Category: Human Rights – Universal

A New Hope: Human Rights and Human Responsibility

A New Hope: Human Rights and Human Responsibility
Jeffrey Imm, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)

Hello, my name is Jeffrey Imm. I am the leader of the Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) coalition for human rights. The goal of R.E.A.L. is to use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and we commemorate its December 10, 1948 creation every year, as a standard for progress in human rights objectives throughout the world, and as a coalition on together on shared human rights issues. This year we have gone back to having a press conference at the National Press Club, as we have had in the past. The reason the UDHR was created on December 10, 1948, was as a response to the “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts” during WWII. We have seen such disregard and contempt again over the past few years, and more barbarous acts than we can count.

The list of all of the atrocities and contempt against human rights is almost endless. So instead of only focusing on that horrible list, I come here this year with an offer for new hope. Because so many of us have been dispirited at the willingness of global representatives to commit “barbarous” abuses, which the UDHR was specifically created to discourage and prevent. Let us look at a path for solutions instead.

Even in the dark days of our world, let us find hope to remember that every day is still a Good Day to be Responsible for Equality And Liberty.

  1. The New Hope Begins with Ourselves

There is a new hope for universal human rights, despite grave injustices and dark days that we live in as human beings on our shared Earth today.

We can make a difference in our world by starting with ourselves and encouraging others on the path of KINDNESS, MERCY, and LOVE to one another. Kind people don’t mass murder others. Merciful people don’t persecute others. People with love in their hearts don’t hate and revile others as non-human beings. The path to degrading human rights through cruelty, mean-spiritedness, and hate is the path that we can change – one person at a time, one example at a time, one life at a time. We can set an example and standard, no matter how difficult the past or our past selves have been, for a new path forward to build the long abandoned infrastructure that a serious movement on universal human rights requires.

Where do the atrocities against human rights come? They came from a normalization of being mean and being cruel towards others. And they come from INDIFFERENCE – which is the true opposite of love – about acts by representatives in world governments and institutions of mean-spiritedness, cruelty, violence, and hate against our fellow human beings. We must find this unacceptable. We have demonstrations by some against such obscene behavior, but daily life shows that clearly those demonstrations are insufficient. We must not fail to recognize that accepting a society where only the smallest number is encouraged to live with a conscience – is not, and will never be enough. The change we must seek is within ourselves, and we must live that change, and THEN we must evangelize that change to the world. In so many other difficult times in history, THIS is how we made meaningful human rights change, by working to change the hearts of ourselves and being a beacon of that change to others. It is not enough to demand that we do not have representatives that reject human rights. Our lives must be a standard to others to embrace kindness, mercy, and love, so that cruel representation is not acceptable to them as well.

We begin to control the state of human rights by first working to control our own behaviors as human beings. The starting point is not someone else’s responsibility. It is not someone else’s problem. It’s not some organization‘s, the United Nations, our various government’s responsibility to begin with. The state of human rights begins the responsibility and accountability of each one of us in our lives with one another. WE…. are the starting point.

We… not they… are the leaders responsible for universal human rights. We… in the choices that we make in our lives – we are the new hope that we seek for universal human rights.

  1. Choice of Kindness and Mercy in Ourselves and Our Representatives

We can first choose to be kind and offer mercy to others. We do not have to be mean. I realize that many of us are in difficult situations in many different times of our lives. I realize that we have to stand up for ourselves and protect ourselves and boundaries in our lives.

But we don’t have to choose to be mean. We can choose to be kind and to offer mercy.

There is an addiction and normalization to being mean. We think it’s all right to be mean. We can justify and rationalize it. There are many leaders in our representatives, in society, in the media, in world organizations, and of course, among those in social media, who advocate being mean as being a good thing.

They are wrong. Let us never forget this. But we do not encourage change by adopting the tactics, the views, and values of those choose mean-spiritedness, cruelty, and hate. As the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated “Hate is Too Great A Burden.” And it is. We cannot let Hate and Mean-Spiritedness rob us of our ability to inspire, to offer hope, and most importantly to love our fellow human beings, especially those whose views we seek to change.

We change the debate by insisting that we share the common facts that humanity is worth our mercy and kindness, because the reality is that we cannot survive without it.

We must choose the kindness and mercy of offering an outstretched hand. Not just to those like us and to those we like, but also (especially) to those we do not like and those who are not like us. To the weakest. To the most confused. To the most vulnerable. And especially to the most hateful. Because every burden of hate towards others is a burden in our heart to keep us from being strong enough to be a beacon of kindness and hope – that we must be – to call for the institutional changes around the world for representation and for government actions based on our shared universal human rights – and that we reject all “barbarous acts” – for a path of kindness and mercy.

What type of humanity are we, without kindness and mercy?

Who is so deluded in their lives that they believe they will never need kindness and mercy in their life? And if we all need kindness and mercy in some part of our life, how can we receive what we cannot give?

When kindness and mercy become the center of your moral compass, your decisions must change. The choice of cruelty, the choice of hate, the choice of being mean to others may be expedient, but it is NO LONGER YOUR WAY. But you have to choose kindness and mercy first.

A commitment to kindness and mercy is not only karma; it is fundamental to survival of a shared species of life and to life itself. We are constantly every day, every hour, every minute, completely dependent on the kindness and mercy of others. We may not see or hear it. But like air and gravity, kindness and mercy are an existential part of human life.

Kindness and Mercy are fundamental to human rights and human survival. Mercy changes lives and transforms others. We must choose kindness and mercy to be consistent in a path for human rights.

Furthermore, we must reject the perversion of “The Golden Rule” that so many of our representatives and world has chosen – their dystopian view of “Do Unto Others As They Would Do Unto You” – as a rational for cruelty, mean-spiritedness, and hate. No. That was NEVER the intent of “The Golden Rule.” And as people of conscience it is NOT OUR WAY. We must choose to offer the outstretched hand – even to those who come to us with an upraised fist. Because we can never progress – by accepting a society of division and mean-spiritedness. We must find the courage and the choice of kindness and mercy – especially when it is hard to do.

  1. The Deception of Violence

The greatest advocate for non-violence in modern times, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. lived in fear of violence against his family. At one point, this great advocate for nonviolence considered buying a gun to protect his family. He did not. But let’s not question the fact that there are those who want to kill and attack other people. We do not survive by being unwilling to defend ourselves if it truly comes to that as the LAST option. But we also do not survive by embracing the tactics of criminals, the cruel, and murderers. Becoming them does not make us safer. It simply makes us worse and undermines who and what we are.

Our society glamorizes and normalizes the deception of violence as something that we should use frequently at all the time. Not simply as the last possible resort.

We always have to find other solutions first. We must not choose violence first. The deception of violence as normal is apparent to anyone. If everyone chooses to be violent at whatever they believe is an appropriate provocation, we will literally live in a society of chaos and constant turmoil. This is not “warrior thinking”. This is madness. It is literally and genuinely unbalanced. The deception creates actual imbalance in society itself. Our society and our media popularizes violence as something endlessly good and worthy; not as something that is abused and is mostly disgraceful and shameful.

We – the ones responsible for human rights – must set an example by rejecting the glamorization and normalization of violence as something desirable or entertaining.

The deception of violence only makes humanity less and less safe.

  1. Love is All We Need

Love is Life.

Love is clearly the “inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny,” referenced by Dr. King.

If we are unable to open our heart to love, we are unable to open our heart to our society and its universal human rights.

Love is life. Love is the network of life. Love is the destiny of life. Love is the power and the energy and the fuel behind ALL of life.

Without love, there would be NO humanity at all.

So love is not only our oxygen, love is not only our gravity, love is not only our moral compass, love is the network of life and destiny that ties our hearts truly together. Because when we choose to be open enough to love one another, our hearts beat in a way that they cannot beat when we do not accept love into our heart. Love is more than an individual bright light of mercy, kindness, and nonviolence to the world. With love in our hearts, we become human lighthouses that serve as beacons to the world to come together as one.

A new hope for human rights begins with the power of love. To change and be responsible stewards for human rights, and we have to break down the walls and the barriers to giving and receiving love. We must work to reject hard and cold hearts in ourselves. We must strive not for distance, but to embrace love. Life depends on it. Love is life.

Love is life. If we choose a path that love towards ourselves and our fellow human beings are not worth it, then we ultimately choose a path that human life itself is not worth it. How can we lead human rights change if the essential of human life as part of universal human rights is not an essential for us?

Love transcends all. It breaks down the barriers between the artificial categories that we create among our human species. It becomes a fuel for kindness, mercy, dignity, non-violence because who can love one another and still want to do horrible things to one another?

We don’t know how long we have on this Earth. We may think you do. We have no idea. We may have moments; we may have years; we may have something in between. Can we afford to be so recklessly wasteful with our precious lives born from love itself, as to not allow love in our lives?

But if we choose to spend the currency of our life exclusively in the pursuit of material success, what many in our cultures like to call “progress,” we have not invested in the essential part of life that is our love for one another, and we haven’t started towards real responsibility for human rights

Our campaigns for change in human rights must begin with change within ourselves. We cannot ask anyone to change when we are unwilling to change ourselves. That hypocrisy will never work and it never does.

So the fundamental part of being responsible for human rights must include being responsible to live our lives fully enough to open our hearts to give and receive love.

We not only have to be kind; we not only have to have mercy; we not only have to be responsible; we have to be able to actually love our fellow human beings.

When we chose to become a society of loving human beings, this is where responsibility for human rights begins. This is because our true connection to each other is then fully apparent and we are constantly aware of the ability to be connected as “one.”

Life is not practical and rational. Your human life came from the miracle of irrational love. The miracle of life constantly begins with the miracle of love, in some way. You were born in love, with the mission of love as your highest calling. The miracle of love that creates human life transcends all reason. Love transcends all logic. Love makes practicality look like a joke. Love laughs at all the plans, and all the campaigns that we can logically create, and that we logically believe makes sense.
Because when those campaigns or plans are not made out of love for or by people who understand love for their fellow human beings, or who by people whose hearts have been touched by the essential of love towards their fellow human beings – those plans may be well-intentioned, but they miss the energy of human love that is behind all meaningful human rights change.

  1. Islands of Isolation

Those who embrace the essential human infrastructure of kindness, mercy, nonviolence, and love – cannot live as islands of isolation. In a world normalizing cruelty, we are taught that the only ones we need to love are ourselves. We are taught and encouraged to become “successful” islands of isolation in our shared world. How can a sane society survive like this?

If we cannot connect with our fellow human beings, how can we work for their shared universal human rights? If we cannot love others, what do we really seek to accomplish with our lives? What accomplishments do we think our hardened hearts will really achieve?

So yes, when the poets say “all you need is love,” from a human rights perspective that is essentially true. Because we need hearts that love to be able to reach out and offer the universal human rights that all people deserve. But we cannot love one another as islands of isolation, we must reach out our outstretched hands to love our fellow human beings as ONE human society and to overcome the divisions that so many seek to promote between us.

  1. Coming Together as One

In our case, the concept of sharing our common cause of the objectives of universal human rights is the goal of our coalition.

Given the vast magnitude in dark circumstances regarding universal human rights today, the best use of my limited public attention this day, was not to recite a laundry list all the tragedies, persecutions, and horrific atrocities around the world. Rather, I offer this as an opportunity for a new hope and a new direction for change in human rights, which puts the responsibility for change in the hands of every fellow human being.

We must examine the mirror of our soul and ask ourselves the hard questions if we are doing what we can for universal human rights. Because we are responsible for change in universal human rights.

We must choose to be kind and reject being mean.

We must choose the existential of mercy to one another, especially to those not like us and to those we do not like.

We must reject the deception of violence as the answer, which only leads to a burden of hate and destruction in our own souls.

Finally, most importantly, we must pursue the imperative that love is life. We must open our hearts to give and receive love, not just in theory, but as a reality to bring us together in a oneness of humanity.

The new hope for human rights is there and it always has been. It is simply in our hearts if we choose to see it.

Yes, today, is another Good Day to Be Responsible for Equality And Liberty.

Human Rights Day 2025

Human Rights Day: December 10, 2025 – Content from Speakers

Updated Press Conference Press Release (Word / PDF) 

Human Rights Day: December 10, 2025 – Content from Speakers will be posted by Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) on the following shared Google Drive — Speaker Content Folder

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1IU2fGjlHKB3EXeWwguGMkuYdDx6XGMJD?usp=sharing

China Human Rights: Dr. Sean (Xiaoxu) Lin, Executive Director for Consilium Institute and Senior Advisor for Global Service Center for Quitting CCP

Pakistan Human Rights – Dr. Nazir Bhatti – Pakistan Christian Congress (Video / YouTube)

Othering and Societal Health – Shireen Qudosi (Video / YouTube) – Transcribed Text

Food Equity and Human Rights – Karen Imm – Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 25 on Food Equity

Unpaid Caregiving and Human Rights – Carolyn Cook

A New Hope for Human Rights – Jeffrey Imm, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) – Google Drive Backup

Human Rights Rejects Murder

Human Rights Rejects Murder —

December 10, 2024 –
Universal Human Rights Day –
Jeffrey Imm, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) –

Advocacy of human rights rejects the concept that murder is normal, common, and acceptable; it furthers moral shame to reject those who consider murder even laudable. On December 10, Universal Human Rights Day, this is the most compelling and urgent issue for human rights. Rejection of murder needs to discussed with our children. Opposition to murder needs to be shouted from our street corners. Shame over murder needs to be part of protests to our institutional leaders, both to dictators and to those who claim to be democratic leaders, to those who who make and facilitate weapons to murder, or and to those denying health care, food, and support to those in desperate need for survival. We cannot progress towards all of the other objectives and values of universal human rights, if we casually accept murdering fellow human beings, and if we view their human lives as merely expendable with the “ends justifying the means.”

On Human Rights Day, December 10, the world remembers the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The position of the UDHR on murder is crystal clear.

— UDHR Article 3. “EVERYONE has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

We all have the right to safety, security, and liberty, and we have the right to defend ourselves accordingly. But as the UDHR states, it was created in 1948 in response to “disregard and contempt for human rights [that] have resulted in barbarous acts,” and so it also appeals to the “conscience of mankind” to find a path to peace with “human rights [that] should be protected by the rule of law.”

Those who choose “barbarous acts” of MURDER as their pathway to “security” or “liberty” are choosing neither; they are only perpetuating contempt for human life itself.

Many institutions and people have terms to disguise their actions in violence either by physical attack on others or by denying healthcare to others with glib terms of “national security,” “security operations,” “economic stability,” etc.

But those of us who demand respect for fellow human life and dignity know MURDER when we see it – no matter who is doing the murdering or what they claim to be their justification.

Murder is NOT a human right. Life is a Universal Human Right.

Defense of our human civilization demands that we reject murder and respect life of fellow human beings.

Progress requires that we have find a shared view of actual reality, and we cannot get achieve progress without a greater common cause in respecting lives of fellow human beings. As my long-time comrade in human rights campaigns Shireen Qudosi reminds me of our discussion six years ago, “there could be no rule of law without a shared reality.”

Too many allow this concept of a “shared reality” to be too complex to grasp, and that it is impossible to understand how others might feel and how their lives are impacted by events. Let us start with the beginning – We are all ALIVE. We all breathe. We all have a heartbeat. We have brains to think. We are all human beings, no matter how different we think that we are. Our lives matter as human beings.

UDHR Article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

No matter how much we oppose, object, or in worse case are even at war, with our fellow human beings, let us stop, BREATH, FEEL OUR HEART, THINK. We are all born free and equal in dignity and rights. We can control our world choices and the actions those of those who claim to represent us.

Let us first respect shared human life. ALL OF US.

Let us STOP THE KILLING of fellow human beings.

To ever be Responsible for Equality And Liberty, let us first believe that our fellow human beings have the right to be alive on our shared Earth. Let us start with THAT shared reality.

Infinite Hope and the Power of Mercy

Human Rights Day, December 10, 2022
Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.), Jeffrey Imm

Our fellow human beings reach for courage in the difficult times and the difficult age we face today. To the many suffering, endangered, or living in mortal fear around the world, the idea of concern for universal human rights may seem naive and absurd. But while we live on this Earth, we are taught to build our homes on rock, and not on sand. The angry calls for power, violence, and division may seem attractive buildings to house hearts consumed by hate. We Survive Together – by making responsible choices – not with calls for hate, division, and violence. For responsible survival together, we must build on the rock of reason, mercy, mores of our faiths and conscience, and the human reason that understands human dignity must include dignity for ALL fellow human beings.

A responsible society and responsible individuals must recognize that such dignity, security, life, and human rights are for all – not just for those like us and those we like – but for all.

Whether we face the dark night or shining day of life, our commitment to a shared cause of reason and conscience must endure. We must continue to advocate for hope in humanity. Where it is lacking, we must take on the responsibility to be advocates for such campaigns of mercy, love, life, and dignity, which are universal human rights. As Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. advised: “become the firemen. Let us not stand by and let the house burn.”

Despair must not be allowed the victory of stealing our hearts, dreams, hope, and most of all – the precious trust that we must have for one another. Hate and division must not pridefully steal our conscience and reason for a shared society. We can and we must find the strength to defy these thieves. We freely share and inspire hope, but we must refuse to allow others to steal hope from us.

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope,” as Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was widely quoted in February 1968, two months before his assassination. But Dr. King spoke of this frequently. We must work to build the individual and the societal discipline to live from within instead of from without. Our shared cause must be to “stand up amid the disappointment of life without despairing,” as Dr. King counseled for many years. He counseled humanity that “Real peace is something inward, a tranquility of soul amid terrors of trouble. It is inner calm amid the howling rage of outer storm.”

Despite the terrible stories of hate, violence, and division among us, we are still share our identies as Human Beings. We are connected to one another, even to those who hate and seek to oppress us. Ultimately, not only do all of us need shared hope and universal human rights, most importantly, we all will ultimately need the power of Mercy in our lives – no matter how powerful and elevated we or others may think they are. In our fragile lives, we must keep the flickering flame of shared human rights shining – by a commitment to mercy – not just to those like and those we like – but to all.

Amongst the storm of hate, anger, division, violence, which howls cruelly at our doors and windows, and which ceaseless screams in our street – let our whisper for Mercy win. Let our defiant whisper for “Mercy” be heard. Not whispers for Mercy in prostrate surrender. But a gathering and an insistent growing whisper for Mercy on the lips of every one of our fellow human beings – ourselves, our loved ones, our cities, our nations. Make our insistent voice for Mercy heard.

Those who believe they can steal Mercy and Hope from our societies parade their pillage in the streets, on our television, and on the Internet. They are proud that they believe can steal these from us. But we have power to regenerate Mercy and Hope in our hearts and in our society, no matter how much is stolen, we can find it anew – every hour of every day. We must always freely give Mercy and Hope, to the fellow members of our human race, no matter who they are. Theivery of it will never pay and ultimately never win. Let us never lose infinite hope.

December 10 is once again the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 – 74 years ago. Nations of the world, of different nationalities, races, genders, faith, conscience, political views, and backgrounds gathered together to offer a code of 30 articles to offer a framework for freedom, dignity, and of course – Mercy. Foundation ideas and values of humanity are core of the UDHR.

After the end of the World War II in response to the “barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.” They created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an opportunity for fellow human beings of all types to find a new path and to work towards “the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.”

Difficult times in a difficult age does not force us to choose to focus only on darkness and ignore shining stars of hope in the night. We can choose to be committed to our human “reason and conscience,” which is described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and find ways to combat evil by building good.

Let our greatest advocacy on Human Rights be to ourselves. We know what is wrong. Let us not allow rationalizations to shout over our conscience, which we know is our guide.

Let us do more than simply be outraged at the many injustices in the world. Let us choose to offer and remember the need for Mercy as part of the human rights that we advocate for all.

And when we feel the darkness at our windows, let us light a candle of Mercy, and let the darkness be a canvass to shine upon. Let us our whispered calls for Mercy be most important message that we share amongst all of our society.

Courage.

Anger Activism Rejects Universal Human Rights

Summary

In a commitment to universal human rights, outrageous abuses against human rights and dignity will shock and outrage many, and bring feelings of anger about such abuses, but we need restraint. Anger is the opposite of the peace we seek in compassion, dignity, and respect for human rights for our fellow human beings. Without restraint, anger can build into hate. Hate becomes a growing pandemic which destroys our trust, our respect, and our cohesion as a society. We must prioritize change on ideas and behavior – not hate against individuals and identity groups. Hate is Not the Answer. Anger Activism is Not the Answer. We build values, communities, and societies with an outstretched hand, not an upraised fist.

We are human beings, with all of the humanity that comes with such an identity, both good and bad. All of us. We cannot see fellow human beings as “enemies” without seeing ourselves as well, as part of that shared human family. Anger is part of our human existence as much as compassion. Our humanity also gives us free will and choices regarding how we use our internal emotions within our external society. Our human free will within our minds and our hearts gives us the opportunity to guide our lives and our actions within our shared human society. We can choose activism and values, which will work to build constructive and lasting change.

We can choose discipline and focus of our efforts, our words, our actions to promote dignity and compassion for all, not just for those like us and those we like. In a diverse and complex world, we do not have to agree with each other on every subject. But we can respect the dignity of all of our fellow human beings, as part of our rights and responsibilities, within our universal human rights.

Seeking societal change to abuses of human rights and dignity requires both determination AND restraint. Discipline and compassion for vital human rights issues teaches us that we cannot have only determination or restraint, but we must use both together.

Too often, many advocates only urge determination, with a determination based mostly on outrage and anger, rather than a set of consistent values. Anger is an easily communicated emotion as a lowest common denominator to be heard to the public. But there is very significant DIFFERENCE between being heard by the public and the message being effectively received, as a message for productive social change.

Some Anger Activist advocates believe that focus on anger will help causes they advocate to be heard across a larger audience, and with a larger audience. They believe that this alone will result in “change.” But history shows that long-term change for human right and dignity requires more. Effective and productive social change requires more than hate and anger, but such meaningful calls for change require a foundation of respect, dignity, equality, compassion, and mercy.

Even in the modern world of social media and continuous (literally 24 hours, 7 days a week) news media coverage, the tactics of using only determined anger – largely do not result in widespread social “change.” The use of anger as motivation can garner an engaged and angry mob, if the topic is “popular” enough. But do such angry mobs truly affect lasting change in human rights and dignity, or do they result in entrenching (even exacerbating) division among people?

Anger feeds more Anger. Therefore Anger Activism feeds upon itself. When there is nothing for Anger Activism to be angry about, it will hunt for need things to feed its anger. With a world of opportunity, mercy, dignity, love, Anger Activism can draw us into a dark path of slavery to it. If we seek to end slavery, we must also end the slavery that Anger Activism has on too many of our hearts and minds.

A. Slavery to Anger Activism

With anger feeding anger, our slavery to our Anger can become the defining purpose in our lives. Our slavery to Anger Activism can become all consuming. It can blind us to our community, loved ones, professional needs, even our own safety. Anger Activism slavery can be the worst slave-master in human history. Human beings enslaved by Anger Activism cannot even imagine freedom to live, love, laugh, without their burden of Anger.

Human beings enslaved by Anger Activism can replace the healthy blood of normal lives with the venom of hate. The greater human beings allow Anger Activism to consume them, the more toxic that venom can become in their lives. When our lives are enthralled to Anger Activism, the vision of the upraised fist can superimpose itself on every thing we see and every part of our lives.

We can rationalize slavery to Anger Activism based on our conscience. We can tell ourselves that it is our conscience that enslaves us to such Anger Activism. We can rationalize that such slavery is necessary to defeat the “enemy” of “the other.” But the only true “enemy” that Anger Activism ultimately seeks out is to trample dignity, compassion, and mercy as foundational concepts in universal human rights of our lives and of the lives of our fellow human beings.

Hate only leads to more Hate. Hate is Not the Answer, in a world so desperately in need of mercy, dignity, and compassion. But to too many, Anger Activism and its symbol of the “upraised fist” become the defining meaning in their lives.

If we work to free others who are persecuted by cruel individuals and regimes in the world, let us first work to free ourselves from the slavery of Anger Activism, which replaces compassion in our hearts with hate.

B. Anger Activism and the Upraised Fist of Hate

The upraised fist is not the symbol of human rights to our fellow human beings. The upraised fist is not the symbol of change through dignity and mercy. The upraised fist (“raised fist”) has come to be normalized as a symbol of “solidarity,” “support,” “strength,” “defiance,” and “resistance.” But what the raised fist truly represents is the closing of our minds and our hearts, and the violence of our hate towards “the other.” The raised fist is a violent symbol that seeks to use hate to rationalize calls for power, and views justice and human rights as a zero-sum struggle. The raised fist depends on “losers” as much as it does on “winners.” But our universal human rights and dignity extend to all people, not just those we like and those like us.

The upraised fist is not a symbol of strength, but a symbol of weakness. It is not a symbol of courage, but a symbol of quaking fear. Let us urge for the strength and courage of dignity, compassion, and mercy to those who seek to campaign for human rights. Let us call for genuine human rights activists to remember our universal rights apply to all, and that our opportunities for change begin with an outstretched hand… not an upraised fist.

The raised fist is not a call for our shared universal human rights of equality and dignity. We do not build long-term change and progress in human rights based on hate-driven Anger Activism of “the other.” Hating our fellow human beings does not free us; it enslaves us, and it becomes a never-ending slavery. Hate is the worst violence of all, as hate is a violence that can never end, and which destroys ourselves as much as it destroys those we oppose.

We will never defeat Hate with Hate. We can win “battles,” but ultimately every “victory” for Hate helps us lose the “war” for Universal Human Rights and dignity for our fellow human beings. The upraised fist of hate should chill our heart more than any other totalitarian symbol of oppression. Unlike the horrible symbols of totalitarian persecution of today or the past, at least those totalitarian regimes had some geographic, ideological, or group boundary and limitation. But the upraised fist of hate has no such boundaries and limitations.

There is nothing celebratory, nothing merciful, and nothing compassionate about the use of our fists to threaten our fellow human beings. The upraised fist is not a defense of dignity, but it is an abandonment of it; it represents the divisive view that dignity is only deserved to “our cause” and not to all of our fellow human beings. In times with mercy, dignity, and compassion are in greatest need, advocates of human rights cannot reach for clenched fists, but offer outstretched hands, including (perhaps especially) to those whose views they reject.

The upraised fist of hate, and its Anger Activism, can be used anywhere, anytime, and against anyone. It is a symbol of hate-based Anger Activism that can be adopted in any societal struggle. But where does this take our society? How do we find progress as human beings, if we retreat to raising our fists in the air in a symbol of hate towards one another?

Our shared Declaration of Universal Human Rights is not built on Hate. It is built on dignity. It is built on equality. It is built on peace. It is built on our “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women.” It is built on “freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear.” As Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Such universal human rights are not a foundation of hate. But on its behalf, too many will use the cruel bludgeon of hate and its Anger Activist campaigns to claim that indeed hate is not only necessary, but hate is the answer. We cannot campaign for Human Rights, if we are not campaigning for Mercy First.

Anger Activism ignores these facts as “inconvenient,” and when the factual argument is too difficult, it merely waves away the Declaration of Universal Human Rights altogether. To those can see with context and reason, these should be warning signs. But the red-hot path of hate-fueled Anger Activism can mock societal warnings and boundaries. Indeed, some intoxicated by the venom of Anger Activism can believe that destroying boundaries of trust, safety, and mercy demonstrate the “power” and “influence” of their campaigns. But such super-fueled Anger Activism of hate of “the other” can become as much as a threat to society as the “enemy” they seek to challenge.

Universal human rights are not simply rights and dignity for you and the group or cause you are advocating. Universal human rights are “universal” – they apply to those that you defend and those that you defy. Univeral human rights apply to those you like and those that you do not like, as well as those like you and those not like you. To make lasting change, while we challenge ideas and behavior that abuses such rights and dignity, we must do so with an outstretched hand, not an upraised fist.

Anger Activism and its upraised fist of hate is not simply an attack on “enemies” that outrage us, but an attack on all of our fellow human beings. We cannot stand for universal human rights, dignity, compassion, and mercy for all, and spend our days and nights campaigning against our fellow human beings who we call our “enemies.”

C. Anger Activism and Betrayal

They have betrayed us, we can argue. Or even worse, they have betrayed human rights and human dignity, we can state. This is a common rationale in Anger Activism, which rationalizes that the ends justify the means.

So to those who we believe have betrayed our values, our society, even our human rights, do we believe that we should respond by matching their betrayal by “the other” with our betrayal of dignity, compassion, human rights towards them?

Let us recognize that hate-driven Anger Activism seeks to “punish” those who they feel have betrayed them, society, or our values, by seeking to make the betrayer into “the other.” But what does this demonization of “the other” truly accomplish? Does it promote dignity, mercy, compassion that are foundational in universal human rights? Does it provide a pathway for actual and long-term change, beyond threatening “the other” who we view has betrayed us?

We can find Anger Activism calling for societal “change,” but blocking all pathways to allow for change. Other than continually using and demonizing “the other” as an accelerant to the flame of hate, for an anger feeding anger, what actual opportunity for change does Anger Activism allow?

If the goal for Anger Activism is to “get,” “destroy,” “degrade,” those with whom it opposes, what part of universal human rights is Anger Activism actually supporting? Such tactics of Anger Activism and mass hate are also a betrayal of our universal human rights. Anger Activists may rationalize such hate based on betrayal by those who they believe have done wrong, but promotion of hate-based Anger Activism results in the same betrayal of our values of universal human rights, dignity, equality, compassion, and mercy.

As we have always known in human rights ethical mathematics, “two wrongs do not make a right.”

Betrayal is wrong, no matter who is doing the betraying, even when it is done by the Anger Activists.

D. Blind Anger Activism, Trust, and Isolation

If we were in a crowd, and faced danger to ourselves, our loved ones, and our fellow human beings, the gravest error would be to approach such danger blindly. Those who strike out with their eyes closed would do damage, not just to those they consider “their enemies,” but also to those they consider “their friends,” their loved ones, even those whom they are “fighting” to defend.

The blindness of Anger Activism creates a common threat to all. In striking out in blind anger, no one is safe from a storm of rage. Anger Activism creates a threat not only to their “targets,” but also any others in the way or associated with their “targets.” This includes a threat to those whose actions and ideas we might reject, and other human beings who have the misfortune of being near the target of Anger Activism, which in a crowd of humanity can be anyone.

If we are to look in the social mirror at blind Anger Activism, might we not ask who is the persecuted and who is the persecutor?

What does blind Anger Activism teach our society? It teaches us that we cannot Trust. It teaches that Trust is a social privilege only to a protected few. If any crowd can be the target of blind Anger Activism, what it teaches society that it is safer to be disconnected from fellow human beings, or at least at a distance, where a random storm of rage cannot threaten their dignity and lives.

What is the cost of Anger Activism in smashing societal Trust? Anger Activists can succeed in publicly silencing the views of those it opposes. This does not provide any long-term solutions to societal problems. How does isolating our fellow human beings provide opportunities to change hearts and minds? But the short-term concept of abandoning public trust and further isolating our (already isolated) public from one another is considered acceptable “ends justify the means” to Anger Activism. It simply is not a support for our shared, universal human rights, which depends on equality, dignity, compassion and mercy to all of our fellow human beings.

E. Anger Activism and Zero-Sum Thinking Creates a Lose-Lose Scenario

Modern history shows that the “angry mob” approach to social change rarely makes meaningful and lasting progress in human rights and dignity. Zero-Sum thinking, the idea that one side must “lose” for others to “win,” may seem rational to those with causes that do not support universal human rights. While it may be popular to those who believe they have lost “patience” with society, this is sign of the need for mature thinking on what universal human rights actually mean.

Because if we believe in universal human rights and dignity for all, we believe in them for ALL, not just for those like us and those we like. So Anger Activism, replacing genuine human rights activism, seeks “winners” and “losers” and only results in undermining a culture that understands and respects universal human rights.

Anger activists seek a “martial law” style abandonment of universal human rights — for their campaign. Anger activists may choose to argue that their campaign is so urgent and unique that we simply cannot respect the universal human rights of “the other,” and that a “Win-Lose” solution is the “only choice.” But from a position of universal human rights, this concept of Anger Activism demanding “win-lose” situations for “the other,” ultimately is not a “win-lose” for human rights, but a “lose-lose” for universal human rights.

F. Anger Activism and Violence

Some will argue that anger activism is necessary for the “public defense” or the defense of those described in their campaign. Certainly, we do face real and life-threatening violence is a violent world. But the argument of anger activism and its upraised fist is too readily adapted by those who have differences, but not life and death matters. We have often seen how such anger activism also leads to violence.

The path from “anger” alone to the “upraised fist” to actual social violence is short. That path can accept the dehumanization of “the other” that we oppose, whether it is an individual, a group, an ideology, a government, a nation. The path of mob anger seeks to deny that “the other” is human or deserves the same universal human rights and dignity that we claim for ourselves or those we champion.

Advocates in Anger may argue that zero-sum thinking is the “only” choice. For “our side” to win, “their side” must lose, and must lose completely so that they never have the freedom to pose a threat to society again. But that is not the voice of human rights activism. That is the voice of those promoting war, and frequently those who have no concern for the consequences of war. R.E.A.L. rejects war as a solution for every social problem. Hate and Violence are not the answer. If we respect universal human rights, we must seek a path of nonviolence and compassion, rather than a path of violence and hate.

Anger Activism can normalize both hate and violence as the “reasonable” behavior against our fellow human beings. The Anger Activists will argue that it really just necessary “this time,” until of course, it also really necessary in the next time, and the next, and the next. The self-fueling Anger Activism can go from “defending” our fellow human beings to seeking their violent destruction. This is how far from our shared universal human rights that Anger Activism can drive our public.

G. Anger Activism and Survival

To those whose dignity and lives are in peril, it is normal and natural to be outraged against those whose beliefs and actions threaten their dignity and lives. But can we consistently protect their endangered lives and dignity, based on Anger Activism alone? Will our anger protect the vulnerable? Or will our anger further endanger the vulnerable, with our blindness in anger keeping us from seeing other solutions to their needs?

While it may be a challenge to retain our sense of balance and context, during moments of such endangerment, this heightened moment of danger is when we must maintain focus on human rights values. That focus on human rights values must remind us that we are all, including those whose actions we oppose, fellow human beings. The shared universal human rights within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights apply to all, not just to those we like and those like us.

In a real emergency, how do leaders guide the public? Do they urge calm, restrained, structured thinking and actions… or random, mass panic? So we know that our fellow human beings, when in peril, respond most productively to a calm and centered sense of leadership. Why do we forget this knowledge when it comes to Anger Activism?

If we seek societal change, we must continue to speak a language that will be heard AND received by most of the public, especially if there is genuine danger to dignity and lives. A message of reckless, hate-fueled Anger Activism may be heard by many people, but will it by effectively RECEIVED and ACTED on by our fellow human beings?

Despite a vocal minority that believes its voice demonstrates the effectiveness of hate and Anger Activism, the reality is that these lead to very little meaningful change in society. They lead to fear, distrust, and unfortunately to more anger by others. Anger feeds Anger. That does not make anger a productive fuel. Anger is a fuel that is self-destructive. We would not fuel a vehicle with a fuel that would destroy it, because then the destructive fuel would not only consume the vehicle, but also its passengers. Yet Anger Activists believe the fuel of hate-filled anger will lead to “change.” If self-destruction is “change,” then that is true, but a long term commitment to human rights and dignity must have the discipline to be effective day after day after day.

On a regular basis, most of the public distances itself from hate-filled anger, despite popularity of Anger Activism among a minority of us. A loud, hate-consumed Anger Activist voice may be heard, but that does not make it into “communication” to many of our public. We must consistently and repeatedly speak the language that most human beings are most responsive to: dignity, equality, compassion, and mercy.

The greater the danger to dignity and survival, the more essential it is that we use effective communication on human rights, rather than the wasteful (and counterproductive) noise of Anger Activism.

H. Anger Activism, Ideas, and the Need for Action

Much Anger Activism comes from a frustration in talk and ideas, when we intuitively sense that ACTION is needed instead.

This comes from a failure to understand that discussion on ideas is indeed “action.” We may indeed be frustrated with pace of achieving change in our society. But among the many reasons for this, part of the reason can be a failure in effective communication. Hate-fueled Anger Activism may excite people who agree with the views of the activist. But this does not achieve CHANGE.

Change requires the ability to communicate to those who DO NOT agree with activist, or who need credible, rational solutions to problems. Anyone can shout at someone else or some other group, but the activism to promote change requires a different thinking and different approach.

A common approach is the belief that we can “shame” individuals and groups to “act.” Since there is history that some will act to avoid public shame and pressure, this has become the default position for most Anger Activism. But this approach is not a method for long term social change. Publicly silencing individuals with views that we object to does not provide a long term solution to human rights and social change. It simply makes them less willing to listen to arguments for change in the future.

Long term and meaningful social change comes with a common position of dignity, rights, compassion, and mercy for all of our fellow human beings, including those whose views and actions we reject. If we seek them to change their views and behavior, it is not enough for them to “hear” our shouting, we must communicate in a way that some of them will listen. We have seen well-known figures state that you “cannot change hearts.” Our history has clearly demonstrated that this is NOT true.

We achieve ACTION with dignity, mercy, and compassion to our fellow human beings. Hate-fueled Anger Activism is not the answer.

I. Anger Activism and Difficult Questions for Ourselves

To those in Anger Activism, ultimately war against “the other” is a tactic which must be embraced on a daily, even hourly basis. Let us not confuse anger activism with human rights activism. The zero-sum approach of anger activism is not the cooperative human rights activism needed to make lasting change that respects dignity, equality, and compassion for our human family. Anger activism does not seek to persuade and inform; it seeks to bludgeon and bully. It does not seek change; it seeks surrender. Such activism of anger and hate of others is not activism for universal human rights and dignity.

But with any meaningful social change, real activism for change must begin within us first. Can we find a path of social cooperation without anger, without bullying, without demonizing “the other”? These are difficult questions that we must first ask ourselves, before we ask them of others.

(a) Is anger the only message that we can convey, even if we face difficult times in human rights, oppression, and persecution of our human dignity? For those who seek to make positive change, we must find the discipline to have other choices, beyond anger, to allow us to process information and control our own behaviors.

(b) Who is in control – anger or our conscience and responsibility for universal human rights? Refusing to allow anger to control us as individuals is not surrender to those who would abuse human rights and dignity in society. It is simply a conscious choice that in working to solve social problems, we will refuse to allow our anger to make us part of the social problem ourselves.

(c) Can we work for human rights in society, challenging abusive behaviors of others, of abusive ideologies or regimes, if we cannot control our own behavior? To sincere individuals who arecommitted to human rights and dignity, we must have the courage to honestly have such discussions within ourselves.

(d) If we as individuals are so distant from peace, that we cannot find a place of peace in ourself to consider the challenges of unrestrained anger, how could we be able to work for societal change? If our objectivity, empathy, prudence or thoughtfulness is so damaged that we cannot assess ourselves, how can we help work for change in our larger society involving others? Peace is not simply an abstract concept or idea; peace is also a part of how we choose to live our lives. We cannot work for peace, while constantly being against peace in every facet of our lives; this is the contradiction that Anger Activism creates in our lives.

J. Anger Activism is Too Great a Burden and Too Divisive for Society

Anger is not far from Danger. We must recognize Anger Activism, not as a productive form of protest, but as a real and dangerous mob threat to our shared universal human rights.

Hate-fueled Anger Activism is the opposite of peace we seek in compassion, dignity, and respect for human rights for our fellow human beings. We must prioritize change on ideas and behavior – not hate against individuals and identity groups.

Anger Activism rejects the Universal Human Right of dignity for all. It chooses that only some have such universal human rights, and others do not. This is a foundational rejection of universal human rights.

Anger Activism rejects a central concept for social cohesion: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” which versions of this have been called “the golden rule.” The 1993 “Declaration Toward a Global Ethic” endorsed this concept by 143 leaders encompassing the world’s major faiths. While some will debate this concept, the intent is to promote an awareness of the human family deserves common respect, dignity, and mercy.

In his many lessons on universal human rights, American human rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned against hate repeatedly, “Hate is just as injurious to the hater as it is to the hated. Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity… Hate is too great a burden to bear.”

There is no question that outrageous acts and words that we see and hear in the world can inflame our passions and trouble our minds. But we must choose who is in control of our lives, our societies, and our destiny. Will it be controlled by never-ending anger and hate? Or will it be controlled by the dignity and mercy to our fellow human beings?

Human Rights are not built on, and will never be defended by hate.

We can Choose Mercy, Dignity, and Compassion.