HUMAN DIVERSITY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANISM

Thursday, 4 July 2002
Chair of the congress: Ms. Aldith Hunkar

The morning starts with a magnificent dance performance by Mr. Wilson Pico from Ecuador. His interpretation of the anonymous women of the world introduces the members of the congress to the leading question of today's program. In fifty years of IHEU a lot has been achieved, but is it enough?

Speakers in the morning:
Mr. Jan Pronk, Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, former Minister of Development of the Netherlands and chair of the 2001 World Climate Conference.
Ms. Urvashi Butalia, writer and founder of the feminist publishing house of Kali for women, India. Mr. Adbdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, professor of law at Emory University, Atlanta USA.
Mr. Rob Buitenweg, University of Humanistics, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

 

 

Handing book '50 years IHEU' to former Dutch Prime Minister As the longest serving member of the IHEU board Mr. Paul Kurtz proudly presents the book International Humanist and Ethical Union 1952- 2002 written by Bert Gazenbeek and Babu Gogineni.

Paul Kurtz hands a first copy to Mr. Wim Kok, who was the Dutch Prime minister at that moment. To a man with the highest humanist values, Kurtz explains. "As humanist we believe in global ethics. That is exactly what you represent. Your decision to visit Bosnia has deeply impressed us. It is a unique project we applaud you for." Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok and Prof. Paul Kurtz at the book release ceremony
@ copyright photo's by Ilya van Marle
Wim Kok is warmly applauded by the congress. Kok thanks Kurtz for his kind words and takes the opportunity to congratulate the IHEU on its 50th anniversary. "I would like to pay tribute to the important contribution you have made to the international world. We are in the middle of the process of globalization. We must pay attention to neglected groups of people and to neglected values."

Rethinking our values is a necessity, Kok pleads. "We cannot stop the course of the world, but we can influence its course. What you have been doing the past 50 years has an influence. I want to say, continue on the same basis as you did before."

First Speaker: Mr. Pronk
'Globalization needs global values and global ethics.'
This morning's first keynote speech is by Mr. Jan Pronk on globalization and sustainability. The full text is to be found in appendix 3.

Summary speech
With the world summit in Johannesburg ahead of us in a few weeks time, Jan Pronk looks back on the past few decades. The nineteen-nineties brought economic wealth not only in the North, but also in the South, he says. But at the same time we saw conflicts emerge. The nineties became a period of transition more than development, of managing conflicts more than co-operation. The great new future which could be foreseen at the end of the Cold War, did not come to pass. Looking back we can say that we have missed many chances. To deal with poverty for instance. Still, one and a half billion people live on about one dollar a day. It is adding to frustration. It is adding to the feeling of neglect.

This is period of transition went parallel with globalization. Today you can't address to issues of importance without referring to globalization, which reflects a major change. Globalization may have some positive aspects, but it also has negative consequences. Many people have no aces to the resources of this new world. It is a system, though no one is in charge. People first fought exploitation, now they fight exclusion. And there are people that turn their back to that new system. The system responds in a defensive way. If we let it happen, the world summit will be about building a coalition against terrorism. Why not building a coalition for sustainability, for civilization, for accessibility and making it possible for all people to find a save place within that system? We could broaden globalization to other domains of our lives, to climate, bio-diversity, to social policy making, legal systems. It is possible, though difficult.

Globalization is a process that has to be addressed to on the basis of global ethics and global values. We all have our own traditions and histories. But it is possible to find a global system of ethics that combines our values with regard to the earth and with regard to people. Those values will help in future decision-making.

Change is inevitable, according to Pronk. The question however is: who is in charge of change? Make it public. The question is: make societies resilient to change, in order to keep a safe home for everybody. If not, frustration will prevail. If not, people will continue to turn their backs against a system which they do not consider to be their system. Globalization ought to be inclusive. In the interest of future generations as well as present generations.

