Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Tania Bruguera:

by Tania Bruguera

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Tavis Smiley: To the extent that human rights conflict with traditional or religious values, then those traditional or religious values are worthless, absolutely worthless. Human rights, basic fundamental human rights, must not be in conflict with any religious or traditional values. We must respect all faiths, all beliefs, but those faiths, those beliefs, those religions, those customs, must value the right of every human being to be loved, to be respected. And when those values are in conflict, then we need to rethink those traditional values. Maybe, you know, it’s time to bring some traditions to an end, if in fact that’s the case. And those religious values—I have not come in contact with many religions at all that are in conflict, whose belief systems are in conflict with basic fundamental human rights. To the extent, again, that they are, we need to rethink those faiths, those traditions, and those values.

by Tavis Smiley

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Tegla Loroupe: Answertext will be available soon.

by Tegla Loroupe

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Thenmozhi Soundararajan: I think this question has an enormous assumption and I think part of that assumption is that human rights only operate in a secular context and that the main tension with human rights is with religious values. My tension with human rights is I think that human rights as a doctrine is an important organizing point and at a grassroots level is profoundly empowering. But, I think that the way human rights is applied is that most countries in the North unevenly apply military force to countries that are violating political rights and very conveniently ignore the other economic, cultural and social rights that are guaranteed within the universal human rights doctrine. So, what I am more concerned about is that uneven application. I also think that there is a great deal of hypocrisy because of that military intervention. For example, with the United States being a great violator of political rights of both its citizens in the United States; like what we see in the conditions of prisoners both local like in Guantanamo Bay, but also in terms of its own communities, as well as like what we see in its bombing and its military intervention in Iraq. I think if we want a human rights doctrine that’s going to work and we want to see human rights evenly applied, countries in the North need to play by the same rules that all countries are expected to. I think that’s one way to really look at -- that to me is the true clash around human rights, not human rights versus secularity and fundamentalism. I think that’s kind of a mock conversation and to me is an assumption based upon the question, but isn’t really truly what’s at play and what I see happening in the world around me.

by Thenmozhi Soundararajan

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Tu Weiming: Human rights especially after the – since the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations as universal rights have become important feature of value orientation of the modern age. That’s the reason why human rights are characterized as universal values - universal rights. Yet we need to nuance what do we mean by human rights. There have been three generations of human rights, political rights, the rights to freedom, rights to assembly, right to religion, and these are important rights, but also the economic rights, rights to fresh water, to basic food, to shelter, to minimum economic standards. But the social rights, cultural rights they are also group rights. Each one of them is universalizable. Even though they originated since the Second World War, they represent the consensus of the post-Second World War mentality of some of the most brilliant minds. However, in order for human rights as minimum conditions of human flourishing to fully developed in different culture traditions. It’s important to consider human rights as minimum requirements for human flourishment. They have to be integrated in to the thick descriptions of many culture traditions, for example in the fusion tradition it’s possible to underscore the importance of the responsibility of the leaders as a condition for the development of the human rights for old people, especially the marginalized and disadvantaged and it is possible for the Christian, the Judaic, the Islamic, and Hindu traditions to develop human rights. Obviously, they are features of human rights that are not embodied, that are not fully developed in these societies and they have to be critiqued.

by Tu Weiming

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Udi Aloni: I really feel that so many questions here take for granted that this, the Western discourse and I just try to fight against it. And we should question the questions sometimes. It's really put in the conflict tradition in human rights. When the big abuse of human rights is in the non-traditional society itself. So we all the time we adopting the discourse of the power and then we arguing with it. Not thinking that from the beginning there is a fault in the discourse itself. I think it's so beautiful to be with my umbrella, to see my umbrella against the sun and try to be serious about something that it is serious. But yet, I have to feel a little bit ridiculous here. Tradition against human rights--who are the biggest abusers of human rights? The West that invented the human rights. So it's time for us to understand the concept or not between us and them; between tradition and progressive. In each concept there is a way to deal with the right. And each place build together the right and the fight against the right. And there are tradition societies that before they were influenced by the West, gay could live very simply there without the control of the power. Or women in the Jewish tradition, Jewish place, were in many time better position than all the slavery of women and so-called modern societies. So if we have to end the exception of the division that they, I don't know how I should call them, the discourse, the Western discourse create. The question itself is already prejudiced. The question itself already doesn't understand the conflict with human rights, it's a women rights, it's in the Western discourse itself. And I think it's time to rethink the questions.

by Udi Aloni

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Valentina Melnikova: In my opinion not all traditional and religious values come into conflict with human rights. A lot depends on interpretation of a particular religious tradition but for example many basic human rights are supported with the commandments of e.g. Christian faith. The most important thing is respect for all kind of people’s faith if it doesn’t cause trouble for other people. And it’s impossible to confront religious convictions, faith with the importance of preserving and protection of life and respect for human dignity. The Union of Soldiers’ Mothers Committees said from the beginning that it would help people regardless of their religious views or their national traditions, because the object of our efforts is to preserve life and human dignity of Russian young people who have to do their military service. Only through mutual dialogs, a kind of mutual side by side existence, discussions and acceptation of other people’s point of view and its comprehension could help to avoid conflicts concerning religious opinions. Humanity is globalizing itself, and many people protect themselves from this sort of evening out, while trying to keep strict religious traditions. But it shouldn’t be allowed to cultivate faith or civil rights of human being by force.

by Valentina Melnikova

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Vesna Pesic: Answertext will be available soon.

by Vesna Pesic

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Viviana Figueroa: I think that in fact the universal rights of the human beings can be reconciled with traditional or religious values in the sense of that they do a dialogue. Last year in Argentina [inaudible] In fact our peoples have different visions of life and death and they have an identity which are the idioms even make progress against the special features of the peoples when just a law which in reality hasn´t been consulted with them [inaudible] because they have [inaudible] of life and death probably a lot of this changes [inaudible] that one really can´t make a change on the basis of an interest or a consideration of others but it has to be an internal reflection of every people. If we the peoples keep a ceremony [inaudible] we have to change this vision, we have to change because we will really [inaudible] this really has to be an informed decision of everybody, to change these cultural patterns to others but they can´t be an imposition by law, an imposition to change the culture. Every culture deserves all the respect and therefore they can´t be the object of interference of others, this is the way in which the human rights really are respectful of the cultural diversity on the basis of a dialogue. It´s not so that they can´t change cultural patterns and that we the peoples say that we will not change but that these changes [inaudible] on the basis of a decision of the people itself and not on the basis of an imposition.

by Viviana Figueroa

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Wim Wenders: That’s a tough one. It mainly concerns fundamentalist values and visions in all religions. In Christianity, as well as in Judaism on the Muslim word. Now, these fundamentalist values are always the views of minorities in these respective religions and I don’t think there are any institutions or entities or authorities that could be entitled to work on these minorities and convince them and to work on their reactionary or even utterly dangerous activities than those respective religions themselves through their bodies of believers and through their own leaders. -- Who else can do that? I think it’s not up to other religions and I don’t see a worldly authority to do it. It is the body of believers that have to correct fanatics, but it's so tough to decide where the freedom of religion expression ends and where belief is in fact conflict with human rights and then has to be oppressed somehow. It’s a tough one. -- I mean as a Christian myself, or as somebody who utterly respects all other the religions, I think [audio ends]

by Wim Wenders

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Yungchen Lhamo: I think we need to keep our [inaudible] and I think we if we valued the traditionals and [inaudible] and who can we say the result difficulties and we human beings always came to every point is come to ourselves. We say first me, my and I and like these reasons we are been in this situation, I think.

by Yungchen Lhamo