Human Rights

Article available for download.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE IN BRAZIL

“Human rights in Brazil only defend criminals, rapists, criminals, kidnappers and even corrupt individuals.” Unfortunately, this is the perception of many Brazilians. In a survey conducted in 2010, almost half of Brazilians associated the defense of human rights with “defending the rights of criminals.” Living in Brazil in 2021, we know that this perception is more noticeable, either because it has become even more common or because it has become more explicit and public as a result of speeches and political practices in recent years. The truth is that since 2010, we have been even further away from an adequate appreciation of the value and role of human rights in building a better society and preserving the lives of the most vulnerable. Given this national sentiment regarding human rights, it is no great surprise that there is so much resistance among Christians to associating themselves with the defense of human rights. In the same 2010 survey, one-third of Brazilians had never heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), formulated in 1948 by the UN. There is therefore a lack of information and knowledge. This is also true in the more specific case of Christians, even those who are directly involved in social assistance work for groups at risk and in social vulnerability. Although Christians do not need to base their work on the UDHR, ignoring its role and what it represents today is not an option. Among many reasons, the main one is that, in Brazil, social assistance work finds legal support in the Federal Constitution and in the Statute of Children and Adolescents, which, in its values ​​and even language, is dependent on the UDHR, as we will see. Therefore, in this edition of ABBA-PAI, we want to clarify what the relationship is between the UDHR and social assistance work in Brazil, including in the Christian context. We will present the UDHR, its relationship with Brazilian legislation, and conclude with a Christian application of the discussion.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

When life is under threat, it is time to think more consciously about its value. When the lives of specific groups of people are threatened, it is time to think more consciously about human rights. It is clear that the value of life and human rights are intrinsically related. It is not possible to affirm one and deny the other. However, it is necessary to make it clear that human rights have to do with defending the value of the lives of specific groups that are more vulnerable to the threat of death. This is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights emerged as a response to the atrocities of the Second World War. Although the war was a widespread threat to life, it was much more deadly for certain groups and following some very specific deadly practices. Racism and contempt for ethnically and sociopolitically minority groups marked the violence of the Second World War. Likewise, torture, military aggression against civilian targets, and nuclear bombing characterized the new tactics that threatened the lives of humanity. It is in this specific context that the UDHR emerged. This explains two important characteristics of the UDHR: the language of universal fraternity and equality. These two characteristics are reflected in the first lines of the UDHR: “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (Preamble). In its thirty short articles, the UDHR defends the right to life, liberty and security without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion or political opinion (see Articles 2 and 3). It is worth highlighting that in defense of the right to security, in the face of the atrocities of torture and extermination during the Second World War, the UDHR specifically addresses the right to public and fair trials, the protection of the law, and repudiates any practice of torture (see Articles 5 to 12). These values ​​mark the first part of the UDHR, which is certainly its best-known part. However, it is necessary to pay attention to its second part to avoid evaluating the UDHR as a totalitarian and “progressive” project. As we pointed out at the beginning of this issue, the UDHR is popularly accused of defending “criminals.” We hope that what we have seen so far is enough to realize the falseness of this accusation. However, even in more elevated discussions about the UDHR, there are some false impressions that lead to unfounded criticism. The UDHR is interpreted as a project of the intellectual elites of the richest nations, imposing their values ​​and ideologically determined secular guidelines on the entire world. This interpretation imagines that the UDHR invalidates other forms of defense of the value of life and human rights, especially those with a religious basis. This criticism understands the language of the UDHR as too detailed and specific, betraying its universal character by ignoring the particularities of each culture, people and country. Sometimes, this view leads to imagining the UDHR as yet another force to support a despotic global government. This is why it is necessary to pay greater attention to the second part of the UDHR. In summary, this second part deals with socioeconomic and cultural rights. It begins with Article 16 on the right to form a family based on consensual decisions between two adults. Furthermore, the UDHR states that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State” (Article 16.3).

