The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) established in 1945 were designed to be just that, universal. But due to the mere fact that the world, so vast yet so small, has so many cultures, ideologies, and religions that it seems that this declaration of human rights is relative to one’s own culture.
The thought of human rights being implemented around the world is a daunting idea; where does this idea stem from? It all starts with World War 2 and, sadly, the gross violation of human life, one’s dignity, and of humanity itself. The main idea of human rights should be universal. There should be no shortcuts or loopholes around them. The world saw the worst in each other and vowed to never see it again.
The documentary, A Girl in the River, is a short film about exactly that, the worst. A father’s attempted murder of his own daughter for the sake of his, and his family’s honour. This sadly is a common occurrence in places where these cases go unsolved and unprosecuted. A question lies in the mind of people who see this incident from a global perspective, in the father’s mind he has done nothing wrong, he thinks he was just protecting his family’s honour; should this be a violation of human rights or is it not, because it is the culture of how things are done? If this situation happened outside the context of culture and religion, it truly is. This raises the ongoing debate of capital punishment because it is the same, denying a person the right to live because of something they have done. But people agree with it because it is the culture and the way it has always been done.
So where should human rights lie? I personally think that human rights should be universal, after all, it is a universal declaration. No matter the context, no matter the power, no matter the person, human rights are something that everyone has, and like article 30 states: No one can take away your Human Rights.