CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS - Wilfrid Laurier ...

©Dr. Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann, February 20, 2005 

CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS: 

HUMAN RIGHTS TRAINING SCENARIOS 

by 

Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann, Ph.D., FRSC 

Canada Research Chair in Global Studies and Political Science 

Wilfrid Laurier University 

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3C5 

Tel 011-01 (519) 884-0710, ext. 2780, fax (519) 884-8854 

email hassmann@wlu.ca 

Human rights trainers are invited to use and distribute these 

scenarios in their work. However, they must acknowledge 

authorship of these scenarios by Rhoda E. Howard- 

Hassmann. Dr. Howard-Hassmann would also be grateful for 

email messages informing her about where and how these 

scenarios are used, if possible and convenient. 

Please note that these scenarios are fictional, although they 

are usually based on cases that Dr. Howard-Hassmann has 

encountered in her research, or in the press. 

C:/guest lectures/rwicultrel march04


Case #1CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND WOMENS RIGHTS 

FATIMA 

Fatima is 25 years old (meaning that she is legally of age) and 

lives in Canada. Her parents were refugees who escaped from 

Ethiopia in 1976. Fatima was born in Canada. Although her 

parents came from an ethnic group that engaged in female genital 

circumcision, her own mother suffered greatly from this operation, 

and her parents decided against circumcising Fatima. In any case, 

this operation is illegal in Canada. 

Fatima has decided to marry Ali, a recent refugee from 

Ethiopia. Ali thinks that to be a good wife, a woman should be 

circumcised. Also, Fatima thinks that she should be true to her 

Ethiopian customs. She has suffered in Canada from being a 

member of a minority, and as she grew up she became more 

interested in her peoples customs and traditions. 

Fatima argues that since she is of age, she should be given 

this operation if she wants it. After all, other women in Canada 

have operations to enlarge their breasts, or make their faces look 

younger. She argues that as a Canadian, it is her right to do what 

she wants with her own body. If the operation is performed in a 

modern, hygienic hospital in Canada, she lowers the risk of health 

consequences considerably. 

Should the surgeon whom Fatima has consulted perform the 

operation? 

Roles: 

Fatima, Ali, Fatima's mother, the surgeon, a white Canadian 

feminist 



Case #2 

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS 

RAHIMA AND JAN 

Rahima is an 18-year-old woman, born in the Netherlands of 

Turkish parents. She was not raised to be a religious Muslim, and 

her mother does not wear the hijab (headscarf) that some Muslims 

think is required of all women in order to maintain their modesty. 

Rahima has lately become interested in her Islamic background, 

and she has decided to wear a complete hijab, fully covering her 

face. 

Rahima has a bus pass, to get to and from her school. She 

had her bus pass picture taken a few months ago, when she was 

still revealing her face. She has been using this bus pass without 

any problems, but this morning, when she got onto the bus, Jan, 

the driver, rejected her pass. He said that he could not see her 

face to check against her bus pass, so he could not let her on the 

bus. He asked Rahima to uncover her face to let him see it, but 

she refused. She said she would only uncover her face to a 

woman. Ilse, a woman on the bus, offered to step off and check 

that Rahimas face matched her bus pass, but Jan refused. 

Roles: 

What should Jan have done? 

Rahima, Jan, Ilse, a bus company official, aTurkish community 

representative 



Case #3 INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VERSUS GROUP CUSTOMS 

EFUA 

Efua is an African woman living in her husbands village. 

Under the customary law of her and her husbands ethnic group, 

children belong to the fathers family. 

Efuas husband has recently died. Her husbands younger 

brother has offered to marry her, even though he already has four 

other wives. If Efua marries him, her children will remain part of 

the family and she too will be able to stay in the village. She will 

also be permitted to continue cultivating the land that her 

husbands family has allocated to her. 

If Efua does not marry her husbands brother, she will have to 

leave the village and go to live with her own brother. He does not 

have enough land to give her some of her own to cultivate, so she 

will have to ask his wives to let her feed herself from their land. 