It is from this statement that the UDHR prescribes the rights to property, culture, religion and education, social organization, decent work and adequate living conditions for individual and family sustenance. Two things are clear in this second part of the UDHR: its universal aspect does not eliminate the particular and rights are only the basic condition for human development. The way in which the UDHR establishes the family as a fundamental reality creates an axis between the universal and the particular. The central foundation of the UDHR, established in its Preamble, is universal fraternity, that is, all humanity is a single human family. But this universal foundation is derived from, and not imposed on, the particular reality of the family as the natural and fundamental nucleus of society, that is, humanity itself. Furthermore, the foundation of universal fraternity is not an idea in the UDHR. It serves
both as a starting point for the rights prescribed and as the reality experienced
when these rights are guaranteed. Universal brotherhood does not have to be accepted in advance, but
it will certainly be experienced by all those involved in guaranteeing human rights.

With the family as its natural and fundamental nucleus, the UDHR establishes the particularity of the family experience as the starting point for its founding value of universal fraternity. But not only that. The family, in its particular and universal reality, is the foundation for any universal value, including human rights. But, as we have seen, the UDHR has its origins in experiences in which this foundation was profoundly denied and violated. So, what should we do when the family, in its particular and universal context, becomes an environment of violence and neglect to the point of putting the life and well-being of its members at risk? ABBA, obviously, works precisely in this difficult context, which makes us recognize that the family of origin, in itself, or any other particular reality, cannot be above certain values. This is why we must consider when the language of human rights is specific and when it is open. When the UDHR talks about violence, torture, injustices in general, the language is specific. We can see two examples, one negative and one positive, within the context of family life. In Article 12, the UDHR states that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.” This is specific language that can be clearly applied in particular cases. In Article 25, the UDHR states that “motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.” Also, specific language that can be clearly applied in particular cases. This language, in fact, eliminates any possibility of different meanings in different contexts. However, specific language is used to avoid abuse and not to disqualify values ​​and applications specific to each family, people, nation, culture and religion. This is where open language of values ​​comes in. The fundamental statement that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (Article 3) uses language that is open enough to be filled in by particular contexts.

These are values ​​derived from common human experience and, in this sense, are universal, but without losing their open character that allows for particular expressions. This balance between universality and particularity is important to prevent such values ​​from being abused in two ways: (1) as values ​​that are too specific, determined by a group, to be imposed on other groups; (2) as values ​​that are too open to the point that a specific group is capable of violating the rights of other groups or individuals and still be based on such values. How, then, do we deal with this issue between specific values ​​and rights, between specific and open language? More practically, how do we deal with a family that has values ​​and follows practices that put at risk the life, or the human rights, of its members? One of the answers given by the UDHR is that one right cannot be used against another right (Article 30). For example, the right to protection against interference with one’s private life, family or home (Article 12) cannot be used as a justification to prevent community or state interference in cases where the family violates the rights of its members, especially women and children. Religious freedom, for example, which is one of the values ​​of the UDHR, cannot be used to justify the violation of another right, such as the right to personal security. Of course, there are more ambiguous and complex cases, but the UDHR provides an excellent basis for dialogue aimed at preserving and advancing the lives of all. Given this objective, the emphasis of human rights on defending specific groups that are more vulnerable to the threat of death becomes more understandable. It is precisely because we want to preserve and advance the lives of all that human rights are an instrument for defending the most vulnerable groups, those who have suffered the most violations, abuses and violence against their lives because of a specific characteristic of their identities. In the UDHR, human rights are affirmed for all “without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or any other status” (Article 2). The negative language, “without distinction,” needed to be developed in an affirmative way so that each group has its rights guaranteed so that they can affirm the equal value of their specific identities, especially because the violation of their rights often occurs because of this identity. A Christian in China who has his human rights violated for being a Christian, for example, should not only have his rights guaranteed “without distinction” of his identity, but also in the affirmation of the equal value of his identity as a Christian in the face of other identities that, because they have greater status and power, belittle the Christian identity. A black person who suffers racism, therefore having his human rights violated, should not only have his rights guaranteed “without distinction”, but in the affirmation of the equal value of his identity in the face of other identities that belittle the black identity. It is precisely because “all lives matter” that it is necessary to say that “black lives matter”, “poor lives matter”, “incarcerated lives matter”, etc.

