As I was reading the Magna Carta tonight, I drifted through memories of medieval movies where average people really never had rights, lived in permanent fright over debts, fees and inheritances and social inequalities were severely deep. I could easily see Cate Blanchet or Jeremy Irons performing in this “movie,” where only laws and obligations were stated and I could only identify one possible “ human right.”

“No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

I am inclined to say that the exquisite, yet intangible, language used in this Magna Carta was a strategy to keep the “people” and the poor uninformed and very confused. At the end, the letter only shows concern for the needs of the Crown and the Church, focused on taxing those working the land after several wordy paragraphs that I think I understood only 40 per cent of.

Thus, it is remarkable to notice how little importance women had at that time. Notification (which sounded more like permission) to the authorities to re-marry was needed for widows and women had no right to ask for the imprisonment of anyone but her husband or free access to her inheritance. But years have passed, and are women any more supported than before? Maybe in some cases and regions, but women as a group, continue to face higher percentages of poverty and violence than any man.

There are basically three broader terms in which I see the documents connected. The first one is their dependence of the historical context from which they emanated. Although, rights are often described as abstract and legal entities, there is a sense in which those legal and abstract entities are tied to specific historical contexts. In other words, most of the declarations of rights are preceded by the wrongs that prompted their existence. The other point is that although there are constant references to the universality of rights, that universality is dependent upon the acknowledgement and responsibility of States and once one of those States refuses to comply, the supposed universality and self-evidence of the mentioned rights is questioned. The third point is that it is almost unavoidable to see the declarations of rights as rules of chess, or rules that should be followed inasmuch as one wants to play a certain game; the game of life in community one could argue.

1- Most of the declarations of rights seem to be tied to specifically historical contexts, like the Magna Carta, the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Even when those historical contexts are made explicit as in the case of the Magna Carta or the US declaration or when they are made implicit, as in the Canadian Charter, those texts are more like road maps, a plan which dwells on the reasons for its existence, a point of departure, a wrong that they are meant to redress.

Usually when people talk about rights, one thinks of a fairly abstract figure to which one only appeals when one does not have rights; however, reading those declarations of rights one after the other brought to light the fact that none of them can escape their local specificity. If rights are so self-evident, why each of those declarations dwells so much on the conditions of their coming to light? Sometimes when one reads constitutional documents there is a point at which it is really difficult to see  the ‘nationality’ of the document. It may refer to previous laws, or constitutional amendments, but there are not historical references in the text. But in most of the declarations of rights, there are historical references done through the text that locate it historically, either through an overt exposition of the context as in the case of the Magna Carta, or through an acknowledged of a quarrel, which the text is meant to correct.

In the particular case of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms it is truth that there is not implicit reference in the body of the text about the social tensions that the text is trying to resolve. Perhaps because of that lack of reference, perhaps due to a lack of knowledge of the context in which the Charter is written, the sections on language tend to be seen as obscure and unnecessary. However, when one looks closely at the historical context, one could argue that the Charter is a piece of a broader intent within Canadian politics to try to ground the legal basis that could unite the country to something other than its dependency to the British Crown. But not only to unite into something other than the consciousness of a colony; at the same time the Charter wanted to integrate the demands of the Quebec population, which had served as the argument for their interest in independence. In other words, most of the provisions on language in the Charter, are a response to the complaints from the Quebecois about their perceived threats to the existence of their language and it is that context that the text is written. So even if the context is manifestly put forward as in the case of the Magna Carta, even within the legal abstractness in which rights are written, those rights are tied to historical contexts that determined them.

2- Declarations of rights are dependent upon the states that are supposed to enforce that universality. So they are not so much universal, they are only pretended to be universal, but that universality is only attained through the compliance of each State and as soon as one of those States decides to transgress the act of faith that rights entail, there is a conundrum and a whole ethical debate about how to resolve the violation of rights. In other words, declarations of rights are statements of good faith that are dependable on the good faith of the signatories. Perhaps that is one of the biggest difficulties of rights; they are too grandiose to be declared and too feeble to be enforced.

3- To a certain extent I cannot avoid thinking of rights as one thinks of the rules of chess. Certain rules that one is supposed to follow in order to “play” a “proper game”, but there are instances when a proper game is not precisely what is sought and there seems to be shortage of alternatives to enforce those proper rules of play, once one of the players decides not to abide by those rules. Sure it could be argued that diplomacy and moral coercion can eventually serve the purpose of persuade the non-complying states to agree with the ‘universal’ declarations of rights, but history is full of examples where neither diplomacy, not moral coercion have been enough to guarantee the universality of human rights.

This was my first time reading many of these documents. Although aware in some form of all of them I think the diversity among them attests to the fact that an individual’s interpretations of “rights” varies both in time and in place. The evolution of human/ white male/elitist thought through these declarations would be an interesting point to analyse. While the earlier declarations pertain to a specific segment of the population (white, property-owning and Christian males) the later declarations are very inclusive of all segments of the population. Similarly, while the former declarations, like the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights up till the French Declaration of the Rights of Man the majority of the “rights” are portrayed as economic rights.

While this has been seen as a criticism by many I think that this is an interesting point to dwell on. It would be more conducive to creating a more just society if more of the human rights declarations were to focus more specifically on resource rights and legal rights. For although the notion of “rights” has become more abstract, I think it does boil down to a discussion about entitlement. If people are secure in their knowledge that they have a right to a specific resource, they will conserve it, conserve the people that manage it and secure their well being.

For me of particular interest was the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. The article I researched was about a Vancouver based mining company that has bought land on a reserve in Mexico that is considered by the Huichol people of the area to be one of their holiest sites and is a significant cultural and traditional landmark. This is completely against the provincial and federal law as well as against the UN declaration which states:

Article 8

1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;

(…)

If these were considered more property rights than human rights and embedded more strongly in the legal system of Mexico maybe this wouldn’t happen? Or maybe it is our job to stand up to the Vancouver-based mining company (First Majestic Silver Corp, 925 West Georgia Street #1805, Vancouver, BC V6C 3L2  (604) 688-3033 () ‎ · firstmajestic.com )

If you want to learn more about this issue, there is a silent auction fundraiser and information session at the Anza Club on October 13^th at 8pm that will show a documentary and have a discussion session with a key Huichol leader.