On February 22, Professor Alison Renteln of the University of Southern California spoke during the seventh installment of the Sanela Diana Jenkins Speaker Series hosted by the Program on Human Rights at the Stanford Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. During her lecture entitled, "The Right to Culture as a Human Right: Law in a Multicultural World," Renteln challenged the universality of human rights, a claim previously debated by prior series' speakers.

Assessing the "monocultural paradigm of human rights," Renteln argued in favor of what she termed the human right to practice and enjoy one's culture. She maintained that legal systems must protect this fundamental human right by allowing defendants to employ a "cultural defense" and to voice relevant cultural motivations during court proceedings. She cited three main instances in which such a cultural defense has been used: to lessen the sentence in criminal cases, to be granted exemption from a policy, or to receive additional compensation when an abuse disproportionately affects a person because of cultural considerations.

Renteln presented recent court cases in both Canada and the United States brought against members of the Sikh faith. A central tenet of the Sikh faith is to wear the kirpan, a dagger that must constantly be carried on the person of all Sikhs. Renteln contested that in these cases, the courts must respect the cultural meaning of the kirpan, symbol of non-violence or ahimsa, and grant Sikhs the right to uphold their cultural tradition. With this example, Renteln demonstrated how courts must "make room for culture" in the evidence presented during the case.

Renteln concluded with a discussion on the hierarchy of cultural rights and other forms of human rights. For example, she questioned whether the Amish's right to practice their culture superseded the right of all Amish children to be educated. In her consideration of more questionable and often heatedly debated practices, she proposed that no cultural practice that inflicts "irreparable harm" on individuals should be allowed or supported. However, she admitted that defining practices which violate this standard can often be difficult.

On February 15, Professor John Tasioulas of the Faculty of Law at University College London spoke during the sixth session of the Sanela Diana Jenkins Speaker Series hosted by the Program on Human Rights at Stanford's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. A former Reader of Moral and Legal Philosophy at Oxford, Tasioulas discussed the moral philosophy that underpins human rights.

In his presentation entitled "The Justification of Human Rights," Tasioulas argued that the contemporary notion of human rights cannot be seen solely as a political movement, but instead must be considered from a moral perspective. Tasioulas defined human rights as "natural rights," possessed by all humans by virtue of their humanity and discovered through ordinary moral reasoning.  

Because the philosophical core of human rights is derived from the very fact that one is human, he argued that there is universality to this doctrine. Tasioulas contested that moral philosophy behind human rights provides the language and understanding with which society can distinguish between the so-called "good guys" and human rights violators or "bad guys."

Tasioulas argued that this moral basis of human rights provides a better and clearer understanding of what are and what are not human rights. He highlighted the confusion between human rights and human interests often seen in policy-making and academic literature. For example, he underscored that there is a difference between the human right to water and the human interest, or desire, for freedom of speech. While allowing that this served as an exaggerated example, he highlighted the importance of differentiating between human interests - that which makes life better - and human rights - that which is guaranteed to all humans.

At their core, he claimed, human rights are the result of the moral understanding of right and wrong - an understanding that can improve the lives of many around the world.   

On Sunday February 20, Morocco experienced its first encounter with the wave of democratic change that has been sweeping across the Arab world. In each of several major cities, tens of thousands of Moroccans demonstrated for the same kinds of demands that we have seen elsewhere: to replace arbitrary and absolute uses of power with real, open democracy, to end the corruption and clientalism that stifles economic life, and to assert the rights of citizens to be treated with dignity and respect and to have a decent life for themselves and their families. Like these other demonstrations, those in Morocco also give us a glimpse of a new kind of movement -- one that brings together disaffected youth, impoverished working people, Islamists, traditional political dissidents, human rights groups, and others, in a kind of "leaderless" movement without a fixed ideological agenda. Unlike some other movements, the Moroccan demonstrations were predominately oriented toward reform, not overthrow; they did not attack the person of the King or the institution of the monarchy, and - what is most likely to keep them on that path - they were not met with brutal repression.

It would be possible for the regime to ignore what this means - there, after all, is no occupation of a central square to contend with. It would be better, however, for everyone to heed what it means - there is, clearly, a widespread, persistent discontent, affecting a broad swath of the populace. We have only seen the beginning of a process through which that discontent will manifest itself and find its political expression. How things develop from here is not known or predictable, and will depend on how the different forces react and interact going forward, but, in the present context, it is unlikely that expressions of that discontent will simply disappear. 

The welcome lack of bloody conflict has produced a curious uncertainty on both sides, a kind of double-double-bind situation that seems good for everyone: for the movement, the lack of fierce confrontation and overly radical demands helps legitimize the protest, and may make more people comfortable with and in it; but it may also be perceived as a sign of weakness. For the regime, the avoidance of brutal repression redounds to its credit, but it may also embolden the movement and help it grow. Neither side should underestimate the complexity of the pas de deux in which they are now engaged. For the regime, especially, to react with complacency and condescension - treating this movement as something that can either be ignored or absorbed in the usual ways, would be a very risky bet.