This brings us to the last aspect of the UDHR that needs to be mentioned here, once again paying attention to the second part of the UDHR, which deals with socio-economic and cultural rights. David Smolin summarizes the rights included in this second part of the UDHR well: “the right to work, including free choice of employment, just and favorable conditions of work, and protection against unemployment; the right to rest and leisure, including holidays with pay; a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of the worker and his family, including the continuous improvement of living conditions and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood and old age; free compulsory elementary education, the progressive implementation of free secondary education, and a system of higher education accessible to all on the basis of merit; the right to form and join trade unions; the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”

These practical and specific rights qualify the universal values ​​of the first part, especially the right to life, liberty and security. Not only that, the relationship between these two parts is also about how the first part is achieved from the second. The truth is that there is no possibility of guaranteeing the right to life, liberty and security if there is no environment of equal opportunities and social justice that provide for good human development. Human beings and humanity depend on an environment that meets their most basic needs, especially the social needs of family and a welcoming community, and the material needs of food, health and housing, so that their potential can be sought and achieved. In this sense, for individuals and groups that are despised and violated to be able to assert their value and dignity, it is necessary that their human rights be guaranteed. On the other hand, with guaranteed human rights, the value and dignity of all are affirmed and an environment suitable for good human development is created. And this is where a fundamental problem with the UDHR comes in: it does not have the legal force to guarantee the human rights it defends. The UDHR depends on its values ​​being accepted by governments, communities and individuals in order for such rights to be guaranteed. And that is exactly what we will see next. We will talk about the influence of the UDHR on Brazilian legislation and how communities, especially Christian communities, can engage in dialogue with the UDHR. Whether by the imposition of law, or by
dialogue and collaborative public effort, we will see that the goal is, specifically for us at ABBA, that
humanity, in its identity as the image and likeness of God, the family of God, develops
fully in its divine purpose of contributing to the advancement of a world of abundant wealth and beauty; a world capable of welcoming, fostering and sustaining all forms of life; a society that is culturally and economically diverse, plural and vibrant.

DUDH, FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND CHILD AND ADOLESCENT STATUTE

In Brazil, as we have seen, the UDHR is not widely known. However, Brazilian society has been profoundly influenced by it. Both the 1988 Federal Constitution (CF/88) and the 1992 Statute of the Child and Adolescent (ECA) were influenced by the values of the UDHR. In this topic, we aim to show this influence and its importance in defending human rights in the Brazilian context, especially in ABBA's area of action.The CF/88, in general, and the ECA, specifically concerning children and adolescents, follow the values of the UDHR regarding human rights. Besides this shared set of values, as we will see shortly, the CF/88 also emerged in response to a national period, the military dictatorship, where human rights violations were common practice, destroying the lives of many and harming Brazilian society as a whole. This context of violence, abuse, and death, similar to what occurred in the context of the Second World War that led to the creation of the UDHR, was more detrimental and destructive to certain groups in Brazilian society. Therefore, like the UDHR, there is a notable value of equality. The CF/88 states: "All persons are equal before the law, without distinction of any kind, guaranteeing Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country the inviolability of the right to life, liberty, equality, security, and property" (Article 5). The ECA states that children and adolescents have the right "to life and health" (Article 7), "to freedom, respect, and dignity" (Article 15), and "to life, health, food, education, sport, leisure, professionalization, culture, dignity, respect, freedom, and family and community coexistence" (Article 4). The resemblance to the UDHR is evident.In the case of the ECA, universal values such as life and freedom are placed alongside more specific and practical rights, such as health, food, education, and sports. In a way, the ECA makes explicit the relationship between the first and second parts of the UDHR. Another interesting development presented by the ECA, as an implication of the UDHR, is the objective of such values and rights. The protection guaranteed by the ECA for children and adolescents aims to "[ensure] all opportunities and facilities to enable their physical, mental, moral, spiritual, and social development under conditions of freedom and dignity" (Article 3).Human development, according to the values presented by the UDHR, the CF/88, and the ECA, can only be achieved in an environment that guarantees opportunities and facilities for all through human rights. The ECA also works with the concept of self-affirmation for minority and vulnerable groups, whose particular identities are targets of contempt and violence. Children and adolescents are treated as "subjects of civil, human, and social rights" (Article 15). The ECA also emphasizes anti-discriminatory criteria similar to those of the UDHR, reinforcing the identity of childhood and adolescence as deserving of equal value to other identities: "The rights enunciated in this Law apply to all children and adolescents without discrimination of birth, family situation, age, sex, race, ethnicity, or color, religion or belief, disability, personal development and learning condition, economic condition, social environment, region, and place of residence or any other condition that differentiates people, families, or the community in which they live" (Article 3).The CF/88 makes a similar distinction to what we see in the UDHR by first mentioning universal values to life, liberty, equality, security, and property (Article 5), and then discussing social rights: "Social rights are education, health, food, work, housing, transportation, leisure, security, social security, protection of motherhood and childhood, assistance to the helpless, in the manner of this Constitution" (Article 6). One of the most significant foundations of the UDHR is the recognition that the family is the natural and fundamental unit of society. This becomes a hallmark of both the CF/88 and the ECA. In Article 226, the CF/88 affirms and guarantees: "The family, the basis of society, shall have special protection from the State." In the following article, we see an interesting relationship between human rights, family, the State, and the relations of priority: "It is the duty of the family, society, and the State to ensure children, adolescents, and young people, with absolute priority, the right to life, health, food, education, leisure, professionalization, culture, dignity, respect, freedom, and family and community coexistence, and to protect them from all forms of neglect, discrimination, exploitation, violence, cruelty, and oppression." In this important article, the CF/88 establishes, in a more integrated manner than the UDHR, that human rights, especially in the case of children and adolescents, can only be guaranteed through the joint effort of the family, society, and the State, and that these three social actors must monitor each other to prevent rights violations.