Also, if she goes home to her brother, her children will have to 

stay with her husbands family. 

A woman lawyer from the village Efua was born in has heard 

of Efua's plight, and urged her to bring suit against her husband's 

village. She has explained to Efua that under new national 

inheritance laws, she is entitled to inherit her husband's land and 

stay in her husband's village with her children. 

What should Efua do? 

Roles: 

Efua, Efua's husband's brother, Efua's own brother, the lawyer 



Case #4 CUSTOM VERSUS THE RIGHT TO A FAMILY 

DINA AND HARPREET 

Dina and Harpreet are a young married couple living in the 

Punjab, in India, with Harpreet's parents. Dina is 26 and has been 

married for six years. She has one son, but no other children. She 

has been pregnant two other times, once before and once after 

her son, but both times she had a test to determine the sex of the 

unborn child and after finding out they were girls, she had 

abortions. Now Dina is pregnant again, and it is another girl. 

Dina and Harpreet know that girls are more expensive than 

boys. Boys remain part of the family and have to help their 

parents when they grow up. Girls will go to another family to live, 

and will have to have a dowry before they marry. Nevertheless, 

Dina would like to have this daughter. She is lonely for another 

baby, and would like to have a girl child to help her around the 

house. Even though they did not know each other before their 

arranged marriage, Harpreet has grown very fond of Dina and 

would like her to be happy, even if it means having a girl child. 

Harpreet's parents say they cannot afford a girl child. 

They would like Dina to have an abortion keep on trying for a boy. 

What should Dina and Harpreet do? 

Roles: 

Dina, Harpreet, Harpreet's mother, a family-planning official 

a womens rights activist 



Case #5 

LESBIAN RIGHTS VERSUS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 

SARAH AND MARY-ANNE 

Sarah and Mary-Anne live in Ontario, Canada. They love each 

other and have been living together for eight years. Ontario has 

recently legalized marriages between people of the same sex, and 

Sarah and Mary-Anne would like to get married. They plan to 

have a legal civil ceremony, after which they would like to have a 

religious wedding. 

Although neither is very religious now, Sarah come from an 

Orthodox Jewish family, and Mary-Anne from a Roman Catholic 

family. Both Sarah's Rabbi and Mary-Anne's priest have refused 

to perform a marriage ceremony for them. Sarah and Mary-Anne 

believe that since both Rabbis and priests have the legal right to 

marry people, they should be obliged to perform lesbian marriages 

as well as heterosexual marriages. Sarah and Mary-Anne both 

come from influential families, and they have asked their parents 

to help them persuade the Rabbi or the priest to marry them. 

Both Sarah's Jewish parents and Mary-Annes Catholics 

parents are very religious. Neither set of parents believes in 

homosexuality, let alone the idea of a religious wedding for 

lesbians. What should Sarahs and Mary-Annes parents do? 

Roles: 

Sarah; Sarah's father, Jacob; Mary-Anne; Mary-Annes father, 

Christopher; the Rabbi; the priest 



Case # 6 

CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 

ROSITA AND MANUEL 

Rosita and Manuel live in Mexico. Rosita is 25 and Manuel is 

27. Rosita has been to high school and can read Spanish well; 

she has also learned some English. Manuel has only been able to 

attend primary school and does not speak English. 

Rosita and Manuel have two children, aged 2 and 3. They live 

in a border zone (near the U.S.) far away from their families and 

do not have anyone to help with their children. Rosita has 

obtained a good job at an American-owned clothing factory. 

Manuel can only get casual labour if he waits every morning at a 

hiring station. 

Rosita would like Manuel to stay home instead of looking for 

work, to take care of the children. Manuel says it is her job to care 

for the children or arrange for their care. Manuel's brother agrees 

with him, saying it is unmanly to care for children. Rosita's 

neighbour agrees with Rosita, saying that the needs of the 

children come first and it is better if one parent stays home. 

What should Rosita and Manuel do? 

