Rights presuppose others’ obligations
There is disagreement and contrast about the area of human rights from man to man, society to society, and nation to nation. What are rights in the USA, those may not be so in our country. If we disagree with the US people, they cannot compel us to accept their definition. If they try to impose their views on us, that will be violation of human rights. Similarly, we cannot compel the US people to accept our justification, but we can argue with them in the best manner with wisdom.
Now let us see the view of political scientists about human rights for perusal of all in order to remove confusion about the area of human rights.
Rights are not unlimited. They are to be used by every citizen taking into account the rights of others. They are based on the use of intelligence and good behaviour. None has the right to spread evils in the society. Nobody can claim his right if it harms the general interests of the society.
Rights should not be vague, but definite in order that they may not create chaos and anarchy in the society. Human rights are generally based on religion, justice, customs and traditions. Herbert Spencer is of the opinion that the State guarantees only the security of these rights. It cannot create rights (like the US government which made sodomy human rights by law though it is the most heinous crime in any society).
Thus, we can come to the conclusion from above explanations that State does not create rights. It protects rights. Human rights are generally based on religion, justice, customs and traditions. Problem arises when an individual will explain Bangladesh’s position in the eyes of others. Otherwise, there can be hardly any crisis.
Peter Rozario
Dhaka
