Reflection 8: Civil Rights vs. Human Rights- Which One Would You Prefer?

Ever since that Star Trek vignette we saw in class I have been thinking (and yes, that indicates how slow of a thinker I was in analyzing this), and I thought I should probably blog about this. Especially after Thursday's class in which we went in all directions from questioning Phil's humanness (to which I will come back later), to my comments on [child]/ [human] development and to why we (humans) hop on other animals (i.e.horses). I think it is about the right time I flesh out everything that's going on in my head: What's human? Are human rights racist, or these rights -as the UN puts it- "universal?"

It was one of those things that I could not wrap my mind around here in the U.S.; the distinction between the civil and the human rights. In Europe -and more closely in Cyprus- we talk about human rights. The most inalienable rights a human being can have: right to life, property, speech etc. The rhetoric changes on this side of the Atlantic, and people discuss civil liberties. Are we talking about the same thing? Are Europeans lacking a sense of civil rights? Or are Americans lacking -as some scholars put it- a "culture of human rights?" If we are talking about the same thing, why are my rights of pursuit of happiness not protected in Europe, whereas they are protected here?

I think Americans were always a step ahead- or rather more civilized when it came to forming a legal covenant which would protect rights of its people. Civil rights and liberties existed long before the horrors of World War II. And hence, Universal Declaration on Human Rights...and European Directive on Human Rights. UK, for one, lacked an actual "Bill of Rights" document until 1998. So, the human rights notion is a rather new concept whose need was felt soon after the WWII. When you look at the rights protected and how they are protected and from whom they are protected, both the civil rights and the human rights are more-or-less on the same page. By calling them human rights, perhaps we underline the oneness and the wholeness of human race. Civil rights on the other hand...almost require something more than being human- it expects you to be part of the civil society to grant you those rights. I believe it was depicted in Ray Bradburry's Martian Chronicles in the "Taxpayer" story, about a man who protested after he was not put on a shuttle to Mars crying he "was a taxpayer!" I am not entirely sure if civil rights > human rights in practice, but it sounds about right to me in theory.

In law, we have two approaches to this dilemma: relativist (egaliterian) and the universalist debate.
In Speaker of the Dead terms this would be the Ramen vs. Varelse debate. How do we assess the humanness, or worth of an individual/group to decide who is what? I mean we can always put people to monitor others for their proneness to humanness or not. Yet, one thing could always prove things wrong and that is the human's (self's) willingness to identify or not with something they are externally labelled for. Take homosexuality for instance: As long as one refuses (or choses not to) come out, they can always stay as straight and pursue a miserable (or something along the lines) life. There could be external obstacles hindering individual's gender preference but the point is clear: we might never know. Whereas if one choses to come out, then how we categorize him changes from "straight" to "homosexual." Not in a racist or discremenatory manner, but rather in a "stereotypical"manner: fast and discreet, allowing people to form clear linkages beween the reality lying before them, or (in a way) to make better sense of themselves. So we might consider one ramen, but that does not change the individual's own "varelseness," sexuality, religious believes or humanness. I think I will put on a liberalist hat for a moment and say: it is the knowledege that originates and ends within itself that would matter to the self/individual at the end of the day and nothing more. There might be a whole crazy world out there, but what matters is keeping the inner (self) safe. You could be a varelse and lead a ramen life or vice versa...or simply be forced/expected to life such lives. Regardless of the outcome there will be rules to be followed, and laws to abide.

So, to what extent can the civil rights work then? It assumes a form of participation into the civil system whereas the human rights merely requires getting out of your mother's womb (in most cases, you have rights even while you are in there). I do not know which one is more racist (or discriminatory) for these days even if no laws are passed with discriminatory intent, their application is conducted in discriminatory manners. An example could be the French laws regarding African Female immigrants coming into the country with their headscarves. Even though the laws in place are not specific to these women, they are the ones getting discriminatory approach by the French law enforcement officials. Coming back to the problem with the human rights...I would say it should be the means and the ends. Because i think it would be too scarry to use human rights as means to another ends.  Schmittian says whoever uses humanity as a reason is cheating. Then again, whoever is not using humanity as a reason is also cheating. Maybe we really do need a moral dictator/ God/meta-narrative to enlighten the right path for us, because we just don't get it. Or we should just wait until the robotic uprising...



Flight of the Chonchords: The Humans Are Dead