IN the aftermath of the Feb. 14 Parkland, Florida, school shooting in which 17 people—mostly children—were shot dead, the efforts exerted by the US government to impose human rights conditions on the rest of the world seem ironic indeed.
Even Amnesty International, which is much more outspoken about abuses elsewhere in the world, acknowledged in 2014 that gun violence in the United States—of which school shootings are the most tragic subset–were a human rights concern.
Statistics show that almost 100 American schoolchildren have died in these shootings in the last 13 years—including the 20 first-graders killed in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. In December 2012.
“Everyone has a right to security and a right to life that’s a missing part of the conversation right now,” one AI official said at the time.
Yet the shootings continue, with Congress refusing to pass the kind of legislation that would have kept the 19-year-old Parkland shooter from buying the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that he used to rain death on the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School.
In fact, as townsfolk held yet another touching but politically ineffective candlelit vigil for the 17 killed in Parkland, others gathered 50 miles north to go to a 500-booth gun expo, catering to Americans who believe their constitutionally protected right to bear arms should be absolute.
Compared to some of the language reserved for other governments and other countries, AI’s post-Parkland statement was tepid: “While our thoughts are with the victims, survivors and families of this senseless attack, we know that is not enough. Our leaders must take action to protect people from gun violence. When people can’t go to school, or to work, or to attend a concert without fearing that they’ll be shot, that is a human rights crisis. The current patchwork of inconsistent gun laws is not sufficient to stop gun violence. We need reforms at the federal, state and local levels to protect everyone’s safety.”
Human Rights Watch, which has been so vocal in its criticism of the Philippines’ human rights record, does not even address gun violence or school shootings on the front page of its website.
Here, there are no calls for boycotts or trade sanctions. There are no calls to ostracize politicians and legislators who refuse to support or pass reasonable gun control legislation.
The constitutional right to bear arms, it seems, far outweighs the right to life, even for America’s schoolchildren.
Where does a government that perpetuates this kind of an unsafe environment for its own citizens have the moral authority to tell other countries what to do about human rights?
Shouldn’t charity and human rights begin at home?