 I'm a presenter for TRT World and I'm very excited to be moderating this special Facebook live discussion with two exceptional guests on this, the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Well, 70 years on and yet we still need to go back to basics and ask some fundamental questions. Are human rights truly universal, or do cultural rights in fact clash with universality? In today's world increasingly globalized and interconnected, but yet so deeply divided and fragmented. Are we seeing new shifting dynamics, competing dynamics between these terms, between universality, cultural diversity and cultural rights? Are these mutually exclusive terms? Are they contradiction terms? Or can they be truly mutually reinforcing? Well, as you might think, 70 years on, seven decades since the Declaration on the Universal Rights of Human Rights has been signed, we are still grappling with some of these hotly contested issues. And I am pleased to say that we are very privileged to have with us two prominent experts on the topic joining us for this Facebook live. The 1986 Nobel Laureate for Literature, Wally Schoenke, who is the first African to win this prize. He's a world-renowned playwright, author and poet, a longtime professor of comparative literature in his native Nigeria, but also at leading universities here in the United States and around the world, including Oxford, Yale and Harvard. We are a longtime, dedicated and highly committed passionate defender of human rights. We are deeply honored to have you with us, Professor Schoenke. We're also very, very privileged to have with us the United Nations Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Professor Karima Benoen. Professor Benoen teaches international law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. She's also the author of Your Fatwa Doesn't Apply Here, Untold Stories in the Fight Against Muslim Fundamentalism. Karima Benoen has been Special Rapporteur for cultural rights since 2015. So we are very, very happy to have you both with us. We're equally happy to have you joining this discussion from around the world. Do send us your thoughts, your questions, and we will get to them at least in the second part of this discussion. We will, though, begin and start us off with a question to you, Karima Benoen. Today, at the UN General Assembly, you presented your annual report, this time looking at the interconnectedness between cultural diversity, cultural rights and universality. Before we go any further, give us your definition of the principle, the basis of universality when it comes to human rights in general, but more specifically to cultural rights. Thank you so much for that question, Hida, and it's such an honor to be here with both of you and with all of you to discuss these important topics. So universality is actually a very simple idea. It is the idea that all human beings everywhere, regardless of what categories they fit into, have inherent, equal human rights. It's the idea that there is no such thing as a second-class human being. And it's not just a beautiful idea. It's also a basic tenet of international law. And I argue in the report that it's one of the most important legal principles codified during the 20th century. Professor Benoen, let me stop you here because it is certainly a noble idea. It's a wonderful idea, but in practical terms, does it mean very much? Can human rights truly be universal when we all belong to different cultures? We have our own cultural values and norms. Isn't there a contradiction there? I don't think there's a contradiction there at all. Because the point that I have made again and again is that cultural rights are a part of universal human rights. They're not a trump for those rights. The right to take part in cultural life, the right to take part in cultural practices of your choice, or not to take part in cultural practices, those are fundamental human rights. But they're not an excuse for the right to violate other human rights. They're not an excuse for violence against anyone or for discrimination. And states have reaffirmed universality again and again, beginning with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but then in all of the recent human rights treaties that we have seen, such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. So this is clearly a principle of international law. It is hard law. And I think it is deeply meaningful in the lives of human beings all around the world. But it's an ideal. We haven't arrived there yet. And what we need today is the political will to get to the goal. And so did you find this political will? Because I know just a couple of hours ago you were at the General Assembly, as I mentioned, presenting this report. I imagine there was no unanimity when it comes to the way member states have reacted to this. Do they agree with your conclusion, for the most part, that our cultural differences don't matter, that we can have a one-size-fits-all when it comes to human rights? Well, I would say a couple of things. One is I was very pleased to have the opportunity to present the report to the General Assembly today. And I'm grateful to the states that engaged with that report. I was sorry that more states didn't speak up whatever their views. There was a statement from the European Union strongly in support, a statement from the Russian Federation that was rather critical of the report. But I'm thankful for engagement even when we have different views. That's what the United Nations is all about. But there is tremendous support for the report from civil society all around the world. And in fact, I think much more support from states than was expressed in the room. But I think one of the key things we all need to do, individuals, governments, civil society organizations, is to speak up for universal human rights. Don't just take them for granted. Don't just take them for granted. And that brings up a lot of different issues, including the fact that a lot of people believe that this is some kind of an imposition from the Western world, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights began not as a global project, but as a Western project. Turning to you, Wally Schoenke, you've been called an African literary statesman. And an interesting thing you once said is, I grew up in an atmosphere where words were an integral part of culture. How do you define culture? What does it mean for you? And how does it fit into this wider debate in terms of, you know, what's great in theory and what's achievable in practice? Thank you. First of all, I regret that I wasn't present when Karima presented her report. I wanted, I actually asked to be there, because I wanted to look at the faces of the representatives of various governments, those violators of human rights. I would have loved to hear their comment on what she had to say. Still, culture, first of all, is a total, it's a synthesis of the entirety of the productivity, intellectual, creative, technical productivity of any society. And when I hear expressions like cultural relativism, I have only one thing in mind that to throw a challenge to such people, that each and everyone should go home and examine their cultures, the totality of their cultures, whether they are productive systems, they are aware of sharing the wealth of society, whether they are rituals for harvesting, planting, the worldview, their songs, their performance rituals, etc., etc. Proverbs, to examine them very carefully and see whether they will fail to extract any item, any idea from those manifestations, which contradict the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Well, you seem to be critical of cultural relativism and people who espouse this notion, who believe that every cultural context needs to be looked at individually and that you cannot simply impose a universal standard of human rights. But I wonder what you say to people who believe and who argue that the universality of values, in this case human rights, smacks of imperialism, that colonialism itself was an attempt precisely to sort of impose a blanket standard of universal values on everyone regardless of culture, be it Asian, African, or the rest of it. It's a dodge. It's a dodge. They know very well. That's why I throw that challenge, that I invite them to declare to the world that there is nothing in their cultures, in their sayings, their Proverbs, their songs, their performance rituals. There is nothing in there which actually sustains the ideas which we extract from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The fact that some people sit around a table as a result of certain convulsions and decide that we must codify, set down the protocols that define humanity and define their methods of association that they do not thereby have within their own cultures, within their own sayings, within their own relationships, even monarchical systems have inbuilt human rights. And when the so-called absolute monarch flouts any of those rights, they know very well what happens to them in their various cultures. So you see it as a dodge, as a diversion. It's a dodge. Karima Benoan, you agree with this because you've said in your report that the universality of human rights has come under sustained attack from different directions including governments and non-state actors, but I think you do point out to cultural relativism more than anything else. Absolutely. I think cultural relativism is one of the biggest threats to the universality of human rights that we face. Cultural relativism is not the same thing as cultural rights. Cultural rights is about amplifying human rights through culture. Cultural relativism is about denying them. It's about saying people fit in different categories and have lesser rights. And it's the sort of thing one almost only says about someone else's rights. One tends not to relativize one's own rights. And I'd like to address the charge of colonialism. Certainly we have to be very careful of projects of hegemony and imperialism. There's no question about it. But I actually think colonialism was a form of relativism. It was actually about saying that some people are different and do not deserve to govern themselves. And it's an issue I take very seriously because my own family, my father's side of the family in Algeria suffered very greatly during the colonial period. My own grandfather died defeating European colonialism in Algeria. And I know that he was fighting for more freedom, not for less freedom, for the right to be recognized as equal to any human being, not different. This is almost counter-intuitive because a lot of people will see it as a way to force the entirety of humanity to be more tolerant, to have less hubris looking at culture in one monolithic way. You don't see it that way. Well, in fact, there are human rights defenders in every region, in every country of the world, demanding and defending these rights at risk of their lives. And some of the most ardent defenders of universal human rights are located in what we sometimes call the Global South. And as I say in the report, every region in the world has people who advance universal rights and who push back against them. This is not an idea that belongs to any one region. Do you see it as bringing more tolerance to the debate, cultural relativism, or at least some form of it, or quite the opposite? There are those who argue that, for example, some Asian cultures, some African cultures are simply not ready yet, not just because of their conservative cultural norms to abide to some kind of universal framework for human rights, but even because of the fact that they believe economically they don't seem to be on a par with the rest of the developed world. What do you say to that? Yes, here again is another form of complication which is quite avoidable. It's an issue between power and freedom. Those who say that human rights are relative usually are those who have already acquired to themselves, for themselves, for their group, individual rights, which amount to the totality of the rights of the community. So having acquired those rights, having seized those rights, having dominated their environment, they don't want to hear about others complaining or proposing their own entitlement to human rights. So we're back again on this axis of power and freedom. Those on the side of power, including the intellectual apologists, by the way, because cultural relativism is a very intellectual sounding expression, but in actual fact, in its effectiveness of human beings, it amounts to absolute nothing because nobody has ever come out to deny people their cultural rights. The cultural rights are a given. What is at stake? What is at stake is what is extracted by opportunists in order to dominate the environment. And who would you mostly blame among these opportunists? Because I think there's a whole array of opportunists. It can be the demagogues, the populists, authoritarian regimes, but also some in the Western world who, as you once wrote, are leading to a more polarized world, this vision of us versus the inferior them. So when you hear in this country the beacon of democracy and human rights in the United States, when you hear comments attributed to President Donald Trump, in which he refers to allegedly a whole host of African nations and HTSS-holes, what kind of knee-jerk reaction is that to this multitude of cultures? There's no question at all that the Western powers, which the Western nations, which are credited with codifying human rights, have been some of the greatest violators of human rights. They are the ones who, in fact, set in motion the most homongous exercise such as slavery and enslavement of peoples to suggest, in fact, to indicate that some people are less entitled to human rights than others. So there's no question at all about who's been guilty. And of course, some of those who stepped into colonial shoes have ensured that this pattern continues. But this time now, they arrange themselves on the side of the imperators. What they used to denounce before, when they get into power, suddenly they realize that cultural rights are relative. In other words, they are trading in the spores of the original culpable forces, the external forces. And they should be ashamed of themselves. So looking at today's world, Karim Abunoon, how does universality, based on what you just heard Professor Shoyinka say as well, how does it protect the rights of indigenous peoples, minorities, who want to hold on to their traditions, to their cultures and want to resist assimilation, but yet want to feel protected as well? In fact, I think we have to take very seriously the histories of attempts at forced assimilation, vis-à-vis indigenous peoples, colonized peoples, minorities in many different contexts. But I think you see with the framework around indigenous people, for example, that there is an emphasis both on respect for their culture and their cultural choices and their right to free, prior and informed consent about decisions impacting their culture, but also you see in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples an emphasis on universality and that indigenous peoples are part of that framework of universality. And in fact, indigenous rights are within that context of universality. Universality is not the same thing as homogeneity. We need to be very clear and respect for cultural diversity in accordance with international standards is a critical part of respecting human rights. But there is also a diversity of diversities. Every human group is diverse in and of itself. It's not just that different groups are different from each other. It is that each group that you could come up with contains a variety of individuals with a variety of affiliations. And we have to respect all of those diversities. We have to respect people's right to cultural dissent. We have to respect their right, for example, to exit cultural groups. We can't imagine a world that doesn't exist, which is a world of monolithic cultural blocks or what Amartya Sen has called plural monoculturalism. This is not what cultural rights is about. It is about a genuine pluralism within and under the umbrella of universal human rights. As you were speaking, my mind just went to just one item. The protocols of human rights, no, numerous rights of children, rights of minorities, women, rights to culture, by the way, embedded in there. But my mind just went to freedom of expression. And one just created a new matter of freedom of expression. Now, many of the... You read my mind, precisely. And I think we're both thinking of the same issue. Forgive me to interject, but if Karima Benoen said earlier on, and I think you agree that cultural rights is about the totality of rights, then freedom of expression is someone who has paid dearly. As someone who has fought for his rights, he's gone to jail for a couple of years, solitary confinement in Nigeria during the 1960 Civil War. We see a recent case in Saudi, or at least involving Saudi Arabia, the attempt to try to silence, murder, the critic of the powerful ruling leadership there. What do you make of that? And where does our cultural rights fit in? It's one of the... It's the whipping boy, in fact, if you like, of dictators in the whole catalogue of human rights, freedom of expression. Look, here are some dictators, especially on my continent, who will say, oh, no, that's a Western concept, and it's a lie. I'll tell you how. Dig into the culture of societies, even the most feudalistic cultures, if you like, or systems of governance on that continent, and you'll find that embedded in it. It's all a question of method, details. Embedded even in the day-to-day governance of such societies. You'll find that either one day or one week, even a month, sometimes the festival, the YAMP Festival, will be dedicated to the subjects of the king to absolutely blow their mind, to say everything, either through performance, through songs, which can be as bawdy, as insolent, as they like. That's the opportunity they have of talking truth to power. It's structured in the society. That is part of culture. And so when these dictators come and say, oh, you know, in our society, you know, people don't speak when they're elder, they're talking nonsense. You know that this is historically false, and they've got to be challenged on that score. They say, look into your own culture, and you'll find that in there is embedded the freedom of expression in one form or another. Speaking truth to power, how much of that is embedded in your mandate since it's such a comprehensive mandate, right, that affects our identities as human beings, not just us as journalists and our freedom of expression? So when you see human rights being promoted in some places and completely ignored in others, say in this recent case involving Saudi Arabia, a close ally of the United States, not much of a mention of what's going on, certainly a mention, but maybe not taking the country to task the way someone else might have been. How do you see this, and how concerned are you that these types of double standards, in fact, are the reason why the theories of cultural relativism persist? I don't know that they're the reason why cultural relativism persists, but I completely agree with you that they are entirely unacceptable. I have been deeply saddened by the reports of what has happened to the journalist, Mr. Khashoggi. However, I have also been very disturbed by the discourse around his alleged murder, we believe now confirmed murder, that somehow, we've heard from some politicians, because the government claimed to be responsible for this, is important for strategic interests, there has to be less insistence on accountability. And this is a very unacceptable form of relativism. It's just as unacceptable as cultural relativism is. And I've been very disappointed, for example, that there hasn't been a great deal of interest in some of the cases that my mandate has raised in Saudi Arabia, such as the case of the Palestinian poet Ashraf El Fayed, who was sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia for the crime of poetry, which is not a crime, for the crime of atheism. I don't know whether he's an atheist or not. In any case, it is not a crime. The death sentence was commuted, but he remains in prison. I'm deeply concerned about Raif Bedouin, the blogger in Saudi Arabia, whose crime was simply blogging about liberalism and a free Saudi Arabia. He remains in prison. We must take up those cases as well. And you give the example of, you know, repressive societies. So this sort of human rights abuse is, it's sad to say, somewhat expected. But I wonder to what extent we need to take to task other countries where implementation has to be across the board, where powerful, rich countries, the United States, but others in the West, the so-called international community, plays a more vital, positive role in enforcing human rights. My job is to take on cultural rights violations anywhere they happen, in any region of the world, in whatever kind of political system. And in the report, for example, I criticize both the official discourse of the Iranian government through its High Council on Human Rights, which is an attack on the universality of human rights, claiming that it's all a Western imposition, and which says very openly on its website that it will quote aggressively campaign against universal human rights at the international level. And I likewise criticize the withdrawal of the United States of America from the UN Human Rights Council, which I think was a deeply deplorable event, and the official justification that was given were claimed criticisms of the Council. But if you look at the statements of the National Security Advisor, John Bolton, on the same day that the United States withdrew in June of 2018, he claimed that it was because the U.S. was above international scrutiny on human rights, which strangely is an argument that in a way dovetails with that official Iranian rhetoric. Well, it is ironic to say the least. Is it also beyond that hypocritical? How would you look at this? Yes, it's as if we were talking about colonialism earlier, and I think we're all agreed here, that some of the greatest violators of human rights have been the colonial imperial forces who went to other territories, other human settlements, and virtually declared them a practice as subhuman, the inhabitants of human. And it is as if that tradition is being carried on by a country like the United States, which says it is above international law. In effect, that's what it is withdrew from the International Court of Crimes Against Humanity. I don't know whether they're back or not, but certainly withdrew at one stage, and so then the American citizen cannot be tried for crimes committed outside. I find that so hypocritical, arrogant, and subversive to the whole idea of universality, and especially as you use the word accountability, yes, the violators against human rights, unfortunately in many cases they get away with it. When they eventually ousted politically, like this detestable little dictator Jamey of Gambia, whose favorite pastime was administering forcibly hallucinogens to the opposition to prove whether they were witches or they were not witches, you know, who slaughtered and so on. Eventually he was ousted. He's enjoying himself in exile with all the wealth of Gambia. There's no punishment. It's free to go anywhere. So we have to agree that there must be a pursuit of those who violate human rights. It's not enough to defend human rights, to protect journalists, to protect women, the vulnerable, et cetera. Those who are guilty, when they must be taken to account. Well, you took a stand, didn't you? A moral stand, Professor Shoyinka, when I believe in the 1990s you sought refuge. You called it a political sabbatical at the time, not exile. No, not exile, political sabbatical. You said you weren't all that interested in keeping your green card. You, in fact, were going to destroy it. You said you don't want to belong anymore to this society. Was this because of the rhetoric you heard from Trump on the campaign? Was it because of the accusations he made toward certain ethnic groups or not? For me, that's candidate should have been tried for hate speeches, Trump, Donald Trump, because I was here during the campaign and I saw somebody campaigning for power, especially a critical, you know, a global power, like the presidency of the United States, insulting and reducing other beings to subhuman level, Mexicans, Nigerians, Haitians. I just said, if America has not yet advanced sufficiently as to reject such a candidate, I don't want to continue to be a member of this community. It's as simple as that. I participated in a small level in the liberation movement. The black, this beautiful movement of the United States, I participated in even de-racializing certain swim pools in this very country. I know my history. I know I feel a part of the black community, the black nation of the United States of America and had hoped that America had advanced beyond endorsing somebody who still uses racist language. So it was a very simple thing. I'm nothing against Donald Trump. I just said, if the American people actually elect this character, then the American people have not advanced as far as I thought they had and therefore I don't want to be a member of the community. I can still visit as I do right now, but no more green card. It's very simple. It's a personal thing and it's part of my history. The United States is not the first place where I refuse to step into after certain things happen. China, Australia once, you know, South Africa once, Cuba once, that's me. What do you say to that? What are your thoughts on this, Karima? I am deeply disturbed by the discourses of exclusion that we are hearing normalized in the highest levels of politics, including in this country. And I think it's actually a critical moment to reaffirm the universality of human rights as a tool for campaigning against those sorts of discourses. Unfortunately what's happening here is mirrored in so many places around the world with the rise of authoritarianism and populism, whether it's very prominent candidates or people who are actually taking power from Poland to Hungary to what we see what's happening in Myanmar to some of the discourse in the election campaign in Brazil. And I think what's happening here needs to be understood as a manifestation of this global challenge in the form of fundamentalism and extremism of diverse kinds, which threatens all cultural rights, which threatens even scientific freedom, reason, having evidence-based discourse. And I think we have to work on this at the global level. And that's what makes this 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so critically important. We also have to find a way to stand with people who are putting themselves at risk, as Mr. Shoyinka has done in the past as well. And I think, for example, of some of the cases I raised in the report, such as the case of Mohsen Hassan, an Egyptian woman activist who is the head of something called the Nazra Institute for Feminist Studies. She has been subject to a travel ban, a summons. She was finally released on a very large bail. One of the initial charges against her was sort of trying to effect cultural change or trying to effect the irresponsible liberation, quote-unquote, of women. If we're going to achieve the Universal Declaration, we actually need more Mohsen Hassans, not less. And we need them to be able to do their work. I also look at a case from China, Jin Yong Min, who was sentenced to 13 years in prison. And amongst the charges against him and amongst the evidence used against him was a book that he wrote for the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in China. This is a completely unacceptable way to mark the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration. So from the United States to Beijing, from Poland to Rio de Janeiro, we have a global struggle. And the champions of universal human rights need to come together globally. This is not about one region teaching another. This is about all of us advancing together in the Universal Declaration toward larger freedom. It's interesting. Still a lot of work to be done. And you mentioned in your report that we need more than mere platitudes to try to achieve this foundational renewal of the universality of human rights. Professor Shoyinka, something we haven't touched on, but I think which has been an important vector in driving force in this whole universality concept is technology. It has helped us get this far in terms of being truly universal in many respects. Yet, do you believe that it's providing an important challenge to all of us? I know as a writer who probably still cherishes his pen and paper and ink over Twitter and Facebook, how do you see this challenge in that it is invading every society, whether it's the texts, rich societies or the poor nations who have access to the Internet these days, and who are able to propagate these messages of hate, whether it be at the governmental level or at the non-state actor level. Boko Haram in your Nigeria is one example where they used the Internet to spread messages. I acknowledge, in fact, I'm a great fan of technological advances. You'll be surprised how, suppose a playwright, humanist like me, actually takes an interest. Ultimately, however, it's a tool in the hands of human beings, and it's a way they use it. Technology, Internet has achieved such a lot in the liberation of many societies. The Arab Spring is one example, and in Europe the use of Internet in mobilizing people, in actually sensitizing people, it's just enormous. Unfortunately, the human rights of many of us are being abused by those who take control of Internet. We don't even have to talk about fake news which has become an industry in many societies, including my own, and sometimes I exaggerate and I say that the next world war will probably be started by the manipulation of fake news. So something has to be done about those who debase others, who interfere with the human rights of others to the truth, because that is also a basic human right. We need to know the truth about what happens around us, but not submit tingly to the power of Internet. When Internet can just be taken over by real malevolent characters who have nothing better to do than to create chaos. It penetrates every society and very difficult to control your thoughts on this. First of all, I think that this is an area of the cultural rights mandate needs to study in much greater detail. This is one of the key emerging issues, and I think it's one of the places where we really need to rely on the leadership of young people who, let's face it, know much more about the Internet and new technology than I do. And I think that next generation of human rights advocates is really going to have to think about what universal human rights means, not in real space, but in cyberspace. I think, you know, we had an expert meeting for the preparation of the report, and one of the people who participated was a member of the Muslim clergy, a former Mufti, and he was saying how much optimism he had that now people from opposite sides of the world could suddenly find things they had in common and communicate thanks to the Internet. And there is this very positive opening up, but there's also the terrible aspect of the Internet, which is it's become a site where in particular women and others have really been threatened when they try to enjoy their cultural rights and their right to freedom of expression. So this is really an area that we need to tackle. And this is part of, I would say, really the forefront, the cutting edge of universal human rights. And speaking of this, before I turn to our first question here on Facebook, in the report you also mentioned the fact that there's a well orchestrated, well resourced campaign or several campaigns out there by governments, by civil society interestingly, by non-governmental organizations to undermine universality. So let me ask you this, Professor Schoenke, we've got a question that's coming to you, a question from Kingsley Egobor. He asks, how ironic is it that human rights activists in Africa solicit and get resources from sometimes western governments that are promoting cultural relativism? Well, I don't know which human rights activists you're talking about, but I cannot say that I blame anyone who gets resources from such societies for the simple reason that most societies are divided. So I don't know from which branch of society. There are people of conscience in all societies, just as there are those who are violators of human rights, for instance, who really despise fellow human beings, who believe that human beings are relative, you know. That's an interesting notion, that human beings are relative. So I don't really know what, you have to be specific for me to be able to condemn or support these people. So let me move on to another question, Professor Benoen, about concrete steps here. We say, there's a question at least being asked, how do we best engage in the foundational renewal of universality called on in the report on the 70th anniversary? And what are the concrete steps to be taken by member states? Thank you so much for this question. And I'd like to say there's lots of things that we all can and should do. One thing is that we all have to speak up for universal human rights. Many people just take them for granted. No, we need to actively defend them. We need to challenge cultural relativism whenever we encounter it and ask, you know, whose culture are you talking about? Who is claiming to speak for culture and what is the legitimacy of this claim? How should culture in fact change with our evolving understanding of human dignity? We need to call for states to make systematic human rights education that promotes universality and challenges cultural relativism. And I've also called on academic institutions in particular to play a leadership role here in accordance with principles of academic freedom. We need to stand up for the defenders of universal human rights when they face threats. And I mentioned some of those cases and I would ask us all to find our own ways of celebrating the 70th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights on the 10th of December of this year. Read the declaration. Share it. It is the most widely translated document in the world. The universal declaration of human rights calls on all of us. We need to call on states to fulfill their responsibilities, but we need to fulfill ours as well. And thanks for that question. Professor Schrodinger, how do we galvanize the younger generation, civil society, the leadership of tomorrow? By this notion of universal declaration of human rights, how do you give the mistake in this debate and make sure they act? I think I'll go back to the homework which I proposed earlier, and that is each and every one of us should go back to his or her culture, look within the provisions of that culture, the manifestations in all media and extract from their items, articles, whether in the form of sayings, lyrics, and so on. And you will find that it's not a wasted exercise. You'll be astonished the parallelisms between those cultural pronouncements, including mythologies incidentally, including mythologies which absolutely frame in their own style, their own medium, the protocols, the principles of universality. In other words, as a meeting point in all cultures. Would you frame the debate though? Would you frame it in a mainly economic or ethnic or religious context or between developed and developing nations? Or would you not frame it this way? In a holistic version. If you come from a society for instance where there's a deity of children which children are celebrated under that deity as in my own Yoruba society then when you're going along the roads and you see children rooting in garbage you know that that child's human rights are being violated by adult society and therefore you have to mobilize and put an end to that. Raise awareness and empower. That awareness, you've got to empower those children you've got to provide for those children as dictated by the god of children Kori, for instance. So a question for you both first, you professor Srinke, just following up on what you've said. A question from Nero or Julu, I hope I'm pronouncing the name accurately enough. Is cultural relativism not a weapon for the worst human rights violators to shield themselves from criticism? We've touched on it earlier. What else would you say? The answer is yes, absolutely yes. It's a tool which is used by dictators, by sadists to shield themselves from criticism. We'll go through the entire history of dictators especially on our continent but not just on ours alone and you'll find that it's when they are backs against the war when they can no longer defend their actions or when, even before the action is taken when they already propose to dominate the environment completely and muffled dissent. That's when they resort to this fake notion of cultural relativism. I absolutely agree and I think one thing that we've seen is that universality is a concept that is particularly attractive to those who are the most marginalized and those who have faced the most discrimination and I give the example in the report of Dalit campaigners in India so-called lower caste people facing great discrimination on the base of caste who regularly refer to concepts of universality and dignity in their work and we see cultural relativism as a way of trying to take that argument away from them and maintain the power differential. It's really a weapon against equality and I have to say particular groups of people have really been victims of the attack on universality, have really been targeted for cultural relativism. This includes especially women whose universal human rights are a major site of threat and we have to defend them in this world where so many world leaders are willing to openly denigrate and insult women and undermine their equality and so many civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations and so on and we have tried to advance women's human rights against that using universal human rights as a tool so we have to defend universality and defend all of the links including the weakest links in the chain. Speaking of tools, do we need any more tools because here we are at the United Nations and there are countless tools and instruments and frameworks that the whole membership, 193 countries have actually signed up to but do we need more? A question from Vanessa Cento do you think that the present international instruments such as the convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions are enough? If no, what do you think should be changed to improve the protection of cultural diversity and what about another person asks, Adam Met what about economic developments that fulfill economic and social rights at the expense of civil and political human rights? We often talk about political human rights, what about these other social economic rights? Because there was an American president who said of one of his rivals that he was the only American he knew who could not walk and chew gum at the same time and that kind of question is directed against that kind of principle. I do not see why the promotion of economic welfare of society cannot go hand in hand with the observance of universal human rights if you look at countries which are retarded in development that's when all the powers being grabbed by a small minority within the community and who also use the cultural relativism to silence, descent whereas when you open up society to the creativity, the productivity of the entirety society advances. I do not see any contradiction between I cited the instance for instance of children rooting in garbage heaps in societies I know that I cannot go to that and say, wait a minute, I want to defend your right of freedom of speech, you tell me to go to hell because it's hungry. Freedom of speech sometimes sounds like luxurious. But the two can be taken at the same time. But is it too often at the expense of these other basic rights, Karima Benoen writes to education, to health, to clean water and the rest of it? But it's not a zero sum game. These rights are independent and indivisible. They go together and sometimes the best way of ensuring your economic and social rights is by ensuring your civil and political rights. So for example your right to strike. Amartya Sen again has talked about this relationship, for example between a free press and combating famine. So there are very important linkages and I say in the report that there are multiple forms of relativism that threaten the universality of human rights. One is cultural relativism. We've already talked about that and it's a grave problem. But there are other forms of relativism such as those who deny entire categories of rights such as economic, social and cultural rights. And I say in the report that being willing to tolerate widespread extreme poverty in the name of markets is equally undermining to universality as cultural relativism. So we need to really go back to this interdependent and indivisible framework which is found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which doesn't make these silly distinctions between different aspects of a unified human life which includes civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights together to reflect the totality of the human experience of dignity. A comprehensive approach. In the final minute Professor Sriyanka your thoughts on the way forward and what we need to be focusing on more than anything else. No artificial divisions. I agree absolutely with what Karima said. We should not insert any artificial divisions. If I see a case of underage marriage, you know what I call the rape of the girl child is really being perpetrated by those who are very well healed economically in society and who claim immunity because of their social position and even claim the authority from their tradition quote unquote especially religious tradition. We had a case like that in Nigeria. I don't see that I short change the economic well-being of that child by crying crime against that violator. Well on this note Professor Sriyanka and Professor Karima bin Nuh thank you both very much indeed for your fascinating insights and for this enriching discussion. Thank you. It's been an honor to moderate this Facebook live. Thank you all very much indeed as well for joining us and for sharing your thoughts, questions and ideas with us. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much.