An Itinerant Mind

Cake and Eating It

CAUTION - Some of this may offend some readers. It deals in part with humanity at its worst. It's opinion, and may not agree with yours.


I don't believe everyone is equal. I remember having a huge argument about this with some of my colleagues when I was in my first job. Eventually, when they realised that I wasn't actually arguing with their idea that everyone should enjoy certain basic necessities the argument ended with grudging acceptance that we are not all created equal.

This is perhaps a common problem, people argue because our notions of what we mean when we use certain phrases don't actually match up.

Everyone is equal.

What does this mean?

There are people who can run faster than I can, and those who can lift heavier weights than I can. There are those who can solve complex mathematical problems that I cannot. There are those who can fly complex aircraft, fix broken clocks, things I cannot do. You get the picture.

There are also people who can't cook as well as I can, and those who's poetry is even worse than mine (not many admittedly, but there will be some), or who aren't as adept at false modesty as I am. Again, you get the picture.

So do we mean 'Everyone has equal human rights?'

I suspect so, but then - what are these rights? Who defines them? And, - does everyone agree upon the same definition?

I suspect you know what my answer will be. I find it highly unlikely that everyone agrees with anything, but let us instead go with a broad agreement.

We might agree that everyone has the right to food, water, shelter. Basic needs to keep us alive. Once we move past this though, it gets murkier.

What about the right to an education? Basic human right? Certainly not everywhere, several ruling bodies around the world for example don't agree that girls should receive an education.

The right to practice your religion? Very murky this one, and very easy to tread on toes. What for example happens when your religion has ideas that are at variance with the law? Female Genital Mutilation is illegal in many countries, why specifically female genital mutilation? Because male genital mutilation is seen as an acceptable practise. Though this may seem unfair (at least), to voice criticism of the practise will likely get you attacked as being against the religion that does see this as an important part of their faith.

It has become impossible to criticise any aspect of a religion without being seen as threatening the whole. I believe that this is wrong.

It is also, I believe, wrong to use past events - however terrible - to prevent criticism of present actions.

To return to human rights. I have read of at least one instance where a rapist has claimed that it was his human right to see the child that he had engendered. Think on that for a while. This man has committed one of the worst crimes possible. (Yes I rate this sort of thing worse than crimes involving money), yet he believes his rights are more important than those of his victim.

There never seems to be any 'flip side' to human rights - there is never any discussion of human responsibilities. There often seems to be no discernment that failure to respect other people's basic rights - for example the right not to be raped - or a fireman's right to carry out their job without being attacked should have consequences, and perhaps those consequences should be the forfeit of the perpetrator's 'human rights' beyond the basics required to stay alive.

It's called having your cake and eating it - and it shouldn't be acceptable.