Quick Link

for your convenience!

Half a Century of Human Rights

Notes for an address by Hon. David Kilgour, P.C., M.P.,
Secretary of State (Latin America & Africa)
to the Indo Canadian Women’s Association and Faculty of Law, University of Alberta
Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
September 18, 1998, Inn on Seventh, Edmonton

It is a pleasure to join you in celebrating the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What could be more fundamental to people everywhere than these rights that many of us now take for granted?

As UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has said: "Human rights are what make us human. They are the principles by which we create the sacred home for human dignity."

The 50-year mark is a good time to reflect back on the progress made in half a century since the declaration was adopted, and also to look to the many problems that still lie ahead.

When the declaration was adopted, the United Nations had only 58 member states. Prior to the Second World War, the generally accepted rule of diplomacy was that states should not interfere in matters of another state’s internal sovereignty. The horror of the Nazi holocaust led many to question that rule. The Universal Declaration was a major departure in that it asserted some rights are so fundamental that all societies should respect them.

This idea of universality is what makes the declaration so important. Although some nations still try to sweep human rights abuses under the carpet of national sovereignty, this has become less and less accepted. More and more, human rights are a universal concern.

As Secretary General Annan has put it, "It is the universality of human rights that gives them their strength and endows them with the power to cross any border, climb any wall, defy any force."

While the declaration itself was not legally binding in the sense of imposing sanctions on nations that violated its principles, it nonetheless asserted those principles as a yardstick against which governments and peoples could be measured. It also provided the impetus for many legal documents, both international and domestic, including Canada’s own Charter of Rights and Freedoms contained in our constitution.

As an aside, I am reminded of the work done by a great Canadian, John Peters Humphrey, who was one of the declaration’s principal authors. I had occasions to meet Mr. Humphrey, who died three years ago leaving behind a lifetime of great work in the defence of human rights.

The idea that there should be universal standards of human rights has become more broadly accepted in the past 50 years, but it has always faced difficulties. Some governments use phrases such as "cultural relativism" to suggest that certain human rights are a Western standard, imposed on them from outside. While it is true that countries of the so-called North and South may not always see eye-to-eye in the importance they attach to various principles, the essential point is that some rights are so fundamental they must be common to all humanity. Once more, to quote Annan, "Human rights, properly understood and justly interpreted, are foreign to no culture and native to all nations."

The very first article of the Universal Declaration reminds us both how far we have come and how far we need to go. It says: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and shall act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Many of you are saying "and sisterhood" and I would agree. The very language we use now and used then reflects the changes in attitudes toward human rights in the past five decades. For two hundred years, the French language has used the words "droits de l’homme" – rights of man. Now there is greater acceptance in the francophone world for the idea that we must speak of "droits humains" – human rights – if we are to be truly universal and inclusive.

It is in the area of women’s rights that some of the greatest gains have been made, but also where some of the challenges lie ahead. Increasingly women are assuming important positions in the political and business spheres, to a far greater extent than they could 50 years ago. But the glass ceiling still exists in many fields, and we must do all we can to remove it.

Family violence is an issue that concerns us all. The abuse of women in these situations is beyond the traditional focus of human rights, which has tended to look only at the freedom governments allow to their people. But to abused women, the violation of their right to security of person is very real. Not something, I hasten to add, that can be justified by cultural differences, as all too often there has been a tendency to do. Violence against women is not acceptable in any cultural tradition. Period.

I’ve been told I will not get off the hook from dealing with the pay equity issue and the government’s recent decision to appeal. In all candor, this has been one of the most difficult decisions we’ve had to deal with as a government. I would not for one minute want to be in the shoes of my colleague, Marcel Massé, who as President of the Treasury Board is the minister who must take most of the heat on this issue. My office has been flooded with letters, faxes and e-mails on pay equity – probably many from people in this room. I hear you loudly and clearly.

The position put forward by the government is that the Human Rights Tribunal’s ruling has a number of ambiguities and inconsistencies. Two examples are cited by Mr. Massé:

• It is a man who would receive the highest pay equity adjustment – more than $150,000 under the formula proposed by the tribunal.

• Also, some women would have to reimburse the government by more than $40,000 for pay equity payments already received if this formula is applied.

Along with the letters calling for immediate acceptance of the tribunal’s ruling, my office also receives concerns from taxpayers worried about the $5 billion cost of paying this bill. The government has legal opinions that the tribunal may have erred on points of law. When this ruling will affect so many Canadians – not just in government, but also in the private sector – some feel there is an obligation to clarify the ruling beyond any doubt.

I share the view of many that government employees have been waiting long enough and this matter must be resolved at the earliest possible. It has been 20 years since the government undertook to comply with the principle of "equal pay for the work of equal value," and for many of you it has been 20 years too long.

While this issue is an example of the work that lies ahead, I would like once again to turn to the progress that has been made in international human rights. As Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, I have visited many countries that have made enormous strides in recent years.

We celebrated the collapse of Soviet-style dictatorship in Europe less than a decade ago. Who could have imagined in the darkest days of the Cold War that Germany would again be united and free and that such a defender of human rights as Vaclav Havel would lead a free Czech Republic? In the regions under my mandate, who could have imagined 20 years ago that every Latin American country but one would today have a democratically elected government? Or that apartheid in South Africa would crumble, and Nelson Mandela would be released from prison to lead a nation where people of all colours are learning to work together? Very few years ago anyone who suggested these possibilities would have been dismissed as eccentric, misinformed, or worse.

Just two years ago, I wrote with dismay about the horrible human rights situation in Nigeria. The murder of writer Ken Saro Wiwa and eight of his young colleagues by the military dictatorship shocked the world the previous year and prodded the Commonwealth to action. Nigeria’s generals thumbed their noses at world opinion, and the brutal kleptocracy stole millions from that country’s people. Only a few months ago, I was no more optimistic about Nigeria than I was when Ken Saro Wiwa was executed.

I am pleased to report that I was in Nigeria earlier this month and recent changes give us hope that human rights are returning even to that tragic country. Head of State Abubakar seems to be genuinely committed to returning Nigeria to democracy. Canadians can be proud of the principled position we took on human rights in Nigeria, and that position won us the respect of Nigerians and other Africans.

This example reminds us that human rights cannot be protected merely by putting them onto paper as a Universal Declaration. Fundamental rights include the right to life, liberty and security of the person; right to an adequate standard of living; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. But these rights aren’t worth the paper they are printed on unless we are vigilant in protecting them.

Fifty years is a good point at which to pause and measure our progress in broadening the definition and acceptance of human rights. It is also a time to take stock and measure the huge tasks that lie ahead.