Let No One Take Our Rights Away

Sometimes we forget how fragile freedom can become when we stop protecting it. We grow accustomed to expressing our opinions, walking through our streets, meeting the people we choose and making decisions about our own lives without giving much thought to what losing those freedoms would mean. Yet we need only listen to the stories of those who have experienced persecution, violence or discrimination to understand that human rights have not always been respected. Many people discovered too late that what they had taken for granted could disappear when someone decided that their power mattered more than the dignity of others.

Article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that nothing in the Declaration may be interpreted as authorising any State, group or person to engage in activities or carry out acts aimed at destroying any of the rights and freedoms it proclaims. Although this may sound like a complicated legal provision, its message is remarkably simple and profoundly important. No one can use human rights themselves as an excuse to destroy the human rights of others. No government, organisation, majority or individual can find in the Declaration a justification for abolishing the freedoms it seeks to protect.

Consider someone who publicly defends their right to express opinions while seeking to prevent others from expressing theirs. Perhaps they believe that only certain ideas deserve to be heard, or that people who think differently should remain silent. This contradiction helps us understand the meaning of this article. Freedom of expression cannot become permission to destroy someone else’s freedom, just as defending a particular belief does not allow us to arbitrarily deny others the right to hold different beliefs.

Throughout history, many abuses began when those in power stopped recognising limits to their decisions. Governments claiming to act in the name of security, movements promising to build better societies and groups claiming to defend particular values ended up justifying persecution, imprisonment and terrible forms of violence. Sometimes they even used the language of freedom, justice or the common good to conceal actions that denied the dignity of millions of people. These experiences remind us that proclaiming good intentions is not enough when the means used destroy fundamental rights.

Article 30 warns us of precisely this danger. Human rights are not tools we can use selectively to protect only those who share our views. They are safeguards that belong to everyone, including people whose opinions make us uncomfortable or whose personal decisions we do not understand. We can disagree profoundly with someone, challenge their arguments and reject their proposals without believing that they are any less human as a result. Dignity does not disappear when we think differently, and no disagreement should become a justification for arbitrarily denying the rights of others.

This lesson is especially important when we consider minorities. A large majority within a society may share particular beliefs, traditions or political convictions, but that does not mean it can abolish the fundamental rights of those who do not belong to it. Democracy needs collective decisions and rules for participation, but it also needs limits that prevent the will of the majority from becoming an instrument of persecution. No one should lose their freedom of religion, equality before the law or right to legal protection simply because their personal circumstances differ from those of the majority.

Imagine a community where certain people begin to be singled out because of their background, religion or sexual orientation. It may begin with derogatory comments, followed by attempts to exclude them from certain spaces and, eventually, proposals to strip them of rights that everyone else continues to enjoy. When such situations become normalised, discrimination can spread until it becomes embedded in the way society is organised. Article 30 reminds us that no interpretation of human rights can justify such a destruction of freedoms. Equality retains its meaning only when it also protects those in more vulnerable positions.

We must also understand that this article applies to States. Public authorities have powers and responsibilities that can profoundly affect our lives. They can pass laws, make administrative decisions and exercise powers intended to maintain a functioning society. But none of these powers should be interpreted as unlimited permission to abolish fundamental rights. Power needs legal limits, oversight and safeguards that protect people from arbitrary action. When an institution believes it can place itself above human rights, those affected by its decisions can become particularly vulnerable to abuse.

The protection of rights cannot depend solely on the political circumstances of the moment either. Governments can change, parliamentary majorities can shift, and societies can experience uncertainty or conflict. Yet human dignity should not depend on the popularity of a particular idea or the convenience of those temporarily in power. Fundamental rights need safeguards that can endure even when defending them becomes uncomfortable. It is precisely in difficult times that we discover how deeply a society is committed to them.

Article 30 also refers to groups and individuals. This matters because rights violations do not come only from public authorities. An organisation can promote activities aimed at destroying fundamental freedoms, just as an individual can engage in conduct intended to achieve that goal. Neither can invoke the Universal Declaration to justify such activities. Our responsibility to respect human dignity does not disappear when we act collectively or when our decisions have the support of others.

However, we must avoid interpreting this safeguard as permission to ban any opinion we find unpleasant. Article 30 does not abolish freedom of expression or allow arbitrary suppression of debate on political, religious or social issues. There is a fundamental difference between advocating controversial ideas, even profoundly mistaken ones, and engaging in activities or carrying out acts aimed at destroying the rights and freedoms recognised in the Declaration. Any application of legal limits must respect the relevant safeguards, because protecting human rights cannot become an excuse for violating them.

This distinction is especially important in a democratic society. We can debate laws, criticise institutional decisions and advocate profound changes to our political or social systems. These possibilities are part of our freedoms and contribute to pluralism. But no cause can claim that the Universal Declaration grants a right to destroy the fundamental freedoms of others. Democracy must protect legitimate disagreement while also maintaining appropriate legal mechanisms to address actions that threaten human rights.

