“It was okay at the time…”

in interviews Andy Murray has to correct ignorance. “The first person ever to win two Olympic tennis gold medals”, the interviewer foolishly stated. Murray corrected, pointing out that Serena and Venus Williams had both achieved the feat before him, “I think Venus and Serena have won about four each,” he said. Of course, Murray was hailed as a hero. He’s not. He pointed out a fact. Even on that level, even when talking about the greatest, she is blatantly disregarded. This was 2016 by the way. So not ‘acceptable at the time’. Not acceptable at all.

I get scared to call out racism. It makes me feel uncomfortable saying it. I do always know when it’s about race. I don’t always mention it, because it’s another stereotype. Calling out racists ‘all the time, you never want to be the ‘boy who cried wolf’. You also never want to be taken advantage of. Racists will take advantage of your silence. Your tolerance.

The worst thing is when it’s ‘indirect discrimination’. That’s when you are most uncomfortable. When it’s direct and blatant you know what you are dealing with. However, the subtle and secretive will really drag you down. The scariest thing is it has become inevitable. Inevitable in our world today.

Prince Philip was a prolific racist. He got away with it because of the institution he represents, and that’s a conversation for another day. For now, why should we mourn someone whose rhetoric meant that I was less than? Meant that we aren’t all good enough. We don’t all belong. That black and brown people alike were the butt of some sick joke. If your humour means that a whole race of people are being dehumanised and attacked. Well, you might want to evaluate your twisted psyche. Look at it this way, the world is set up for the majority of right-handed people to find their way around easily. Nobody really puts into account how left-handed people have to adjust to even something as simple as a door handle. Right-handed people would not understand and will never understand, and that is their privilege.

There is no such thing as unconscious bias. Once again, more excuses. It’s not our conscious mind that’s racist, so technically we can’t be blamed. The bias is always there. It has simply become such a habit that you do it instinctively. Let’s call it how it is. It’s not unconscious. It’s just become second nature, to immediately judge with ignorance. It is an afterthought. Like breathing. Unless we only breathe unconsciously now too.

Reversed racism is another myth. You can’t be anti-semitic to a Christian. If a group has never been oppressed or discriminated against in history, prejudice and unkindness doesn’t carry the same weight and trauma.

If you are feeling attacked or defensive after reading this. I have news for you. You might be racist – my professional diagnosis. All I can do for you is tell you now and forever it is not acceptable anymore. We won’t accept it anymore. Findingthe line

Hannah Sheppard and Louise Donovan - Lower Sixth, Hawkins

WHEN IS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE NO LONGER SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION REGARDING WOMEN’S HUMAN RIGHTS INFRINGEMENTS? ARE CULTURE AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAW FUNDAMENTALLY IN OPPOSITION?

The argument of cultural relativism (not judging another culture by the standards of one’s own) is frequently used to justify the non-application of Human Rights in certain countries. To what extent, however, is this argument being used as an excuse by societies who continuously abuse the rights of their people? On the flip side, is the global implementation of internationally agreed upon Human Rights laws to blame for cultural marginalisation, suppression or even eradication? We in this article are addressing these questions, using examples from across the globe to try and weigh up the balance between cultural relativism and human rights infringement.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CULTURE, A DELINEATION OF CURRENT HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS, AND BRIEF ANALYSIS REGARDING THEIR COMPATIBILITY:

Culture represents the foundation of a society, and has an irreplaceable influence on social and individual identity. Family, education, lifestyle, belief systems, healthcare, and even governmental and legislative decisions are influenced by a country’s culture.

Pivotal human rights laws tend to receive broad support on an international level, having made provisions to both protect individuals without impeding on their culture and religious traditions. However, some argue that several of the human rights stipulations outlined under the influence of Western culture are incompatible with certain cultural practices from across the world, and hence pit the two against each other. Whilst International Human Rights laws remain a Western construct, they specifically do not seek to eradicate long-standing and traditional elements of culture. The International Bill of Human Rights establishes the importance of these cultural rights and seeks to ensure that no culture can establish dominance over another. If these provisions have been made, why do some still believe Human Rights and culture to be incompatible?

Cultural relativism innately caters to the belief western culture often maintains, seeing itself to be the default, the blank canvas if you will, from which other cultures deviate. It heralds itself for its doctrines of legal equality and the protection of its citizens in the upholding of their human rights. Yet, bills which strive to feed our hungry children living in poverty are rejected. Women are harassed on the street, abused and killed and raped at staggering rates, minorities are penalized by the police based on their identity alone, public statues hold greater legal weight than a woman’s body. Peaceful marches addressing the safety of one individual compared to another, and the greater value one life holds over another, are faced with tear gas and riot gear, violence and incarceration; while paramilitary attacks on state buildings leave participants largely unharmed and even protected.

The point being made: agreeing in law that there are certain rights which must be upheld for every human, no matter their identity, is simply not enough. Western culture is hypocritical if it believes its hands to be clean when addressing global Human Rights infringements. Therefore, one cannot trust the parameters written into Human Rights laws alone to be enough in striking the balance between culture and the respect of individual Human Right.

SOME CULTURAL TRADITIONS THAT CHALLENGE THE FUNDAMENTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

In a number of circumstances, arguments of cultural relativism are used as a justification for the facilitation of some cultural traditions which pose a threat to the rights and lives of individuals across the globe. But is it truly culture impeding the implementation of human rights legislation when traditional patriarchal systems of authority are being challenged? Here it is indicated how cultural relativism is often fallen upon as a reason for not implementing certain Human Rights laws, when in fact the challenging of traditional patriarchal systems is what discourages compliance. As acknowledged in the Malawi Human Rights Watch Report of 2005, in certain cases, the human rights infringements outweigh the cultural significance or legitimacy of a practice.

