View previous stories
	Faith for Rights by UN Office for Human Rights   The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has launched an initiative on “Faith for Rights” with an expert workshop held in Beirut. The initiative provides space for a cross-disciplinary reflection on the deep, and mutually enriching, connections between religions and human rights. The objective is to foster the development of peaceful societies, which uphold human dignity and equality for all and where diversity is not just tolerated but fully respected and celebrated.   The High Commissioner highlighted that religious leaders are potentially very important human rights actors in view of their considerable influence on the hearts and minds of millions of people. The 2012 Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence already laid out some of religious leaders’ core responsibilities against incitement to hatred.   Expanding those responsibilities to the full spectrum of human rights, the faith-based and civil society actors participating at the OHCHR workshop in March 2017 adopted the Beirut Declaration and its 18 commitments on “Faith for Rights”.   Beirut Declaration   The Beirut Declaration considers that all believers – whether theistic, non-theistic, atheistic or other – should join hands and hearts in articulating ways in which “Faith” can stand up for “Rights” more effectively so that both enhance each other. Individual and communal expression of religions or beliefs thrive and flourish in environments where human rights are protected. Similarly, human rights can benefit from deeply rooted ethical and spiritual foundations provided by religions or beliefs.   Rather than focusing on theological and doctrinal divides, the Beirut Declaration favours the identification of common ground among all religions and beliefs to uphold the dignity and equal worth of all human beings.   The Beirut Declaration reaches out to persons belonging to religions and beliefs in all regions of the world, with a view to enhancing cohesive, peaceful and respectful societies on the basis of a common action-oriented platform which is open to all actors that share its objectives.   18 commitments on “Faith for Rights”   Linked to the Beirut Declaration are 18 commitments on “Faith for Rights”, with corresponding follow-up actions. These include the commitments:   To prevent the use of the notion of “State religion” to discriminate against any individual or group; to revisit religious interpretations that appear to perpetuate gender inequality and harmful stereotypes or even condone gender-based violence.   To stand up for the rights of all persons belonging to minorities. To publicly denounce all instances of advocacy of hatred that incites to violence, discrimination or hostility. To monitor interpretations, determinations or other religious views that manifestly conflict with universal human rights norms and standards.   To refrain from oppressing critical voices and to urge States to repeal any existing anti-blasphemy or anti-apostasy laws. To refine the curriculums, teaching materials and textbooks; and to engage with children and youth who are either victims of or vulnerable to incitement to violence in the name of religion.   * 18 commitments on “Faith for Rights”: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Press/21451/18CommitmentsonFaithforRights.pdf Visit the related web page
	Should former colonial powers pay reparations for the Atlantic slave trade? by Ayesha Bell Hardaway New York Times   October 2015   During UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s visit to Jamaica last week, he was confronted by an old, complicated moral question: Should a country pay reparations to its former colony for slavery? When Jamaica’s prime minister, Portia Simpson Miller, brought up the topic, Mr. Cameron said he hoped the two countries could “move on from this painful legacy, and continue to build for the future.”   Should former colonial powers pay reparations for the Atlantic slave trade? The New York Times, Room for Debate follows the discussion.   The Case for International Reparations for Slavery is Moral and Lawful, argues Ayesha Bell Hardaway, a former litigator for Tucker Ellis, and a visiting assistant law professor at Case Western Reserve University.   Demands for reparations for the horrific abuses and exploitation suffered by Africans and their descendants during slavery have been routinely rejected.   Prime Minister David Cameron recently refused to even apologize for Great Britain’s role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the perpetuation of slavery in colonial Jamaica.   Cameron’s awkward attempt to acknowledge the atrocities of slavery while not apologizing was riddled with double-talk reminiscent of similar attempts made by presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The glaring absence of an official apology is bad enough. The abdication of governmental responsibility is even worse when accompanied by patronizing statements about the resilience of those who endured slavery and the purported need for each nation to “heal” or “move on” from the past.   Nevertheless, leaders of the United States and the United Kingdom continue to ignore that much of the wealth enjoyed by their countries, and their white majorities, originated from the profits gained through the trans-Atlantic slave trade and chattel slavery. Indeed, one of Cameron’s ancestors received compensation estimated at a current value of $4.6 million for the “loss of human property” when Britain finally abolished slavery in Jamaica.   There is one important difference between the case for reparations in America and the case in Jamaica. In the United States, the government still in power once supported slavery, and the right to reparations would involve domestic law. The United States owes reparations to African-Americans, my research shows, because it breached a fiduciary duty under American common law. The Freedmen’s Bureau was established after the Civil War to assume custody of confiscated Confederate property as well as to assume responsibility for negotiating and enforcing wages for the benefit of former slaves. The failure of the Bureau to perform those duties and its subsequent closing in 1872 serves as a concrete example of the breach.   The Jamaican demand for compensation involves recompense from a previously colonized nation to its former colonizer, triggering international law. Any claims made by Jamaica against Britain would raise issues of sovereignty that could present significant challenges to any litigation.   Despite the different sources of law, an equitable remedy to the damages caused by slavery in both the United States and Jamaica would be lawful and morally appropriate. Countries should no longer have the option to side-step the damage caused by the system of white supremacy, oppression and exploitation that slavery imposed on its immediate victims and, in many ways, continues to impose on their descendants.   * Access the link below for more views, see also Uncomfortable silences: anti-slavery, colonialism and imperialism, by Joel Quirk: http://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/joel-quirk/uncomfortable-silences-anti-slavery-colonialism-and-imperialism Visit the related web page
	View more stories