Think of someone who has experienced discrimination for much of their life. They may have endured humiliation, barriers to opportunities or situations in which others sought to decide which rights they deserved to enjoy. For someone who has lived through such experiences, Article 30 can offer a particularly important safeguard. It reminds them that no authority, group or individual can interpret the Declaration as permission to destroy their rights. Their dignity does not depend on the acceptance of others or on their own ability to defend themselves.

We must also remember that human rights form a connected set of safeguards. Freedom of thought, equality, protection from torture, access to justice and the other freedoms proclaimed in the Declaration reflect the need to protect different dimensions of our lives. When someone tries to destroy one of them, they can endanger many others. A person persecuted for their opinions may end up arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, while a community facing discrimination may encounter barriers to education, employment or protection through the courts. Preventing the destruction of rights therefore also means protecting the conditions that allow us to enjoy all our freedoms.

The history of human rights shows us that we should never assume progress is irreversible. Societies can advance in their recognition of equality while also experiencing setbacks as intolerant rhetoric spreads or institutional safeguards weaken. No generation inherits a permanent guarantee that its freedoms will be respected. Every era needs people, institutions and legal mechanisms committed to protecting them. This responsibility does not require us to live in constant fear. It requires us to understand that human dignity deserves a sustained and conscious commitment to its defence.

Education plays an essential role in this task. When we learn from childhood that everyone has the same rights, it becomes harder to accept the idea that certain groups can be treated as inferior. Learning about the historical consequences of persecution, discrimination and regimes that destroyed fundamental freedoms can help us recognise the dangers of normalising abuse. But human rights education should not be limited to remembering the past. It also means learning to identify present injustices and understanding that no one deserves to be stripped of their dignity because of their personal circumstances.

In our daily lives, we can contribute to this protection in ways that may seem small but carry profound meaning. When we reject humiliation, defend someone’s right to equal treatment or refuse to justify an attack motivated by prejudice, we affirm that human dignity allows no arbitrary exceptions. We may not always be able to transform major social structures, but we can decide how we treat those around us and which behaviours we are willing to accept as normal. Defending rights also begins with recognising the humanity of others.

Living together requires us to understand that rights do not belong only to those we consider good people, those who think like us or those who meet our expectations. Even someone who has committed a crime retains fundamental rights, although they may face the legitimate legal consequences of their actions. The protection of human dignity does not depend on whether we like someone. That is precisely why human rights place limits on power and on the impulse to punish, exclude or humiliate without respecting legal safeguards.

Sometimes we feel outraged by certain actions and want those responsible to face consequences. That reaction can be understandable when we hear about violence or injustice. But our response must remain within the law and respect fundamental safeguards. We cannot defend the prohibition of torture while justifying its use against people we consider guilty, or demand equality while proposing to arbitrarily strip certain groups of their rights. Our commitment to human rights is tested precisely when respecting them becomes most difficult.

Article 30 also has special significance because it is the final article of the Universal Declaration. After recognising rights relating to freedom, equality, justice, education, work, social protection and so many other aspects of our lives, the text concludes by establishing a safeguard against their destruction. It is as though it reminds us that every freedom it proclaims must remain protected from those who would use it to bring about its own destruction. The purpose is not to add a new privilege, but to prevent the meaning of the Declaration from being distorted into the opposite of what it seeks to defend.

This provision should also make us reflect on the responsibility that comes with power. The greater a person’s or institution’s ability to influence the lives of others, the more important it becomes for their actions to respect fundamental rights. A decision made from a position of authority can affect thousands of people, while an organised campaign of persecution can cause harm that lasts for generations. Legal limits are therefore not an unjustified obstacle to the legitimate exercise of power. They are a necessary safeguard against its transformation into domination.

Perhaps one of the most important lessons of Article 30 is that no cause can be considered truly humane if achieving its goals requires the destruction of certain people’s dignity. We can aspire to transform our society, defend deeply held convictions and work towards a different future. But the means we use also matter. It is inconsistent to proclaim freedom while taking it away from others, or to promise justice through actions that deny fundamental rights. Defending human rights requires both our aims and our actions to respect the principles we claim to uphold.

The Universal Declaration emerged after a period of history marked by atrocities that revealed how far the systematic destruction of human dignity could go. Its adoption represented an international commitment to recognise rights belonging to everyone, without distinction. Yet that commitment did not automatically eliminate injustice or prevent serious violations from continuing. Its value also lies in providing a common standard against which abuses can be challenged, and in reminding us that no authority can find in the Declaration itself a justification for destroying the rights it proclaims.

Article 30 helps us understand that human rights must be protected against any attempt to use them to bring about their own destruction. It reminds us that neither States, groups nor individuals can interpret the Declaration as permission to destroy the rights and freedoms it recognises. But it also teaches us that this protection must respect legal safeguards and prevent the defence of rights from becoming a justification for arbitrary restrictions. A truly free society is not one in which no one disagrees. It is one in which no person or institution can legitimately claim unlimited power to destroy the dignity of others.

