Women's Views on News |
- Who wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
- Telling a story of three women
- Stocking filler!
- Judged for our looks?
| Who wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Posted: 19 Dec 2014 05:20 AM PST
By Gita Sahgal. Many of the assumptions about who wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) are wrong. The less known story of the men and women who wrote this foundational, emancipatory and anti-colonial document must be told in today’s world. On the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we might consider whether the idea of human rights with their firm assertions, their belief in the 'rule of law,' and their globalised vision remain relevant in the world. The idea that there are absolute standards has come under attack from both the left and the right. The philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, author of ‘After Virtue’, said, Natural rights and self evident truths proclaimed in the American declaration of independence are tantamount to belief in witches and unicorns. While from the left, in 'Human Rights and Empire', Costas Douzinas has called human rights the political philosophy of cosmopolitanism and argued that human rights now codify and 'constitutionalise’ the normative sources of Empire. Those fighting the attempts by the Bush administration to tear up human rights prohibitions on torture would be surprised to see themselves as empire builders. The only weapons they had were the Constitutions of their countries and the human rights system, with its unequivocal rejection of torture. While recent developments in human rights may certainly be used to justify foreign military interventions on humanitarian grounds, a vast body of human rights law also limits the abusive power of the state and protects the freedom of the individual. But are these freedoms ones that are derived from 'the West' and therefore limited in their application? States affiliated to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) certainly seem to think so. In the 1980s and 90s Islamic states drafted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, as an alternative declaration. The idea that different peoples were endowed with separate rights would have seemed absurd in the middle of the twentieth century to those struggling against colonial oppression, or trying to build new nations. The barbarity unleashed on the world by a global war was certainly in the minds of delegates. But so too was the yearning to build a better world within the nation-state, as well as limiting foreign aggression and war. 'It was imperative that the peoples of the world should recognize the existence of a code of civilized behavior which would apply not only in international relations but also in domestic affairs’, said Begum Shaista Ikramullah, a member of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan and a delegate of the UN in 1948. Susan Waltz is one of the scholars who has done much to recover stories such as the role of Begum Ikramullah and others in the forgotten history of the drafting of the UDHR. Her work shows how mistaken many assumptions are about this foundational document. Eleanor Roosevelt is often seen as the single author of the Declaration, since she chaired the drafting Committee. Civil and political rights are seen as classical 'Western’ concerns, whilst social and economic rights are thought to have been advocated for by the Soviet bloc. In fact, as Waltz shows, Roosevelt supplied neither the text nor the substantive ideas that shaped the UDHR. Ricardo Alfaro, former President of Panama, proposed the idea and first draft of such a Declaration, which was taken up by many others including public intellectuals such as HG Wells. While early drafts were worked on by Rene Cassin of France, along with many US lawyers, each clause was voted on by member states, and many suggestions came from drafters from small and newly de-colonised states. The Latin American states promoted social and economic rights, while the Soviet Union concentrated on racial discrimination – a convenient way of bashing the US, as well as colonial states. The desire for emancipation of all, emphasising that rights applied to everyone everywhere, emerged as a major concern. Significant additions were made by newly de-colonised states regarding slavery, discrimination, the rights of women, and the right to national self determination. Two of the most important drafters were Hansa Mehta of India, and Charles Malik of Lebanon, who was Committee Rapporteur. Hansa Mehta, an extraordinary activist and brave member of the Constituent Assembly in India, was responsible for the wording of the Article I 'All human beings are equal in dignity and rights,' arguing that if the word men was used, it would not be regarded as inclusive but rather taken to exclude women. She was the key figure who ensured gender equality in the document. Yugoslavia proposed that human rights should apply to the peoples of non-self governing and trust territories. Carlos Romulo of the Philippines argued that full rights should be given to the colonies. Article 2, thereby ensures non-discrimination (a standard clause that came to be adopted in all treaties) on the grounds of race, class property, social origin and so on; but it also ensures that subject peoples were also endowed with rights, 'no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.' Political differences were very evident. But the arguments were not necessarily divisions between blocs. There were political divisions among Muslims on religion and marriage, two very contentious areas. Saudi Arabia objected to Article 16 on the right to choice in marriage. Begum Ikramullah opposed the Saudi view, making a speech against child marriage. She accepted equal rights in marriage on the grounds that equal did not necessarily mean the same. Egypt's Wahid Rafaat accepted the language on marriage, noting that marriage limitations based on race (as in the US) were more shocking to his country than limitations based on religion or nationality. The clause on marriage, in short, was fought for by a range of opinion to form an egalitarian and adult basis for marriage which was absent then from most countries, whether eastern or western. The clause on being able to exercise freedom of religion was supported by a number of Muslim delegates. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Zafrallah Khan, quoted the Qur’an 'Let him who chooses believe, believe and him who chooses to disbelieve, disbelieve.' He believed that the right to change religion was consistent with Islam. Moahammed Habib from India, supported the statement as consistent with the Constitution of India. However, Saudi Arabia objected to it, and eventually abstained from voting on the Declaration itself. No one voted against the Declaration, although Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the Soviet bloc abstained, with fifty countries voting for it. Hernán Santa Cruz of Chile, member of the drafting sub-Committee, wrote: "I perceived clearly that I was participating in a truly significant historic event in which a consensus had been reached as to the supreme value of the human person, a value that did not originate in the decision of a worldly power, but rather in the fact of existing—which gave rise to the inalienable right to live free from want and oppression and to fully develop one's personality. "In the Great Hall…there was an atmosphere of genuine solidarity and brotherhood among men and women from all latitudes, the like of which I have not seen again in any international setting." Gita Sahgal is a founder of the Centre for Secular Space. This article was first published in 2012. It was republished on openDemocracy on the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948.  |
| Telling a story of three women Posted: 19 Dec 2014 04:50 AM PST
British Science Week (BSW) is a ten-day programme of science, technology, engineering and maths events and activities in different places in the UK for people of all ages, and will be running from 13 – 22 March 2015. Anyone can organise an event or activity, and the British Science Association helps organisers plan by providing free activity and support resources. One such event, Woman in Time, is an exploration of humanity from its earliest days through to the turbulent middle years of the 20th Century, using poetry and spoken word performance to tell stories of three women. One of these women died, one went on to great things, and one disappeared. Their lives intersected on one day 80 years ago, leaving a scientific legacy that speaks to the fundamental question of what it means to be human, and a cultural legacy which stretches from the arts to activism. The woman who died was a Neanderthal, now known as Tabun 1. Her skull and skeleton were discovered in 1932, on the slopes of Mount Carmel, Israel, by young Cambridge graduate Jacquetta Hawkes and local Palestinian archaeologist Yusra. Jacquetta would go on to be a successful archaeologist, science communicator, playwright and poet as well as one of the founders of the CND, and her most admired poem Man in Time vividly describes her emotional awakening during the excavation at Mount Carmel. Yusra had hoped to take up a Newnham College Fellowship at Cambridge, but her life fell prey to the tumultuous history of the Middle East, and after her village was depopulated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war she disappeared. We remember her only by her scientific legacy and a few poignant pictures that remain. The story of the Neanderthal woman, Tabun 1, is controversial. She is one of the oldest Neanderthal skeletons from the Israel/Palestine region, and was found alongside the skeleton of a baby – possibly hers. Tabun 1's time and people may have been the first to encounter our own species on its excursion out of Africa over 120,000 years ago. But whether these two groups of humans really met, and possibly even competed, for the resources and territory of Mount Carmel remains a fascinating mystery. It's a contested story about what is still a contested piece of land, and one which resonates up through the ages to the present day. Dr Tori Herridge, from the Natural History Museum and TrowelBlazers, and Alison Cullingford, who works with the University of Bradford Special Collections, will weave science with history and real-life human experience telling the story of the excavation of Tabun 1 in Jacquetta Hawkes's own words, capturing the thrill and emotion of scientific discovery. They will explore the science behind one of the most important ancient human fossils ever found. And through the poignant story of Yusra, will help to highlight the scientific contributions of a much overlooked group: that of Muslim women in the early 20th Century.  |
| Posted: 19 Dec 2014 03:00 AM PST
The Methuen Drama Book of Suffrage Plays is an anthology of eight pieces for theatre written for and by members of the Actresses Franchise League from 1909-13. The plays articulate the arguments of the women’s Suffrage Movement through a variety of styles, both comic and serious, and perfectly illustrate the use of drama as a medium for social change and entertainment. They also offer strong, varied roles for female casts, while also providing invaluable source material to students and scholars from a wide range of disciplines. The plays featured are ‘How The Vote Was Won’, which remains one of the most popular and well known suffrage plays, and seven shorter works. ‘How the Vote Was Won’ depicts a general strike called by women after the government of the day announced that women don't need the vote as they have men to keep them. So the woman leave their places of work and go to live with their nearest male relative. In the play, the anti-suffrage hero returns home to find that the maid has left; his sister-in-law, a niece, a cousin, an aunt and a very distant relative all arrive, announcing their intention to stay until men change their opinion that a woman's place is in the home – and he realises the error of his ways and joins the march on Parliament to demand votes for women. ‘Lady Geraldine’s Speech’ written in 1909, is a fantastic, fun piece for actresses; Lady Geraldine hasn’t thought through the Suffrage cause and, on a visit to an old