Discussion

A Modern Definition of Human Rights

During the 20th century the problem of human rights has assumed paramount importance for the advance of society. However, the definition of human rights from the perspective of narrow, political self-interest has rendered the phrase virtually meaningless. Everything from the right of capitalists to freely exploit labour to the right of terrorists to plant bombs and commit murder are defended under the banner of human rights. These definitions of human rights are of no value to the billions of people around the world striving for a society fit for human existence.

This column is being dedicated to the development of discussion on this crucial issue. In the coming weeks and months we will present a communist perspective on this problem and discuss a modern definition of human rights. We welcome and encourage feedback from our readers on this question, as well as any proposals on how to advance this discussion.

The starting point of CPC(M-L) on the question of human rights is that a modern definition of human rights must be based on what is required by all human beings to exist. In other words, when we talk about human rights, we are talking about those rights which flow from the simple fact that a human being exists and from no other considerations.

There are also other categories of rights which exist in a complex, modern society, such as the rights of women, children, workers and minorities. These categories of rights belong to individuals as a result of their membership in a collective within society. The issue of minority rights can be dealt with in a modern and comprehensive way only if every individual's rights are guaranteed by virtue of their being human. If society were to be based on such a fundamental law, with mechanisms to ensure it in practice, the issue of minority rights would also effectively be solved. No longer would minorities and collectives in the society be treated as "special interest groups and thus marginalized, with their needs turned into mere policy objectives for this or that political party, or left to the whim of bureaucrats or whichever party happens to form a government.

In the next issue of Modern Communism we will begin the discussion of the social and personal rights which flow from the definition of human rights as those rights which belong to individuals by virtue of their existence as human beings. In future issues we will follow this logic and look at some of the consequences of this definition.

Part 2

In general terms, there are two categories of human rights: entitlement rights and personal rights. Entitlement rights are those rights which society must provide every human being so that they can exist in a modern society. Personal rights are those rights concerning control by an individual of their own person.

Entitlement rights, such as the right to a livelihood and to a socially acceptable level of food, clothing and shelter are rights which, though recognized by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, have never been implemented in Canada. The right to an education, to health care and to economic, social and personal security are also basic rights of entitlement to which every individual has claim, but which our society also refuses to recognize and/or guarantee.

Whereas entitlement rights are demands on society to which every individual has claim, personal rights concern prohibitions against the violation of the individual, of their mind and body, by society.. Of these, the right to conscience is the most fundamental, for without the right to think and express opinions, how can an individual be considered fully human? The right to privacy and the right of an individual to sovereignty over their own body are also fundamental human rights.

It is clear that Canada does not respect human rights in terms of the demands of individuals on society. The right to a livelihood, an education, adequate health care and all other such entitlements are reduced to mere policy objectives which are subordinated to the demands of the financiers for maximum returns on their investments. This lack of respect for one category of human rights is covered up by loud proclamations that Canada respects individual human rights. However, this claim also does not stand up to scrutiny.

The Canadian state has openly admitted on numerous occasions that it routinely spies on and persecutes individuals and groups for their ideological beliefs, ranging from communists to Quebec sovereigntists. Various religious groups have also faced persecution for their beliefs. The Canadian Citizenship Act actually requires an individual seeking to become a Canadian citizen to swear allegiance to "Canadian values", thereby violating their right to conscience. The right to privacy is virtually non-existent, as not only the Canadian state, but also a host of corporations, routinely spy on Canadians for political or commercial gain. In regard to the sovereignty of individuals over their own persons, there are numerous Canadian laws which criminalize what individuals may do with their own bodies.

So, if one looks past the hype and examines Canada's actual practice in regard to human rights, one can only conclude that Canada neither recognizes, nor defends the human rights of its own citizens. In fact, human rights in Canada are reduced either to policy objectives or to a matter of the treatment of minorities, an area in which the record of the Canadian state is equally pathetic. These issues will be dealt with in future parts of this series.

Part 3

The right to a livelihood is a fundamental human right which has been formally recognized in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, almost nowhere is this right recognized in practice. Rather, it is seen as a policy objective which will hopefully be achieved sometime in the distant future.

