Advancing the cause of human rights (~560 words, 2 - 3 min read )

One of the things that I have, at times, found frustrating about advocating for human rights is that some advocates can put undue reliance on the use of agreed laws and conventions (or even non-enforceable declarations). 

I can understand that, as being an advocate (or a human rights defender, as it seems to often be termed these days) is exhausting - the work I did in the 90s and early 2000s left me with a deep-in-my-bones weariness that I don’t think I’ve ever lost (partly because my day job was even more demanding than that). Given that demand on energy, it is tempting to rely on “it’s the law, there, go read about what you have to do”, and, in the case of governmental organisations and genuine experts, that should suffice - where it doesn’t, the organisation(s) / “(alleged) expert(s)” are either being utterly unprofessional, incompetent, or unprofessional & incompetent bigots (bigots have flawed mental processes and/or data - it is impossible to be a bigot and also be competent and professional). 

However, when dealing with individuals, their understanding of law is often limited (especially around the fact that women-only groups may have to get exemptions under many anti-discrimination laws - and do, as a matter of course since that enables the purpose of anti-discrimination to be met, and that has been so since the 70s, FFS), and emotions will RIGHTLY be an important issue.

My parents were supportive of me, but they also did the human thing of wondering if they had contributed to me being part of the LGBTIQ+ communities (which, incidentally, is also why I chose to never have children last century - anti-discrimination laws and social bigotry meant I didn't want to risk passing on to any children I could have had back then neither the abuse I received from bigots nor the internal angst, which was greatly exacerbated by the bigotry and ignorance). I tried to discuss that with another advocate at the time, and got an extremely aggressive reply that I should just tell them it was my human right, and leave it at that - which was a reply that, notwithstanding that it may have reflected abuse that person had received from their parents, for my situation was rank to the point of being putrid. 

I wanted to reassure my parents that they had done nothing wrong, and was not helped - in fact, I was aggressively told to attack them. (The medical profession can be just as clueless, incidentally.)

On top of that, this sort of approach can lead to people who do not understand why they are wrong complying only grudgingly to laws, and doing whatever they can to undermine those laws - e.g., in the way they raise their children, and by being parts of underground conspiracy fantasies, and by trying to overthrow governments and/or human rights decisions. 

This is why, back in the 90s, we worked with all sides of government (the party in power, the opposition, and independents) - to get a law that wouldn’t simply be overthrown after the next change of government. 

It is also why education at school needs to go into the whys and wherefores of human rights laws, not just the “how-to-be-inclusive’s” - and to do so in a way that enables parents of children to be taken along on the journey.