Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Jonathan Meese: Things, which are standing apart and moving apart, are good because they are anti and the same. Inside of themselves. What are universal human rights? Did we already ask the human rights what they want? Or are human rights just the putting together of human and rights. What is traditional? What is simulated religiosity? What is value? What is harmony? What is respect? Are we in danger? Are we out of danger? What do we have to pay attention to? What is the secret zone? See Planet of the apes. Are there secret zones? What happens inside of them? What happens inside of secret chambers? Who is universal? What is elementary? What is total elementariness? Are there not only circles, squares, the sign of infinity and triangles? What is pyramidal? Who was Enchnaton? Wasn't Enchnaton the most upright person? Isn't tradition what Alex DeLarge created? Incurable. Is not the most traditional our incurable? We are incurable, but not ill? What is harmony? Nietzsche? Is Nietzsche harmony? Is Nietzsche a fable? Is Nietzsche religion? Is Zarathustra god? Isn't cereal the total future? Isn't the cereal wheel the future? Has the wheel already been designed? Has it already been inserted? What is a weapon? Aren't weapons a human right, aren't we weapons? Aren't we the weapon of individual human rights, which is inside of us? Who is birth? What is the place of birth? Where do human being come from? Why do human beings come?

by Jonathan Meese

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Jonathan Stack: Well, sometimes we can and sometimes we can't reconcile, but I don't think that for the most part there is a conflict between these two rights. Part of the universal human rights is diversity. So, we are not going to necessarily find synthesis of all those things. But, I figure the only way to deal with all of this is just mortification and better stories. There are no traditional ideas and values so embedded that they too don't change. There was a time when these stories replaced other stories and today's stories that seem so locked into place or the values that we hold so -- the values that we believe in so strongly that we interpret in such locked in ways that they don't change. That's going to change too. That too will change. I think that it's not my role or our role here to determine the values for our whole collective society. I remember when I was in the eighth grade, some kid said human rights, they begin where my fist ends and your nose begins, and in a way it's like my human rights and what my values are, have to be very carefully managed against where your rights begin and your values are. And that can only be found out and constantly be reworked through dialog and that's what I love about film making because it's just about asking those questions and getting those answers and constantly working and reworking and working. People say to me, when does the film end, when is it ready, it usually ends when the money runs out or the client wants the film. But, the stories themselves don't end and the answer to this question, there is no one single answer. It's a constant renegotiating and that's the difficulty of it and indeed the joy of it.

by Jonathan Stack

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

José Manuel Prieto: It’s an answer to question 18: How can we reconcile respect for universal human rights, when these rights conflict with traditional cultural and/or religious values? I think, that in this case it’s very difficult always to find a correct strategy/behaviour. I think our common sense demands that we shouldn’t exaggerate the implementation of practices or the claim of certain universal right which could conflict with certain cultural practices an d traditions, what means that we should become reconciled, that we should discuss and understand. []. I think that we should primarily use our common sense, e.g. in the case of the usage of veils [in the] islamic countries. I think that these countries are the ones that finally will develop their own guidelines and will harmonize the universal rights with their traditional values. I think that it’s the task of the societies of all the countries to search [] for a solution for every case. This is what I think about that question. Thank You.

by José Manuel Prieto

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Jwan M. Aziz: I do not think the traditional or the religious values conflict with universal human rights. I just think there is kind of misunderstanding between understanding these values and understanding the religion, because religions in the world like Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other religion do not conflict with respect the human rights, but the traditional values change with the time. We may hope that the new generations reform some old traditional values which they got from their parents and grandparents. Thank you.

by Jwan M. Aziz

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Kailash Satyarthi: Well, it's an interesting question. But, let me tell you that there is no inherent conflict between the fundamental universal human rights and the positive values of our traditions and religions. True that the beliefs, the myths, the wrong traditions which are prevailing in the name of religion and cultures in our society go against justice, go against equality, go against some of the fundamental human rights. But, they are just the negative values which are still prevailing in our cultures and in the name of religions, in the garb of religions. But, on the other hand, there are huge amount of liberated values and positive values, as well as the positive traditions, even the stories in our traditions and cultures which we can dig out and we have to dig out. So, the most important things include that the values related to justice, liberty, equality and freedom have to be digged out from our cultures and religions and they should be interpreted in such a manner that the human rights could be promoted. Secondly, we have to demystify the human rights. Sometimes, we use the connotations, the phrases, the language, the jargons in the human right discourse which are not really comfortable with ordinary people. And, sometimes, apparently, it looks that they go against the cultures and religions. That is not true. So, if we can devise a way where each universal human right could be linked with some of our social, cultural, traditional and religious teachings, that will definitely be very helpful, and that is possible. In case of child rights, which is of course a part of human rights in India and worldwide, I myself in my moment we try to explain and interpret the child rights in the wider context of the positive teachings and positive values in our religions and cultures. There is always great things in the religious books and teachings of the big leaders.