Much more productive, and much smarter, would be to heed the message of this movement - which, right now, is nothing else than to recapture the spirit of the new reign of Mohammed VI that the country had twelve years ago, to restart a hopeful process that so many feel has been rudely interrupted and replaced with disappointing new versions of business-as-usual. We started with the Justice and Reconciliation Authority (IER) and a promise of a new era of justice and accountability, and have arrived instead, post-16 May, with new waves of mass arrests, anti-"Islamist" fear-mongering, torture, and rendition [sous-traitance]. We started with a new era of freedom of the press, and have arrived at a state of censorship and legal harassment that has closed much of the independent press, and silenced or driven into exile many of its strongest voices. We began with a promise of economic transparency, and have ended in a state of economic predation, conducted by lobbies and vested interests in the name of the monarchy. We began with alternance, welcoming opposition parties and political dissidents into a new era of open democracy, and have passed through technocratic fixes to arrive at a return to "political normalcy," only to be undermined by ad-hoc commissions. The latest "new" political stratagem is a frankly royalist party, which may accrue more power to the monarchy in the short term, but, by bringing it further down into the arena of day-to-day political infighting, undermines the legitimacy it was recently accorded by all actors.

In short, many feel that the hopes and promises - the very spirit -- of the new reign have been abandoned. This is because they were not subject to a participatory process of constitutionalization and institutionalization, which is the only way that would have become permanent and irreversible. They were instead, once again, left discretionary. The monarchy has not submitted to a new, viable contract with the people. What the movement of February 20 is telling us is that these hopes and promises -- these rights -- can't be discretionary anymore. We have to return to them, and quickly begin a process that people can see is making them fixed and irrevocable. We have, that is, to revive and recast the spirit of the new reign with new urgency -- because there are new actors on the political stage who won't go away. Our nation has been put on notice: Change must and will come, and it will not be top-down anymore.  The commander [commandant de bord] now has a co-pilot, the Moroccan people, who will not fall asleep at the wheel.

On February 8, the Program on Human Rights' at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law welcomed Madeleine Rees to speak as part of the Sanela Diana Jenkins Human Rights Series. A former UN High Commissioner on Human Rights in Bosnia, Rees now serves as the Secretary General of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) based in Geneva.

Recounting her experience in the Balkans, Rees described the failure of international organizations to properly consider the role of gender in their work. Specifically, she highlighted the UN and other organizations' inability to control rampant human trafficking in the Balkans. According to Rees, human trafficking continues to undermine women's sense of security and societal rehabilitation efforts. To remedy social insecurity in post-conflict areas, Rees suggested that international projects must comprehensively and collaboratively address the problems in these societies, especially the conditions that the most vulnerable women face.

In this same vein, Rees declared a need for greater collaboration among women's rights NGO's, human rights institutions, universities and activists. She discussed the need to break down the barriers that exist between these stakeholders. She also emphasized the role of universities like Stanford to disseminate information and conduct research that helps organizations like WILPF to succeed. Noting the daunting challenges ahead, Rees concluded by reaffirming her commitment to the fight for human rights, saying, "The good thing about being a naïve idealist is that we don't give up."

On February 1, James Cavallaro, Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard and Executive Director of Harvard Law School's Program on Human Rights, spoke at the fifth installment of the Sanela Diana Jenkins Speaker Series hosted by the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law's Program on Human Rights.

While much of Cavallaro's research has focused on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, his talk focused on his experience working on human rights issues in Brazil. Recounting stories from when he helped establish offices for Human Rights Watch in Brazil, Cavallaro raised the question of why human rights has not caught nearly as much traction in Brazil as in its South American neighbors.

To explain this "Brazilian exceptionalism" with regard to human rights, Cavallaro highlighted the persistently high crime rates that continue to plague Brazilian society. According to Cavallaro, Brazilian police are the worst human rights violators and have been known to torture suspects, employing apparatuses like the Parrot's Perch, and to use firearms and force indiscriminately. However, these violations of human rights agreements are tolerated in Brazil because the general population considers a hard stance on crime necessary to maintain order and to keep crime rates from rising to the levels seen during the early 1990s. Cavallaro noted that when people are forced to weigh their personal security against the rights' of others, people's self-interest almost always take precedence.

However, Cavallaro said that human rights in Brazil could be at a crossroads of sorts. He pointed out that how police forces handle security issues when Brazil hosts both the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympic games could potentially mark the course for future human rights advancement or prolonged stagnancy in Brazil. He suggested that these events, during which Brazil's economic development and national pride will be on display, could serve to professionalize the police force and redefine the boundaries of appropriate action. Unfortunately, he said, the likelihood of such a shift in norms is unlikely to develop in the few years before these events.