At a very urgent juncture, the world was administered extreme unction in the aftermath of World War II in the form of the United Nations whose working-group applied the aspiration of universal human rights, which is a very good and needed model to aim for. This convention, however, is somewhat effacing to if not the true underlying factors then at least to that propaganda that inspired much of the outrage and tragedy that is failing to impart any real lessons unfortunately.
The mass deception and hysteria broke out owing in part (if not wholly) by appealing to scapegoats and the worst of people’s prejudices, applying the template of a host majority’s fears on minority groups, defined as outsider or other by the prevailing, dominant outlook. Of course, those draftsmen would prefer those others to be loyal adherents to progressive causes and progressive thinking, but the concept of a universal right worth protecting also obligates recognising a cultural identity—by that very difference—which may be in stark opposition to what’s been enshrined. There’s plenty of room for interpretation and the notion that one could choose to worship any way he or she sees fit or not at all or the inherent equality among the sexes, as I feel and values I cherish, could become quite a problem for others (given that this lack of choice in the matter is the way and the way it has always been and there’ve not been complaints worth registering), as could peddling a certain style of democracy over others, as the Swiss, for instance, might regard governance American style wholly inadequate and theirs the highest standard. Not that we should not hope for egalitarian goals and convictions that respectful of others nor that a certain set of ideals engenders greater foreignness but we ought not forget that the notion of rights is something malleable and conceived to protect those that may not ascribe to them.
