FUTURE BUREAUCRAT

I once listened to a lecture by a renowned Muslim constitutional scholar, during which he presented his argument that constitutions should protect group rights in addition to individual rights.  Where these rights clash, his argument goes, socieites should have the choice to elevate certain rights of the group over personal liberties. As applied to Muslim countries, his theory would allow constitutions to elevate certain Islamic traditions, like those enshrined in Sharia Law, over rights like free speech and freedom from discrimination.

I accept the fact that this is an exercise in semantics (what is liberty?) that depends largely on how one’s experience informs their understanding of the individual’s relationship with the larger community.  The argument for group rights is controversial in that it clashes with the constitutional history of the United States, which one can argue shows steady development and expansion of individual liberties.

It’s also a well-developed apology for the medieval oppression that occurs in Islamic societies like Saudi Arabia. Take this story: a woman in Saudi Arabia was kidnapped and gang-raped at knife point by multiple attackers. As a result, the Saudi Gazette is reporting that she was sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone in a car with a man who was not her husband. Which man? The same person who blackmailed her, kidnapped her and transported her to the scene of the assult.

Any constitutional theory elevating group rights must find a way to protect women, it must find a way to protect religious minorities, it must ensure government is not coopted by extremist interpretations of ancient texts.  There is no argument you can make that will convince me that it is right and just to elevate provisions of Sharia Law at the expense of the individual rights to which every human being is entitled.

This woman’s rights were violated. Objectively. No matter where she lived.