A Human Rights or Political Priority in Defending Equality and Liberty

A Human Rights or Political Priority in Defending Equality and Liberty

May 16, 2009
by Jeffrey Imm
Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)
http://www.realcourage.org/2009/05/keep-hope-alive/
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/blog/imm-articles/138.html

At every point in any major struggle, there needs to be time to stop, reflect, and evaluate the effectiveness of our strategy. Today, we see a consistent indifference of public opinion on anti-freedom ideologies, while at the same time America is in the midst of political change. We also see the growing influence of anti-freedom ideologies in their global attack on the human rights of equality and liberty. These factors should lead us to stop, reflect, and evaluate the effectiveness of our current approach to challenging anti-freedom ideologies.

The challenge to anti-freedom ideologies has been dramatically impacted over the past seven years by the development of a political-based model in challenging Islamic supremacism. In recent times, this political approach has been a reaction to the nature of how the Islamic supremacist threat was presented to the American people (the 9/11 attacks) as well as a failure to achieve commitment from bipartisan political leaders and traditional human rights groups in challenging the anti-freedom ideology of Islamic supremacism. We must ask ourselves if recent history demonstrates that a political approach to challenging anti-freedom ideologies lacks the effectiveness and consistent credibility necessary for a sustained effort.

The limitations of a political approach to challenging anti-freedom ideologies are not just limited to challenging Islamic supremacism, but are also limited in challenging Communist totalitarianism and many other anti-freedom ideologies. Such limitations are inherent in the nature of political organizations' priorities of popularity and compromise over credibility and consistency. This does not "blame" political approaches for their limitations, but recognizes what they are and are not. We cannot simply wish that political movements were human rights movements; they are and will continue to be different. Therefore, we must revisit the need for a consistent human rights infrastructure that challenges all anti-freedom ideologies based on our commitment to the universal, inalienable human rights of equality and liberty.

We must recognize that human rights and political approaches to such issues have very different priorities, focus, and goals.

In a human rights-centric defiance of anti-freedom ideologies, we believe that all men and women are entitled to equality and liberty as part of their universal human rights. Uncompromising human rights-based thinking on equality and liberty justifies challenging both Islamic supremacist Iran's position on equality and liberty as well as Communist China's position on equality and liberty. A human rights-centric position must not allow the flexibility to "tolerate" Islamic supremacism, but to defy Communist totalitarianism, or vice versa. Consistency and credibility matters.

Politics is based on something altogether different. Politics is based on compromise to develop effective consensus on finite issues, on situational coalitions, and on situational responses to perceived problems. In politics, there is no consistent "right" or "wrong" on issues of equality and liberty over time, there is only what is necessary for that tactical activity, that campaign, that initiative. Popularity and tactical achievements matter.

While we certainly will need to continue to have political groups challenging anti-freedom ideologies, we must more clearly decide whether our priorities should be with a political-centric approach or a human rights-based approach. This requires that we step back and examine both approaches and goals. Certainly, there is a role and function of political groups in challenging anti-freedom ideologies, including lobbying our representatives. But we need to determine which approach should be our priority moving forward as most effective in challenging anti-freedom ideologies. Moreover, we must ask ourselves: are those championing human rights influencing political groups or are political groups influencing how we promote human rights issues?

Those who defy anti-freedom ideologies derived from institutionalized hate must ask ourselves if a political-centric approach is being productive in such struggles, or whether we need to refocus our strategy to employ a human rights-centric approach. We must ask ourselves why we struggle against anti-freedom ideologies in the first place. Is our struggle against anti-freedom ideologies primarily based on our love and compassion for our fellow human beings? Does our struggle recognize the truth of universal human rights of equality and liberty? If so, will political organizations and coalitions with situational agendas consistently understand a human rights effort based on compassion? Or will political-centric approaches to defying anti-freedom ideologies ultimately fall victim to the endless compromise, situational ethics, and situational credibility so prevalent in partisan political movements? And will political-centric approaches invariably alienate a large segment of the already indifferent population from even listening to the legitimate human rights challenges posed by such anti-freedom ideologies?

To address this subject, I have prepared this white paper as a starting point to begin this vital discussion, which addresses the following topics:

1. Political Reaction to Anti-Freedom Outrages Does Not Constitute a Human Rights Movement

2. Human Rights Movements Can Credibly Define Anti-Freedom Movements

3. The Political Abandonment of Human Rights by "Mainstreaming" Communist Totalitarian China

4. The Limitations of a Political-Centric Approach to Challenging Islamic Supremacism
4.1. The Ideological Trap of Political Partisanship on Islamic Supremacism
4.2. The Credibility Gap of Political Groups on the Human Rights Challenge of Islamic Supremacism
4.3. How Political Approaches to Defying Islamic Supremacism Readily Undermine the Human Rights Challenge
4.4. Tearing Down the Partisan Wall for a Bipartisan Human Rights Challenge to Islamic Supremacism
4.5. The Arguments of Those Disagreeing with the Need for a Human Rights-Centric Focus on Islamic Supremacism
4.6. Are You A Human Rights Activist?

