[hr-education] Re: Working definition of HRE

Dear Members,

In January and February, list members discussed what the essence of human
rights education should be, how it relates to different conceptions of
human rights, and how this consequently affects our work as human rights
educators. Many members have asked whether it would be possible to present
highlights of this discussion. This message is an attempt to summarise our
interesting and enriching discussion.

We hope that this summary accurately represents the key points made by the
contributors -- listserv members from 15 countries. We would also like to
recognise that there were members whose contributions were not posted on
the list, either because their ideas had already been presented by someone
else or because of a lack of space.

In the spirit of the discussion, we are treating this summary as a "living
document" and we encourage your responses. One listserv member observed:  
"[t]his conversation among listserv members would in itself be an
excellent tool for transformative, systemic HRE".

------------

SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION ON A WORKING DEFINITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION 
(HRE)

The discussion started on 24 December 2001 with a message from SHULA
KOENIG (People's Movement for Human Rights Education, PDHRE), who -- as
part of an inspiring new year's message -- shared a working definition of
human rights education and a human rights educator. She wrote: "A human
rights educator is a person - a woman or a man - who is capable of evoking
critical thinking and systemic analysis, with a gender perspective, with
the learners...-- learning to analyze situations within a holistic
framework of human rights about political, civil, economic, social and
cultural concern relevant to the learners lives..-- to result in a sense
of ownership of human rights...-- leading to equal participation in the
decision that determine our lives and taking actions to claim them." And
she continued:  "One could also say the same about HRE: Human rights
education for social and economic transformation is a process of learning
that evokes critical thinking and systemic analysis, with a gender
perspective, with the learners...-- women and men learning to analyze
their situations within a holistic framework of human rights about
political, civil, economic, social and cultural concern relevant to the
learners lives..-- to result in a sense of ownership of human rights...--
leading to equal participation in the decision that determine our lives
and taking actions to claim them."

HANNEMAN SAMUEL of the University of Indonesia was the first list member
to engage in the discussion by presenting four levels of human rights
awareness, based on a study by the Philippine Normal University Research
Centre (1987). He wrote: "Level I (Submission and self denial):  
unconditional and uncritical submission to violations of human rights.  
Level II (Passivity/Lack of Interest): reflecting awareness of human
rights, but there is a refusal or lack of interest to assert these rights
out of fear, risk to oneself, inability to relate to oneself's human
rights violations on others, or lack of understanding of the social,
economic, and political conditions giving rise to the violations of these
rights.  Variants of level II: Defeatism - reflecting submission to and
tolerance of difficulties as if the objective conditions generating human
rights are unchangeable and therefore beyond the individual to alter.  
Dependence/opportunism - reflecting dependence on others for the promotion
and defense of human rights due to lack of perceived direct personal
benefit. Level III (Limited Initiative): reflecting the exercise of human
rights, the prevention or seeking redress of their violations through
commonly accepted ways like filing complaints to the proper authorities.  
Level IV (Militance, Independence, Initiative): reflecting conscious,
active, and independent defense of human rights through organised
collective efforts, or through perceived individual need."

SLADJANA KOCEVSKA of the Serbian NGO "Children's Happiness" reminded us of
the mission of educators. "I think that learning about human rights is a
long term process that has to begin at an early stage of human
development.  Beginning with early childhood, children need to learn that
they have rights, to learn what rights they have and how to respect them."
She continues: "We have to start helping children learn about human rights
in order to develop responsible, tolerant and reasonable adults who can
analyse many different situations in political, economic, social and other
fields of human existence, and who can make a proper decision that
respects human rights."

JENNY LUCK, HRE Coordinator at Amnesty International's International
Secretariat, warned that amidst the call for more training courses for
human rights educators, it is important to realise that planning and
conducting such courses is not easy an easy task: "There is often a huge
gap between people's […] understanding of the theory of human rights and
the reality of putting it into practice in our daily lives and the broader
community. Maybe a definition of HR Educators should also mention the need
to empower people to bridge this gap. In all our societies around the
world human rights violations are not just a problem on a national or
international level but also on a local level and in day-to-day activities
and attitudes, both in the formal and informal sectors." In order to be
able to empower, educators need to acquire special skills. Jenny: "A human
rights educator also needs the skills, attitude and ability to put the
theory into practice in the learning environment. I think Camus said that
the most important thing an educator can share is their ability to learn.  
This I believe goes deeper than being capable of evoking critical thinking
etc. because it involves establishing trust and respect between the
educator and the learner and between the learners. It is also about
providing the space for people to decide to disagree and to make their own
minds up about what they want to do, even if it is different to the way
you think about it." And she concludes: "To design and conduct HRE
programs that incorporate this type of methodology requires a specific
skills, as well as knowledge. If the educator has all these then it is not
difficult to adapt and develop programs to meet specific needs, cultures
and situations."