Let us never allow freedom to be used to justify oppression, equality to become a promise reserved for a privileged few, or those in power to decide who deserves to keep their rights.

After all the injustices humanity has witnessed, we should have learned that no cause, no authority and no ambition can stand above human dignity.

Defending our rights has real meaning only when we are also willing to protect the rights of those whose voices and ideas differ from ours, and who lack our ability to defend themselves.

Human rights belong to everyone.

No one may destroy them.

No one.

Que nadie nos arrebate nuestros derechos

(Escrito en 🇪🇸🇲🇽– Written in 🇬🇧🇺🇸)

🇪🇸ESPAÑOL🇲🇽

A veces olvidamos lo frágil que puede llegar a ser la libertad cuando dejamos de protegerla. Nos acostumbramos a expresar nuestras opiniones, a caminar por nuestras calles, a reunirnos con quienes queremos y a tomar decisiones sobre nuestra propia vida sin pensar demasiado en lo que significaría perder esas posibilidades. Sin embargo, basta con escuchar las historias de quienes han sufrido persecución, violencia o discriminación para comprender que los derechos humanos no siempre han sido respetados. Muchas personas descubrieron demasiado tarde que aquello que consideraban seguro podía desaparecer cuando alguien decidió que su poder estaba por encima de la dignidad de los demás.

El artículo 30 de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos establece que nada de lo contenido en ella puede interpretarse como una autorización para que un Estado, un grupo o una persona desarrolle actividades o realice actos destinados a destruir cualquiera de los derechos y libertades proclamados. Aunque pueda parecer una disposición jurídica complicada, su mensaje es extraordinariamente sencillo y profundamente importante. Nadie puede utilizar los propios derechos humanos como excusa para destruir los derechos humanos de los demás. Ni un Gobierno, ni una organización, ni una mayoría social, ni una persona individual pueden encontrar en la Declaración una justificación para acabar con las libertades que esta pretende proteger.

Pensemos en alguien que defiende públicamente su derecho a expresar opiniones, pero que al mismo tiempo pretende impedir que otras personas puedan manifestar las suyas. Quizá considere que solamente determinadas ideas merecen ser escuchadas o que quienes piensan de manera diferente deberían permanecer en silencio. Esa contradicción nos ayuda a comprender el sentido de este artículo. La libertad de expresión no puede convertirse en una autorización para destruir la libertad ajena, del mismo modo que la defensa de una determinada creencia no permite eliminar arbitrariamente el derecho de otras personas a profesar convicciones diferentes.

A lo largo de la historia, numerosos abusos comenzaron cuando quienes ejercían el poder dejaron de reconocer límites a sus decisiones. Gobiernos que afirmaban actuar en nombre de la seguridad, movimientos que prometían construir sociedades mejores y grupos que aseguraban defender determinados valores terminaron justificando persecuciones, encarcelamientos y formas terribles de violencia. En ocasiones, incluso utilizaron palabras relacionadas con la libertad, la justicia o el bienestar colectivo para encubrir actuaciones que negaban la dignidad de millones de personas. Estas experiencias nos recuerdan que no basta con proclamar buenas intenciones cuando los medios utilizados destruyen los derechos fundamentales.

El artículo 30 nos advierte precisamente de ese peligro. Los derechos humanos no son herramientas que podamos utilizar selectivamente para proteger únicamente a quienes comparten nuestras ideas. Constituyen garantías que pertenecen a todas las personas, también a aquellas cuyas opiniones nos incomodan o cuyas decisiones personales no comprendemos. Podemos discrepar profundamente de alguien, cuestionar sus argumentos y rechazar sus propuestas sin considerar que por ello pierde su condición humana. Porque la dignidad no desaparece cuando pensamos de manera diferente y ninguna discrepancia debería convertirse en una justificación para negar arbitrariamente los derechos ajenos.

Esta enseñanza adquiere una importancia especial cuando pensamos en las minorías. Una sociedad puede contar con una amplia mayoría que comparte determinadas creencias, tradiciones o convicciones políticas, pero eso no significa que pueda eliminar los derechos fundamentales de quienes no pertenecen a ella. La democracia necesita decisiones colectivas y reglas de participación, pero también límites que impidan convertir la voluntad mayoritaria en un instrumento de persecución. Una persona no debería perder su libertad religiosa, su igualdad ante la ley o su derecho a la protección jurídica simplemente porque sus circunstancias personales no coincidan con las de la mayoría.

Pensemos en una comunidad donde determinadas personas comienzan a ser señaladas por su origen, su religión o su orientación sexual. Al principio pueden aparecer comentarios despectivos, después intentos de excluirlas de determinados espacios y, finalmente, propuestas destinadas a privarlas de derechos que los demás continúan disfrutando. Cuando estas situaciones se normalizan, la discriminación puede extenderse hasta convertirse en una forma de organización social. El artículo 30 nos recuerda que ninguna interpretación de los derechos humanos puede servir para justificar semejante destrucción de las libertades. La igualdad solamente conserva su sentido cuando también protege a quienes se encuentran en una posición de mayor vulnerabilidad.