An example of reducing a fundamental right to a mere policy objective was the pledge by the Canadian government to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. The announcement was made with a lot of fanfare, but no actual policies were adopted to make it a reality. Instead, the main aim of the government continued to be to reduce expenditures on social programs and increase the funding of the financial oligarchy through deficit reduction and debt repayment. As a result, far from being eradicated, over the past decade child poverty in Canada has increased to unprecedented levels. During the same period the profits of the financiers and speculators have soared to new heights. In other words, in Canada the right of human beings to a livelihood is subordinated to the right of capitalists to make a profit.

If the rights of human beings in general are subordinated to the rights of a tiny minority to make a profit it cannot be said that human rights are actually recognized. A society which respects the rights of human beings will put the satisfaction of those rights in the first place. All of the powerful mechanisms and institutions existing in a modern society will be put into motion to satisfy those rights, those things which human beings require to flourish.

Can it honestly be said that a modern, industrial society such as Canada does not have the resources to eliminate child poverty? Can it be said that Canada does not produce sufficient wealth to ensure that every human being living here has an adequate standard of living? That is the message being repeated by the federal and provincial governments and the news media. Given the enormous natural resources of our country and its highly educated and motivated working class, such claims are difficult to believe. However, in the unlikely case that these claims are true, then shouldn't the best and brightest minds in the society be devoted to finding a solution to this dilemma? Shouldn't governments be cutting back on non-essential spending in order to ensure that no child goes to bed hungry?

A government which paid more than lip service to human rights would certainly put the rights of human beings above the right of capitalists to make a profit. Such a government would declare a moratorium on debt payments and other forms of payments to the rich and would invest that money in increased social spending, so that the tendency of the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer could be reversed. Even if the problem of poverty could not be eliminated immediately, at least such a society would be headed in the right direction. A modern society cannot make the right to a livelihood conditional on which class an individual happens to belong to. It is a right to which every individual is entitled by virtue of their being human.

Part 4

The question of whether or not a society is based on respect for human rights or on the violation of human rights is not a matter of declarations and good intentions. It also has little to do with the particular political institutions which may or may not exist in a society. Rather, it is a matter of the priorities that society sets for itself, and, first and foremost, on what priorities are set for the economic activity in the society.

In a modern, industrial society, such as Canada, there are two basic sets of priorities that can underlie the organization of the economy. One set of priorities is based on the premise that things, such as capital, are more important than people. An economy based on such a premise will harness all of the creative energies of its people and all of the instruments of power at its disposal in order to enhance those things. An economy organized on such a basis has no concern for human beings other than as a productive force. Their well-being is ensured only to the extent necessary for them to remain productive and when they cease to be productive due to illness, age or lack of the necessary skills, then they become expendable and are considered a burden on the society.

The other set of priorities is based on the premise that human beings are more important than things. A society based on such a premise will harness all of the creative energies of its people and all of the instruments of power at its disposal to enhance the quality of life of its people. It will organize the entire economy in order to serve the needs of the producers, those who actually create all of the wealth of the society. By satisfying the needs of the producers, by maximizing their level of education, health-care and general sense of well-being, such a society will unleash the most powerful force in human society, the human spirit, itself. There is no limit to the wealth that can be created by such a society.

It can be demonstrated with the precision of science that a society organized on the basis that things are more important than human beings cannot possibly recognize and guarantee fundamental human rights. On the other hand, a society based on the premise that human beings are more important than things is not only capable of recognizing and guaranteeing fundamental human rights, but is also capable of producing far more wealth and expanding on a continuous basis.

Canada, as well as the rest of the world, is presently at a crossroads. It has based itself on putting things before people and that course is rapidly leading to disaster. The vast majority of Canadians feel alienated in one way or another from society, powerless to influence the direction that society is headed. The economy is organized in the interests of a tiny minority of the population and is poised for an unprecedented collapse. The only way to solve these problems and avoid disaster is to change the priorities of the society and raise the status of human beings from the servants of capital to the masters of capital. Only on that basis can we create a society fit for human existence.

Part 5

The American definition of human rights is based on the concepts of individualism and narrow self-interest. As a result, the issue of human rights is often looked at only in terms of the rights of individuals, while collective rights are negated. However, such a definition of human rights ignores the fundamental fact that human beings are social beings; they simply cannot exist without a society. Therefore, a discussion of human rights which ignores the role of society, both in terms of facilitating and restricting the realization of human rights, would not be very fruitful.

