Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Fernando Solanas: The universal values of mankind are in question and they are not executed. Today, our societies or humanity lives in this dichotomy, this schizophrenia between the universal charter of human rights and the human and social rights that are in fact assured by the United Nations. We live in an era of a gigantic hypocrisy where campaigns worked out at the desks of the military intelligence, of the great powers, impose upon us abominable lies, that provoke and unleash wars and where those who are responsible, who are the real murderers and terrorists of the state, go on governing, as is the case with the president of North America, Bush. He does not have to answer to an international tribunal as the prominent guilty person for the massacres of Iraq and Afghanistan and all those lies of his war on terrorism. All this is being kept up and so the universal values do not disagree with religious values and – how does the question put it – with certain traditional values. What in fact is at odds is the great governing elite and the governing powers. Humanity will always have contradictions between all its minorities and the plurality of cultural and religious conceptions that exist in it. The true danger for the universal values of mankind are those dominant elites that respond to conservative traditional values. But these conservative traditional values are the values of capitalistic egotism, of dehumanisation on a large scale.

by Fernando Solanas

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Fred Matser: I think it is possible. Perhaps traditional values were even meant to express universal human rights. But, as long as they don't and they documentize, there may be representations of another era in which the development of the mind and the heart was not yet that far as advanced as now on certain levels of our society. So, my answer would be, let's have a look back in number 18, yes, we have then to look into the traditional values and religious values and see in what way they don't match with the human rights, and see how we can help the leaders in these arenas to make changes. An example, for example, is in the Catholic Church, by the way, many, many gazillions of people in the Catholic Church do great works. They still have a different approach related to women. Not in all parts of the church, women are equal to men. We see the same situation with the Islam. And I mean, of course, on one side, we have to respect traditions, because it is a collective mindset that has been around often for ages, and we have to also respect that these other traditions that perhaps do not yet see men and women as equal that they have the chance also to develop on their own their minds and hearts to a different understanding. We also have not, in the West, I mean I come from Europe, we don't need to forget -- we have not to forget that we [audio ends].

by Fred Matser

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Galsan Tschinag: That the communist doctrine of equality was accepted by the masses in the beginning had to do with the basic ideas of all religions and cultures. Because they as well had taken up the cause of equality and had tried to educate the people to this principle. That communism failed later, had to fail, was due to other causes. The universal human rights and the traditional religious values are not conflicting in my opinion.

by Galsan Tschinag

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Geert Lovink: There is a conflict here that cannot be reconciled. So your question is a relatively important one, but I would say I would rephrase it. Universal human rights have to be enforced and they are in conflict with traditional values. So the reconciliation will need to be done in the form of negotiation, enforcement, also defeat. So human rights activists will also I know they are have to be ready to admit that there are certain time zones issues in which major defeat happened and we see that at the moment again, with the issue of torture. I don't want to traditional values -- it's very easy to give no graphic answer and to look at it from a Western point of view and say all the Western cultures just have to comply to this. I think the human rights agenda have been thoroughly deconstructed as a Western set of values. This has been done in the '80s and '90s; we all know that. But instead of going there, I'm more interested in how it conflicts with Western values. Take for instance the debate that is right now happening concerning Abu Ghraib, the secret detention centers, Guantanamo Bay. This is where we see a conflict happening inside the Western values.

by Geert Lovink

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Giora Feidman: Well, this is a process that people or religions or societies, they didn’t come in without my respect that people pay to any society, any religion; but this kind of society or religions that didn't come to the realization of the role of women in the society will need to give room to open the gates and to give to understand today the role of women in society. I understand, I accept, they endorse these before thousands of years. The society consider women in such a way they build religion’s law that doesn't go together with what today we arrive as human being to develop, the historical develop if you compare with those days and today and sometime not only the approach to women, the approach to many things. Food, relationship, this kind of society will need to open the gates and must be clear. They know all the things they put aside in the religion society those days, unacceptable today. No. There are many, many things, they are correct today. But the approach of women in those days, today is incorrect.