That is what is at stake at the world conference in Johannesburg. Pronk says he keeps his fingers crossed, because present negotiations do not go very well. This is because of one particular major problem: past promises have not been kept. This asks for the value of credibility. Don't make a distinction between what you promise and what you are doing. And that is why the next world summit will be a summit dedicated to action. Implementation of past promises, that is what is at stake in Johannesburg. And I very much hope that gatherings such as yours will be a very important contribution to the new opinions and the new values.

Second Speaker: Ms. Butalia
Every society finds its own level of violence towards its women.
The speech of Ms. Urvashi Butalia is on violence and women's rights. The full text is to be found in appendix 4.

Summary speech
"I had no idea that there were so many humanists, or that so many of them were Indian," Butalia notices. "I come from a country that has just been on the brink of war. India and Pakistan, the two countries whose armies, till recently, stood eyeball to eyeball at our borders, share a common history. We speak the same language, wear the same clothes, eat the same food. All this, and more, would have gone. India and Pakistan are not the only countries facing such a crisis. Everywhere you look in the world today, there are new and different kinds of battles being fought. This is why, I think, it is particularly opportune that the International Humanist Congress is taking place at this moment."

A half century is in many ways an arbitrary figure, but it also offers a moment to think about the past and the future, Butalia finds. We must ask ourselves the central question: why is it that violence is becoming increasingly acceptable to so many of our societies? And, most
importantly, how and why have we allowed violence to become a way of both asserting difference and of suppressing it? The theme of this conference is: all equal, all different. And yet, it seems to me that as more and more people fight to assert their difference all over the world. As President Bush said: 'You are either with us or against us'. What gave him the right to make these rules?

No one knows better what it means to live with violence than women. Domestic violence is not the only form of violence women face, nor is India the only country in which such violence takes place. It is my belief - a conclusion I have come to after many years of working on women's issues, that every society in the world finds its own level of violence towards its women, and that those levels are in line with the cultural mores of that society. Whether it is domestic violence or the violence caused by anorexia nervosa, these different forms continue to keep women in a state of oppression.

"Before I came here," Butalia continues, "a Dutch journalist put a question to me about whether societies that have so much difference within them, whether class or religion or ethnicity, need to establish standards of uniformity if they are to reach their desired levels of humanity, or humanism. My answer would be that uniformity is not always the answer, for uniformity does not necessarily bring justice. Often it can mean the opposite. While we have to acknowledge that the political manipulation of difference has led to much violence all over the world, it is also true that it is this very difference that enriches our societies, makes them diverse and plural."

How then can we ensure that we retain our complex societies and ensure that the 'difference' that we value so much does not become a cause for conflict? That is one of the most important questions we need to pose today, Butalia says. "I have no answers to this question. But I do feel that one possible answer could lie in what we call culture. It is the culture of virtually every society in the world to recognize the essential humanity of human beings and to take that as the starting point of everything. Culture - combined with politics - is also what enables one nation, one culture, to feel superior to the other, whether it is on the basis of colour, or wealth or anything else. No matter how liberal European countries believe themselves to be, the truth is that even today a black or a brown face is assumed to be inferior in intelligence and upbringing. I cannot tell you how many times I am told how difficult it must be to be a feminist in India. The assumption behind that statement is that for such an oppressive society like India feminism must be something of a Western import. Nothing could be further from the truth: India is a country that is open, democratic, and rich in many things. It is a country in which, if you are middle class and educated like me, the sky is the limit. It is a country with one of the strongest women's movements in the world. It is a country that is different - not inferior - to the Netherlands, or to any other country in the Western world."

"Before I came to this Congress I was asked if I was a humanist. I responded by saying that I was - and am - a feminist. To me feminism means recognizing the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. As a woman, I have always done this, and have always expected it in return. If this is humanism, then feminism and humanism are close cousins. Together we can create a world which rejects violence and works for peace."

Third Seaker: An-Na'im
Every single person has to act, every single person counts.
The speech of Mr. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im is on the power of difference and the difference of power. The full text is to be found in appendix 5.