by Kailash Satyarthi

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Kamal Boullata:

by Kamal Boullata

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Kigge Hvid: Hello Frank... in New York! Hi! So, how can we do that? I don’t know how we should do that. But, I think that one thing is for really, really sure and that is that the global human rights should prevail over all other rights in the world. That might sound hard, that’s just a part of democracy, that’s also a part of living again together in a global society. We simply have to have some values, some rules, some legislation that ensure us that we cherish the same overall values which really are about liberty, about having the right to cover basic needs. So basically they should; and if they would conflict with traditional or religious value, that’s a problem we have to solve and that’s a problem we see many places in the world. But, it is something we have to solve that which would be up to the international society, to governments and to individuals to see too that these values, the overall values of the human society are accepted, are lived by all over the world.

by Kigge Hvid

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Kurt Weidemann: If the religions in this world are opposed one to another or if their doctrines diverge a lot from their application then they should be deprived of power no matter if it is Islam or Buddhism or Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism. Our Christian religion tells us that God created man in his own image and that very man crucified his son. That shows that the doctrine and its application differ in such a strong way that they should not be accepted any more. Luckily the wars inspired by religion or by religious believe do no longer exist. If they are gone for good can't be said for sure now if we think of the fanaticism of Islamic fundamentalists these days. Any kind of fanaticism and any kind of craving for power or hunger for world domination must be vehemently fought and prevented.

by Kurt Weidemann

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Lesego Rampolokeng: Tradition, religion are very safe as homes from which to operate, from which to visit untold horrors upon others. Tradition and religion are used for the oppresion of other beings. And, if that is indeed right, they have to backtrack a little bit and say, "universal human rights," I mean what -- what essentially are we talking about there? Are we talking about all creatures across this existence of ours and their right to exist within the zone in which we are with respect, with dignity, with all of the position? If that is what we are talking about, if we are saying it is about the positive that which is meant to respect, to celebrate humanity, even that’s what we are talking about and we backtrack and see the religion and so-called tradition, things, concepts that have been utilized to work precisely against us being human, then I think perhaps there is a call for an entire, total, complete overhaul and an onslaught against those values. At the same time, I respect all human beliefs if they are not cared towards the oppression, this oppression and the exploitation of others.

Wretch oppression bleed
and richest nation feed
bloated,
hot air balloon floated,
they can be quoted how the [mandeed]
drowned in the witches broom, nothing []penthouse the cold []syndrome says to each a kingdom in their own back garden.

by Lesego Rampolokeng

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Leung Ping-Kwan: The basic dignities was, could we curtail the basics like freedom of expression and freedom of speech, to be able to keep one’s own religion/lifestyle? When this happens, is to choose work and to choose places with faith. Indeed, in some of the countries nowadays, these basic needs are not met and there are restrictions for them. I think the reason which would be, I mean if you look back at different countries and their political agenda and provinces and this country’s ideology and we may see, because of their particular ideology, they may not like the actual happen and there seems there could be a conflict within the faith restriction and the need for the basic respect for the human dignity and not that we let so many people to [inaudible], but I think because of this dictatorship, our country and the people’s ideology, they put the privilege of their faith in front of the religions and that’s the reason why a lot of times, the human freedom or the human dignity seems to be sacrificed because of the faith and ideologies.

by Leung Ping-Kwan

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Lijun Fang: First, I think, we should attempt to coexist with each other. The coexistence of Confusion, Buddhism and Taoism in ancient China was very successful. They can even be in the same temple at the same time. Their thoughts were exchanging. There are also many good examples that Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism and Taoism exist in the same village or in the same region and communicate with each other. If it is impossible to coexist, we would have no choice but to change ourselves to someone else. Can we accept that? If no, then the third choice would be to exterminate the opposite or to be exterminated.

by Lijun Fang

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Lillian Holt: Well, ultimately I don't think that they should conflict with traditional religious values because universal human rights are universal human rights. I think it's our interpretation of those universal human rights. I mean the need for people to be needed, wanted and loved; to have access to enough food and to have a warm bed to sleep in and enough food to eat. I mean to me that's a universal human right and I believe the United Nations statistics says that if I have a warm bed to sleep in, enough food to eat, and a roof over my head then I am in the top 7% of the world’s population. Now you know the right to this and the right to that, there’s a whole range of other things and I know that cultural convention can intrude in these areas, but ultimately the truth of humanity and the universal human rights cannot be trampled upon. And as I said -– and we have many documents that say that -- but they are trampled upon. I know that. But it's also about interpretation and it becomes sometimes it's a question of fundamentalism. Whose interpretation are right? But it is not right to impede the human rights of the people, and that includes the physical, mental and spiritual development, and life.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: Thank you. The issue of the human rights is based on ethics. They are not universal. Rights are not universal because every environment has got its own rights. This also includes and adheres to the issue of the equal rights, attuned by the equal rights. The culture, the society in which we find ourselves, and also are we able to say that the universality of human rights is in all aspects the same. Really, these are the debates that we need to try and bring together so that we are able to depict what we mean by the human rights. Therefore, that is why in some cases some human rights conflict with the traditional aspect of human. Like, there will be other aspects whereby communities find, for an example, the ritual king is an aspect which was traditionally accepted or which was in practice. And of course, in today's world in globalization we need to also consider the issue of ethics when we're looking at all this human rights, which sometimes is of religious value; which, of course, is based on the venting and abuse of certain rights. Are we not abusing certain rights if we practice without enough valuing the traditional and the religious approach of certain communities? And in that way, really, we need to consider all these things in order to have the human rights respected, not to conflict with the traditional and religious values.

