Are we living in a post-human rights world?

Western hypocrisy around human rights extends beyond doing nothing to halt Israel’s genocide in Gaza. They’ve also done little to stop atrocities against the Rohingya, Uyghurs, Darfuris and others.

 

By Fareed Khan 
  
The world seems to be heading towards a precipice, towards a dangerous descent into a reality where human rights are no longer a universal guarantee but a privilege for the select few. The infrastructure of human rights, painstakingly built after the horrors of World War II, is under relentless assault—both at home and abroad. Our political leaders, entrusted with safeguarding these sacred principles, are complicit in their erosion, either through inaction, selective outrage, or outright suppression.

 

The hypocrisy of Western nations, the very architects of the post-war international legal order, is glaring. From being complicit in the ongoing genocide in Gaza to the silencing of dissent in democratic countries like the United States, the evidence is unmistakable. We are perilously close to a post-human rights world, and the vast majority of the public don't even realize the danger this poses. If we fail to defend the domestic and international human rights framework now, we risk a future where no one’s rights are secure, and the term will become meaningless in international law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, was a beacon of hope, a promise that the atrocities of global conflict and the Holocaust would never be repeated. Eleanor Roosevelt, a champion of this cause, declared, “People who continue to be denied the respect to which they are entitled as human beings will not acquiesce forever in such denial." And we see that today in the oppression of Palestinians by Israel, of Uyghurs by China, of the Rohingya by Myanmar, of Muslims by India, of illegal migrants by the US, and the violation of the rights of people who are LGBTQ2 by Russia. Every assault against the fundamental rights of minority populations is an assault on the human rights of all people, wherever they may be.

Western nations, which claim to uphold the international legal order, display a galling double standard on how they address the matter of violating fundamental rights. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the West mobilized swiftly, condemning Vladimir Putin’s war crimes, talking about how the rights of Ukrainians were violated, and even invoking the term “genocide” to describe Russian actions. Billions of dollars in economic aid and military assistance flowed to Ukraine, a testament to the West’s capacity to act when it feels its interests are under threat. But when Israel’s 20-month campaign of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinians in Gaza unfolded—killing over 63,000 to date, displacing millions, and destroying an entire society—the response is tepid political platitudes and empty calls for restraint. There have been no broad sanctions against Israel as punishment for its crimes, no arms embargoes, no accountability compared to the West’s reaction to Russia’s war in Ukraine. This selective defence of human rights exposes a chilling truth: for the West, some lives are of lesser value, particularly if they happen to be brown or black, and especially if they are Muslim.

Western hypocrisy around human rights extends beyond Palestine. The Rohingya, the Uyghurs, the Kashmiris under Indian rule, and the Darfuris in Sudan face persecution, violence, and erasure, yet Western capitals remain largely silent. Where is the political will to address these crises? As Nelson Mandela once said, “To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.” By ignoring these atrocities, Western leaders are not just failing to act—they are denying the humanity of millions. The Centre for Civil and Political Rights notes a “degradation in cooperation” with UN Treaty Bodies, with states like Sri Lanka, Somalia, and Haiti skipping scheduled human rights reviews, and others, like Burundi, openly defying scrutiny. This disengagement signals a broader contempt for the mechanisms designed to protect human rights globally.

 

Closer to home, the democratic West is no bastion of freedom either. In the United States, the Trump administration has targeted pro-Palestinian protesters with chilling precision. There is the case of Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, a legal resident of the US married to an American, who was whisked off by Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (ICE) agents to a Louisiana prison, and held for months without being allowed easy access to his lawyer. And then there is the case of Turkish graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk at Tufts University, who was arrested by masked Department of Homeland Security agents and sent to the same Louisiana prison as Khalil. Their “crimes” were that Khalil was a leading voice in anti-genocide protests at Columbia, while Öztürk co-wrote an op-ed in her campus newspaper about Israel committing genocide in Gaza. Hundreds of protesters opposing the Gaza genocide across the US have faced arbitrary arrests and jail time, their right to free speech trampled under the very questionable justification of “national security.”

Meanwhile in Canada, the passage in Parliament of Bill C-5 (“Building Canada Act”) grants the federal government sweeping powers to fast-track infrastructure projects, and ignore Indigenous treaty rights despite widespread opposition from first nations. Indigenous leaders have vowed that major civil unrest by Indigenous people will occur if their views are ignored and their rights violated when the federal and provincial governments move forward on major projects.

Across the Atlantic, Germany has banned the display of the Palestinian flag, while France has moved to suppress pro-Palestinian protests, effectively criminalizing solidarity with a people enduring genocide. These actions are not isolated but reflect a broader surge in authoritarian politics in Western democracies, reminiscent of the 1930s when fascist ideologies stifled dissent, marginalized minorities, and fuelled racist and political violence.

This suppression of free expression extends beyond governments. In the US, Canada and parts of Europe employers are disciplining or even firing workers who publicly criticize Israel’s genocidal crimes. In Canada, major news outlets—CBC, CTV, Global, National Post, and the Globe and Mail—consistently frame stories about Israel and Palestine through an anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel lens, perpetuating racism and curbing the rights of Palestinians to be heard, and tell stories of their persecution.