ADAM ADAM of the Centre for Minority Rights Development (CEMIRIDE, Kenya)  
concluded this first round of discussion by emphasising that human rights
education is a life-long process. "People infringe other people's rights
because they do not know others rights and their own rights. Therefore, it
is my contribution that human rights education should remain a tool to
provoke critical thinking and analysis of social, economic and political
life and to include the mental perception of the stakeholders. It is my
submission that human rights education be from our cradle to our
grave--for human rights education is the education for life. It's purposes
should be to mitigate and not to react," according to Adam.

The discussion subsequently focused more on how to define human rights and
what are the core human rights concepts, as this obviously affects the way
we perceive the mission of human rights education and the task of human
rights educators.

STEVEN HANDWERKER from the USA, in separate contributions, pointed out
that the UN Culture of Peace Initiative has defined the basic principles
that define a human rights-oriented society as respect all life; reject
violence; share with others; listen to understand; preserve the planet;
and rediscover solidarity. (UN Manifesto 2000 for a Culture of Peace and
Nonviolence, http://www3.unesco.org/manifesto2000/) According to Steven,
this "enlivens the HRE arena with meaning for each of us. The UN
Manifesto, from my perception, is about a perspective, a foundational base
of generic humane values and […] certainly can be the basis of any
objective (not 'critical') thinking and systemic analysis. Indeed HRE is
'education for life' even more than to 'mitigate' but to encompass and be
proactive (not reactive). Yes, we need to go forward with a holistic
political ideology based in values that are applicable to global
community, one person at a time beginning with each of us!! This is the
building of a Culture of Human Rights."

BERNIE WEINRAUB of Facing History and Ourselves (USA) proposed to describe
a human rights educator "in terms of a process of intellectual growth, as
well as in static terms." He continues: "I don't mean this as a personal
story for itself alone; the point is that, in the absence of human rights
curricula in the schools, I studied and taught it. I came to this
'definition' as the result of a process, not in one step."

JANA ONDRACKOVA of the Czech Helsinki Committee, acknowledged that the
discussion on the list was very interesting yet in her opinion
contributions were "too sophisticated and abstract". Instead she suggested
a definition for everyday use: "when introducing children and teachers to
human rights, there are several important rules that should be underlined
and emphasized:

1. Rights have to go with responsibility, i.e., there are no rights
without responsibility. Rights are not a free for all.

2. All people are equal but everyone is different, i.e. everyone is an
individual entity with equal rights, but people are not the same, nations
and religions are not the same, so they will have different views of human
rights.

3. However, and this is extremely important: one person's rights must
never infringe on somebody else's. [...]

4. The fundamental human rights of all people (such as life, health,
security, education, nutrition) must be respected. [...]

5. The human dignity of every individual must be respected. [...]"

According to Jana these rules address HRE "in all its complexity" as well
as related subject matters and approaches such as peace education,
intercultural and multicultural education, education for democracy and
citizenship, and global education.

Jana's contribution sparked a lot of discussion about the nature of human
rights. In particular, the assertion that human rights are conditional was
challenged by other members. GEORGE KENT (Department of Political Science,
University of Hawai'i) put it succinctly: "I must disagree with this. If
we talk about formal, legal human rights of the sort described in the
major international human rights agreements (Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the two covenants, the Convention on the Rights of the
Child, etc.), these documents, for the most part, describe rights that are
enjoyed by all human beings unconditionally. One does not have to do
anything to earn or to qualify for these rights. International human
rights are 'free for all'."

However, some list members from the postcommunist states of Central and
Eastern Europe agreed with Jana's position. MICHAEL SADOVKSY ("Uvenal"  
Krasnayorsk Regional Center for the Defense of Children's Rights, Russian
Federation): "This is the point of view occupying the community of HR
educators in Russia widely! Actually, the meaning of this statement is
that the rights of a person result in the appearance of the
responsibilities of somebody else to help realize them. My
responsibilities appear as a result of the rights of another person, not
my own rights. A failure to understand this issue results in a drastic
legal nihilism among the young men and girls, at least in Russia." A
position that was shared by BAKTGOUL KOUBANYTCHBEKOVA, a student in human
rights from Kyrgyzstan: "Usually the trainers in our country […] while
teaching the human rights subject, always make sure that the students get
to understand one of the key points of human rights, which is: 'Your
rights end, where the rights of the other person start'."