by Giora Feidman

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Gladman Chibememe: This is quite a very problematic issue. I do really agree, appreciate that, There are a lot of cultural values and cultural values that conflict with human rights. For example, we have a lot of cases in which there are [ritualmedas] done within cultures. There are also cases in which women remain oppressed based on culture. And, in this case we will see that culture legitimizes such systems, culture legitimizes ritual killings, ritual death. And, in this case what could be the best way to do it is that we need to make sure that we have to agree that culture is not or there is or is not something which is constant fixed. If in the early years, in the medieval times we believed that ritual death are important. And now we have found that isn’t no longer important. It is important that people should move away from such practice like ritual death and embrace the concept of right to life, so that people will be able to really appreciate the value of the human right to life. Because culture in itself exposes us to -- in such a situation that it doesn't really allow us to respect this universal right to life. So, in this case we need to ensure that culture is not something cast in stone thing. It is just one of those things that is transit, the one of those things that develops, one of those things that we lend and develop over time, and let’s not stick and get bogged on each to such an extent that we will end up compromising the rights of other people, human rights of other people, the right to life, the right to freedom, the right to information.

by Gladman Chibememe

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi: Depends on how you look at it, from whose point of view. I think the traditional values or religious values are not always in conflict. It is culturally possible for universal human rights are being practiced without being in conflict with traditional or religious values. You look at the communities in Asia that have existed in the spirit of being in harmony with universal human rights. It is not just being preached, it is being practiced. But, from their point of view what they do is often the way that they have seen it to be meaningful that way. But, from your point of view, you might be seeing that universal human rights are in conflict with traditional or religious values, because you don’t belong to that culture. When you belong to that culture you know why. They are in conflict with these human rights. If you look at the issue of Indian context, equal rights is being acquired by different communities, by fighting for them, and overcoming the inequality and the political process that has been shaping up equal opportunity across communities is visible today.

by Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Hans-Peter Dürr: I don’t think that the universal human rights conflict with religious issues, but it does indeed with the religions we have today which were deformed in the course of history to this extent, that they became power forming words, which forgot the basics that must respond to the religious that stresses the common in people and are concerned about them. A real religion means that we can go back to the things that cannot be expressed in words. That means, among the things that make sense to us and that we can comprehend to recognise what actually has a much more general meaning. And to my mind that also corresponds with the natural human rights. Whereas the human rights themselves seem too narrow to me. It’s again an emphasis of the human against all the living creatures. A human must see that he’s only a part of a bigger whole where he’s embedded, and the religions also must realize that in some way. And that’s mostly the feature of the monotheistic religions to single out humans from this entity and make him better than the others, which leads to creating of power structures, and also to the fact that some people feel better than the others, which causes the inequality that deforms the community in some very sensitive way.

by Hans-Peter Dürr

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Harry Wu: I think human rights certainly conflict with traditional values as well as religious values, but I think such conflicts are engendered endlessly and they are inevitable. In my opinion, it’s time to reconcile them harmoniously. We should have time, and we are also capable to develop smoothly on and on.

by Harry Wu

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Helena Norberg-Hodge: I think this is an extremely important and very difficult question. First of all however, we need to examine what we mean by universal human rights. The dominant institutions, the dominant power elite are often using that term to actually mean the freedom to consume corporate consumer products. They are actually talking again about open markets, about freedom but in the sense of real freedom for corporations to impose an unsustainable consumer culture. So first of all, let’s examine what is meant by human rights in the dominant discourse and reject that. But then when those of us who truly are concerned about human rights and also about traditional cultures and religious diversity, when we discuss how do we reconcile the need to protect human rights with these differences, I think we are talking about a discussion that needs to happen precisely at a table like this. We need an international deep dialog to find those universals which we can agree on and hopefully there are certain ceilings under which we will all agree that we need to operate in terms of human rights. There is no doubt that there will be some sticky areas. But I personally believe that with a deeper dialog of civic society and the leadership from civic society that a table like the dropping knowledge table is providing it would be possible to reconcile these differences. It’s a sticky and difficult issue, but I am convinced that it can be done. And I am convinced that once we do away with the pseudo ideas of human rights that are actually about imposing Wal-Mart and McDonalds and Coca-Cola on the global population, then we will also find that our task is a lot easier.