The fourth article of the ECA repeats the same wording as in article 227 of the Federal Constitution of 1988. However, in other articles, the ECA presents language that is even more consistent with the values—and not necessarily with the wording—of the UDHR. I would like to draw the reader's attention to two expressions that appear in the ECA. The first is in article 7, which states: “Children and adolescents have the right to protection of life and health, through the implementation of public social policies that allow for the birth and healthy and harmonious development, in dignified conditions of existence.” The final part is of singular importance. The ECA uses the language of “healthy and harmonious development, in dignified conditions of existence.” Even
more than in the case of the UDHR, the ECA uses a language of values ​​that does not impose specific practices,
giving space for each family, community and culture to apply these values ​​appropriately to
their context. The specific basis that seeks to prevent abuse is there (“the right to life, health, food, education, leisure, professional training, culture, dignity, respect, freedom and family and community life, in addition to protecting them from all forms of neglect, discrimination, exploitation, violence, cruelty and oppression”), but the “universal” values ​​are open to being filled by local, particular and contextual practices. Something similar happens with the second expression that appears in the ECA, which deserves our attention, and is in its article 19: “It is the right of children and adolescents to be raised and educated within their family and, exceptionally, in a substitute family, ensuring family and community life, in an environment that guarantees their integral development”. The expression, obviously, is “integral development”. This article is even more relevant because it guarantees a right that does not appear in either the UDHR or the Federal Constitution of 1988: family life in an environment that guarantees the integral development of children and adolescents is a priority over the protection of the family of origin. Both the UDHR and the Federal Constitution of 1988 present the criterion that a right cannot be guaranteed when it justifies abuses of other rights. However, neither document “resolves” possible impasses. The ECA offers an important example of how to apply human rights values ​​when certain local and contextual practices fulfill such values ​​in abusive ways. In the specific case of the ECA, what we have is the impasse between the right to family protection and the right to protection of children and adolescents against “all forms of neglect, discrimination, exploitation, violence, cruelty and oppression”. The solution offered by the ECA is the guarantee of protection for children and adolescents, and the guarantee of family life through a substitute family. With this solution, the ECA elevates the right to life and “integral development” as “universal” values, while continuing to recognize that such values ​​only find their expression and foundation in local, particular, contextual experiences, especially mediated by the family as the basis of society. By considering the need for substitute families in order to guarantee the “integral development” of some children and adolescents, the ECA recognizes local, particular and contextual practices of “sponsorship” and adoption that are known to humanity in ancient cultures, such as ancient Babylon, back in the second millennium BC, and in contemporary cultures, such as Brazil in the 19th and 20th centuries.

HUMANITARIANISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIAL WORK IN BRAZIL

As many recognize, the UDHR has no legal status and cannot be imposed on any sovereign nation. However, this type of international document plays a relevant role in building a better society. First, these documents respond to events that destroy humanity as a whole and certain minority groups in specific ways. Thus, these documents repudiate such events and practices and suggest a way to build a better society. Second, these documents express values ​​that are recognized by most nations, cultures, communities and families. Thus, these documents become a good starting point for thinking about building a better society. Third, these documents tend to be signed by most nations and such signature becomes a criterion for international accountability. Fourth, these documents influence national legislation, as we clearly saw in the Brazilian case of CF/88 and ECA. Even when there is no legislative influence, there may still be a political influence that contributes to the design of public policies. For us, Christians involved in social assistance services, the activities we carry out are not based on the UDHR, the Federal Constitution of 1988 or the ECA. Our foundation is in our faith consciousness. However, our activities are not contrary to these documents, nor can they exist in the public sphere without the support and corroboration of legislation. The UDHR is a strong ally in our work and not an enemy to be fought. The Federal Constitution of 1988 and the ECA are even stronger, since we can corroborate our work based on the legislation of our country. This does not mean that on certain issues, our faith consciousness and these documents do not conflict. But it means that the solution to these conflicts should not be combative, but rather collaborative, thinking of appropriate ways to interpret these documents, and how to “fill” their values ​​using practices that are appropriate to our faith consciousness, since the purpose of these documents is exactly that. For us Christians, who believe in the universal brotherhood of humanity and the formation of a family identity that prioritizes the family of origin, in the participation of the Body of Christ, the example of the right to family life, through a substitute family, guaranteed in the ECA, is a good illustration of how our conscience of faith, human rights and legislation can dialogue well, finding ways to be practiced for the common good in the protection of the most vulnerable. Throughout the Old and New Testaments, belonging to the family of God, as a way of establishing a true family, community, national and global environment, for the “integral development” of each individual and community, is not in ties of blood, that is, it does not depend on the family of origin.

Obviously, families of origin, especially in the Old Testament, are the common and expected means of belonging to the family of God and establishing that environment conducive to “integral development.” However, this is not the only means, and the value of belonging to the family of God surpasses loyalty or entitlement to the family of origin. God’s paternal care for all human beings goes beyond any kind of limit that Abraham’s family of origin, for example, might have. The family of God is not restricted to the consanguinity of Abraham’s family, either in the Old Testament or in the New. Wherever the family of God offers family care to a person, that is, care that guarantees “the right to life, health, food, education, leisure, professional training, culture, dignity, respect, freedom and family and community life”, protecting them from “all forms of neglect, discrimination, exploitation, violence, cruelty and oppression”, there is an expression and an invitation to belong to the divine family. We can see this in the story of Ruth, the Moabite woman who, through mutual family care between her and Naomi, became part of the family of God. We can see this in the very identity of Israel as a whole, which was never exclusively a genetic or ethnic identity, but rather a covenantal one. The cares listed in Matthew 25:31–46, through which Jesus, the King, will judge all nations, are typical of the loyalty and generosity expected among relatives and, therefore, are cares that express and invite belonging to the family of God, through Jesus. Finally, all of Paul’s theological effort can be summarized in his declaration that “all are children of God through the loyalty of Jesus, the King” (Letter to the Galatians 3:26). And all of this occurs through a “substitute” family that promotes, above all, life and life in abundance for all, especially the most vulnerable who have their identity and value undervalued. This family of God, in Jesus, has universal values ​​that are also fulfilled by the particular experience of its members. Universality, here, is based on the diversity of particulars. Universal brotherhood is experienced and the universal divine plan is fulfilled through particular families that, as different members of the same body, the body of Christ, form a single family of God. In the next edition of ABBA-PAI, we will further expand on the relationship between human rights and Christian faith. We will demonstrate the cultural sources, especially religious and philosophical, behind the values ​​of human rights expressed in the UDHR. Biblical faith is certainly part of this tradition, although it is not the only one. But based on biblical faith, as part of the sources that produced, directly and indirectly, the values ​​of human rights and the UDHR, we will talk about the relationship between Christian mission and human rights. Until next time.

  - ABBA TEAM