Roles: 

Rosita 

Manuel 

Manuels brother 

Their neighbour 



Case # 7 

GAY FREE SPEECH RIGHTS 

KOFI AND KWAME 

Kofi is a homosexual living in Ghana. He keeps his sexual 

orientation a private matter, but he has become interested in the 

gay liberation movement in the West. 

Recently, Kofi became aware of a Swedish gay magazine. A 

Swedish homosexual he had met in Ghana sent him some copies 

of it. In these copies, there were photographic illustrations of gay 

safe sex practices. There were also artists renderings of romantic 

gay sexual encounters. 

Kofis uncle Kwame found his copies of the Swedish 

magazine and turned them over to the police. Now Kofi is on trial 

for possessing obscene literature. 

Should Kofi be allowed to keep his literature? Should he be 

allowed to import more of it? 

Roles: 

Kofi 

Uncle Kwame 

The Judge 

Kofi's Swedish friend 

C:/guest lectures/rwi cultrel feb05


Case #8 GAYS AND NONDISCRIMINATION RIGHTS 

ABDULLAH, MOHAMED and IGBAL 

Abdullah and Mohamed are homosexuals living in Djakarta, 

Indonesia. As their names imply, they are Muslims. They have 

been lovers for five years, but have always been discreet about 

their relationship. 

Now Abdullah and Mohamed have decided to live together. 

They found a room in a very pleasant neighbourhood. At first 

Igbal, the landlord, thought they were brothers and agreed to rent 

them the room. He was satisfied with them as tenants, as they 

were both polite and quiet, and paid their rent on time. Then the 

landlord heard through a mutual acquaintance that Abdullah and 

Mohamed might be homosexuals, and he became very angry and 

told them they could not have the room. He also told them that 

they were a disgrace to Islam, and he would make sure they could 

not get a room anywhere in his neighborhood. 

Mohamed thinks it is better to just move out, but Abdullah 

would like to plead their case before the neighborhood committee. 

Should Abdullah and Mohamed have the right to live in 

Igbals room? 

Roles: 

Abdullah 

Mohamed 

Iqbal 

A neighborhood elder 



Case #9 LESBIAN RIGHTS AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS 

LILY, SOFIA and MR. JONES 

Lily and Sofia are lesbians who have been living together for 

three years. They would like to have a child, which Lily would 

bear. Even though it is expensive, they plan to use artificial 

insemination so that Lily can get pregnant. 

There is an excellent private clinic that performs artificial 

insemination, but it will only inseminate married women. Lily and 

Sofia live in a jurisdiction that does not permit lesbian marriage. 

Moreover, Mr. Jones, the Director of the clinic, is a devout 

Christian who disapproves of lesbian relationships. 

Lily and Sofia think their government should oblige the clinic to 

perform the procedure they want, because otherwise it is 

discriminating against them. They have taken their case to the 

local human rights commission for a ruling. 

What should the human rights commission decide? What are 

the responsibilities of Mr. Jones, and Lily and Sofia, to the 

(hypothetical) unborn child? 

Roles: 

Lily 

Sofia 

Mr. Jones 

The human rights commission adjudicator 



Case #10 

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 

NARINDER 

Narinder is a Hindu immigrant living in Canada. Since he 

moved to Canada, he has become interested in learning about 

Christianity. 

Narinder has learned of the Christian custom of the 

Communion meal, in which believing Christians eat a wafer and 

drink some wine as part of the church service. The wafer 

represents the body of Christ, and the wine represents the blood 

of Christ. Some Christians believe that they are actually eating 

and drinking Christs body. 

Narinder thinks this is disgusting. He thinks it means that 

Christianity is based on cannibalism. He has published a 

pamphlet, AChristianity ‘ Cannibalism@ which is widely distributed 

on the Net and which has received a great deal of media attention. 

The population of Canada as of 1991 was 84 per cent 

Christian. An influential Christian group has demanded that 

Narinders pamphlet be removed from the Internet server it is on. 

This group says Narinders views are insulting to Christians. 

Should the pamphlet be removed? 

