What’s the difference?
The Cairo Declaration differs sharply from the Universal Declaration overall in its emphatic rejection of universalism, in rejecting the UD’s ‘without exception’ in favour of firm, decided exceptions. In the detail, the CD differs from the UD in its avoidance of clarity, precision and openness and hence accountability and reliability. The Cairo Declaration injects exceptions into its concept of human rights, without spelling out exactly what they entail; this introduces a whole new element of doubt, uncertainty and fear into what is supposed to be a human rights document. Worse, it presents itself as a human rights document (of sorts) when in fact it puts anyone who subscribes to it in the position of (perhaps unknowingly) endorsing laws, restrictions and punishments that are human rights violations rather than human rights.
The raison d’être of the Cairo Declaration is the idea that the Universal Declaration is not in fact universal – that it is ‘Western’ and Judeo-Christian, that it does not work for non-Western cultures, that it ‘could not be implemented by Muslims,’ in the words of the Iranian representative to the UN. So by comparing the two and finding how they differ it is possible to figure out what – in the view of the people who drew up the Cairo Declaration and those who signed on to it, at least – can be ‘implemented by Muslims.’
We find out, generally, via Articles 24 and 25, that all rights are subject to Sharia, and via the Cairo Declaration as a whole, we find out that the authors are willing to make human rights subordinate to Sharia without ever spelling out what that could mean, what it presumably means, what in many countries governed by Sharia it in fact does mean. The Cairo Declaration doesn’t mention stoning to death for adultery, or the death penalty for apostasy, or forced marriage, or child marriage, or guardian laws, or laws forbidding women to travel, work, or go to school without male permission. The Cairo Declaration rejects the Universal Declaration, and stands out for its own version of human rights, yet it does it in a secretive way.
In fact it is difficult not to conclude that the authors of the Cairo Declaration did not start with first principles and attempt to create the best human rights document they could, but rather that they started with existing regimes and legal codes in existing majority-Muslim countries, and then wrote the Cairo Declaration so that it would match the existing laws – adding 24 and 25 at the end in case they’d left anything out. This is bad enough, and the fact that this is done without transparency makes it even worse. The Cairo Declaration takes a declaration of rights that is, deliberately, as clear and open and explicit as possible, and renders it vague instead of precise, obscure instead of clear, tacit instead of explicit. It injects an element – a large element – of uncertainty, blurring, non-precision, danger, threat; in article after article, it merely invokes Sharia without saying what that means. With the Universal Declaration we know where we are and with the Cairo Declaration we don’t – the rights are limited, and in ways that are not specified or spelled out. The Universal Declaration is both general and specific; the Cairo Declaration is particular where the Universal Declaration is general and vague where the UD is precise.
The result is that the Cairo Declaration does away with the transparency, clarity, and specificity and hence the accountability and also the confidence. With the Universal Declaration it is easy to understand what is meant. With the Cairo Declaration, repeatedly, there is a trap door: an impossibility of knowing what is meant. We go from open, clear, spelled out intentions, which are clearly meant to maximize the well-being of all people, without exceptions, to secretive, cryptic, frightening stipulations whose benevolence is by no means clear.
That way the CD doesn’t threaten the power structure in Islam, which is largely based on the capacity to read and interpret holy writs and sacred texts. If the declaration was understandable by everybody, the whole parasitic edifice of Imams, Mullahs and other doctors of the law would be in danger of collapsing.
The Universal Declaration was intended to be the basis of legal systems to come (see the European Convention on Human Rights), the Cairo Declaration is merely the confirmation, the servant of the status quo, the instrument for the continuation of the oppression of muslims everywhere.
The CD is nothing but the muslim equivalent of a papal encyclical: perverse double-speak meant to blow a smokescreen enabling easy fall-back to: “it is because we say it is”. In other words, an artless document designed to give carte-blanche to the “parasitic edifice” Arnaud speaks of above.