Compounding this crisis is the severe defunding of UN human rights mechanisms. Critical UN agencies, vital for protecting millions of vulnerable people worldwide, face crippling budget shortfalls due to funding cuts from the United States and other nations. The UN Human Rights Committee, responsible for monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has had to scale back its work, including indefinitely postponing Canada’s first review in a decade. At a time when state-sanctioned violence, inequality, and repression are escalating, weakening these institutions undermines accountability, enables further persecution of minorities, and destabilizes societies.

This assault on human rights is not just an international failure—it’s a domestic concern in the West as well. The rise of fascist elements in the West, often cloaked in populist rhetoric, threatens the rights of anyone who doesn’t conform to the dominant majority. In the US (with its MAGA cult), Canada, and Europe, we are seeing a growing intolerance for dissent, particularly when it challenges powerful interests. The suppression of pro-Palestinian voices, being pushed by Zionist groups and their allies, the erosion of Indigenous rights, and the targeting of minority communities signals a dangerous trend. Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” So if we allow these violations to persist unchecked, we pave the way for a world where no one’s rights are safe.

Politicians and the public must wake up and smell the coffee. The global human rights infrastructure is not a luxury we can ignore, it’s the bedrock of a just society and it is under assault like never before. By comparison nations have no qualms about funnelling tens of billions of dollars into military budgets, yet they balk at funding the UN’s human rights mechanisms adequately, which cost a fraction of those sums.

This is not a question of resources but of priorities. The CCPR Centre’s 2023 Annual Report highlights the increasing hostility toward human rights defenders, with some states obstructing dialogue and withdrawing from reviews altogether. Western leaders claiming to defend human rights, but only selectively, enables this backsliding. Canada, the US, and European democracies which repeatedly claim to be upholders of human rights must reinvest in the UN, strengthen treaty bodies, and hold all states—friends and foes alike—accountable for their obligations under international law.

What kind of world awaits us if the powerful and privileged disregard human rights? The result would be a dystopian nightmare. In a world without human rights, dissent against governments and elites would be criminalized, and free speech would be reserved for those aligned with ruling powers, echoing eras when such rights were nonexistent. Protesters, like Palestinian solidarity activists in the US, could face mass detentions without due process, reminiscent of how political dissenters were dealt with in the former Soviet Union. In Canada, Indigenous communities might see their lands exploited for mega-projects without consultation, their treaty rights violated and reduced to hollow words in historical documents. Across Europe, minority groups—whether ethnic, religious, or political—could face unchecked discrimination, their voices stifled by state-sanctioned bans. Globally, atrocities in places like the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Myanmar, or Sudan would multiply, with no international body empowered to take action. The powerless would be left defenceless, their suffering ignored by a world indifferent to their humanity.

This is not exaggeration—it’s a warning of what lies ahead if the silent majority remains passive. Without a robust human rights enforcement framework, the rule of law collapses, replaced by the dominance of powerful and wealthy elites who would be free to violate human rights if it served their interests. Palestinians, Rohingya, Uyghurs, and others would not be the only victims. Everyone, everywhere, would be vulnerable to unchecked authority and power.

Power itself does not always corrupt, but the fear of losing it often does, as seen in nations like China, Russia, North Korea, and El Salvador. The refusal of Western leaders to punish human rights abusing allies like Israel or challenge powerful domestic lobbies that support it, erodes the very principles they claim to champion.

The time for empty promises about upholding human rights is over. Leaders must act decisively, equipping international human rights organizations and UN bodies with the resources to enforce global standards consistently, while safeguarding freedom of expression home by upholding the principles of national foundational documents like Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If we fail to protect the human rights framework we have now, we risk waking up to a world where those rights have been severely weakened or eliminated. The future of our fundamental human rights is in our hands. It is within our power to protect the rights we take for granted or let governments and powerful interests destroy them bit by bit, and return to a darker era, before the concept of human rights existed.

  
© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

On August 5, 2019 Indian PM Narendra Modi made the world more dangerous with his lunacy in Kashmir, a year later things are worse

By Fareed Khan

A year ago this week the world became a more dangerous place, caused by India's actons India did in the autonomous Muslim majority state of Kashmir, at least the part that it controls.  On that day Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stripped the state of its legal and constitutional autonomy, and through his actions said to Kashmiris that they had no say in the way they were to be governed.  The actions elicited outrage from Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan and from protesters the streets across the country.

For more than 70 years Kashmir has been a flashpointvI for India and Pakistan.  It is a conflict that has largely been ignored by the rest of the world, except occasionally when the conflict flares up and it catches the world’s attention.

Canadian journalist and author Eric Margolis said in his 2002 book War At the Top of the World, that Kashmir is the most dangerous region in the world, and that if nuclear war war was going to break out anywhere in it would be in Kashmir between India and Pakistan.  Both nations have tactical nuclear weapons in the region pointed at each other, meaning if a nuclear exchange were to happen people on both sides of the line of control would have little warning.