by Livingstone Maluleke

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Mae-Wan Ho: I don't think there is a conflict between traditional values, religious or otherwise and universal human rights. I think that the conflict arises between those values and fundamentalism and that's what we have to guard against. We have all religions of the world, for example, have core values of doing no harm, of love, forgiving your neighbors for trespasses and so on. And we -- these do not conflict with basic human rights. On the other hand, notions of fundamentalism, crusades and so on, those are in conflict with basic human rights. Those have got nothing to do with traditional, religious and human values.

by Mae-Wan Ho

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Mahsa Shekarloo: Well, whether we like it or not, there are people who have issues with the idea that there is something called universality. What we call universal is very often certain people, sectors, in society, in the world, who tend to have more power, who tend to have more voice, who declare something as being universal. Now, this is debatable, and some people who challenge universality have, of course, various motivations, at its most negative, one motivation being to violate human rights. Nevertheless, there are people who launch this challenge and question the idea of universality, and that’s a challenge that needs to be addressed. And we can’t unquestioningly use words like “universal.” At the same time, one of the problems with the application of human rights today is the way it’s used politically, and the way it’s used selectively. And this has hampered the legitimacy of human rights in many areas throughout the world. When it is used for political purposes, when it is used selectively, on certain peoples, on certain regimes, then the legitimacy of such rights are de-legitimized. And, again, these issues must, must, must be addressed. I don’t think that human rights necessarily conflict with traditional or religious values, but I think we need to re-look traditional values, we need to re-look religious values and we need to re-look human rights, perhaps not make human rights so individually based, perhaps bring in the notion of collective rights just [audio ends]

by Mahsa Shekarloo

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Mark Benecke: Universal human rights are defined by a very, very, very long evolutionary process. I guess what everybody would agree upon is that a certain degree of freedom, a certain degree of wealth and a certain degree of health is a universal human right. But this has developed. You cannot dictatorially tell people how much freedom and how much wealth and how much health is good. Because we are all interconnected economically, socially, culturally, and if a society is not ready for a certain degree of freedom, health and wealth, then it needs a long stage of negotiations and maybe even a little bit of violence. I mean, I don't like that, and maybe I wouldn't take part in the violent part, but you always have to ask yourself how much do people do who don't have freedom and wealth and health to gain it and how much do people who do have it, who want to share it with the other people? So in the end, it boils down to the question: how much do people individually want to give for this? Those who want to receive more freedom, wealth and health and those who have it and want to spread it. If we really, really want to spread universal values, if they exist, then it needs a lot of negotiation and talking and discussing and maybe also laughing and drinking, because maybe the best way to negotiate values is to find a level on which we can communicate them. So, I think it's a very individual thing and it won't be done from top to the bottom but from bottom to the top, if people want it. If !

by Mark Benecke

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Martin Almada: Where fanaticism prevails, be it political or religious, it is impossible to reconcile it with universal human rights. Sadly we talk from the occidental point of view when we talk about universal human rights. The Orient has a different view in case of politics and religion. We have to respect both points of view. But I would like to finish saying that where fanaticism prevails, it is impossible to reconcile human rights or cultural values with the universal human rights.

by Martin Almada

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Masami Saionji: It can be surely done. We say that religious confrontation, but we have misunderstood the religion. The religion is not bad. I think whichever the religion, it exists with the truth. Human being's way of life, dignity of human's life, love, share, forgiveness and gratitude. So the religion is not bad, but a religious people are bad. But it is misunderstood that the religion is bad. If religious people lead in right way, then there are no religious conflict or bad thinkgs of religion. The religion preach love of the god, forgiveness, freedom, creativity, and wonderful capacity which no one can violate them. The most important thing is respect for human's life and dignity. Human race's right doesn't conflict with religious value. So if a religious person shows the oberved truth, then it is possible to harmonize human race's way of life and religious way of life

by Masami Saionji

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Masuma Bibi Russel: I think that it’s so important we know -- we should know there are different part of the world, they have their tradition, they have their culture, they have their religions that value. And with respecting that, knowing the condition geographical, economical, religious, and cultural, I think if we respect these and you will understand the circumstances about the people, about their living condition and think. I think human rights, the basic rights of universal human rights should be, we should not take away any, any person their human dignity. Whatever, which part of the world they are, it’s so important, don’t take away their pride, don’t take away the -- respect their culture, respect their religion, respect their peacefulness. I think that if we know about that and respect all this, I think that there should be a universal human rights for one thing that we don’t take away any person’s human dignity pride, especially -- repeating again and again I come from Bangladesh, and it’s so sad when I see that people are taking away the human dignity or the pride. Pride is someone live for. I think that should be -- we should know that if the basic things, whichever part you are coming from, developed country, developing country, everyone should have their human dignity, pride, that is something should no one in any cost should be taken away.

by Masuma Bibi Russel