Roles: Narinder, the leader of the Christian group, a 

representative of the Net server, a judge 



Case #11: FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PORNOGRAPHY 

MANFRED; NEENA, HANS AND GEORGE; AND MR. BROWN 

Manfred is a political cartoonist in South Africa. He has 

learned that a prominent politician, George, is having an affair with 

a very rich woman, Neena, whose husband Hans gives money to 

George. Manfred has drawn a cartoon showing George in bed, 

naked, with both Neena and Hans. The cartoon is very explicit 

and depicts sexual organs of both Neena and the two men. 

Neena and Hans come from a minority community. They and 

their entire community find Manfreds cartoon to be very 

offensive. They think that Manfred should be able to make a 

political point without resorting to pornography. They have sued 

Mr. Brown, Editor of Manfreds newspaper, for an apology and 

compensation for publishing the cartoon. They also want the 

government to pass a new law forbidding pornographic political 

commentary. 

Should Mr. Brown apologize and pay compensation? Should 

the government pass the new law? 

Roles: Manfred, Neena, Hans, George, Mr. Brown, a 

representative of the government. 



Case #12 

CHILDRENS RIGHTS VERSUS PARENT'S RIGHTS 

JUANITA 

Juanita is a bright 13-year-old girl living with her Roman 

Catholic parents in a country that is 99 per cent Roman Catholic. 

The school she attends is also Roman Catholic. Her parents, her 

teachers, and her priest have all taught Juanita that it is wrong to 

have sexual relations before marriage. 

Juanita likes to read. At the public library she has found 

novels from North America by feminist writers. In many of these 

novels, women have sexual relations before marriage. They do 

not get pregnant, however, as they use birth control. 

Juanita has decided that she would like to learn about birth 

control, in case she would like to have pre-marital sexual relations 

when she is older. Her parents, her teacher, and her priest are all 

horrified, and have forbidden her to search for this information. 

Sould Juanita have the right to find this information? 

Roles: Juanita, her mother, her father, her teacher, her priest 



Case #13: 

ELDERS RIGHTS 

JENG 

Jeng is 75 and lives in Beijing. She has lived with her husband 

for the last 50 years, but recently he died. Now Jeng would like to 

go to live with her daughter, Diana, her daughters husband, Max, 

and their son Ron who is 6. 

Jeng says the old ways require Diana and her family to care 

for her. Diana has pointed out that they have a very small 

apartment with only one sitting room and one bedroom. If Jeng 

moves in, she will get the bedroom, shared with Ron, and the 

parents will have to sleep in the living room. Diana says this will 

make life impossible, especially when Ron gets older. Anyway, a 

nice home for elderly ladies has just opened up in the outskirts of 

Beijing. Jeng can live comfortably there, and Diana and her family 

will visit her once a week. There is enough money for Jeng to live 

in the home. 

Should Jeng move into the home for elderly ladies? 

Roles: Jeng, Diana, Max, Ron. 



Case #14: 

RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS AND CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 

Mark is a fifteen-year-old boy with advanced cancer. His 

doctors think that if he has a blood transfusion, he will be able to 

live up to a year longer. Without the transfusion, he will probably 

die within two months. 

Mark's parents are divorced. Mark's mother is a Jehovah's 

Witness (a minority Christian group) and believes that blood 

transfusions are wrong. She is urging Mark not to have the 

transfusion. Mark's father is not a member of any religion, and he 

wants Mark to have the transfusion. Both parents have gone to 

court, claiming they have the right to decide for Mark because he 

is still a legal minor. 

Mark says that although he is a legal minor, he is old enough 

to make up his own mind. Like his mother, he is a Jehovah's 

Witness, and he does not want the blood transfusion. Mark's 

father says Mark is not old enough to make up his own mind, and 

he should have the transfusion by force, if necessary. 

Roles: 

What should the judge decide? 

Mark 

His father 

His mother 

The judge 





Case #15: 

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE 

Amanda is a nurse in a European country where abortions 

are legal until the end of the sixth month of pregnancy. She works 

in a publicly-funded, non-religious hospital. She is not a religious 

person, and does not belong to a religion such as Roman 

Catholicism which prohibits abortion. However, she has been 

present at three mid-term abortions (in the fourth to sixth month) 

and she was very upset by what she saw. In one instance, a baby 

was born alive and the nurse in charge (not Amanda) was told to 

destroy it. 

Amanda would like to refuse to assist in abortions, but her 

professional association says she cannot refuse. Amanda thinks 

that this violates her right to freedom of conscience. She would 

like her professional association to change its policies. She would 

also like her association to defend her right not to assist at 

abortions. 

What should the association do? 

Roles: 

Amanda 

Her lawyer 

The Association President 



CASE #16: 

MINORITY RIGHTS AND CONFLICTS AMONG MINORITIES 

AVI 

Avi is an Orthodox Jew living in France. His family has lived 

in France for many generations. He is 30 years old and a 

qualified math teacher, with six years' teaching experience. 

Because he is Orthodox, he always wears a kipa (skullcap). He is 

active in pro-Israel demonstrations. 

Recently the French government passed a law forbidding 

conspicuous religious symbols or clothing in schools. Its reason is 

to maintain France as a secular state, and make sure everyone 

living in the country integrates and feels French. Avi already feels 

French, but he would like to continue wearing his kipa. 

There is a local organization that has already started to 

contemplate political action to oppose the French law, but its 

members are all Muslims, who are angry because their daughters 

can no longer weare the hijab (head-scarf) in school. Avi would 

like them to represent him too, but the members know he is pro- 

Israel, and they are pro-Palestinian. 

What should the members of the local organization do? 

Roles: 

Avi 

A member of the organization who wants to help Avi 

A member of the organization who does not want to help Avi 



CASE #17 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS VERSUS CULTURAL RIGHTS 

Rosa is a Romanian infant of 6 months. Her biological 

parents are Roma (formerly known as Gypsies), a group suffering 

severe discrimination in Romania. Rosa’s parents are very poor, 

so they have given her over to the care of the state. She lives in 

an overcrowded orphanage that is caring for twice as many 

children as it was designed for. 

Louise and Charles are a married couple in Canada who 

cannot have children. They have good jobs, a secure income, and 

a house. They would like to come to Romania and adopt Rosa, or 

another child like her. Louse and Charles are Roman Catholic. 

Rosa’s biological parents are also Roman Catholic. 

For a brief period after 1989, the Romanian government 

allowed foreigners to adopt children from its orphanages. It did 

this because during the previous regime of Ceaucescu, no birth 

control was permitted and there were many abandoned children, 

of whom some were Roma. Now, however, Romania wants to 

join the European Union (EU). The EU opposed foreign adoptions 

of Romanian children: one official even called it “cultural 

genocide”. 

Rosa cannot speak for herself. Maria, a children’s advocate 

in Romania, says Louise and Charles should be permitted to 

adopt Rosa because they can give her a much better life than she 

faces in Romania. Besides, says Maria, the Roma are not part of 

“Romanian culture” because they face so much discrimination. In 

any casem the right of an individual child is more important than a 

group right to culture. 



Should Louise and Charles be permitted to adopt Rosa? 

CASE # 18 

MAHMUD VS MONTREAL TECHNICAL COLLEGE 

Mahmud is an immigrant to Canada from Egypt. He is a Muslim, 

and he is a Canadian citizen. 

Mahmud is studying Engineering at the Montreal technical college. 

He is a very religious man, and wishes to be able to pray properly, 

five times a day. At this College, however, there is nowhere set 

aside for prayers, for any religion. In order to pray properly, 

Mahmud would have to go home or to a mosque several times a 

day. This would make it difficult for him to conduct his research. 

The College representative, Helen, says that the College is a 

secular institution. It is not responsible to provide facilities for 

members of any religious faith. Religion is a private matter, and 

does not belong in a public institution of education. But, says 

Helen, the College might be able to provide an inter-faith prayer 

room, which could be used by members of any and all religious 

faiths. 

