Dear Alexander,

I am glad you have raised what is actually a trick question (and I hope you intended it that way) because the truth of identity politics is that it has actually been used by elites to promote one kind of rights (a few individual rights and then some new created categories of individual preferences as rights) that allows them to promote their control and wealth (along with militarism and the national security state) while undermining ethnic/cultural identities (a form of cultural/ethnic genocide) and ethnic groups' environments (and our global environment) and turning attention away from huge inequalities that they have created by eliminating most political, social and economic rights (free speech, privacy, social security nets, institutional accountability). In wealthy/industrialized countries, this ideology of neo-liberalism has enabled elites to focus on a few social issues/identities related to gender and sexuality to build support for globalization policies that eliminate global diversity, security, and opportunity, largely in violation of international law and to create new kinds of "rights" like "rights" of businesses and new social rights that throw a few crumbs to marginalized groups in the short term. The international human rights agenda existing in international law has essentially been hijacked and replaced such that most people are led to "agree" while not really understanding what is happening. The real "marginalized" groups are 99% of the world's 6,000 cultures and the world's peoples, who have lost their lands and traditions and have been forced into a process of industrialization in which they lack all forms of opportunity, effective participation in all respects, and long-term sustainability and security. For the answer to "how" to protect the 99% of us who are now marginalized, pick anything you like from my ResearchGate page, from "Measuring Human Rights" to "An International Red Book for Endangered Cultures" to "We Now Have the Tools to Hold Actors Accountable" to "A Return to Democracy" to "Is Economics in Violation of International Law" to "The Universal Development Goals" to "A Treatise on International Development Law" ...

David Lempert, Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A., E.D. (Hon.)

Dear Alexander,

Here is a quick second perspective for you that might help open discussion, that goes to the heart of your question and exposes the failure of the main UN approach today to human rights. In one sentence, what human rights are really about is "power balancing" between groups whom you can think of as "perpetrators" and "victims". If you think about rights as trying to equalize the power balances through different mechanisms such as "federalism" for group rights where there are clear identities of those groups, or "private attorney general" or "class action" using individual oversight in the legal system to check abuses against individuals by large institutions, then you have an answer to your question as to how different group and cultural interests/ identities can create a better "social contract" to protect their "rights". Part of the confusion you might have over rights may be due to the political hijacking of rights debates today to focus on fictional categories like "duty bearers" and "rights holders" rather than on power balancing, and hijacking of the debate over inequalities and assuring opportunities to focus only on "identities" rather than the forms of disempowerment (unaccountability of institutions, destruction of opportunity and access) at all levels.

Best,

David Lempert, Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A., E.D. (Hon.)

I couldn't agree more with what David Lempert has already stated.

Regarding gender equality, we must remember that there have been struggles to receive equal civil rights between different groups of people in almost every country. For instance, the abolition of slavery was gained a long time ago and although that phenomena in itself has apparently disappeared, new forms of slavery have emerged, labour slavery, child exploitation, sex exploitation, among others.

Most of the social issues in recent history carried the use of different policies, laws and regulations that became fashionable. Words and expressions became of common use according to the movement we wanted to be associated with, such as "gender equality", "Women's rights", "LGBTIIQ+", "pro-life", "the right to decide" and so on and so forth. I wonder how many of the thought gains have been concessions made by the people in power. Just stop and think for a moment. The right of women to vote was granted when political parties did not attract male voters to keep them in power. In return, most women voted for that particular party. What was it? Right recognition or manipulation? Over a hundred years have elapse between that right to be granted to women, we can see that very few women have acceded to the higher position of government in their countries, in some earlier than in others; however, have those women actually changed the way politics is done? Have they cleared the way to other women so they follow their suit or have more obstacles appeared to ensure that the equality in opportunities is just a fallacy?

The supposed benefits from laws and regulations have brought as many, if not more, problems than solutions to the main issue. I doubt the "social contract" Mr. Lempert refers to is being respected, when in some less developed societies is not even acknowledged; hence, the respect of "equality of rights" before the judicial system and the political groups is mostly inexistent.

Political parties use the "Equality agenda" to launch campaigns, to ask for favours, to bend laws in their favour. They use the "Equality movements" to gain support of the LGBTIIQ+ communities for their campaigns and their own political gain. Advertisement campaigns make use of the same agenda to sell services and products, not really for the benefit of the oppressed groups, but for financial gain.

Then again, we, women, cannot claim equality in a patriarcal society designed to favour men over women. Personally, I do not want to be treated with equality because I am different. I want equity, so that people's limitations and individual differences are taken into consideration when given resources and opportunities to reach an equal goal.

Equal human rights will eliminate human destructiveness and build a bright future for humankind. They are also the simplest way of social organization. This short article clearly presents how to build equal human rights:Article Equal Human Rights Will Eliminate Human Destructiveness