Why we need to take limitations to human rights more seriously

By Alison Ayetoranire Byamukama

We are witnessing deepening negative human rights ideology upon our conscience that if not well-handled can slide us into an irreversible political quagmire characterised by instability and even genocide.

States have invaded others in the name of protecting human rights only to confirm later that it was not the reason after all. The real reason being something like oil or some other natural resource. 

We are being told by outside crusaders "not to sacrifice human rights to national stability", while the domestic crusaders tell us to prepare and even sacrifice for violence and instability as they fight for their rights. Why? Because their political objectives were not achieved during the recent elections.

International backers and their local agents combine to exert pressure on all arms of government repeating falsehoods both nationally and internationally to the extent that people start believing them. They have decided to take human rights as exclusively "God-given" requiring no regulation even where those with rights follow no God's ways.

They talk about human rights but plan instability. They want to use human rights as a conduit to achieve political ends violently. Any attempt to regulate human rights by the state is faced with rage, blackmail and threats of war and violence. They intimidate and blackmail everybody.

Meanwhile, the objective human rights voices are facing double blackmail. When we objectively support human rights and the related interventions, we are accused of supporting international imperialism.

When we question western negative interpretation of human rights on our local conditions, we are accused of excusing local authoritarianism. So many choose to watch and hope that in the end commonsense reigns. But nothing of sorts is happening. Can we also be heard?

We have to be aware of this totalitarian blackmail by human rights crusaders who listen to no other logic but constantly push their own subjective positions on our throats. 

We need not be cowed by their blackmail, but be resolute in demolishing any illusion that projects  human rights as existing in utopia where anybody, anyhow and anywhere does what he/ she wants in and onto society without any restriction.

There are legal and justifiable grounds for human rights restrictions in our constitution as well as in international and regional human rights instruments, a testimony that all people and all nations appreciate the need for restrictions on human rights.

There is no problem with human rights as a theoretical and philosophical abstraction and as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations. The danger, however, is when politically powerful people and even nations selectively front them as absolute standards below nobody or nation should be allowed. Yet, they themselves reach nowhere near to that standard where all of us strive to progressively be and live in peace and happiness. 

They mask particular  individual selfish and sometimes criminal interests therein and after they achieve them, they forget all about human rights. 

We have heard politicians claiming to have had their rights abused by not being allowed to carry out street rallies, yet they unabashedly announce publically that in those rallies they "want to inspire (people) to rise against a regime"! Incredible! They keep reminding us how they are going to mobilise a million protestors to overwhelm the state. Who wants this?

 Yes, we have our freedoms to walk, but not to walk on people's heads. We have freedom of worship, but not to preach hatred and genocide in places of worship. We have democratic rights, but not to remove democratically elected governments unconstitutionally.

When we go beyond the acceptable standards as citizens, then the state must enforce restrictions to keep us within confines of acceptable order.  Everybody knows that when left uncontrolled, the human rights pretenders will breed anarchy, but also if the state is allowed to have its way, it can lead to dictatorship.

So we must keep a disciplined debate and take away threats and intimidation but empower our peaceful people to regain their integrity in dignity.

The real human rights defenders have empathy and respect of rule of law (which includes accepting court decisions) well-knowing that human rights impose an obligation to respect the rights of others. And if there cannot be self-regulation, the state should do the regulation within acceptable levels allowed by law and in democracies.

The current feeling in our beautiful country is as if there is a human rights crisis and the state is getting overwhelmed by the demands of human rights pretenders. 

Amidst all this you hear the state saying it is difficult to balance human rights and security and at times even apologising to the violators of human rights. Are the human rights pretenders winning? Are they dominating the political terrain? And is this trend safe for this country?

On April 6, our two dailies published three related but contradicting stories on state relationship with human rights and the church.

The articles were attributed to eminent representatives of the church and the state (police, priests and RDCs). In a piece by Fr Ambrose Bangatto on How Human Rights Define the Church's Relationship with State (New Vision, April 6), he reminded us about the process of making our 1995 Constitution, when the Catholics Bishop of Uganda submitted to the Uganda Constitutional Commission that "we should always respect the rights of others and defend them, but in a special way defend the rights of women, children, the family, the prisoners and the minorities, among others. I want to believe that this plea by Bishops and many others is the reason detre for the mostly quoted Article 43, which puts limitations on the fundamental and other human rights and freedoms.

It also is the reason that put our Constitution in the category of progressive constitutions in the world on account of its recognition of the rights of the hitherto marginalised groups. But why are we then behaving as if rights are absolute without limitation?

The Bishops and all Ugandans agreed that there is no way one can talk of absolute enjoyment of rights and freedoms in total disrespect of rights of others. They only gave exceptions to four obvious ones namely freedom from torture, slavery, fair hearing and habeas corpus.

International human rights instruments specifically Art 22 (2) of the UN Covenant on civil and political rights from where our Chapter 4 of the Constitution is derived is even more categorical on limitations; it points out that limitations by the state are justifiable, if it is in the interest of public security, public order, public morality and public health.

