Opinions on the Declaration of human rights

Are you familiar with the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? It consists of 30 articles, that describe the rights and freedoms that belong to every person, just by being a person. Some of these rights might seem obvious to you: being allowed to say what you want, or to live free from torture and slavery? Other articles are questioned by some people: For instance, do you agree that the family is the "natural and fundamental unit in society"? Or do you belong to those who claim that it's the individual who is the natural fundamental unit?

Do you agree that everyone should have a right to a job with paid vacation? In that case - who is obliged to provide that job, and to pay for the vacation? Some have criticised the Declaration for missing out important rights and freedoms. The right not to be... forced to kill other people, for example.

Or the right to marry someone of the same gender. These things are not included in the UN's Universal Declaration. When the Declaration was adopted in the UN, there were a few countries that did not vote in favour of it. Among those was the Soviet Union, and a few other countries nearby. These countries were single-party-states, and there was no doubt that they violated many of the articles in the Declaration.

Quite possibly, it was article 13 that was most crucial. It states that each person has the right to leave his or her country. And that wasn't always allowed, if you lived in this part of the world. South Africa didn't vote in favour of the Declaration. South Africa, at the time, was ruled by a strictly racist policy - apartheid - that limited the rights of the black majority, and violated many of the articles in the Declaration.

Saudi Arabia, a country where the royal family holds all the power, was also among the group of countries not willing to support the Declaration. They referred mainly to Article 18, which states that each person has the right to change religion, which they considered violated islamic law. Some people from Iran, and some other predominantly muslim countries, have also criticised the Declaration. They point out that it's based on values that are typical for the Judeo-Christian countries -- that it's based on a western worldview -- and that it doesn't suit all countries. When criticising the Declaration from this perspective, it can sound something like this: "To put forward a list of rights, and call it universal, or valid for everyone, is problematic.

A person's rights depend on the culture, the religion, and the traditions they were born into. When the western world forces its worldview on other countries like this, it's a form of colonialism." Others consider the Declaration a good thing, precisely because it's universal, and strives to include everyone. Those arguments can sound like this: "No person wants to be oppressed or abused. Everyone wants to have control of their own life. People want that, regardless of which culture they're from.

When someone says that in our country there's no need for democracy or human rights, because it doesn't fit our culture, then that person is only protecting his own power. These human rights don't defend a certain culture -- they defend people without power in all cultures, from those who have the power in those cultures. When people in the West managed to free themselves from their oppression, and establish these human rights, then that represented progress for humanity, not just for a single culture." What do you think? Are there common - universal - rights? Or can something be a fundamental human right in one place, but not in another?

Is it reasonable that the rights we have as humans are determined by where we are born?