Boomerang Human Rights Violations

Posted on January 6, 2010 by Filip Spagnoli

(source)

We usually see human rights violations are zero-sum: a rights violation is a harm inflicted by one person on another, for the benefit of the former. I mentioned before that this isnt always the correct way of viewing rights violations, but its adequate in most cases. One case in which its only superficially adequate is what I would call the boomerang human rights violation: you think that violating someones rights may produce some benefit for you, and it does so initially, but the actual and final results mean that you become worse off. Theres the obvious and uninteresting example of the dictator using extreme oppression and causing revolt, but here are some other, more intriguing examples. The first one has to do with the right to work. Gene Marks is a small business owner (he sells customer relationship management tools), who is attempting to speak to other small business owners, all of whom, presumably, are also delighted that the potential hiring pool is so chock full of talent desperate to be exploited right now. But one wonders who exactly is supposed to purchase all those products and services from the small businesses of the world, if unemployment creeps up to the 10 percent mark or higher? High unemployment means low consumer

demand. Which usually means small businesses end up going out of business, or at the very least, laying off more employees, who push the unemployment rate even higher. And so on. (source)

If, as a capitalist (i.e. employer), you want to take advantage of unemployment or the risk of unemployment to put downward pressure on wages and workers benefits and thereby violate workers rights (a fair wage is a human right, as are favorable working conditions) youll end up shooting yourself in the foot because neither hard working laborers who dont earn a lot nor the unemployed will consume many of your products or services. I can see the appeal of the statement that generous unemployment benefits discourage people from finding a job, but such benefits do have advantages that go beyond the mere selfinterest of the direct beneficiaries. An ideal policy would allow people to collect unemployment insurance indefinitely, and let the unemployed borrow or save money. This way, unemployment insurance would not merely be a financial band-aid letting people take risks on the job market and endure some jobless spells, but a critical source of liquidity, allowing the unemployed to keep spending reasonable amounts of money which in turn helps create demand, something sorely lacking from the economy at the moment. (source)

And heres another example, related to gender discrimination. In many countries, theres a son preference: male offspring is considered more valuable than female offspring, for reasons to do with gender discrimination and social, cultural or religious views regarding the proper role of women in society. One of the consequences is the missing girls phenomenon. The sex ratios in many countries India and China stand out - are out of balance. Some estimates say that 90 million women are missing worldwide. In somewhat overwrought rhetoric this is called gendercide.* Girls are often aborted in selective abortions (a one child policy can make this even more widespread), and young girls are often prejudiced against when it comes to nutrition and health care resulting in higher mortality rates. The son preference and the missing girls phenomenon have their roots mainly in cultural beliefs, but economic considerations also play a role. Some professions are open only to men; girls marry into other families and hence cant continue the family business; theres the dowry problem etc. However, these economic considerations dont stand on their own and are often the result of discriminatory cultural beliefs. When we accept that gender discrimination and the will to sustain patriarchy is the cause of the son preference and the missing girls phenomenon, then we are dealing with a human rights violation. And also this rights violation can come back to haunt those responsible for it. A societal preference for boys here has become an unlikely source of power for Indian women. The abortion of female fetuses in favor of sons an illegal but

widespread practice means there are more eligible bachelors than potential brides, allowing women and their parents to be more selective when arranging a match. (source) Rather than cementing patriarchy, the son preference and the resulting unbalanced sex ratios give women more bargaining power. These and other boomerang rights violations are variants of what Ive called selfinflicted rights violations: people violate other peoples rights, and in so doing they ultimately violate their own rights. I guess I msut be attracted to selfdestructive and self-defeating behavior. * The word is overwrought in my view because, contrary to genocide, theres no centralized plan to exterminate women.