Summary speech
How can we all contribute to making more of the humanization of the world? That is the key question, according to An-Na'm. "And most of all, how to do that from our respective positions. Because we cannot expect people to abandon who they are, and where they come from, what they represent, and what their life means, in order to join our shared cause. That is my challenge here. The reality of our difference. I always quote the South African jurist who speaks about the right to be different and the right to be the same. And it is that paradox and challenge that I would like to pose to all fundamentalisms, including humanist fundamentalism."

An-Na'im brings the subject to September 11 and its aftermath. "I challenge both September 11 and October 7, the beginning of the American campaign in Afghanistan. I do not in any way imply that the United States had no cause for response, or no cause of justice. But I just question whether the course of action it has pursued is as a course of justice or a course of undermining the possibilities of justice between and within civilizations. But it is not an inevitable aftermath. It is an aftermath that came out of choices that are being made as we speak. And it is never too late to change those choices."

"The question for me is, as a Muslim, what do I do?," An-Na'im continues. "How do I challenge Islamic fundamentalists and how do I challenge Islamic jihad? And equally challenge American exceptionalism as undermining international legality?"

An-Na'im speaks of the power of difference and the difference in power. The power of difference and the difference in power is everywhere. It is not only between so-called East and West, North and South. It is not only between women and men, children and parents. It is also within this room. It is in everything that we do. It is everywhere. And it is actually that total understanding of the reality of difference, and of the difference in power, that should give us very clear guidelines and indications. Because very much I think for us the challenge in a conference of this magnitude is to reflect on practical strategies. Affirmation of shared values is a step in that direction. But we have to affirm and also to pursue practical and pragmatic strategies.

"Who is to act?" An-Na'im asks. "I would say, all of us. Every single person has to act, every single person counts. It is not a question of whether we are powerful or educated. It is a question that we are profoundly concerned. And we are concerned for ourselves, as well as for others. Where and how to act? I would say, at all levels. At the local, at the national, at the regional, and at the global level. There is, however, I think, a correspondence between power and responsibility. Those who have the resources, those who have the voices, have an added responsibility for that privilege, in diminishing the negative impact of differences in power."

"How to act? I say we all act by upholding the same values. Of respect for humanity. Of taking each other seriously. For accepting each other for who we are. That's why I challenge fundamentalist humanists that claims that religion cannot have a voice in the shaping of those values. In the least, I do not claim an exclusive role for religion. But I do say that religion, for believers, has a critical role to play. And we have to acknowledge the humanity of believers, as well as challenging believers for their inhumanity."

Those values can only be upheld through accountability, An-Na'im believes. Whether it is the United Nations or the national government you hold accountable. Those of you who are in this part of the world have to act to uphold those values. Whether it is the United Nations or the European Union or your national politics. It goes all the way to your family and your community. Always. After all, how can a superpower like the United States have a foreign policy so irresponsible? Except through the failure of the American public to hold its government accountable.

If we cannot challenge each other on values of humanity, of decency, of respect for human life and self-determination, nothing will change for the better, An-Na'im finds. "And, of course, ultimately it is a question of how can we claim these values for ourselves, when we deny them to others. That is the scale of the challenge I would like to pose. But ultimately for me, as a Muslim, as a believer, the challenge is to my own religion, to my own tradition. What you can do is support me in that challenge and to undertake your country's challenge to your respective demons. We all have our demons."

Fourth speaker: Mr. Buitenweg
Secular humanism is the foundation of human rights.
This morning's last keynote speech is by Mr. Rob Buitenweg on humanism and human rights. The full text is to be found in appendix 6.

Summary speech
"Fifty years ago, hope pervaded the world," Buitenweg commences. "Hope that after the horrible events of the Second World War, a new international order could be established that would promote a humane world. Since that date the world indeed has changed, but not unambiguously for the better. It looks like fundamentalism is gaining ground, terror, wars, genocide and armed conflicts strike the world, the gap between the rich and poor is widening, many people die from hunger, millions of children and women are exploited and bereft of hope for a dignified life."