by Helena Norberg-Hodge

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Irina Yasina: It is a very good question. You know, universal human rights are more important and people might understand this I hope. Though now in Russia we can see a quite opposite process because universal human rights are trampled on and some wrong interpreted religious and national rules come on the surface. We’ll see. I don’t know when it happens but as I am an optimist I believe that in the near future we will realize that the world has changed. And everything will get better.

by Irina Yasina

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Jerry Mander: Answertext will be available soon.

by Jerry Mander

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Jesper Green: Universal human rights is a definition. Universal is just a word worth just as much as religious definition of universal. So I think when we talk about how we can reconcile respect for universal human rights when these rights conflict with traditional and religious values then I think that the overall universal right is as good for human beings as religious human rights. It’s just a matter of definition. It’s just a matter of power. Who can enforce what is universal human rights and what is religious universal human rights. So actually we can have respect for them, or it’s very easy to lose respect for them. Because it’s just a matter of definition what universal human rights are.

by Jesper Green

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Jodie Evans: I'm not sure I know what religions conflict with universal human rights. I mean actually, if you look at the core of most religions, universal human rights is there, that we are all one and that we need to respect and see each other as one. What happens is that these religions have been distorted and used to control, to have power over. They're just another form that gets used to distort. So universal human rights is the right of respect of each other. If that just existed, all the other things that we need would come into place. And I think that each religion's kernel or birth came from a place of trying to make an understanding that we only survive as a community, as a people, if we respect each other, if everyone has an opportunity of fulfillment, the basic needs, and I think they started there. But they've been contorted, they've been used. Most indigenous traditional values that I know about have that place. So maybe the error is, is there a universal human right? "What makes our value of what that looks like something that we can impose on someone else," I think is, one of the questions we come back to over and over again. Of the arrogance we have ourselves of, "My way is right or what I feel is the universal human value is right," and not allowing people to explore and find their own way because certainly we haven't found ours very successfully. So maybe the reconciling is more in the allowing of all points of view.

by Jodie Evans

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

John Gage: The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Now, the sequence of statements of human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, each of the statements begins with all human beings, everyone is entitled, everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, no one shall be held in slavery. Everyone has the right to recognition, all are equal before the law. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by national tribunal, and no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, everyone is entitled to full equality. In short, the statements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are statements for everyone. They apply irrespective of sex, of nationality, of economic status. They apply irrespective of political opinion, of stated belief, independent to religious affiliation, independent of individual feeling about the constellation of supernatural or metaphysical or religious or eminent powers in the world. Everyone has the same rights. So, in many instances, forms of local religious belief, forms of adherence to one book or another that lays out rules, often rules thousands of years old, for how one should behave in a way that allows human beings to live together, rules that made great sense when those books were written. Often those rules come in conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Because in the years that allow bureaucratic forms of churches to arise, schismatic divisions that separate one from another, we find often contradiction and [audio ends].

by John Gage

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Jonathan Granoff: I don't think these human rights do conflict with traditional values. I think that they may conflict with the distortions of those values in institutions, and - but here, let me give an example. Those values are universal and the basis of universal human rights is - is found here. Listen. Listen. Buddhism: hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful, Udana-Varga. Christianity: all things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them. Matthew. Confucianism: do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you, [Analytics]. Hinduism: this is the sum of duty: do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you. Mahabharata. Islam: no-one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. Hadith. Jainism: in happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self. Lord Mahavir. Judaism: what is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow human being. That is the law. All the rest is commentary. The Talmud. Zoroastrianism: that nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatsoever is not good for its own self. [Danistani Dinek]. These are universal values. They're not the property of any religious franchise or any particular tradition. These are the qualities and values that are intrinsic to the human architecture. And the human architecture comes from the divine mystery, and the divine mystery has placed beautiful qualities and values and attributes within the human soul that finds resonance in the human conscience that has to find articulation in the human hand, in the human intellect, in the human institutions. So, human rights, the right of respecting the lives of others as one's own life, the highest human life, the human unity and the sacredness of life, these are universal. They are not of any tradition and any religion. And to the extent that any religion or tradition distorts these values, they're outside of the great universal way articulated so clearly in the golden rule found in every tradition, amongst all peoples. The sun of goodness and caring shines upon all.

by Jonathan Granoff

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