No cause can justify the abuse of human rights. – Dr Irene Khan, former secretary general of Amnesty International.
The Sir Winston Scott Memorial Lecture has traditionally attracted capacity attendance at its venue, the Frank Collymore Hall, Tom Adams Financial Centre. After 35 years the interest has not waned. Both the profile of the presenters and the topical nature of the themes explain the sustained interest in the series.
This year’s topic seemed to have attracted keen interest as the hall was packed to capacity. I suspect that some persons had to be turned away.
The theme Why Freedom Matters: Challenges And Opportunities For Human Rights In The 21st Century seemed timely. The presenter Dr Irene Khan, as a former secretary general of an organisation that claims a membership of 2.8 million members, seemed to have matched the stature and esteem of the man whose name the lecture commemorates.
The Central Bank of Barbados must be commended for maintaining this tradition of excellence for which it is known in other areas.
When a former head of Amnesty International (AI) speaks about freedom and human rights, in terms of challenges and opportunities in the 21st century, a heightened sense of expectancy is anticipated.
The organisation, of which the presenter was the secretary general in 2001, has attracted its own level of controversy and the twin issue of human rights and freedom evoke its own contradiction. It is interesting to hear Dr Khan conceding the human rights landscape is filled with contradictions.
It was my expectation that any presenter on such a provocative theme would bring a measure of balance to bear on the analysis. The universal desirability of freedom and human rights is unquestioned.
The cause for which Dr Khan fights is a desirable one and I endorse her sentiments that ‘no cause can justify the abuse of human rights’. Dr Khan’s presentation was short and well delivered.
Dr Khan touched on the issue of poverty, which she sees not just as a social or economic problem but one of human rights. While one might accept this perspective, where it is lacking is her failure to suggest how we might resolve the problem of poverty at the global level. How would she go about redistributing the world’s wealth as a means of eradicating poverty? Can Dr Khan tell us how?
The battle she has been waging against violence against women, is a laudable one that deserves the support of all countries around the world. But there is sense in which her perspective on this matter did not reflect the progress that we in Barbados have made on this issue.
Yes, Dr Khan, in Morocco, Spain, Mexico, Guatemala and in the United States with regard to the violence against native American women your perspective is pertinent.
Her perspective did not reflect the tremendous strides we have made in Barbados and in this region. The fact is that the international activist cannot speak of violence against women in Bangladesh and in Barbados and the Caribbean in the same breath.
On the issue of the death penalty, I remain uncomfortable with Amnesty International’s position on this matter. At the same time, I continue to be peeved over the view prevalent among human rights proponents who are preoccupied with the right of the criminals to life but less with the plight of the victims of crime and the families who suffer the chronic repercussions of loss.
I further challenge their position on capital punishment. While AI is celebrating its success in convincing governments to rethink execution of the death penalty, the position is flawed. Can Dr Khan and the proponents of human rights accept that it was never intended to be a deterrent? Can they accept that the death penalty is a punishment for the crime of murder? It was never intended to cure crime.
It was pleasant to listen to her views on these issues but the position taken on the key issues was not generally pertinent to us in the region. She spoke as one not sufficiently knowledgeable about the particularities of human rights landscape in this part of the world. The few personal anecdotes that a few individuals with their own agendas ‘threw up’ in the Frank Collymore Hall, might have given Dr. Khan a distorted sense of our reality.
The presence of the Attorney General Hon. Adriel Brathwaite could have been used to correct the warped impression that Barbados is a police state. It is hoped that both the Royal Barbados Police Force and the office of the Attorney General will do some critical damage control.
While I have no particular brief for the police, rumours aside, I contend that our human rights record in Barbados render us a model for the many parts of the world. Can Dr. Khan tell us how we rank?
This is where there seemed to been an ‘amnesty’ in her perspective on a number of these issues as they relate to Barbados and the Caribbean, including her stance which was ridiculous.
• Matthew D. Farley is a secondary school principal, chairman of the National Forum On Education, and a social commentator. Email [email protected]