5. An Initiative of Action, Not Reaction, to be Responsible for Equality and Liberty

This white paper will be followed by an "executive summary" format that summarizes these issues. This white paper serves as both an analysis and a "lessons learned" on where political-centric challenges to anti-freedom ideologies have not consistently worked. It shows the distinctions between political and human rights movements, and it addresses the priorities of each. It also points out the failures of some traditional human rights groups in not challenging Islamic supremacism; these failures do not force us to reject creating our own human rights movement to take on this and other anti-freedom ideologies as well to provide a credible outreach on such topics to a wider audience.

In addition, this "lessons learned" white paper will also be critical of the credibility challenges that a continued political-centric approach poses in challenging anti-freedom ideologies based on a human rights commitment to equality and liberty. Political-centric groups may accommodate political diversity to increase popularity - as long as it remains within that political end of the spectrum. This popularity problem is not what we need to solve for consistent credibility. The problem we need to address is how those leading a human rights movement in challenging anti-freedom ideologies will be consistent on the human rights of equality and liberty, when impacted by strong political movements that may or may not have consistent views on human rights.

To make this to be a meaningful argument, I have provided some concrete examples of such credibility challenges, which I found painful to do. But I believe we need to think about these challenges, and I don't believe that just addressing these challenges from a theoretical perspective will be enough. A political approach is free-wheeling in how it can and will address freedoms and other individuals; political approaches may even believe they have the freedom to demonize some identity groups. Political activities are focused on building popularity, not credibility. In providing such concrete examples, my point is not to challenge political groups' freedom of expression, but to graphically demonstrate how different such political expressions can be from a human rights mission of mercy.

A human rights approach is a mission of mercy. A mission of mercy to reach out to those suffering, oppressed, and murdered by the advocates of anti-freedom ideologies is something altogether different than the typical objectives of political activism. A human rights mission of mercy must have different standards, priorities, and ways of communication from a political approach to challenging such ideologies. Invariably, I will address the issue of a human rights challenge to anti-freedom ideologies and someone will ask what we "get out of" such an effort. Someone will eventually ask what's in it for me? That provides the starkest comparison of the difference between a political and a human rights perspective. A human rights mission of mercy is not to gain benefits for ourselves. From the perspective of a political mission, that may not make any sense. That is how dramatically different the two approaches can be. Certainly, our defense of the universal human rights of equality and liberty is an existential defense of humanity's most fundamental rights. As part of humanity, that defense is ultimately a self-defense of all of our rights as well. But that isn't the only reason why a human rights challenge of anti-freedom ideologies continues. We pursue a human rights challenge against anti-freedom ideologies not because it is in our political interests or our self interests, but simply because it is the right thing to do. Our Declaration of Independence does not declare the truths of our human rights to be self-evident - only when it is in our political interests. Our commitment as a nation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not just when it is in our geo-political interests. As human beings, we must defy anti-freedom ideologies - simply - because anti-freedom ideologies defy our human rights as human beings. A human rights mission of mercy for freedom is unconditional; we do not have to gain political power, political popularity, and political influence. A human rights mission is not a political mission.

They have different priorities, which this "lessons learned" document attempts to illustrate. The real question to each of us is - what are our individual priorities? Perhaps you are a human rights activist now - and you don't yet realize it.

"Lessons learned" documents are written to help us learn and grow; that is my hope with this effort. Such a learning process, including comments that eventually must provide examples of what isn't working and why, will invariably upset some individuals. The predictable response to most "lessons learned" documents that challenge us to change is to reject such challenges as unnecessary. Most people don't like change, and most don't like challenging existing processes and practices. Calls for change can be uncomfortable and can be viewed as arrogant or offensive. But our larger commitment to the universal human rights of equality and liberty is more important than our discomfort towards and rejection of change. Our courage in defending freedom is greater than our typical stubbornness in rejecting the recognition that some efforts are not being effective for the long-term.

Most importantly, what we have learned over the past seven plus years since the 9/11 attacks is that there are an incredible number of brave, fearless, and determined individuals who will selflessly dedicate their lives to defending the freedom and liberty of others. The question before us today is how to use this courage and determination to effectively be responsible for equality and liberty going forward. It is that coalition of the brave and the determined that we must draw upon to reach out to our fellow citizens in a coalition of love for our fellow human beings -- to develop a new, human rights-based approach to consistently defy anti-freedom ideologies.

Click here - for the remainder of this report…

----------------------------------

Responsible for Equality And Liberty organization (R.E.A.L.)
-- website:
http://www.realcourage.org/
-- contact:
realpublic@earthlink.net


Additional Reports on War on Women can be found at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waronwomen/
http://www.realcourage.org/category/womens-rights/