CED SIMPSON of Amnesty International-New Zealand reminded list members
that "Human rights are 'free for all', but they are not 'a free-for-all'."
Ced offered a number of quotes from the Universal Declaration to
illustrate his point:

'every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration
constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote
respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures,
national and international, to secure their universal and effective
recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.'

'All human beings....should act towards one another in a spirit of
brotherhood.'

'Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full
development of his personality is possible. In the exercise of his rights
and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are
determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and
respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just
requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a
democratic society.'

HANNEMAN SAMUEL, sociologist at the University of Indonesia, made a useful
distinction between a legal and sociological approach to the problem. He
wrote: "…from a legal point of view I could not agree more with him
[Professor George Kent]: human rights are unconditional. On the other
hand, it would be fruitful to take into account a sociological point of
view. I understand Jana Ondrŕcková's view as: 'while fighting for my
rights, I should respect other individuals' rights' (in other words, 'I
should exercise self control and self discipline in pursuing my rights'.)"

GEORGE KENT clarified his position by introducing the term unconditional.  
"The critical point, I think, is that rights are held unconditionally. One
does not "earn" them by giving good behavior in exchange. Yes, the UDHR
says we all have some responsibilities. However, it does not say that our
enjoyment of the rights is conditional on our fulfilling those
responsibilities." He concluded: "Rights are free in the sense that we own
them unconditionally. They are not based on a social contract type of
arrangement in which we get rights in exchange for something else."

For SOMEN CHAKRABORTY, Coordinator of the Human Rights Unit of the Indian
Social Institute (New Delhi), what transpired from the discussion is that
there exist many perceptions of human rights, which in turn affect the
definition of HRE. Said Somen: "What I argue is that the meaning and
implication of human rights are plural and heterogeneous. It is as diverse
as human civilisations are. Education on human rights thus varies with the
change of time, persons, situational contexts and the understanding of
one's life." Consequently he believes that certain infringements of rights
are justified, in order to promote a culture of human rights, and he
provided several examples: "In feudal social order, the land was
concentrated into the hands of a few privileged persons. In the welfare
state's principle the land should be distributed rationally to achieve
equity. In order to do this, the concept of right to property, which might
be a basic human right in one particular historical time, has to be
challenged by the new concept of equality and right. The issue of gender
justice can be another example to substantiate that infringement of others
rights and privileges may become a precondition in certain situation to
establish human rights." And he continued: "If we subscribe to this view,
then let us agree that rights as a philosophical tool may be universal,
but justification of a right has to be done taking the micro or local
contexts into account."

After having defined human rights Somen subsequently shared his vision of
the role of human rights education. "What I feel is important is
liberating HRE from the classroom discussion. The entire HRE has to be
integrated with the real life experiences of the people who need the
education most to know what their rights are. HRE has to be a passage to
take people towards this integration."

TAHIRIH DANESH quoted at length from a statement presented during the 53rd
session of the UN Commission on Human Rights: "... the foundation of
universal understanding and, therefore, for human rights education is the
oneness of humanity, a spiritual principle amply confirmed by all the
sciences. […] In that respect, human rights education could be considered
basic education for life in the modern world. According to the
International Commission on Education for the 21st Century, "learning to
live with others,' which necessitates respecting their rights, is 'one of
the major issues in education today." The Commission also points out that
children and youth are coping with special tensions that come from living
in a contracting and interdependent world. Among them are the tension
'between the global and the local: people need gradually to become world
citizens without losing their roots'; the tension 'between the universal
and the individual: culture is steadily being globalized, but as yet only
partially'; and the tension 'between the spiritual and the material.'
Human rights education grounded in the principle of the oneness of
humanity, can provide children and youth the tools and the philosophical
framework to enable them to resolve these tensions for themselves."

PAOLA GIRALDO, anthropologist (Colombia), asserted that dignity is the
basis for real understanding of human rights. "This is why I think that
the concept of HR Education must include the construction of dignity
inside the minds and the lives of the people. Of course, that idea of
dignity needs to be in accordance with the structure of the world of every
people."

Both JANA ONDRACKOVA and GEORGE KENT clarified their positions in the
debate on rights and responsibilities and possible infringements of rights
to protect rights held by others. Said Jana: "In my initial comment I did
not say that human rights were conditional on good behaviour. Yes,
everyone has the right to rights. What I meant was that nobody has the
right to enforce his rights by infringing on somebody else's." She
concluded her contribution by stating that "Human rights are certainly not
given for 'good behaviour', but I wonder should they possibly not be given
to those who respect the dignity and rights of other people?" George tried
to emphasise the shared positions in this debate: "We should try to get
away from language that suggests that rights are 'given' in any form.
People simply have them, intrinsically, by virtue of being human. I
interpret Jana's last comment to refer to the idea that convicted
criminals may, through appropriate legal process, be deprived of certain
rights. This is widely accepted. Do we all now agree that, apart from the
exceptional cases in which people are deprived of their rights through due
process of law, all people have all human rights all the time? Of course
this is not to say that all those rights are realized."

