In Guyana the government must be clear what human rights mean to people

December 10th is celebrated as International Human Rights Day. This year’s celebration is marked by a debate about the real meaning of human rights; this is so, because governments in some countries continue to make a mockery of human rights by either willful enforcement or cynically watering-down the basic tenets of human rights, eventually forcing natural rights versus human rights to take centre stage. In this regard, it is not surprising that the demand for a deeper and a more meaningful understanding of how human rights should be interpreted, has taken the form of mass protest demonstrations by peoples around the world. The natural rights issue has manifested itself in a global movement opposed to being vaccinated against the deadly CORONA virus. Guyana is among the countries of the world with a section of its populace who have adopted this stand. The ‘anti-vaxists’ as they are described, oppose being vaccinated on the grounds that it is their natural right to decide what medicines should, or should not, be injected into their body. To them, forced vaccination is contrary to their natural rights.

The stand taken by the vaccine opponents has become a universal phenomenon, giving rise to the emergence of a global contest between those who stand in defence of fundamental human rights, and those who stand in defense of their natural rights. We now live in a world inhabited by the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. It is this situation that has led some world leaders to vacillate between living with a sagging economy, as against a total or partial shutdown, or, to keep their economies open and to take steps to protect the rest of society by imposing draconian laws which, in effect, deny their populace certain basic rights and, as some claim, their natural rights.

One way or another, the risk taken by those leaders to invest in public trust resulted in a backlash that impacted the vaccinated, the unvaccinated, and their economies in different ways. The soaring number of cases and deaths in the US and Europe is testimony to this backlash. Thus, we have our constitutional rights juxtaposed with our natural rights that cannot be repealed, such as the right to have a family, to own property, to practice religion, to question government, and to have independent thought. As we mark this year’s international Human Rights Day, we must take stock and ask ourselves what really constitutes human rights in these times. Have we reached the zenith for the window dressing actions by governments in some countries, where the people’s fundamental human rights are trampled upon? Thus the question - is the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights outdated? After seventy years of its existence, should it not be updated to be more responsive to the new threats and manifestations of abuses affecting mankind? As we peer through the human rights looking glass, we observe people the world over, mirroring Marley’s ‘Buffalo Soldier’ and who are fighting for survival and making demands for upholding their basic human rights and justice. In a number of countries, people in pursuit of their fundamental rights are demanding that they be heard; they demand the right to life, above all, the right to have a government of their choice.

Here in Guyana, we have our own unique experience of the significance of that basic human right to elect a government of the people’s choice and what it costs to protect that fundamental right. Moreover, in the context of good governance and, in the pursuit of happiness, people want impartial police investigations, they want greater protection from domestic violence and hate crimes, they want speedy trials, since to them ‘justice delayed is justice denied.’ People want an end to child labour, they want access to the internet, and they want transparency and accountability in governance and in awarding of contracts. They want truthful answers to their questions. Finally, they want the utilization of best practices for employment in public service. In its relationship with the private sector, governments must ensure that while UN human rights principles are not mandatory, nor binding on the private sector, captains of industry must demonstrate their commitment to uphold the rights and entitlements of their employees as expressions of their commitment to good corporate citizenship. In the meanwhile, wherever applicable, the Courts should reconsider their commitment to upholding the ‘Avoidance Strategy’ when dealing with obligations inherent in the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which is viewed as declaratory, and not enforceable in law. It for this reason, that when we talk about human rights nowadays, governments must be clear what it means to people. In other words, governments must ensure that human rights are translated from mere declarations to a living reality, through the delivery of tangible benefits with matching rights that improve the lives of people. Sincerely,

Clement J. Rohee