On August 5, 2019 Narendra Modi’s fascist BJP government poured gasoline on the fire in Kashmir when it unilaterally rescinded Article 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution, thereby revoking the sovereignty of a people who never accepted Indian control of their nation in the first place.

These two provisions were the foundations on which Kashmir acceded to join India after colonial India was partitioned by the British, and it gave Kashmir’s legislative assembly the power to define who were "permanent residents" of the state.  As the only Muslim majority state in India these two constitutional provisions were key to preserving the identity and culture of the Kashmiri people.

The decision by the Modi government was labelled as illegal because it was done unilaterally without consultations with the state government of Kashmir.  In addition, it was illegal under Indian law which requires more than just executive authority to change the Indian constitution.  Along with these unprecedented actions India also imprisoned the leaders of Kashmir without charge, disarmed the state's security forces and police, imposed a communications lock down of the state's phone system, internet and social media, instituted a state-wide curfew thereby making Kashmiris prisoners in their own homes, and started arresting Muslim activists and politicians.  In addition, there have been reports of Indian security forces torturing Kashmiris who have been imprisoned for many years, something which is likely to continue as India increases its stranglehold on the Muslim majority state. 

 

A year later, there are approximately 600,000 Indian soldiers and security personnel in Kashmir to control the population of 12 million Kashmiris.  That is a ratio of one soldier for every 20 civilians, and it describes what is a defacto police state in Kashmir where human rights don’t exist, where people are arbitrarily arrested and disappeared, and where torture of prisoners is routine.  These are clearly the actions of a repressive, criminal government that cares little about the welfare of Kashmiri Muslims despite what Modi has said about wanting to improve the lives and economic opportunities of everyone in Kashmir. 

 

What Modi did ishould not be surprising given the record of his government and its campaign of persecuting and brutality targeting India’s Muslims since he first came to power.  In truth, what he did was an exercise in authoritarian power and demonstrated that democracy and the rule of law in India is now a complete sham as demonstrated by the escalation of state violence and terror against India’s only Muslim majority state. 

 

But Modi’s actions shouldn’t be surprising given the history of India’s occupation of Kashmir, and the brutality they have inflicted on the Muslim population of that region for many decades.  This decision was the culmination of seven decades of oppression, persecution and political manipulation by India.  It was also another slap to the face of the United Nations which has passed multiple resolutions concerning Kashmir, including Security Council Resolution 47 which was adopted on April 21, 1948 and called for the Kashmiris to determine their own future in a plebiscite. 

By undertaking this action India has set the stage for creating facts on the ground in Kashmir that will make it near impossible for Kashmiris to determine their own future short of some type of outside intervention to force a peaceful solution.  The strategy that India has adopted is in fact very similar to what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians for over 70 years, and it isn’t surprising given the close ties that have developed between the fascist governments in India and Israel since Modi became prime minister. 

 

However, there may be a small avenue of hope to put pressure the Indian government, and it lies in the hands of those that choose to invest in justice for the people of Kashmir.  That hope lies in the UN’s Genocide Convention, to which both Pakistan and India are state parties.  Pakistan or any other nation could use this seminal UN treaty to bring India before the International Court of Justice in The Hague.  If successfully prosecuted a case under the Genocide Convention would not only shame India and force it pay reparations to Kashmir, it could also force India to allow Kashmiris to determine their own future, as India agreed to do in 1948 under Security Council Resolution 47. 

 

Under Article 2 of the Genocide Convention “genocide” is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.  An offending party need only commit one of the following acts to be guilty of committing genocide.  These acts include: 

(a)  Killing members of the group; 

(b)  Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 

(c)  Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical 

         destruction in whole or in part; 

(d)  Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and 

(e)  Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The likelihood of genocide occurring was so high that the organization Genocide Watch issued an urgent alert, warning of the potential for genocide in Kashmir in the days that followed India's rescinding of Articles 370 and 35A, while some human rights scholars and jurists argue that India’s actions already constitute genocide under Articles 2a, 2b, and 2c of the Genocide Convention. If political will were mustered, any state party to the Convention could file a motion to hold India accountable, signalling a critical opportunity to address the ongoing crisis.

A military resolution to the Kashmir dispute is unthinkable, as even conservative estimates suggest that a conflict between India and Pakistan could spiral into a nuclear exchange, killing over 20 million people instantly and potentially claiming up to 125 million lives globally in the ensuing nuclear winter. The catastrophic stakes demand that both nations abandon militarized approaches, as the cost of such a confrontation would be apocalyptic for the region and the world.

 

For over seven decades, India’s actions in Kashmir—marked by violations of UN Security Council resolutions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva Conventions—have perpetuated a cycle of suffering and injustice. During that time the Kashmiri people have endured relentless oppression, their voices silenced, and their rights trampled. A new path, grounded in the legal framework of the Genocide Convention, offers hope for accountability and change. The world cannot continue to stand by as Kashmiris suffer.  Urgent, decisive action is needed to restore their human rights and secure a future of peace, justice, and dignity for a people too long ignored and forgotten.

© 2020 The View From Here.  © 2020 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.