Published on December 10, 2005

Today may be International Human Rights Day, but merely parroting the slogan that human rights is universal and innate may do more harm than good in Thailand.

It is quite common, almost a cliche, for those who support human rights to insist upon the irrefutability and universality of human rights. It’s as if by insisting that human rights are universal, if spoken and repeated frequently enough, people will then simply buy into it.

But how universal and innate are human rights, really?

Not all that much, actually.

Those pondering the issue hard enough will likely admit that human rights, just like other notions, including democracy and equality, is itself indeed a cultural construct – a product of culture.

Humans like to differentiate themselves from other animals not just by pointing to a more evolved brain, but also by considering themselves really different. But we share more rather than less in common with many species.

Nevertheless, a line has been drawn in most of today’s cultures, and humans believe themselves not only different, but also superior to other sentient beings.

Another clear cultural construct is the notion of innate equality of all men and women. Anyone who is honest will not hesitate to admit that inequality was more, not less, the order of the day for most of history.

Slavery, feudalism, absolute monarchy, segregation, gender discrimination – you name it. All were once accepted unquestioningly in most societies, and numerous forms of inequality persist today.

What, then, about the supposed innate universal rights of all humankind?

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is merely half a century old. It is a cultural construct, a wishful expression of the intention that we should all be respected, for each and every one of us is first and foremost a member of the human race.

But nothing about it is innate, nor is its universality preordained. It is a notion that must be fought for under the conviction that this is the best and most decent way for humans to co-exist.

Even issues like the recent hanging of an Australian drug trafficker in Singapore proved very divisive. The Singaporean and Thai governments support capital punishment, while Australia considers it a “barbaric” act and an offence to the supposedly innate and fundamental right to life that everyone possesses.

There are valid reasons why it is worth fighting for the universality of human rights, but the fight should start on the right foot, and that is not by blindly parroting the rhetoric of their universality, but rather by first recognising their very artificiality.

Parroting notions of universality while conveniently forgetting the previous conditions of human relations cannot be the best way to plant the seed of human rights. People should accept human rights for what they are – a cultural construct – and move on from there.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

Post your comment to this story here