También debemos comprender que este artículo se dirige a los Estados. Las autoridades públicas disponen de competencias y responsabilidades que pueden afectar profundamente a nuestra existencia. Pueden aprobar normas, adoptar decisiones administrativas y ejercer potestades destinadas a garantizar la convivencia. Pero ninguna de esas facultades debería interpretarse como una autorización ilimitada para eliminar derechos fundamentales. El poder necesita límites jurídicos, mecanismos de control y garantías que permitan proteger a las personas frente a actuaciones arbitrarias. Porque cuando una institución considera que puede situarse por encima de los derechos humanos, quienes dependen de sus decisiones pueden quedar especialmente expuestos a los abusos.

La protección de los derechos tampoco puede quedar subordinada exclusivamente a las circunstancias políticas de cada momento. Un Gobierno puede cambiar, una mayoría parlamentaria puede transformarse y una sociedad puede atravesar situaciones de incertidumbre o conflicto. Sin embargo, la dignidad humana no debería depender de la popularidad de una determinada idea ni de la conveniencia de quienes ejercen temporalmente el poder. Los derechos fundamentales necesitan garantías capaces de resistir incluso cuando su defensa resulta incómoda. Precisamente en los momentos difíciles es cuando descubrimos hasta qué punto una sociedad está verdaderamente comprometida con ellos.

El artículo 30 también se refiere a los grupos y a las personas individuales. Esta precisión resulta importante porque las vulneraciones de derechos no proceden exclusivamente de las autoridades públicas. Una organización puede promover actuaciones destinadas a destruir libertades fundamentales, del mismo modo que una persona puede participar en conductas que persiguen ese objetivo. Ninguna de ellas puede ampararse en la Declaración Universal para justificar tales actividades. La responsabilidad de respetar la dignidad humana no desaparece cuando actuamos colectivamente ni cuando nuestras decisiones reciben el respaldo de otras personas.

Sin embargo, debemos evitar interpretar esta garantía como una autorización para prohibir cualquier opinión que nos resulte desagradable. El artículo 30 no elimina la libertad de expresión ni permite suprimir arbitrariamente el debate sobre cuestiones políticas, religiosas o sociales. Existe una diferencia fundamental entre defender ideas controvertidas, incluso profundamente equivocadas, y desarrollar actividades o realizar actos dirigidos a destruir los derechos y libertades reconocidos en la Declaración. La aplicación de los límites jurídicos debe respetar las garantías correspondientes, porque proteger los derechos humanos no puede convertirse en una excusa para vulnerarlos.

Esta distinción resulta especialmente importante en una sociedad democrática. Podemos debatir sobre las leyes, criticar decisiones institucionales y defender cambios profundos en la organización política o social. Estas posibilidades forman parte de nuestras libertades y contribuyen al pluralismo. Pero ninguna reivindicación puede encontrar en la Declaración Universal un derecho a destruir las libertades fundamentales de los demás. La democracia debe proteger el desacuerdo legítimo y, al mismo tiempo, disponer de mecanismos jurídicos adecuados para afrontar las actuaciones que amenazan los derechos humanos.

Pensemos en una persona que ha sufrido discriminación durante buena parte de su vida. Quizá haya tenido que soportar humillaciones, dificultades para acceder a oportunidades o situaciones en las que otros pretendían decidir qué derechos merecía disfrutar. Para alguien que ha atravesado esas experiencias, el artículo 30 puede representar una garantía especialmente importante. Le recuerda que ninguna autoridad, grupo o individuo puede interpretar la Declaración como una autorización para destruir sus derechos. Su dignidad no depende de la aceptación de los demás ni de la fuerza que tenga para defenderse.

También debemos recordar que los derechos humanos forman un conjunto de garantías relacionadas entre sí. La libertad de pensamiento, la igualdad, la protección frente a la tortura, el acceso a la justicia y las demás libertades proclamadas en la Declaración responden a la necesidad de proteger diferentes dimensiones de nuestra existencia. Cuando alguien intenta destruir una de ellas, puede poner en peligro muchas otras. Una persona perseguida por sus opiniones puede terminar privada arbitrariamente de libertad, mientras que una comunidad discriminada puede encontrar obstáculos para acceder a la educación, al trabajo o a la protección judicial. Por eso, impedir la destrucción de los derechos también significa proteger las condiciones que permiten disfrutar del conjunto de nuestras libertades.

La historia de los derechos humanos nos demuestra que los avances alcanzados no deberían considerarse irreversibles. Las sociedades pueden progresar en el reconocimiento de la igualdad y, al mismo tiempo, experimentar retrocesos cuando se extienden discursos de intolerancia o se debilitan las garantías institucionales. Ninguna generación recibe asegurado para siempre el respeto a sus libertades. Cada época necesita personas, instituciones y mecanismos jurídicos comprometidos con su protección. Esta responsabilidad no exige vivir permanentemente con miedo, sino comprender que la dignidad humana merece una defensa constante y consciente.

