Editing Human rights (section)

=== Universalism vs cultural relativism ===
{{main|Cultural relativism|Moral relativism|Moral universalism|Universal ethic}}

[[File:Fgm map.svg|right|thumb|Map: Estimated prevalence of Female Genital Cutting (FGC) in Africa. Data based on uncertain estimates.]]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines, by definition, rights that apply to all humans equally, whichever geographical location, state, race or culture they belong to. Proponents of cultural relativism suggest that human rights are not all universal, and indeed conflict with some cultures and threaten their survival. Rights which are most often contested with relativistic arguments are the rights of women. For example, [[female genital mutilation]] occurs in different cultures in Africa, Asia and South America. It is not mandated by any religion, but has become a tradition in many cultures. It is considered a violation of women's and girl's rights by much of the international community, and is outlawed in some countries.

Universalism has been described by some as cultural, economic or political imperialism. In particular, the concept of human rights is often claimed to be fundamentally rooted in a politically liberal outlook which, although generally accepted in Europe, Japan or North America, is not necessarily taken as standard elsewhere. For example, in 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the UDHR by saying that the UDHR was "a [[Secularism|secular]] understanding of the [[Judeo-Christian]] tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.{{sfnp|Littman|1999}} The former Prime Ministers of Singapore, [[Lee Kuan Yew]], and of [[Malaysia]], [[Mahathir Mohamad]] both claimed in the 1990s that ''Asian values'' were significantly different from western values and included a sense of loyalty and foregoing personal freedoms for the sake of social stability and prosperity, and therefore authoritarian government is more appropriate in Asia than democracy. This view is countered by Mahathir's former deputy:

{{blockquote|text=To say that freedom is Western or unAsian is to offend our traditions as well as our forefathers, who gave their lives in the struggle against tyranny and injustices.|author=[[Anwar Ibrahim]]|source=in his keynote speech to the Asian Press Forum title ''Media and Society in Asia'', 2 December 1994}}

Singapore's opposition leader [[Chee Soon Juan]] also states that it is racist to assert that Asians do not want human rights.{{sfnp|Ball|Gready|2007|p=25}}<ref>{{cite book|title=Human Rights: Dirty Words in Singapore |publisher=Activating Human Rights and Diversity Conference (Byron Bay, Australia)|date=3 July 2003|author=Chee, S.J.}}</ref> An appeal is often made to the fact that influential human rights thinkers, such as [[John Locke]] and [[John Stuart Mill]], have all been Western and indeed that some were involved in the running of Empires themselves.{{sfnp|Tunick|2006}}{{sfnp|Jahn|2005}} Relativistic arguments tend to neglect the fact that modern human rights are new to all cultures, dating back no further than the UDHR in 1948. They also do not account for the fact that the UDHR was drafted by people from many different cultures and traditions, including a US Roman Catholic, a Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French Zionist and a representative from the Arab League, amongst others, and drew upon advice from thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi.{{sfnp|Ball|Gready|2007|p=34}}

[[Michael Ignatieff]] has argued that cultural relativism is almost exclusively an argument used by those who wield power in cultures which commit human rights abuses, and that those whose human rights are compromised are the powerless.{{sfnp|Ignatieff|2001|p=68}} This reflects the fact that the difficulty in judging universalism versus relativism lies in who is claiming to represent a particular culture. Although the argument between universalism and relativism is far from complete, it is an academic discussion in that all international human rights instruments adhere to the principle that human rights are universally applicable. The [[2005 World Summit]] reaffirmed the international community's adherence to this principle:

{{blockquote|text=The universal nature of human rights and freedoms is beyond question.|source=2005 World Summit, paragraph 120}}Human rights that depend on an [[Individualism|individualist]] orientation have been criticised as unsuited to [[Communitarianism|communally]] orientated societies, which critics say makes individual human rights non-universal.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cruft |first=Rowan |date=2005 |title=Human Rights, Individualism and Cultural Diversity |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13698230500187151 |journal=Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy |language=en |volume=8 |issue=3 |pages=265–287 |doi=10.1080/13698230500187151 |issn=1369-8230}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Chemhuru |first=Munamato |date=2018-12-01 |title=African Communitarianism and Human Rights: Towards a Compatibilist View |url=https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/theoria/65/157/th6515704.xml |journal=Theoria |language=en-US |volume=65 |issue=157 |pages=37–56 |doi=10.3167/th.2018.6515704 |issn=0040-5817}}</ref>