Mahmud says that the College should accommodate his religious 

needs, just as it would accommodate the needs of a physically 

disabled person by building ramps for wheeelchairs. He also says 

that he cannot pray in a room that could be used by Christians, 

Jews, Sikhs or Hindus as well as Muslims. 

What should the College do? 



CASE #19: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VS. GAY RIGHTS 

Naimah and Hamza live in Toronto, Canada. They have three 

children, who attend the MacDonald public school. The children 

are Masood (age 6); Fatima (age 9); and Mariam (age 11). 

Part of the curriculum at McDonald school is family studies. 

Children learn that there are different types of familes. Along with 

learning about families that are divorced, or that have 

grandparents living with them, children learn about homosexual 

families. They learn that homosexual families are just as morally 

worthy as heterosexual families. 

Masood, who is six, will read a book called “Heather has Two 

Mothers.” Fatima will go to a class where two fathers (a 

homosexual couple) will give a talk about being parents of a son. 

Mariam will take a sex education class where homosexual 

practices will be explained to her (without using pictures or films). 

Naimah and Hamza are shocked by what their children will 

encounter at MacDonald school. They want their children to be 

exempted from these classes. They have also joined a group at 

their local mosque that wants these classes banned from their 

school. 

Mr. Smith, the principal of the school, says the classes will 

not be banned. He says Canada is a multicultural country that has 

welcomed Muslims. Homosexuals, like Muslims, are a minority 

group, and they should be treated with respect, just as Muslims 

should be treated with respect. 



What should the school do? 

CASE #20 

WOMEN’S RIGHTS VS. RELIGIOUS RIGHTS 

Masuda is a Canadian Muslim woman, married for four years, who 

would like to get a divorce. She lives in Ontario. 

The Ontario government is concerned that the court system is 

overloaded with divorce cases, so it has introduced a system of 

voluntary arbitration. Individuals can consent to have their divorce 

cases arbitrated by religious leaders, although the courts can 

overturn arbitrators’ decisions if they think they are unfair. Jews 

have been using this arbitration system for some years, even 

though very religious (Orthodox) Jews believe a woman cannot 

divorce if her husband refuses to release her. He releases her by 

giving her a document called a “Get.” 

Now Muslims would also like to have religious arbitration of 

divorce cases. Masuda is willing to use this system. But some 

other Muslim women in Ontario are opposed to it. Hamida leads 

the movement of Muslim women against this new system. She 

says Muslim women are oppressed by Muslim men. They will not 

know their rights as Canadian citizens, and will be afraid to go to 

the secular courts if they feel they are unfairly treated. Some non- 

Muslim Canadian women support Hamida. They believe that no 

woman, Jewish, Muslim, or of any other religion, should submit to 

a religious system that might treat them unfairly, even if they 

submit voluntarily. 

The leader of the Ontario government must decide whether to 

allow Muslim arbitration courts. What should he decide? 



CASE # 21 

GURPREET AND PIERRE 

GAY RIGHTS AND RELIGIOUS COMMITMENT 

Gurpreet was born in India but came to Canada at the age of six. 

She is a Sikh. She was raised in a multi-ethnic suburb of Toronto, went 

to University, and was very successful in business. Recently she was 

elected a Member of Parliament, representing the same multi-ethnic area 

that she was born in. She is a Member of the ruling Liberal party. 

The Liberal Party has introduced a bill to legalize gay (civil) 

marriage all acrosss Canada. Members of the party are expected to vote 

for this Bill. Gurpreet, however, has learned that the leader of the Sihk 

religion, in India, has declared that he is opposed to gay marriage. 

Like Gurpreet, Pierre is also a Liberal Member of Parliament. He 

is a Catholic, of French-Canadian background. The Vatican has 

explicitly opposed gay marriages. Many Canadian bishops have urged 

their parishioners to oppose gay marriage, and some Catholic clergy have 

refused to give communion to Catholic politicians who say they support 

gay marriages. 

The vote on gay marriage is coming up soon in Parliament. How 

should Gurpreet and Pierre vote?

CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS - Wilfrid Laurier ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?