What can the IHEU offer this world in the twenty-first century? Buitenweg states that organized humanism is confronted with a two-fold task: to continue making a stand against fundamentalist and intolerant religious beliefs. We should unmask the irrational illusions of dogmatic religions. And humanists should dedicate themselves to the defence and promotion of humanism and the rights of humanists. During the last fifty years we have fought and won many battles in this field. Still much more needs to be done.

The domain of humanism is human dignity. Buitenweg explains. "Our aim is human development, the expansion of human freedom and well-being. Our ideal is a humane world with universal human rights."

There is a crisis in human rights though, Buitenweg underlines. There has been the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and many international declarations since. The crisis I am referring to regards the lack of real acceptance of human rights. The point is that despite this formal, general endorsement human rights are not whole-heartedly, generally supported.

Some countries only accept a selection of human rights. For instance, many Western countries embrace freedom rights. like freedom of religion or to freedom of association, but some neglect socio-economic rights, like the right to adequate housing, or to health care. On the other hand many non-Western countries lay the emphasis on socio-economic rights, but are less in favour of freedom rights. The question we have to answer then is, how can we achieve a situation in which all people whole-heartedly accept all human rights?

And it is here that humanism comes in, because it is generally assumed that human rights are founded on a secular humanism. "Secular humanism is the foundation of human rights. We humanists, can accept this foundation as in agreement with our beliefs. But can other people accept secular humanism as in agreement with their fundamental beliefs? Here, a basic question arises: Can we expect people of other life-stances or religions to accept the humanism of human rights, whereas at the same time maintaining that humanism is an alternative life stance to religion? I think, we can."

In order to do so it is important to be aware that the humanist tree has two branches, Buitenweg says. "Let me call them an existential branch and a socio-ethical branch. The existential branch of humanism focuses on the question of the meaning of life. It contains a morality of a good and meaningful life. The socio-ethical branch of humanism has a slightly different concern. It is less concerned about the morality of a good life as a morality of a humane society. It tries to give an answer to the question of how people of varied and different life-stances can enable one another to lead a dignified life. This socio-ethical humanism is the moral foundation of human rights."

These branches of humanism are congenial but nevertheless distinguishable, and it is only by being aware of this distinction that we can expect people of other life-stances or religions to accept the humanism of human rights, whereas at the same time maintaining that humanism is an alternative life stance to religion. We do not want others to accept the existential branch of humanism. We do not want them to renounce their faith. We do accept that they belief in God. But we do hope that they are prepared to accept the values of the socio-ethical branch of the humanist tree, the humanism that underlies human rights. If they do, they will be motivated to whole-heartedly accept human rights. We, humanists, should take the lead in initiating this debate and in reaching universal agreement on these values. We have a special responsibility we cannot neglect. After all, it is humanist values that underlie human rights.

"If we want to be sincere and honest, and taken seriously as partners in a dialogue, we should be prepared to reflect on our existential values," Buitenweg warns. "Take, for instance, our values of autonomy and freedom. Do we put too much emphasis on these values, maybe to the detriment of other values underlying human rights, like well-being, solidarity, human development, health? Could that emphasis on autonomy and freedom have contributed to freedom rights being highly valued and socio-economic rights being neglected? And take for instance our important value of equality. Could we have put too much emphasis on that, to the detriment of a value like diversity? With the result that the specific needs of women, minority groups, indigenous people have been overlooked? Whereas we should know that the opposite of equality is not diversity but inequality, and that the opposite of diversity is not equality but uniformity."

"We should initiate a debate on human and humanist values, underlying human rights, with the aim of reaching common ground," Buitenweg concludes. "We may expect participants, and also ourselves, to be prepared to engage in a real dialogue. After all, human dignity is at stake."


back to top During Lunch: Broadcasting company HUMAN is interviewing some of the participants
Daily there was a 15-minute report on Dutch television
@ copyright photo's by Ilya van Marle