One of the most important human rights is the right to conscience. The right to conscience is, of course, an individual right, the right of the individual to express their ideas and opinions and to make those decisions which impact on their lives. However, individuals live within collectives and within society as a whole. Their ideas and opinions are shaped by those collectives and by society, through education and culture, through history and traditions, and through the common psychology which develops in a society and which gives rise to the concept of a nation. The ideas, opinions and decisions of individuals in turn play a role in shaping the future development of the culture, history and psychology of the society.

In a nation which is sovereign, the people of that nation determine how the life of the nation evolves. One class or another may dominate the nation and leave the imprint of its ideology on the culture and psychology of the entire nation, but ultimately the people of that nation will collectively decide on the future of the nation. They will decide on what definition of human rights will prevail, what form of democracy will exist and which collectives the society will serve.

However, when a small or weak nation is dominated by an outside power, as is the case in most countries of the world today, the right to conscience is restricted or even negated. The ideas, opinions and decisions of the foreign power are imposed on the entire society. Within such a situation how is it possible for the people of that nation to fully exercise their individual right to conscience? How can they exercise their personal sovereignty, their right to conscience, when their national sovereignty is suppressed? In many cases, including Canada, not only have the traditions and culture of the oppressed nations been suppressed, but even the use of their languages has been banned, such as in the residential school system imposed on the Native peoples.

We are living in an era when national identity, national culture and national psychology are still very important to people in terms of defining who they are in the world. Their ideas and values are still shaped by such forces. However, national sovereignty and national identity are increasingly interfering with the ability of the monopolies to realize maximum profits. As a result they are attempting to destroy the very concept of the nation. A clash is shaping up between the monopolies and the people on this question. The growing movement against globalization is an example of this. This movement has international features, but its essence is defence of the sovereignty of the nations.

The definition of human rights promoted by the U.S. and other imperialist powers is a definition based on the right of individual capitalists to freely export capital anywhere in the world that it can achieve the maximum profits. It is a definition in which the right of nations to sovereignty is negated. In other words, it is a definition based on the premise that the vast majority of the peoples of the world have no right to conscience and must submit to the dictate of the imperialists. The struggle of the peoples of the world in defence of their national sovereignty and the right of their nations to self-determination, is, therefore, an integral part of the struggle in defence of a modern definition of human rights.Part 6

Canada presents itself as a model of recognition of human rights. It prides itself that it has federal human rights legislation, as well as human rights legislation in all of the provinces. It even sends people to other countries to teach them how to respect human rights. However, the human rights legislation which exists at various levels has a lot to do with posturing and very little to do with the actual defence of human rights.

By definition, human rights must refer to those rights which are common to all people by virtue of their being human. They must be based on guaranteeing those things which all human beings require to fully participate in a modern society, such as the right to a livelihood, to education and health care, to protection of their person and the right to conscience, etc..

Neither the federal nor provincial human rights statutes in Canada base themselves on the common needs of all human beings. Rather, they base themselves things which are not common to all human beings, such as race, gender, life-style, religion, disabilities, etc. They then purport to defend the "human rights" of the various "minorities" which they have deemed fit to recognize. In other words, these statutes do not recognize human rights, but only certain minority rights. Even these "rights" are not guaranteed and are only recognized to the extent that they are "reasonable". The term "reasonable" has repeatedly been interpreted to mean that these rights are protected only in so far as they do not infringe on the ability of corporations to be profitable.

Although the illusion is created that the rights of certain minorities are protected, in practice it can be demonstrated that minorities routinely experience discrimination in all aspects of their lives, often with the blessing of the human rights agencies. An example would be the requirement that an applicant for a job have a university degree. A person can be denied a job because they lack the necessary education, while the lack of education may be due to systemic discrimination, as is the case with Native peoples. That individual has no protection under human rights legislation because education is not recognized as a basic human right.

Discrimination against individuals or minority groups based should, of course, be eradicated and in some circumstances should even be treated as a criminal offense. However, human rights legislation must not be based on what is different about human beings, but rather on what is common to all human beings.

For example, there is a debate in Canada about whether or not same-sex couples should receive the same pension and taxation benefits accorded opposite-sex couples. Such a debate would not even exist if the right to a livelihood was recognized for every human being. It is only when an individual's livelihood is dependant on their relationship to another individual that such an issue can arise. It is the lack of recognition of the right of every person to a livelihood by virtue of their being human which creates the situation in which one individual is dependant for their livelihood on their spouse's pension, or their parents' or children's income.

The concept of human rights being synonymous with minority rights, far from defending either human rights or minority rights, actually denies the human rights of all.