La educación desempeña un papel esencial en esta tarea. Cuando aprendemos desde pequeños que todas las personas poseen los mismos derechos, resulta más difícil aceptar que determinados grupos puedan ser tratados como inferiores. Conocer las consecuencias históricas de la persecución, la discriminación y los regímenes que destruyeron libertades fundamentales puede ayudarnos a reconocer los peligros de normalizar los abusos. Pero educar en derechos humanos no debería limitarse a recordar acontecimientos del pasado. También significa aprender a identificar injusticias presentes y comprender que ninguna persona merece ser despojada de su dignidad por sus circunstancias personales.

En nuestra vida cotidiana podemos contribuir a esa protección de maneras que parecen pequeñas, pero que tienen un profundo significado. Cuando rechazamos una humillación, defendemos el derecho de alguien a ser tratado con igualdad o nos negamos a justificar una agresión por motivos discriminatorios, estamos expresando que la dignidad humana no admite excepciones arbitrarias. No siempre tendremos capacidad para transformar grandes estructuras sociales, pero sí podemos decidir cómo tratamos a quienes nos rodean y qué comportamientos estamos dispuestos a normalizar. La defensa de los derechos comienza también en la manera en que reconocemos la humanidad de los demás.

La convivencia exige comprender que los derechos no pertenecen exclusivamente a quienes consideramos buenas personas, a quienes piensan como nosotros o a quienes se ajustan a nuestras expectativas. Incluso alguien que ha cometido un delito conserva derechos fundamentales, aunque pueda ser sometido a las consecuencias jurídicas legítimas de sus actos. La protección de la dignidad humana no depende de nuestra simpatía hacia una persona. Precisamente por eso, los derechos humanos constituyen límites frente al poder y frente a los impulsos de castigar, excluir o humillar sin respetar las garantías jurídicas.

A veces sentimos indignación ante determinadas conductas y deseamos que sus responsables afronten consecuencias. Esa reacción puede resultar comprensible cuando conocemos situaciones de violencia o injusticia. Pero la respuesta debe mantenerse dentro del respeto al Derecho y a las garantías fundamentales. No podemos defender la prohibición de la tortura justificando que se torture a quienes consideramos culpables, ni reclamar igualdad mientras proponemos privar arbitrariamente de derechos a determinados grupos. La coherencia de los derechos humanos se pone a prueba precisamente cuando resulta más difícil respetarlos.

El artículo 30 tiene, además, un significado especial por ocupar el último lugar de la Declaración Universal. Después de reconocer derechos relacionados con la libertad, la igualdad, la justicia, la educación, el trabajo, la protección social y tantos otros aspectos de nuestra existencia, el texto concluye estableciendo una garantía frente a su destrucción. Es como si nos recordara que todas las libertades proclamadas necesitan permanecer protegidas frente a quienes pretendan utilizarlas para acabar con ellas. No se trata de añadir un privilegio nuevo, sino de impedir que el sentido de la Declaración pueda ser tergiversado hasta convertirse en lo contrario de aquello que pretende defender.

Esta disposición también tiene que hacernos reflexionar sobre la responsabilidad que acompaña al poder. Cuanta mayor capacidad tiene una persona o institución para influir en la vida de los demás, mayor importancia adquiere que sus actuaciones respeten los derechos fundamentales. Una decisión adoptada desde una posición de autoridad puede afectar a miles de personas, mientras que una campaña organizada de persecución puede provocar daños que se extiendan durante generaciones. Por eso, la existencia de límites jurídicos no representa un obstáculo injustificado para el ejercicio legítimo del poder, sino una garantía necesaria para evitar que este se transforme en dominación.

Quizá una de las mayores enseñanzas del artículo 30 sea que ninguna causa puede considerarse verdaderamente humana cuando necesita destruir la dignidad de determinadas personas para alcanzar sus objetivos. Podemos aspirar a transformar nuestra sociedad, defender convicciones profundas y trabajar por un futuro diferente. Pero los medios utilizados también importan, porque no resulta coherente proclamar la libertad mientras se elimina la de otros ni prometer justicia mediante actuaciones que niegan los derechos fundamentales. La defensa de los derechos humanos exige que nuestros objetivos y nuestras acciones respeten los principios que afirmamos proteger.

La Declaración Universal nació después de una etapa histórica marcada por atrocidades que demostraron hasta dónde podía llegar la destrucción sistemática de la dignidad humana. Su aprobación representó un compromiso internacional para reconocer derechos que pertenecen a todas las personas, sin distinción. Sin embargo, ese compromiso no eliminó automáticamente las injusticias ni impidió que posteriormente continuaran produciéndose graves vulneraciones. Su valor reside también en ofrecer una referencia común frente a los abusos y en recordar que ninguna autoridad puede encontrar en la propia Declaración una legitimación para destruir los derechos que proclama.