A religious leader, therefore, for example, should not use the pretext of freedom of worship to preach genocide in church (like some pre-genocide priests did in Rwanda) or to preach hatred, sectarianism based on religion, divisionism and discrimination against a certain politician just because he/she does not belong to their religion. In this case the state must legitimately intervene and control the errant leader. 

And errant leaders are many; one for example cannot believe that the same faith that shaped Fr. Bangatto who appreciates human rights and believes in peace, unity and stability can be the same faith that produced Fr Kataribabo who mobilised hundreds of people under the name of freedom of worship to kill them in Kanungu in 2000.

So, the state should not take it for granted that all church people follow God's ways.  It matters to examine particular individuals and their political interests and contain them before they unleash terror on the population and the institutions.

Individuals matter because they shape institutions otherwise how could the same Germany produce Otto Von Bismarck and Adolf Hitler? Or same Uganda produce Idi Amin and Yoweri Museveni? These people understood the role of human beings (and their rights) differently. The list of these contradictions is long.

Then there is a story in one local daily of April 6, of the RDC (Emmy Kateera)of Buhweju reportedly "apologising on behalf of the government" for a government official (who happened to be his predecessor  — Mwebesa) for having "attacked a religious institution" when in the same article it is reported that "Fr Baingana, who had confronted Mwebesa during the attack welcomed the apology".

This clearly does not add up. How did Mwebesa attack the institution? In words or deeds?  How and why did Fr Baingana "confront" RDC Mwebesa? Who actually should apologise to who? Should it be a case of a church apologising to the State or vice versa? This is a clear case of the human rights pretenders intimidating the state.

Nobody is giving us the voice of the witnesses, consequently those who comply with the law and those who enforce the law are seen as villains and the outlaws are the heroes. If state submissiveness to blackmail is allowed to thrive, even thieves will start complaining that they have been denied their right to steal and the rights will be granted.

I'm a politician, a professional in human rights and a daughter of a reverend, I, therefore, know that it can be a challenge to some religious leaders to divorce politics from the Church, but one thing that should not be allowed to thrive unrestricted in the body politic of our beautiful country is to have a group of religious leaders or any other category engaged in divisive, hateful, spiteful, crude and degenerate politics that appeals to baser emotions of fear, hate and prejudice.

This is wrong in law and religion and it would be strange, if the state left this as normal state if they never restricted such groups.

During our campaigns, I witnessed places of worship being grounds of what some people call "poison politics".

We are not talking about someone making a responsible negative argument, based on facts, for example, saying that so and so is a thief when it is known he/ she actually stole, which would be acceptable as a political argument.

But here is simply a person slandering another using ethnic, religious and cultural polarisations coated in the demagoguery of hate and greed — calling him or her all sorts of names; an "intruder", a" foreigner" just because he or she does not share your religion or tribe. We had religious leaders penalising Christians to levels of excommunication when they refused to follow their trash of voting according to religion.

They would invite Christians and start ridiculing and intimidating them, denying them sacraments rebuking them why they follow Protestants asking them: "you mean you do not have your own children of our own religion?" "How can you allow yourselves to go back to slavery? " etc.

They told lies that "we were sent by our leaders to tell our followers to vote members of our religion". Of course, their congregations were not uniform, they had submissive and radical Christians. The vulnerable submissive ones followed the hate message, the radicals who have imbibed the Movement ideology of nondiscriminatory were in utter shock. The radical witnesses recorded these hate speeches and sent them to us. 

It becomes even more ridiculous when a state official tries to say this is wrong politics, the human rights pretenders were faster in playing victim that they had been attacked in church and  denied freedom of worship;  they mobilised sympathy and asked for apology for being told to stop violating the law and the Bible.

The action of the state in this regard only gave human rights pretenders more power over human rights defenders and the rest is history.  On our part, we understood them from the perspective of Romans: 16: 17-19 and we communicated it to our people who concurred and they are not about to allow reactionary politics to take root where they operate from. We know that sensitisation helps.

Gen. Kale Kayihura is quoted admitting the difficulty "to balance the demands of national security and human rights and freedoms when "Crime in Uganda is so Violent". "Even a simple break-in thugs use an AK 47, an assault rifle, Gen. Kale reportedly said. It is known that human rights everywhere is protected by security measures.

The answer to this is following the principle of proportionality in human rights; if the thug has AK 47 the Police use a slightly more superior machine or superior numbers to ultimately subdue (not kill) the thug.

I thought that is why we use teargas not live bullets when dispersing rioters who have stones. I think the police so far has been doing a good job; that is why there has not been an Arab spring in Uganda, while at the same time nobody takes seriously anybody who calls Uganda a dictatorship or a police state.

With a few exceptions, the balancing has been perfect although we have to articulate, into the public domain, more legal justifications for this balancing (built in limiting human rights) than we are doing at the moment.

The writer is a politician and a human rights expert

ayetoranire@yahoo.com