Part 7

Human rights legislation based on differences, rather than commonality, does not create an atmosphere of unity within society. It also does little to combat the problems of prejudice and discrimination which it supposedly is designed to eliminate. More often than not it gives rise to a backlash from the "majority" which perceives one section of society enjoying more rights than it does.

In many respects, this type of human rights legislation is based on the policy of elite accommodation, in which a handful of members of a particular minority are allowed to sit at the table in order to show how benevolent the ruling elite is. Another word for this is "tokenism". It represents neither benevolence nor tolerance, but the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of the ruling elite.

The treatment of minorities in any society is a mark of the level of enlightenment of that society. In a capitalist society like Canada, the economic, political and cultural life of the society is dominated by the capitalist class. The capitalists constitute a tiny minority of the population, which exploits the vast majority. It can only retain its hold over society by creating and maintaining divisions amongst the people and it does so on every conceivable issue, creating a thousand and one "minorities" within the majority population.. Human rights legislation which emphasizes and "protects" only those who exhibit certain differences is one way in which these divisions are created. This is not an accident, but the motive of such legislation. How else can one explain the fact that Canada signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has refused for over 50 years to implement a single clause of it, but instead passes off weak minority rights legislation as the protection of human rights?

An enlightened society does not recognize divisions amongst the people. While various differences exist between all human beings, most are completely superficial. Some differences may be significant enough to require special enabling legislation to ensure that individuals are able to fully exercise the human rights which they share with every other human being in the society. However, a society which bases itself on the recognition of right of all to conscience, a livelihood, education, health care and all of the other necessities of modern human beings will have no difficulty identifying and satisfying those special requirements, as well.

Part 8

In previous parts of this series we have discussed the negative consequences of mixing up questions of human rights and minority rights. We pointed out that most issues which are included in the category of minority rights would disappear if Canada implemented a modern definition of human rights. This does not mean that there is no place in a modern society for the protection of the rights of minorities or, more properly, collectives within the society.

Within a modern society there are conflicting interests and there is a tendency for individuals to join collectives which share common interests. These collectives may be based on how one earns one's living, on gender, on special needs relating to physical abilities, on nationality or a number of other considerations. Such collectives play an important role in assisting their members to participate more fully in the life of the society. However, even though the demands that such collectives make on society may be seen as demands for special rights for minorities, this is often not the case.

For example, collectives representing various national minority communities may demand education in their mother tongue. This is not a minority right, but a condition for exercising human rights. The right to conscience is a fundamental human right. The ability to express one's opinions without fear of persecution is a central aspect of freedom of conscience. However, it is not the only aspect. The right to speak and learn in one's own language and to participate in one's own culture are also essential to the exercise of the right to conscience, since human thought is inconceivable without language.

By contrast, collective rights arise out of the specific characteristics which define the collective and not out of the implementation of human rights. For example, the working class is a collective within society. It presents various claims on society, such as the right to control the product of its own labour. Such a demand arises not by virtue of workers being human but rather by virtue of the exercise of their labour to transform nature. Women as a collective may make claims on society for rights required to fulfill those needs which arise from their position as child-bearers. First Nations peoples have claims which arise by virtue of their being the first inhabitants of Canada. Youth have claims which emerge from their position as the new generation. In addition, all people have the right to protection against discrimination based on their membership in one or another collective.

While the category of collective rights may not have the same degree of moral authority as human rights, such rights are absolutely essential for the harmonious development of modern human society. A society which places the highest importance on the unity of the peoples will necessarily place the highest importance on the protection of both human rights and collective rights.

The Canadian state, however, serves the interests of a tiny minority, those who own and control capital, and the only "minority right" which it actually guarantees is the right of that minority to exploit the labour of the majority. It is in the interest of that minority to create maximum divisions amongst the people so that they cannot unite to solve their problems. Racism and other forms of discrimination are used for that purpose. However, the Canadian ruling elite is very sophisticated, so it presents "solutions" to the problems of racism and discrimination, but these serve not to unite the people, but to further divide them.

The working class, if it is to achieve its own emancipation, must unite working people and oppose all attempts to split the unity of the people. Therefore, the struggle for human rights and collective rights (including minority rights) is a task which must be taken up, not just by minorities, but by the entire working class. In fact, any collective which does not link the struggle for its rights with the struggle of the working class for emancipation will not make much headway. This is a lesson which has been learned time and again during the past century.