En definitiva, el artículo 30 nos hace comprender que los derechos humanos deben protegerse frente a cualquier intento de utilizarlos para acabar con ellos. Nos recuerda que ni los Estados, ni los grupos, ni los individuos pueden interpretar la Declaración como una autorización para destruir sus derechos y libertades. Pero también nos enseña que esa protección debe realizarse respetando las garantías jurídicas y evitando que la defensa de los derechos se convierta en una justificación para imponer restricciones arbitrarias. Porque una sociedad verdaderamente libre no es aquella donde nadie discrepa, sino aquella donde ninguna persona o institución puede reclamar legítimamente un poder ilimitado para destruir la dignidad ajena.

Nunca permitamos que la libertad sea utilizada para justificar la opresión, que la igualdad se convierta en una promesa reservada a unos pocos o que quienes tienen el poder decidan qué personas merecen conservar sus derechos.

Después de todas las injusticias que ha conocido la humanidad deberíamos haber aprendido que ninguna causa, ninguna autoridad y ninguna ambición pueden situarse por encima de la dignidad humana.

Defender nuestros derechos solamente tiene verdadero sentido cuando estamos dispuestos a proteger también los de quienes no tienen nuestra voz, nuestras ideas ni nuestra fuerza para defenderse.

Los derechos humanos son de todos.

Nadie puede destruirlos.

Nadie.

🇬🇧ENGLISH🇺🇸

Let No One Take Our Rights Away

Sometimes we forget how fragile freedom can become when we stop protecting it. We grow accustomed to expressing our opinions, walking through our streets, meeting the people we choose and making decisions about our own lives without giving much thought to what losing those freedoms would mean. Yet we need only listen to the stories of those who have experienced persecution, violence or discrimination to understand that human rights have not always been respected. Many people discovered too late that what they had taken for granted could disappear when someone decided that their power mattered more than the dignity of others.

Article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that nothing in the Declaration may be interpreted as authorising any State, group or person to engage in activities or carry out acts aimed at destroying any of the rights and freedoms it proclaims. Although this may sound like a complicated legal provision, its message is remarkably simple and profoundly important. No one can use human rights themselves as an excuse to destroy the human rights of others. No government, organisation, majority or individual can find in the Declaration a justification for abolishing the freedoms it seeks to protect.

Consider someone who publicly defends their right to express opinions while seeking to prevent others from expressing theirs. Perhaps they believe that only certain ideas deserve to be heard, or that people who think differently should remain silent. This contradiction helps us understand the meaning of this article. Freedom of expression cannot become permission to destroy someone else’s freedom, just as defending a particular belief does not allow us to arbitrarily deny others the right to hold different beliefs.

Throughout history, many abuses began when those in power stopped recognising limits to their decisions. Governments claiming to act in the name of security, movements promising to build better societies and groups claiming to defend particular values ended up justifying persecution, imprisonment and terrible forms of violence. Sometimes they even used the language of freedom, justice or the common good to conceal actions that denied the dignity of millions of people. These experiences remind us that proclaiming good intentions is not enough when the means used destroy fundamental rights.

Article 30 warns us of precisely this danger. Human rights are not tools we can use selectively to protect only those who share our views. They are safeguards that belong to everyone, including people whose opinions make us uncomfortable or whose personal decisions we do not understand. We can disagree profoundly with someone, challenge their arguments and reject their proposals without believing that they are any less human as a result. Dignity does not disappear when we think differently, and no disagreement should become a justification for arbitrarily denying the rights of others.

This lesson is especially important when we consider minorities. A large majority within a society may share particular beliefs, traditions or political convictions, but that does not mean it can abolish the fundamental rights of those who do not belong to it. Democracy needs collective decisions and rules for participation, but it also needs limits that prevent the will of the majority from becoming an instrument of persecution. No one should lose their freedom of religion, equality before the law or right to legal protection simply because their personal circumstances differ from those of the majority.

Imagine a community where certain people begin to be singled out because of their background, religion or sexual orientation. It may begin with derogatory comments, followed by attempts to exclude them from certain spaces and, eventually, proposals to strip them of rights that everyone else continues to enjoy. When such situations become normalised, discrimination can spread until it becomes embedded in the way society is organised. Article 30 reminds us that no interpretation of human rights can justify such a destruction of freedoms. Equality retains its meaning only when it also protects those in more vulnerable positions.

We must also understand that this article applies to States. Public authorities have powers and responsibilities that can profoundly affect our lives. They can pass laws, make administrative decisions and exercise powers intended to maintain a functioning society. But none of these powers should be interpreted as unlimited permission to abolish fundamental rights. Power needs legal limits, oversight and safeguards that protect people from arbitrary action. When an institution believes it can place itself above human rights, those affected by its decisions can become particularly vulnerable to abuse.

