[ad_1]
IIn the three decades since I became a lawyer, human rights—once understood as a straightforward good, a tool to secure the dignity of the vulnerable against abuse by the powerful—have come under increasing attack. Perhaps never more so than at the present moment: we talk about human rights all the time, but often in a very skeptical way. When Liz Truss loudly declared: “We must leave the ECtHR, abolish the supreme court and Human Rights Act,” she is not the fringe voice she might have been in the 90s. It represents a dangerous current of opinion prevalent in parts of the radical left as well as in populist right-wing politics. It seems to be gaining momentum.
As an idealistic youth, I would be shocked to learn that in 2024 it will be necessary to return to the “back to basics” case to justify the need for basic rights and freedoms. But in a world where facts change, what were once considered core values have become difficult to distill and defend. In an atmosphere of intense polarization, human rights are being eroded across the political spectrum – either as a framework to protect markets or as a form of socialism in disguise. What strikes me is that the fiercest critics share a deep nationalism. Nationalists believe this Universal human rights—the clue is in the name—undermine the ability of states to campaign for their narrower interests.
It is no coincidence that the governments most eager to turn inward—that of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, that of former President Bolsonaro in Brazil—are the least interested in common standards that protect minorities in their own territories and they are held to high standards in the international arena. In times of uncertainty, these leaders use fear to maximize their appeal. The prospect of a second Trump administration in the US shows that this trend shows no sign of abating. In this context, it is vital to reassert human rights.
It all boils down to this: Given that so many of our problems – in the age of climate change, global unrest and artificial intelligence – can only be solved with an international approach, a robust rights framework is more important than ever. There are parallels with the post-war period in which human rights were most fully articulated, a time when it was obvious to all that cooperation and global standards were the best way to strengthen our common humanity after a period of catastrophic conflict and genocide.
Of course they all believe some rights – usually their own and those of friends, family and people they identify with. More problematic are the freedoms of “other people”. The greater the divisions between us, the greater this dispute. Yet it is precisely these extreme differences in health, wealth, power and opinion that make rights, not the temporary privileges given and taken away by governments, so important. They provide a framework for negotiating disputes and providing redress for abuses without resorting to violence.
New technologies, and AI in particular, require more, not less, international regulation. As people spend more time online, they become vulnerable to demeaning treatment, injustice and discrimination, privacy violations, censorship and other threats. The so-called “black boxes” behind the technology we use make increasingly important decisions about our daily lives, from banking to education, work, policing and border control. Anyone flirting with the notion of computer infallibility should never forget the postmasters and other similar abuses committed and then concealed.
Perhaps most important of all is the growing contribution of human rights litigation to the fight against climate catastrophe. An entire generation of lawyers and environmentalists took notes from past struggles, just as suffragists once learned from slavery’s abolitionists. This is despite the machinations of fossil fuel corporations, familiar with thousands of lobbying, jurisdictional and other delaying tactics.
Our shrinking, burning planet is the ultimate reason nationalism does not work in the interest of humanity. Today’s global empires, sailing under logos rather than flags, must be more directly accountable under human rights treaties. Our existing mechanisms, whether they are local and national governments, local and international courts, or some of the more notoriously torturous UN institutions, may be imperfect and in need of reform. Yet, like all structures of civilization, they are easier to carelessly denigrate than to invest in and adapt to make them more effective.
As I write this, I have voted in the House of Lords amendments on the so-called Rwanda Security Bill. This is the most regressive measure against human rights in recent times and it is meant to be. It will not stop the boats of desperate people fleeing persecution, but it is designed to stop the courts. British judges will be prevented from ensuring the fair treatment of refugees before they are human-carried and transported to a place of whose ‘safety’ our supreme court is not convinced. Rishi Sunak will be able to use this situation as an excuse for a campaign promise to reject the European Convention on Human Rights.
If he gets his way, rights will be stripped not just from boat arrivals, but from every man, woman and child in the UK. By contrast, the golden thread of human rights is equal treatment: protecting others as we would want to be protected ourselves, should that unfortunate day ever come. This is a thread we must never let go.
after the promotion of the newsletter
Shami Chakrabarti is a barrister and a Labor member of the House of Lords. She is the author of Human Rights: The Case for Protection (Alan Lane), which she discusses with Zoe Williams in a Guardian Live event from 8pm on 22 May. For tickets go to: theguardian.com/shami-event
More information
This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. Climate by Naomi Klein (Penguin, £14.99)
The Future of Human Rights by Alison Brisk (Polity, £14.99)
Invention of Human Rights: A History by Lynn Hunt (WW Norton, £11.26)
[ad_2]
