To what extent can cultural relativism justify different concepts of human rights?

Western culture has influenced the UDHR which has created a westernized sense of what a right is. In theory, this seems to be fine as most people would agree to a baseline of rights. However, there is a difference between baseline rights and some of those introduced by the UDHR are sometimes unattainable or unrealistic to expect some nation-states to comply with. Not only because culture dictates a lot of the values and beliefs which in turn makes it difficult to assimilate those new human rights laws. Not only that but nation-states should be mindful of their sovereignty, the declaration is a westernized document and implicates the ideology of the west. This puts nation-states at risk of cultural amalgamation or the loss of their individualism and their own culture. I believe that cultural relativism should be taken into consideration when adopting the UDHR, I also believe that a basic set of rights that are universal could be achieved and implemented successfully within nations without pushing western ideals.

The UDHR is a great guideline for a nation to agree or disagree on what rights should be implemented. There are rights that in my opinion are completely valid and where cultural relativism is not applicable. While I do not believe in universalism, I believe that it is applicable to some articles of the UDHR for example the right to a family and the right to not be tortured. The human body and relationships are such an integral part of the human experience, and they are universal, the colour of skin or the culture people have may differ but all over the world we all feel pain and we all love. Therefore, I believe that the Bangkok declaration is a great example of how the UDHR can be adapted to reflect the culture of the nation-state’s values. The Bangkok Declaration was created in 1993 and has accepted most of the UDHR but it has considered the cultural values of the Asian continent. For example, changing the UDHR to emphasize the interest of the community. The nation-states involved chose to take the collectivist approach but still accepted some aspects of the UDHR. This stems from the cultural values which support that a country can develop without losing the community and family this contradicts the western individualist approach. Not only that but the declaration emphasized that there should be respect for a nation sate's sovereignty and therefore also implemented article 4 which discourages international intervention under the pretence of development. The Bangkok declaration shows how a nation-state or a group of nation states with similar values can accept the UDHR while also adapting it to reflect their own values. This allows them to maintain their sovereignty by not having other ideals pushed onto their laws while also implementing and agreeing to enough allowing them to maintain diplomatic ties with the west.

There have been cases where even westerners push their culture onto others under the guise of freedom or repairing rights but in turn, also negate the rights they have created. The burqa bans in France in 2010, it was implemented with the intention of liberating women and giving them an identity and dignity. However, the burqa and other religious attire is part of practicing one's religion. One of the human rights laws, article 18 states that all have the right to have a religion, practice and change it whether they would like to or not. Not only that but the European Union has just (in 2020) passed a bill allowing businesses to ban religious attire. They ruled that when there is a "genuine need" or to "present a neutral image towards customers to prevent social disputes". Again Article 18 is being disregarded. While this law may be quite obviously ignoring the human rights article there is a much deeper issue, they allow for discrimination to be legal. Now that this law has been implemented there will most likely be more discrimination towards those who wear headscarves, and the burqa (predominantly Muslim women) as there has been in previous years. This then in turn could violate another human right, article 23, the right to work and to have free choice of employment. That may not be viable for those who wear religious attire since some companies may not allow them to wear, some may lose jobs or job opportunities based on these new laws. Not only that but some companies may be inclined not to hire people who wear religious wear as they would have to go through a long court process to show that banning religious attire is not baseless. However, when we look at this through the lens of cultural relativism, we could argue that this is fair, if the Asian continent can create the Bangkok declaration why can't the EU? There is no real reason other than arguing that they are violating the rights they wrote themselves and that they are a western culture, meaning that the EU should have already accepted article 18.

Others may argue that in the case of extreme violence or injustice the UDHR should be complied with and enacted to the best of the nation state's capacity. Not only that but one could argue that with the extreme violence cultural relativism is negated as there is immense suffering caused by a cultural practice or cultural ideology. Honour killings are extremely common in middle eastern countries and cultures where women and gay men do not have rights or are regarded as not equal. Especially in Iraqi Kurdistan where women's rights are appalling. While there are supposed laws put in place to protect women from gender-based violence honour killings and domestic abuse are still very common in the areas. This has led to 10000 deaths by self-immolation since the uprising in 1991. The government has passed laws to try and protect women there has been little to no implementation of these laws. The rights of women have gotten so bad that two women resorted to setting themselves on fire on women's day in 2008 to protest. In 2003 a report showed that there were 6.2 suicides per 100,000 women in the country. Testaments of survivors and those treating survivors tell us that the women are killing themselves out of desperation to escape an abusive situation or even in some circumstances an Honour-suicide. An honour suicide occurs when a woman or a man do something that the culture would deem embarrassing or dishonourable and in turn family members would coerce them into suicide. That way they avoid blame for the death and are still able to keep their honour intact. While their culture perpetuates this cycle of abuse the women and men continue to suffer and too often end up taking their life as a last resort. The UDHR states that all should be equal before the law, not subjected to abuse or torture and have the right to life however, this is not being complied with. Here one could argue that cultural relativism is not applicable because there are gross human rights violations happening, not against one article but against a myriad of articles. Not only that but I and others would argue that women’s rights are basic human rights which would mean that there should be legislature passed and implemented to protect women and girls who are disproportionately targeted due to their gender.

The extent to which cultural relativism can be used to justify different concepts of human rights will always be difficult to determine as different groups have different views on what human rights are and what they should entail. In my opinion, I believe that there should be a set of perhaps 10 basic universal human rights such as the right to work and the right to be equal before the law. In also believe however that these rights should reflect the country’s own values and culture as it is unrealistic to expect a nation-state to implement rights that are not important to them or that they do not deem to be necessary. It would be naïve to think that nation-states would be willing to enforce laws they do not believe in.

Aghakhani, Nader et al. "“It Was Like Nobody Cared About What I Said?” Iranian Women Committed Self-Immolation: A Qualitative Study". BMC Women's Health, vol 21, no. 1, 2021. Springer Science And Business Media LLC, doi:10.1186/s12905-021-01221-8. Accessed 18 Sept 2021.