The protection of rights cannot depend solely on the political circumstances of the moment either. Governments can change, parliamentary majorities can shift, and societies can experience uncertainty or conflict. Yet human dignity should not depend on the popularity of a particular idea or the convenience of those temporarily in power. Fundamental rights need safeguards that can endure even when defending them becomes uncomfortable. It is precisely in difficult times that we discover how deeply a society is committed to them.

Article 30 also refers to groups and individuals. This matters because rights violations do not come only from public authorities. An organisation can promote activities aimed at destroying fundamental freedoms, just as an individual can engage in conduct intended to achieve that goal. Neither can invoke the Universal Declaration to justify such activities. Our responsibility to respect human dignity does not disappear when we act collectively or when our decisions have the support of others.

However, we must avoid interpreting this safeguard as permission to ban any opinion we find unpleasant. Article 30 does not abolish freedom of expression or allow arbitrary suppression of debate on political, religious or social issues. There is a fundamental difference between advocating controversial ideas, even profoundly mistaken ones, and engaging in activities or carrying out acts aimed at destroying the rights and freedoms recognised in the Declaration. Any application of legal limits must respect the relevant safeguards, because protecting human rights cannot become an excuse for violating them.

This distinction is especially important in a democratic society. We can debate laws, criticise institutional decisions and advocate profound changes to our political or social systems. These possibilities are part of our freedoms and contribute to pluralism. But no cause can claim that the Universal Declaration grants a right to destroy the fundamental freedoms of others. Democracy must protect legitimate disagreement while also maintaining appropriate legal mechanisms to address actions that threaten human rights.

Think of someone who has experienced discrimination for much of their life. They may have endured humiliation, barriers to opportunities or situations in which others sought to decide which rights they deserved to enjoy. For someone who has lived through such experiences, Article 30 can offer a particularly important safeguard. It reminds them that no authority, group or individual can interpret the Declaration as permission to destroy their rights. Their dignity does not depend on the acceptance of others or on their own ability to defend themselves.

We must also remember that human rights form a connected set of safeguards. Freedom of thought, equality, protection from torture, access to justice and the other freedoms proclaimed in the Declaration reflect the need to protect different dimensions of our lives. When someone tries to destroy one of them, they can endanger many others. A person persecuted for their opinions may end up arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, while a community facing discrimination may encounter barriers to education, employment or protection through the courts. Preventing the destruction of rights therefore also means protecting the conditions that allow us to enjoy all our freedoms.

The history of human rights shows us that we should never assume progress is irreversible. Societies can advance in their recognition of equality while also experiencing setbacks as intolerant rhetoric spreads or institutional safeguards weaken. No generation inherits a permanent guarantee that its freedoms will be respected. Every era needs people, institutions and legal mechanisms committed to protecting them. This responsibility does not require us to live in constant fear. It requires us to understand that human dignity deserves a sustained and conscious commitment to its defence.

Education plays an essential role in this task. When we learn from childhood that everyone has the same rights, it becomes harder to accept the idea that certain groups can be treated as inferior. Learning about the historical consequences of persecution, discrimination and regimes that destroyed fundamental freedoms can help us recognise the dangers of normalising abuse. But human rights education should not be limited to remembering the past. It also means learning to identify present injustices and understanding that no one deserves to be stripped of their dignity because of their personal circumstances.

In our daily lives, we can contribute to this protection in ways that may seem small but carry profound meaning. When we reject humiliation, defend someone’s right to equal treatment or refuse to justify an attack motivated by prejudice, we affirm that human dignity allows no arbitrary exceptions. We may not always be able to transform major social structures, but we can decide how we treat those around us and which behaviours we are willing to accept as normal. Defending rights also begins with recognising the humanity of others.

Living together requires us to understand that rights do not belong only to those we consider good people, those who think like us or those who meet our expectations. Even someone who has committed a crime retains fundamental rights, although they may face the legitimate legal consequences of their actions. The protection of human dignity does not depend on whether we like someone. That is precisely why human rights place limits on power and on the impulse to punish, exclude or humiliate without respecting legal safeguards.

Sometimes we feel outraged by certain actions and want those responsible to face consequences. That reaction can be understandable when we hear about violence or injustice. But our response must remain within the law and respect fundamental safeguards. We cannot defend the prohibition of torture while justifying its use against people we consider guilty, or demand equality while proposing to arbitrarily strip certain groups of their rights. Our commitment to human rights is tested precisely when respecting them becomes most difficult.

Article 30 also has special significance because it is the final article of the Universal Declaration. After recognising rights relating to freedom, equality, justice, education, work, social protection and so many other aspects of our lives, the text concludes by establishing a safeguard against their destruction. It is as though it reminds us that every freedom it proclaims must remain protected from those who would use it to bring about its own destruction. The purpose is not to add a new privilege, but to prevent the meaning of the Declaration from being distorted into the opposite of what it seeks to defend.

