Human Rights

the problems of us ,people of "third world"is related to domination of the first world ,for example, the attack of america to iraq and so the conclusions of that ,to created hunger, ignore of human rights in every face in that country and many sampls of oppression and producting injustice...in the other countries of world. dust, my argue this is that the organizational structure of ssf,suggest that the organization is entirely committed to creating a more just global comunity.but ,in fact my idea in here ,ssf remains governed by a series of disciplinary-professional and "practical "borders,all of which are political in nature.so ,you know the structural of societies of "third world" is different with the structural of societies "western world",by this matter ,how ,we must to practical "theories of sociology " that related to problems of "first-world for solving of the phenomena of social of "third-world"?i think conditions of human-societies is different in creating of fact of social. (...)

Is it in fact possible to be a sociologist borders free of every limitation?

Alieh shekarbagy

I think we can challenge their analysis from our visions as sociologists, and criticizer to neo- liberal performances and globalization. Before than we must be accept that we want to do something more than virtual and limited effects. We need to redefine us. At first, I emphasize on the 1 and 4 items which i suggested.

Would it be consistent with your proposal to ask members of SSF in different countries to compile a list of human rights abuses in their own countries? We could produce a report much like Human Rights Watch does, but we would be doing this as sociologists.

I saw some ideas and noticeable points from SSF´s discussion. But what provoked me to think about our activities is a main question that is: what is difference between us as sociologists and other social activists in human rights fields? What we are doing that other non-SSF sociologist does don't that? Finally what are our practical and effective missions?

Now I want to focus on the some basic questions that Judith introduced:

1. Global sociology: I think that GS has two dimension: a) analysis and reflect our visions and acts about global social issues like hunger people, fundamentalism waves, warming and its humanistic effects, immigrants rights, WSF affairs and human rights .., b) integrate local sociologies in the GS and establish the GLocalization trend that lead us to solidarity and common understanding on the common issues.

2. Human rights are the products of the humanistic civilization from Cyrus to now and it is a global convention that many of countries especially their NGOs want to approve it. States like to ignore some articles of human rights in the base of their interests and follow global profits and power mafias just for spread their hegemonies. But the NGOs are the mediate institutions who want to approve human rights for their interest groups and deprived people. There are some evidences on the violations of human rights in most of countries from US in Christian ones to Israel as Jewish and Iran as an Islamic one.

However, what is our agenda as a non profit society?

3. We are sociologists who have two obligates: in the academic spheres, we must be talk on the scientific and social preferences of the society and in the practical and social spheres we must be engage in defense of freedom, democracy, equality, peace and human rights. This is differences between us in the SSF with other sociologists that we can activate and participate in the social actions by support of theoretical tools and concepts.

4. I think that we can do something which is noticeable: a) Doing research on the some common sociological issues i.e. immigrants and their identities; Globalization and its effects on the poverty and so on.., b) Doing some regional workshops on the common agendas and works per the year, c) Produce and publish some common reports on the Human Rights profile from sociological perspectives in the country members and publish in the i.e. "societies without borders" or other frames, d) Establish and activate a forum in the Internet for talk and discuss with our members in the whole and other sociologists in the world, e) Publishing all events in the SSF in the some medias between interested Groups.

Ali Tayefi (AT)

My aim is to de-relativize human rights and cast them instead as unconditional birthrights. I do believe there are social and cultural differences among societies, but I don't believe there are social and cultural differences in what birthrights are or in what people believe are their birthrights. Mahmoud Mamdani makes the point that no matter in what country a man slaps a woman, everyone and everywhere and in every country, people think the man has violated her rights. (It may happen more in the Appalachian mountains of the US than it does on Park Avenue, Manhattan, but that has to do with poverty and not with what people universally hold as principles about women's rights.)

The reason universality of human rights is so important, I believe, is that the world's people need to be in solidarity about the recognition of each others' rights - Americans of the Dominicans, Nigerians of the Burmeses' human rights, the English of the Frenchman's human rights, and so forth. Unless this is the case, we can never dream of world peace. We will be at the mercy of market fundamentalists who want to tear down societies for the sake of their neoliberal project. We will be at the mercy of imperialists. The rich and the powerful will surely inherit the earth unless we take a stand that peoples' rights must not be violated.

Exhibits 1-4.

1. This is the Charter of Human Rights of the Arab League.

http://www.law.wits.ac.za/humanrts/instree/arabhrcharter.html

2. This is the Charter of the African Union http://www.achpr.org/english/_info/charter_en.html

3. And this for Asia

http://material.ahrchk.net/charter/mainfile.php/eng_charter/

4. And this is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I have studied these carefully over the past years, and I do not believe they differ in any significant way. At the core, there are just a few principles - equality, security, the right to a unique identity and culture, and the right to self-determinatiion (the right not to be dominated and the right to participate in democracy). These principles have very little to do with what the US government refers to as "human rights." The US uses this term rhetorically to get other governments to do what it wants. We Americans do not have human rights. We have the Bill of Rights, which only spell out political rights.

