State Department Continues to Promote “Natural Law” Commission

Politico reports that the State Department may officially launch its new Commission on Unalienable Rights as soon as Monday, July 8.  Supporters of the new commission have argued that it is needed in part to push back against the growing public interest in economic and social rights — issues that, they say, divert attention from “real” human rights violations like torture.  State Department officials with responsibility for human rights and likely a better understanding of human rights principles of indivisibility have apparently had little role in the Commission’s development. 

In other news, the State Department will convene its second “Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom” on July 16-18 in Washington, D.C.  The first Ministerial, a year ago, brought together a great many men and a handful of women religious leaders to discuss challenges to religious freedom worldwide.

Religious freedom and freedom from torture are certainly human rights that deserve protection.  But meanwhile, at the US-Mexico border, the U.S. government’s human rights and humanitarian violations continue unabated, the federal government is devising ways to use the U.S. Census to further harass immigrants, and the administration proposes to cut back on interpreters at immigration hearings.  In our cities, homelessness is on the rise and residents face growing challenges in accessing clean and affordable water.  Around the U.S., climate change is contributing to flooding, damaging heat, and other extreme weather events with human consequences — while the federal government remains in a state of denial.

These issues raise serious human rights concerns that demand attention from governments at all levels.  Yet instead of taking decisive, positive action, the federal Administration’s response is to challenge the very definition of human rights, narrowing it to a handful of civil and political rights. 

What better time than the 4th of July to register your opposition to these attempts to narrow the human rights protections that we enjoy, and to call on the Administration to take the full range of human rights seriously?