An award-winning advertising campaign highlighting the worldwide problem of FGM.

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION:

Whether or not some elements of culture are being infringed, there are some practices which are utterly abhorrent and their existence acts as a stain on humanity. Female Genital Mutilation, a practice particularly prevalent within many African countries, is the non-medical removal of female genital organs, often resulting in infection and other health and reproductive issues. Recent estimates show that more than 200 million women and children around the world have undergone this traumatic procedure. Despite its illegalisation in most countries, FGM continues to be facilitated on a broad scale. Subjected to this at age five, Waris Dirie uses her accumulated platform to fight against FGM after escaping Somalia at thirteen years old. She explains how “FGM exists only for one reason: because there is still inequality between men and women. It is a matter of exercising control over us women. It is about power and oppression. FGM is cruel, has no medical background, and its only purpose is to subjugate the woman and her sexuality to the man.’’ In addition, she highlights the impact of immigration in Western countries on FGM rates saying that ‘‘Immigrants do not abandon their customs and traditions simply because they come to another country.’’

Through this she argues the dangers that lie as a result of the neglected awareness surrounding this practice in countries such as the UK and demands that the problem is taken more seriously. This can be as simple as increasing education surrounding the topic and ensuring that all cases are reported and not overlooked by health authorities.

GIRLS EDUCATION:

Tapiwa H. Maoni, a Girl Up Club leader in Malawi, details in her Feminists Don’t Wear Pink and Other Lies essay her experience with malangizo or ‘cultural counselling’. At thirteen, she and her female cousins were taught, under the tutelage of her mother and her sisters, the various rules her culture dictated: kneeling to elders, giving a male or elder anything, receiving items from male family members with both hands. This social education, of obedience and importance of respect based on identity reinforces patriarchal socialisation and allows for other issues, such as sexual violence perpetrated against women, sometimes by the very people they are taught to respect and obey, to fall under the radar. Academic education, too, suffers at the hands of this social education. Though not systemically denied an education through legislative barrier, she was discouraged by teachers and peers from participating in subjects she was not deemed clever enough for, like maths and science, because she was a girl. This is the social and cultural influence on her human rights which is intangible and therefore cannot be addressed through Human Rights Legislation alone.

A UNESCAP report aligns itself with the conclusions drawn in the paragraph above: “legislative change can only impact if it is combined with effective law enforcement and social policies”. The study, too, acknowledges that a more effective strategy for globally meeting Human Rights standards is through a focus on the implementation of positive, progressive social legislation which supports those who are oppressed, as opposed to the banning or prohibition alone of certain traditional practices which are infringing human rights.

“The study comes to the conclusion, however, that customs and traditions are not static and that it is not through legislation alone, prohibiting these culturally tied practices, that human rights infringements can be eradicated.”

Harmful South Asian cultural practices (UNESCAP study): This aforementioned report was also helpful in delineating some of the tangible human rights infringements taking place in the name of cultural practice in Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. “Some of these practices such as dowry and child marriage are common phenomena.

Others such as dedication to temples, witchcraft or virginity testing are country specific. Son preference is common to all of the countries and manifests in the denial of inheritance rights and/or health and education opportunities to girls and women, reinforcing negative stereotypical values that also contribute to intrafamily and domestic violence.” The study comes to the conclusion, however, that “customs and traditions are not static” and that it is not through legislation alone, prohibiting these culturally tied practices, that Human Rights infringements can be eradicated. It must be a social change, a shift in atttude, that accompanies such laws for them to truly be effective.

CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THESE EXAMPLES:

In these examples, it is clear to us that cultural significance does not provide sufficient reason for maintaining these harmful practices. Unfortunately, women remain at the heart of these issues, continuously having their Human Rights jeopardised. These cultural practices stand in direct opposition to Human Rights law and therefore cannot co-exist with them. The dilemma of whether this places the entire culture under question, or these practices alone, is yet to be resolved. On the other hand, are international human rights being used as a form of cultural imperialism? As pre-discussed, the Human Rights Laws currently in place were conceived largely against the backdrop and under the influence of Western culture. Are they, therefore, enabling white, western cultures to condemn those cultures and peoples different to them, as cultural relativist theory suggests? The recent banning of the hijab in France might be indicative of this claim: which side of this debate is committing the human rights infringement? The religion of which this is a significant item of clothing, or the state which is disallowing and criminalising a religious practice/symbol/choice under the farce of liberation. There is, in Western media and culture, generally a fixation (arguably stemming from widespread Islamophobia) on ‘liberating’ Muslim women from this piece of cloth. This law prohibiting Muslim women in France to wear the hijab is entirely ignorant of the concept that they might even be practicing bodily autonomy by wearing a covering, and that removing their right to wear it would in fact be removing the bodily autonomy that is so ardently insisted they do not have. Here it is clear that it is in fact under the farce of Western Human Rights legislation that cultural and religious repression is taking place.

SO, TO CONCLUDE, IS THERE A THREAT OF ERADICATING CULTURE BY ENFORCING INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS?

Can the two co-exist? Whilst Human Rights laws appear to attain universal support, cultural relativism remains the primary justification in the lack of implementation across the globe. Graeme Reid, the Director of the LGBTQ Rights Program at Human Rights Watch discusses how “traditional values are often deployed as an excuse to undermine human rights.” He then continues to argue the importance of overcoming this misconception by stating that “the human rights movement is not inherently at odds with customary law, religious law, and tradition, but with the aspects that violate rights. The task at hand is one of transformation, not rejection.”