Maybe Human Rights Aren’t Exportable

Any time a Canadian Prime Minister visits China, to advance economic issues or otherwise, the topic of human rights is expected to be on the table.  This seems to be because, to many, it is unacceptable for Canada to engage in relations with countries which have a questionable human rights record.

Prime Minister Harper recently stated, while in China, “Our government believes, and has always believed, that a mutually beneficial economic relationship is not incompatible with a good and frank dialogue on fundamental values like freedom, human rights and the rule of law.” 

This is probably what Canadians expect our Prime Minister to say.  But is it a productive strategy to try to advance the cause of human rights at the government-to-government level?

Canadians, I think, view themselves as world leaders when it comes to the recognition of so-called human rights.  Our legislation is chock-a-block full of words – enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the various provincial and federal human rights codes - intended to protect us from the discriminatory acts of our governments and of each other.

But really, who are we to tell the rest of the world (or some countries, anyway) how they ought to conduct themselves?  The whole concept strikes me as quite arrogant of us Canadians.

Canada certainly doesn’t have the whole idea of human rights perfected, yet.  It’s interesting to hear people speak as if Canadians naturally understand and embrace the concept of human rights (as if a desire to treat all others as we would wish to be treated is something all Canucks receive along with their birth certificate).

In fact, our administrative tribunals adjudicate thousands of allegations of discrimination, by Canadians and against Canadians, every year.  As an example, over the last 5 years the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal alone has issued, on average, over 500 decisions per year.  That’s a whole lot of Canadians (allegedly) violating the human rights of other Canadians.

Perhaps we can be excused for not having perfected the practical application of human rights because the concept really hasn’t been around for all that long.

The human rights movement may have much older roots, but it was the imposition of the British Magna Carta Libertatum (the Great Charter of Freedoms) in 1215 which is often identified as its source.  The Magna Carta enshrined a number of limitations on the powers of the British monarchy and protected certain privileges of the King’s subjects (mostly barons).

But it was really in the 17th and 18th centuries that the discussion of certain inherent rights – those which each person should enjoy simply by virtue of being a human and not because of economic status or nationality or religious affiliation – really picked up steam.  Until then, what passed for human rights was less a recognition of our inherent rights than it was a push back against the unchecked power of government.

In 1689, the British Bill of Rights was enacted.  It forced the monarchy to respect the power of the British Parliament and protected a range of basic rights of the population as a whole.

In 1776, the U.S. Declaration of Independence put the concept of inherent rights concept into writing: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  In 1789, the French ousted their monarchy, created the French Republic, and established their “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens”.

The 1948 adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly was the seminal moment of the 20th century for this movement.  As it happens, a Canadian named John Humphrey was the principal drafter of that document.  The Declaration refers to the “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”. 

Ultimately, it may be the case that advancement towards recognition of human rights is a change which has to grow from within.  It may be that concepts of human rights aren’t commodities – like logs or cars or oil – that can be packaged up and exported to other nations.  I wonder whether the best approach may be to just lead by example.

It may also be true that it is entirely hypocritical of us to saddle our government with the task of pressuring other governments on human rights issues while we blithely consume products made in those other countries by the very people we think need protection.  If Canadians wish to send a message to those other countries, perhaps the more effective way to do that would be to let their wallets do the talking.