Already there are indexes for human wellbeing:The gender equity index (Social Watch) Human Development Index (UNDP) - includes poverty, literacy, education and GDP spent on various things Health rankings (WHO) Political human rights violations (Human Rights Watch ) Human Wellbeing and Environmental Impact (New Economics Foundation)

Happy Planet Index, a very general indicator of citizens' happiness, wellbeing, and wise use of environmental resources. High-scoring countries are Malta (53), and also Tunisia, Sao Tome-Principe, Vietnam, Colombia, and Vanuatu. Iran has a score of 47, Spain 43, the UK 40, and the US, 29. The New Economics Foundation that developed the Index is in London.

http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/dl44k145g5scuy453044gqbu11072006194758.pdf

I would not be opposed to applying for funds for SSF to develop an index of human rights, which would include the realization of social and economic rights, and social and cultural pluralism. The Happy Planet Index is certainly useful to sociologists, but it does not capture anything about, for example, civil society or citizen involvement in democracy.

Judith B

I am wondering if one way to think about this issue would be to consider how human rights discourses frame some people as "human" (in relation to others who are less human) as Judith Butler proposes. We could then ask not whether "human rights" as a universalist discourse are "really human rights" or "truly universal" but when are Human Rights (such as women's rights in Muslim societies, rights of Muslim prisoners in Guantano Bay) really human rights? What are the discursive, material and other practices of power that uphold certain "rights" as human rights and not others...How do concepts of civilization, equality, freedom get attached to some rights and not others?

The discourse of human rights has been most abused at the geopolitical (universal) level to dehumanize Muslims and Islam but it is also a discourse that in specific(particular) contexts has been strategically invoked by Muslim women to make claims on the state.

There is no doubt that the concept of "universal human rights" is a problematic and highly contested one and we have to deploy it with caution... in my work I emphasize that and try to theorize instead what kinds of conditions and what practices of power at local, national and international levels make it necessary for some individuals or groups to invoke or rely on this problematic notion.

The aim is to make visible the practices of power associated with the notion of human rights since we have no language with which to empty it of its political possibilities and, more important, to name what it is that people are demanding when they invoke this ambiguous and historically murky construct.

Amina Jamal

First, no society, no culture condones starvation, torture, violence against women, malnutrition, hunger, landlessness, homelessness. So I think we can call these universal. The NGOs in the Horn of Africa have mounted a massive campaign against clitorectomies. India has outlawed the untouchable class and Dalits are organized for their rights. Iranian women's NGOs have organized to protest loss of freedoms. Activists all round the world are mobilized against neoliberalism.

Second, states do things that are universally condemned. Denial of freedoms, "extraordinary renditions," repression of journalists, and so forth.

Yes, there are zones of cultural differences (eating cows; spanking children, the death penalty), but there is no culture or society that officially maintains that the members of some groups are inferior to members of other groups. Human equality is I believe at the core of human rights, and this is now in every Constitution in the world (191; a few states do not have constitutions).

It is the US that has, at least in my view, committed the most systematically atrocious human rights abuses, with its official sponsorship of neoliberal reforms and contempt of environmental treaties. ..... 7,000 military bases around the world, but this goes off into another discussion.

David Fasenfest wrote:

My point exactly--but then are we only talking about the idea of rights, as in everyone gets to define what they mean by rights, and not the universality of some rights? And then aren't we arguing that what is considered appropriate in one context is of no concern to anyone in another that may see those actions as violations of human rights?

(...) I am not opposed to guaranteeing a set of rights to people...I am just having a hard time making the transition from particular to universal rights.

Aren't the rights to culture, language, traditions, and faith universal human rights? As much so as the rights to economic security and a living wage?

many of these concepts are rooted in Western/European frames of a particular liberal ideal.

(...) What rights are we talking about, and what mechanisms should we turn to when cultural views of rights conflict? Who are we to decide which rights are universal when it is imposed globally. We recently had a discussion about religion--but many religions are not tolerant of others.

Do we take a teleological perspective and assume that all human development should be striving for the same set of human rights? Or if we are to remain respectful of local and cultural tradition how can we seek a dialogue or build a global movement? (...) But how will we take the power from the powerful?

David Fasenfest (DF)

Here are discussion questions:

1. What is a global sociology?

2. How can sociologists connect the local and the global?

3. When sociologists put human rights first, are we still social scientists?

4. Human rights are inseparable, but sociologists are specialized. How can this be resolved?

5. What are the barriers to universal human rights?

6. How can sociologists break down these barriers?

7. What does a global movement for human rights look like? How can we mobilize?