SHULA KOENIG offered a new perspective on this discussion: "...human
rights are about Rights and Responsibility -social responsibility- and one
doesn't have to make the vocal distinction between rights and
responsibilities if one really knows human rights, which is not more and
not less then a way of life -- and life entails freedoms and duties to
support its sanctity." She used a example that she has used in trainings.
Shula: "When I work with young people I like to speak of human rights as
traffic regulation. Talking of life as a movement where we are free to
move without hurting others and without being hurt. Thus: be responsible!
Obey the green and red lights.  Women and men alike, etc. etc. -- and this
is how together we develop the theory and practical interpretation of
human rights. Young people without much prodding speak of food, education,
health, housing and work as human rights to enable them, their families
and others "to walk safely across the street" in their communities to move
in the world in dignity."

Shula also pleaded for a holistic approach to human rights in which
political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights are all part of the
same human rights framework. "As a woman I can tell you that you cannot be
half pregnant. If you agree with this simple truth it is impossible to
look at human rights in a compartmentalized way...as one of you so very
well mentioned article 30 of the UDHR, which I like to explain as: No one
human right can violate the other... and all conflicts must be solved the
human rights way," according to Shula.

In the context of the example of Al Queda members killing people in the
name of religious freedom, BENSON SCOTCH of the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) expressed his concern that persons accused of wrongdoing need
to retain the rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration presumption
of innocence, a fair trial, and an appropriate sentence or penalty.  Said
Benson: "Human rights ultimately depend on principles of equal protection.  
The preemptive labeling of certain actors as not worthy of human
rights-based legal processes is inimical to the very concept of human
rights."

MEHARI TADDELE (Ethiopia) pointed out that it necessary to have a commonly
agreed definition of human rights before we can address what human rights
education should be. Mehari claimed that nowadays there are no huge
differences on the nature and notion of human rights. "Rather there is big
difference on the degree of authoritative restrictions that can be imposed
on rights. For example, the difference between USA and Europe to that
matter the rest of the world on the possible legal restriction on Freedom
of Speech. This difference infers the big concern about duties." He
defined HRE as "…teaching people what their rights are, how they can make
others respect their rights i.e. teaching duties of others and indirectly
teaching their own duties, how they respect others rights i.e. direct
teaching of their duties, this is done by teaching that they have to be
responsible for all their actions."

ADAM STONE (USA) would like to expand HRE to 'transformative, systematic
HRE.' "'Transformative' because empowerment to affect positive change and
transform lives must always be one of the primary goals of HRE.  
'Systematic' because HRE should begin at the earliest levels of education
and should continue throughout one's formal schooling."  Adam believed
that any working definition of transformative, systematic HRE must be as
simple and straightforward as possible. As human rights issues are so
broad (for example, child labor, women's rights, conflict diamonds,
environmental justice), and hard to capture, Adam proposed a more fluid
definition: "To me, transformative, systematic HRE is any thoughtful,
searching discussion among teachers and students […] of what it means to
be human and to interact responsibly with our fellow human beings and our
planet. At any given moment the discussion might focus on one particular
human rights issue, and the tools that inform the discussion might be
internationally developed documents such as the UDHR, but such discussions
will always be informed as well by the beliefs, values, and experiences of
those students and teachers taking part."

Transformative, systematic HRE should stimulate critical thinking about
human rights issues rather than try to provide pre-packaged 'answers' to
some of the most complicated and challenging issues we, as humans, will
ever encounter. Said Adam: "I would add that I believe this conversation
among listserv members would itself be an excellent tool for
transformative, systematic HRE. If I were a teacher I would consolidate
these materials (within the confines of the listserv's policy on
reproduction, of course), have students read them, and then pose questions
such as Who is correct? Who is incorrect? Why? Or perhaps: Is everybody
correct? Is everybody incorrect? Why?"





======== Global Human Rights Education listserv ========
Send mail intended for the list to <hr-education@hrea.org>.
Archives of the list can be found at: http://www.hrea.org/lists/hr-education/
If you have problems (un)subscribing, contact <owner-hr-education@hrea.org>.
**You are welcome to reprint, copy, archive, quote or re-post this item,
but please retain the original and listserv source.