school friend meets some charismatic, successful and intelligent women who soon enlighten and encourage her on to the right path. ‘Pot and Kettle’, also from 1909, is a comic piece in which a young woman returns to her family in great distress having assaulted a suffragette who was sitting near her at a Anti-Suffragist meeting. ‘Miss Appleyard’s Awakening’ about an anti-suffrage campaigner who finds herself in the home of a sympathiser but ends up inadvertently drawing her hostesses’ attention to the contradictions in her arguments. ‘Her Vote’ was written by the actor and playwright Henry Esmond and so provides an interesting male viewpoint on the movement, criticising the young suffragist for wanting to be part of a movement about which she seems to understand little. ‘The Anti-Suffragist or The Other Side’, is a charming, clever monologue about a sheltered young woman who finds herself increasingly involved with her local Anti-Suffrage society and increasingly puzzled by what she learns there. ‘The Mother’s Meeting’ is an entertaining monologue that uses a working class character to expose the inconsistencies in the Anti-Suffrage arguments. ‘Tradition’ was first performed at a matinee for the Woman Suffrage Party held at the Berkeley Theatre in New York City on Saturday 24 January 1913. Together with illustrations and an introduction charting the history of the Actresses Franchise League and exploring the context and provenance of the plays, this book is an excellent resource for both the student or the performer. The editor, Naomi Paxton, is an actress, writer and researcher who trained at Goldsmiths College, University of London and the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, and has performed professionally in the West End and on tour in the UK and internationally. She is currently a PhD student in the Drama Department of the University of Manchester. “After producing readings at the Novello and Prince of Wales Theatres in 2008 and 2009 as well as ‘Knickerbocker Glories‘ it seemed that there was an appetite for suffrage plays, as people were surprised by their humour, quality and good range of fun female roles and wanted to read more,” she explained. “Everyone kept asking me where they could get hold of the material – so I thought that a volume of ‘playable’ suffrage plays would be a great idea. I’ve put together some short pieces that are appealing, playable and fun.”  |
| Posted: 19 Dec 2014 01:09 AM PST
We have nothing against women who choose to take part in beauty contests, however, we would say that the issue is not as simple as one of individual choice. Basically, because holding beauty contests has an impact on all women. The sexist idea that women should be judged on the basis of their appearance influences the way that all of us feel about ourselves as women and the way that men view and treat women. Beauty contests therefore become an issue for all women, not just those involved in the contest. Nor do we think that beauty contests are ‘empowering’. We live in a society in which as women we are forever being told that being empowered is all about looking good and being attractive to men whether it be through beauty contests or cosmetic surgery, or a new lipstick or becoming a lap dancer. But is that real empowerment? When the positions of power in society are vastly dominated by men, does winning a beauty contest or looking 'hot' really make a difference to the power relationship? Rather than being empowering, beauty contests are in fact disempowering because they deny the full humanity of women and they reinforce the idea that a woman’s purpose is to look 'attractive'. Beauty contests are not harmless fun. Beauty contests treat us women as if we are only objects to be looked at, compared and judged. This dehumanises women and leads to the idea that it is acceptable to view women only as a sum of body parts, not as real people. And the first part of any oppression is to dehumanise the group that is oppressed. The more it becomes acceptable to view women as a sum of body parts, the easier it becomes to disrespect, to mistreat and even act out violence towards women as a group. We live in a society in which gender inequality is massive and violence against women is endemic, so clearly any practice which promotes the objectification of women inevitably has an impact on the sexist attitudes which underpin the mistreatment of women and girls and so, equally clearly, beauty contests cannot be considered harmless. Nor are beauty contests about celebrating beauty. A beauty contest is not a celebration of beauty, it is a manifestation of sexism. There is nothing 'beautiful' about women being commodified and judged according to sexist, racist, homophobic and able-bodied notions of what constitutes beauty. We – in the UK – live in a society in which 80 per cent of MPs are male, 91 per cent of High Court judges are male, 92 per cent of Vice Chancellors of universities are male and 75 per cent of people living in poverty are female. We live in a society in which 1 in 4 women will be raped in her lifetime and – here in the UK – 2 women die each week at the hands of a male partner or ex-partner. But the revival of the sexist 1970s-style beauty contests, which is very much a part of a general pornification of culture, is taking place at a time when women and men are actually becoming more equal in education and a time when girls are even outdoing boys at school. It is as if to remind us that as women, no matter how intelligent you are, your worth is still dependent on how you look. This is not liberation, it is a backlash. In short then: The reintroduction of beauty contests is another example of how sexist practices are becoming seen as a normal and mainstream part of our lives rather than as sexist and outdated. Beauty contests reinforce the idea that women are only of value according to their attractiveness and they reduce women to objects to be judged and compared on the basis of our appearance. This erodes our human rights to be treated as equals and is therefore an issue for all women, not just those involved in the contest.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |