follow us:
Recent anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim riots in the UK have spotlighted severe repercussions for minority communities, challenging the Western liberal democracies' commitment to “life, liberty, and property” — principles often championed but selectively applied. The discrepancies in how these values are upheld highlight a broader issue of double standards in human rights practices among Western nations.
Recent anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim riots in the UK have spotlighted severe repercussions for minority communities, challenging the Western liberal democracies’ commitment to “life, liberty, and property” — principles often championed but selectively applied. The discrepancies in how these values are upheld highlight a broader issue of double standards in human rights practices among Western nations.
The principles of “life, liberty, and property,” which are frequently cited in criticisms of non-Western countries, appear to be inconsistently applied when it comes to addressing domestic issues in the US and the UK. The situation in the UK, where recent riots have adversely impacted minority groups, underscores a selective approach to human rights. While Western nations often criticize human rights conditions in countries like Ukraine and Palestine, they show little resolve in addressing similar issues at home.
Western media also contribute to this disparity. Coverage of human rights abuses in the Global South often emphasizes government failures and highlights the severity of violations. In contrast, similar issues within Western countries, such as those related to minority communities in the UK, often receive minimal attention, and the government’s inaction is frequently defended.
The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and other Western nations actively monitor and criticize human rights conditions globally, producing reports that spotlight abuses in various regions. However, these countries are less forthcoming about addressing their own human rights shortcomings. For instance, the Indian government has criticized the US State Department’s Human Rights report, accusing it of bias and misunderstanding. Similarly, China has issued its own reports condemning human rights conditions in the US, citing ongoing issues like mass shootings and police violence.
Despite the findings of international bodies such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the UN Human Rights Commission, which highlight various human rights violations under both Trump and Biden administrations, US policymakers seem indifferent. The UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office also publishes annual human rights reports, yet the current domestic unrest reveals a failure to uphold human rights for minority communities. Reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International further criticize the UK for its inadequate response to institutional racism and erosion of freedoms.
Canada, often lauded for its human rights advocacy, faces similar scrutiny. The 2024 Human Rights Watch report criticizes Canada for abuses against Indigenous peoples and immigration detainees, as well as failures in addressing climate change impacts. The Trudeau government’s shortcomings in tackling human rights concerns both domestically and internationally are also noted.
These criticisms, while significant, are often overlooked by Global South nations, which themselves face harsh criticisms from the West. While the Global South’s critiques might not sway Western governments, amplifying these issues can reveal the double standards in how human rights are both defined and enforced. There is a pressing need for Western liberal democracies to address these inconsistencies and genuinely commit to universal human rights principles, moving beyond selective application and rhetoric.