The inherent duplicity of Islam (and I mean Islam, not just Islamism) towards the outsider is a menace to its own most vulnerable populations and an offense to the west.
Well, one reason why I disliked Islam less long ago was that it didn’t have the central power structure common to much of Christianity. Because of that encyclical bans are impossible and in principle believers at least have the freedom of interpretation rather than mere obedience.
I still believe that that feature was critical in the medieval science boom in Islamic countries. Unfortunately – this free-for-all turned out to be an opportunity for lunatics to claim the single & only interpretation. Islam’s combining the worst of catholicism (1 orthodox interpretation) with that of protestantism (sectarian lunatics are completely unchecked).
From what I read on CDHR here I start to fear that the biggest risk isn’t a challenge to UDHR but a start to make the central power structure in Islam. If successful we will be forced to an us & them scenario whether we like it or not because their effectively will no longer be room for people that are moderate and try to find a way to get modern without shedding all of Quran.
Have any other victimized groups decided to declare their versions of human rights? Cheerleaders? Type AB negative blood donors? Those who bought the iPhone the first day?
I am being snotty naturally, but one wonders, if a group decides that the “universal” does not apply to them and so requires amendment, others could do the same.
Unfortunately I think an us v. them structure has already been placed upon us, whether we accept it or not.
Oh, I say, JoB, shouldn’t we shed all of the Qur’an, the (Christian) Bible, the Tanach, the Mahabharata, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, the Granth Sahib, and all the rest? How else is it going to be possible for all of us to live in the same world?
Eric, yes we should – but I at least can live perfectly in the same world as the book of Mormon. It´s only the people that take it literally who’re really getting on my nerves.
Ah, yes, what was your point?
& what in earth’s name is the Granth Sahib? Or who?
“Unfortunately I think an us v. them structure has already been placed upon us, whether we accept it or not.”
I don’t accept it. Much of scientific progress has been made – certainly at the start – by deeply religious men & I don’t see why I should accept terms as put by a bunch of vocal lunatics & disregard the fact many believers are not only nice people but also smart.
It is not because I am anti-religious that I expect other people to go from belief to disbelief in an instant. It is quite enough to expect respect for the UDHR.
“I at least can live perfectly in the same world as the book of Mormon”
That’s nice – but what about all the children born to people who take the book of Mormon literally? Their lives often aren’t so perfect.
Solipsism is not enough when thinking about this stuff. It’s not always all about oneself; it’s often about other people, often distant other people. Just saying ‘I’m okay’ does not answer all possible questions.
I: “It´s only the people that take it literally who’re really getting on my nerves.”
Understated perhaps; but exactly your point.
Well…not so much understated as solipsistically stated. Probably in a casual or colloquial sense, but then, since you’re disagreeing with the basic point (if I understand you correctly), I think it’s fair to point out that the issue really isn’t about our own comfort or nerves.
In other words I didn’t realize it was exactly my point!
I’m fuming at literal-minded Catholics now…Birmingham Council perhaps next…
I’m disagreeing with what basic point?
Solipsism, that is a tiny bit over the top now, isn’t it? Anyway – to keep it solipsistic I can quote myself again -“Eric, yes we should, …” The rest is intended solely to find out what Erics point was.
Literal-minded anything – fume on! You are the best fumer in the business. No BlueCoat thing can ever put out all of your fumes.
& if I were solipsistic there would not be a book of Mormon in the 1st place.
When I said “whether we accept it or not” the antecedent referent of the “it” was the “us v. them” structure. Not lunatics or the Book or Mormon. We don’t have to accept what lunatics say or the contents of the Book of Mormon.
But like some of the other primates humans have adapted to survive in groups. And if one is in a group, even on the outskirts, it’s not much of a leap to see things in a framework that structures the world into “the ones like me” and “the ones not like me.”
So that structure is already there, ready for us to fill it in with our versions of our groups and the other primates’ groups.
That’s what I meant.