The Right to Rights

So, this has been bugging me the some time now.  It can not fit into a paper but I think it needs to be talked about.  Seems this may be the venue for me to release my frustration and flash some of my works. 

Recently there has appeared, in the media, a number of claims for violation against individual rights.  Specially, reports regarding the use of Airport Body Scanner, a ban on a breastfeeding mother and the infringement of the right to ride a bicycle without a helmet have all made the news.  One must first ask, “are these rightful claims of individual rights?”  I am a strong advocate for rights. Both, the creation and protection of human rights are essential in our society.  But sometimes, individuals and interest groups couch their social dissatisfaction in the guise of a rights-based legal argument. This is a detriment to the larger rights-based fights that need to be made. 

Describing norms as rights has dangers. The language of rights gives clear expression to fundamental freedoms. Rights are also associated with historical movements for greater liberty and equality, so assertions of rights in pursuit of justice can carry a resonance that other appeals lack. Fundamental rights, like the right to practice religion, freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection before the law, express in accessible terms the standards for minimally acceptable treatment that individuals can demand from those with power over them.  These rights are legally guaranteed powers.  Legal rights affect every citizen and legal entity in realization or defense of its just and lawful claims or interests (such as individual freedom) against the ‘whole world.' Rights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible in our institutions, forms of government, and contents of law. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done.

Old Ways Carrying New

In the case of the Airport Body Scanners, privacy advocates and civil liberties groups claim that the scanners are breaching privacy laws.  They suggest the scanners are perform searches without probable cause and are illegal unreasonable searches that violate basic human rights. The BC Civil Liberties Association and other advocacy groups have called for a ban on airport body scanners suggesting the scans violate the human rights of groups such as the disabled, the transgendered, the elderly, various religious groups, pregnant women and children. I am not suggesting there is not a need for concern surrounding this issue.  In February 2010, it was revealed on the BBC’s Jonathan Ross show that naked images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed and circulated by a female airport security staff at Heathrow. Security staff did, it seems, violate privacy law and should be charged for such. But this should not be a rights based argument.  The peoples that need the ability to make this type of argument are being denied the ability to get on a plane because of their race or colour of their skin

PAINT, PAUSE, POSSESSION

Misuse of the rights argument happens too often and it softens the blow when the claim for actual violations occurs.  Leanne Scorah was denied entry to the play, As You Like It, because she had her eight-week-old infant son in a sling with her.  Ms. Scorah is accusing the house manager for Bard on the Beach of discrimination after she was ‘barred’ from attending a Saturday matinee performance. Scorah was told that all families with children under seven years old are “denied entry.” This is in accordance with the Bard's ticketing policy, which states: "In consideration of the actors and other patrons, infants and children under the age of 6 will not be admitted." Scorah is quoted as saying,  “We explained that our breastfeeding infant needs to be with its mother to stay alive, much like a person with special needs may need an oxygen ventilator, or insulin machine, or wheelchair…We strongly feel that this is a violation of human rights and discrimination against breastfeeding mothers.” There is no right to theatre admission.  These claims need to be reserved  for mothers who cannot afford to feed their children.  The mother who never sees her child because the state has removed it may have a claim; as may the child but if Scorah can keep her infant alive by not attending the theatre is that too great a price to pay?  Her claim of a human rights violation is hard to hear as I assume she could afford the tickets. I am not saying she does not have an argument but we need to be careful of the language we use.

Living in the Orchard of Life

Ron van der Eerden is fighting a $29 ticket for not wearing a helmet while riding his bicycle in Vancouver. Mr. Van der Eerden says the law is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms arguing that being forced to wear a helmet violates his rights concerning life, liberty and security. Mr. Van der Eerden represented himself during a hearing in Vancouver and the case was adjourned until September.  There is no right to ride a bicycle. Though I am an advocate for wearing helmets --they have saved my brain numerous times--I respect Mr. van der Eerden’s right to choose.  He is choosing to live in a city.  He is choosing to ride a bicycle.  He is choosing to break the law of bicycle riding in the city of Vancouver.  He could choose to live somewhere else where there are not rules regarding helmets and bicycle riding.  All of these choices that Mr. van der Eerden has suggest that this is not a rights issue.  The right to life, liberty and security are important.  They protect the right of all people to ride a bike down any street in the country safely.  They ensure that individuals can ride on buses and attend schools.  But there is a certain level of responsibility to the society you choose.  We sometimes forget our obligations within the society and focus only on what is owed us as citizens.  Mr. van der Eerden can not wear a helmet.  But there are costs associated with this and he should accept them.  A rights challenge in the courts should be reserved for violations that restrict his human dignity.

The charge of human rights violations needs to be reserved for times when limitations are forced on individuals that prevent them from riding a bus, practicing a religion or eating on a daily basis. This claim needs to be reserved when the minimal acceptable standard that individuals can demand from those with power over them is infringed. They are needed to ensure people are not denied their basic human necessities.  Using the language of rights violation to maintain our luxury existence is wrong.  There is no right to attend theatre or ride a bicycle or fly in a plane.  We may be uncomfortable or inconvenienced by these rules but we have no right to them.  Using this vocabulary detracts from the people, interest groups and nations that need the world to listen to their plight.  I believe mother’s have a right to breastfeed their children, but there is no right to do it in a private theatre.  I believe people have a right to move and travel, but they do not have a right to fly by plane or to ride bicycles in an unsafe manner. The right to exist with other humans on the planet is the territory of the human rights discourse.  To take that language on to defend our luxuries and minor inconveniences is wrong.  To fight using the tools of the subjugated for non-oppressive situations is taking these tools out of the hands of minorities and subordinated groups for selfish reasons—it dulls the edge of the actual discourse.  I am not against fighting for one’s due.  I only wish people were more careful with there vocabulary.