary of mankind's current inhumanity to itself.

But the Declaration is far from perfect. Perhaps its biggest weakness is that, of itself, it doesn't have any significant legal effect. It isn't a convention or treaty which creates, or obliges its signatories to pass laws creating, legal rights and obligations. It's more of a statement of the signatories' intent; an intention that critics say has been followed up more by breach than observance in many cases.

In the UK, the Declaration was the original precursor to the European Convention on Human Rights and the relatively recent Human Rights Act. This act, which finally made express provision for human rights in UK law, has been particularly controversial, with various sensational stories about the law respecting the supposed rights of wrongdoers and criminals over and above innocent victims.

And these concerns do raise an important point about human rights. If they are to be protected, then the rights must apply equally to everyone, irrespective of whether or not that person would respect your rights in return. One of the many criticisms (and the Christmas Day blog from the Post's own Tom Scotney on this issue certainly packs a punch) which can be levelled at Channel 4 for its decision to allow Iran's President Ahmadinejad to deliver the alternative Christmas message was that this was allowing the president a platform which was in marked contrast to Iran's own record on human rights; in particular, its recent treatment of 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate, Dr Shirin Ebadi.

The question for us as a society is whether this sort of tension is worth the freedoms which underpin it. I firmly believe that it is. I hope you agree.