The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[Seeler]

The world seemed to be a positive place when I was growing up in the years immediately following the Second World War. The dark forces of Nazi Germany had been defeated, the soldiers were coming home. The world seemed to be at peace. The United Nations had been organized to settle disputes. And in 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, agreed to by 48 countries including Canada, with none voting against, and only eight abstaining.
The world was a safe, optimistic, idealistic place to grow up. Sixty-six years later, as I googled this document that I remember studying in school, I look back and the world seems so innocent, naive. High ideals but were they realistic? Did any country really expect to live up to them?
I’ll start this thread by referring to Article 5. "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

 

[Seeler]

Recently at my book club we read and discussed "The Orenda" by Joseph Boyden. It was this year’s winner of the Canada Reads award, a significant book. It is about the Huron nation in Canada in the middle of the seventeenth century and described their relationships with the French, both missionaries and trading-partners, and with the closely related but rival Iroquois nation. Pages, chapters of this book describe violence and extreme torture by both nations as the Hurons are wiped out by war and disease.

We were left shaking our heads at the cruelty of these people. But we also were reminded that in Europe the Roman Inquisition was taking place - different instruments being used, different cultures, different purposes - but torture nevertheless.

Look further back in history to the times of torture that took place in the Roman Empire - slavery, oppression, whipping, burning, Roman candles, gladiators, and people being torn apart by animals as entertainment in the coliseum. Crucifixion - a slow, painful, cruel and degrading death reserved for those who were seen as a threat to the ‘Roman Peace’.

And look ahead at the cruelty of the Nazis during the war - torture not limited to efficient elimination of those considered unfit because of race, religion, or mental abilities, but medical experiments, starvation, humiliation.

Then the time of peace when almost all nations agreed to a Universal Declaration against torture.
And sixty-six years later, how do we view torture?

 

[Pinga]

I wonder if we are becoming more aware that torture exists and is sanctioned by governments?

With leaks and access to information, we hear of torture done in the name of protection as part of the "war on terror".
We see videos on youtube of torture mental abuse...government sanctioned.
we see televison news of the torture of the vulnerable by those who hold power over them.

I wonder, if someone's child was missing, and you know beyond doubt you have the person in your hands that knows where s/he is.....would you torture them for the info?

 

[Seeler]

I think that different cultures have different reasons for using torture.

Some use it as a deterrent. I think that was a reason for Jesus being executed by crucifixion; it was a very visible, public way of torturing and degrading anybody perceived to be an enemy of Rome so that others might see and be discouraged from trying any form of protest.

For others it might be considered as punishment (ie You killed my family, now you will suffer for it.) That was part of the reason for torture in the book I mentioned The Orenda. But there was also a large element of cultural expectations. Prisoners expected to be tortured - how they dealt with torture, how bravely they met their deaths was important to them.

Still others might use torture as a way of enforcing their will upon another or to beat the other into submission. Perhaps forms of torture (like prolonged solitary confinment) are used to make the victims easier to handle.

And of course there are the saddists who get their thrills from causing another person to suffer.

And then some individuals and governments consider torture justifiable when used to try to obtain information. My understanding is that this is often ineffective. For one thing, people cannot reveal what they do not know. Those captured and tortured may be the weakest link in a long chain of command and may know little more than that they were ordered by someone they only know as Big Boy to pick up an envelop that has been left in their mailbox, take it to the mall and leave it on the table at the Food Court. They may give false information just to stop the torture for the time being and valuable time is lost following up these false statements. Or much of what they are able and willing to reveal might be more easily, accurately and effectively discovered by other methods. I seem to remember hearing that often those doing the questioning already know the answers they are looking for but are just trying to force a confession from the victim.

 

[Seeler]

I wonder if we are becoming more aware that torture exists and is sanctioned by governments?

With leaks and access to information, we hear of torture done in the name of protection as part of the "war on terror".
We see videos on youtube of torture mental abuse...government sanctioned.
we see televison news of the torture of the vulnerable by those who hold power over them.

Having been raised on the high ideals set out in the 1948 declaration, I am horrified by the fact that various types of torture are now sanctioned by governments in the 'western world'. Aren't we supposed to be the 'good guys', the ones with high moral principals? Or are we no better than those we've criticized in the past for being savages, or immoral, or heartless bruts? What 'way of life' are we protecting if we sanction the very things that we hold abhorant? What rights are we willing to give up in our 'war on terror'?


I wonder, if someone's child was missing, and you know beyond doubt you have the person in your hands that knows where s/he is.....would you torture them for the info?

I think this is a good reason why those closest to the child, or victim of a crime, are not set up as investigator, jailer, judge or jury.

 

[Seeler]

Sorry - I didn't do a very good job posting my reply the two sections of your post.