 rom
time-to-time thesubject of human rights crops up in the
news media. Usually as a result of the adventures of an activist. The recent
imprisonment, trial, sentencing, and expulsion from China of Harry Wu,
for example. Or a report issued by a human rights organization which makes
the news.
Now I don't know what people mean when they say “human rights,” so I
consulted Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition. According
to that book “human rights” are rights — such as freedom from unlawful
imprisonment, torture, and execution — regarded as belonging fundamentally
to all persons.
Because the key word in that definition is the word “unlawful,” it seems
patently clear to me that what constitutes human rights in any country
is decided by the people with the guns because they're the ones who get
to say what's unlawful.
It also seems patently clear to me that if people in a country are denied
the rights they want, they can get those rights in only one way — they
have to seize them at the point of a gun.
Isn't that what we did? George III wouldn't give us the rights we wanted
and so we took them by fighting for them. Isn't that what happened in Vietnam?
And in a sense, isn't that also what happened in Afghanistan?
So why do we continue to delude ourselves by thinking we can bestow
rights on people in other countries just by working our mouths? Have we
been able to do so in China? Iraq? Iran? Somalia? Libya? Bosnia? Not in
the least.
Perhaps it's because the guys with the guns in each of those countries
remember a certain nursery rhyme from their childhood that we appear to
have forgotten — sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never
harm me.
Think about it. |