This provision should also make us reflect on the responsibility that comes with power. The greater a person’s or institution’s ability to influence the lives of others, the more important it becomes for their actions to respect fundamental rights. A decision made from a position of authority can affect thousands of people, while an organised campaign of persecution can cause harm that lasts for generations. Legal limits are therefore not an unjustified obstacle to the legitimate exercise of power. They are a necessary safeguard against its transformation into domination.

Perhaps one of the most important lessons of Article 30 is that no cause can be considered truly humane if achieving its goals requires the destruction of certain people’s dignity. We can aspire to transform our society, defend deeply held convictions and work towards a different future. But the means we use also matter. It is inconsistent to proclaim freedom while taking it away from others, or to promise justice through actions that deny fundamental rights. Defending human rights requires both our aims and our actions to respect the principles we claim to uphold.

The Universal Declaration emerged after a period of history marked by atrocities that revealed how far the systematic destruction of human dignity could go. Its adoption represented an international commitment to recognise rights belonging to everyone, without distinction. Yet that commitment did not automatically eliminate injustice or prevent serious violations from continuing. Its value also lies in providing a common standard against which abuses can be challenged, and in reminding us that no authority can find in the Declaration itself a justification for destroying the rights it proclaims.

Article 30 helps us understand that human rights must be protected against any attempt to use them to bring about their own destruction. It reminds us that neither States, groups nor individuals can interpret the Declaration as permission to destroy the rights and freedoms it recognises. But it also teaches us that this protection must respect legal safeguards and prevent the defence of rights from becoming a justification for arbitrary restrictions. A truly free society is not one in which no one disagrees. It is one in which no person or institution can legitimately claim unlimited power to destroy the dignity of others.

Let us never allow freedom to be used to justify oppression, equality to become a promise reserved for a privileged few, or those in power to decide who deserves to keep their rights.

After all the injustices humanity has witnessed, we should have learned that no cause, no authority and no ambition can stand above human dignity.

Defending our rights has real meaning only when we are also willing to protect the rights of those whose voices and ideas differ from ours, and who lack our ability to defend themselves.

Human rights belong to everyone.

No one may destroy them.

No one.

GAZA UNDER THE RAIN

There are images that should make us feel ashamed as a society. Images that force us to stop and confront a reality that we too often try out of our minds. These days, as the first heavy rains of winter hit the Gaza Strip, thousands of Palestinian families are once again facing an utterly unbearable situation. Having already lost their homes, their belongings, their loved ones and much of their hope, they must now struggle to survive the cold, the mud and the floodwater pouring into the few shelters they have left.

In Gaza, rain does not simply mean umbrellas, wet streets or winter afternoons. It means fear. It means waking up in the middle of the night because water is seeping into your tent. It means trying to save a soaked mattress, gathering your children’s clothes and searching for somewhere to keep them warm. And it means realising, once again, that there is not even a safe place to rest.

Thousands of Palestinian families are currently living in makeshift tents built from plastic sheets, worn-out tarpaulins and materials that offer barely any protection against the weather. Many are set up on flood-prone ground, among piles of rubble and beside buildings severely damaged by airstrikes. The arrival of the rain has turned these settlements into veritable traps of water and mud.

The figures are deeply distressing. According to United Nations humanitarian reports published on 9 November, flooding has affected more than 26,000 households, while over 6,000 family shelters have been destroyed and another 17,400 have been damaged. An estimated 600 families have been forced to flee once again. Gaza’s authorities have also reported that around 70,000 tents have been flooded.

And behind every figure there are human beings. Mothers trying to keep their children dry, elderly people struggling to walk through the mud, people with disabilities facing even greater difficulties getting around, and entire families who have lost almost everything they had left.

The tragedy has even claimed more lives. According to the United Nations, the collapse of a sand embankment onto several tents in Deir al Balah killed five displaced people, including three children and two women. There have also been reports of a baby drowning in a displacement camp. It is difficult to find words to describe such suffering.

But there is something particularly important that we must recognise. This tragedy cannot simply be explained away as the result of exceptionally heavy rainfall. Rain is a natural phenomenon. The fact that thousands of people have to face it without a decent roof over their heads, without adequate infrastructure, drainage systems or sufficient materials to protect themselves is the consequence of a humanitarian and political situation that we cannot ignore.

The destruction of homes, hospitals, sanitation networks and essential services has left Gaza in an extremely vulnerable situation. On top of this, restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid, construction materials, tents, water pumps and other supplies essential for surviving the winter have made an already desperate situation even worse. The United Nations has warned that more than 150,000 tents purchased by humanitarian organisations and donor countries remain outside Gaza, waiting for permission to enter. Meanwhile, available supplies inside the Strip are almost completely exhausted.

As all this unfolds, winter has barely begun. We must not become accustomed to seeing these images. We cannot allow the suffering of the Palestinian people to become just another news story that appears on our phones for a few minutes before disappearing beneath headlines, political debates and other concerns. Nor can we accept that Palestinian children should have to learn so early in life that sleeping in the rain, enduring the cold or losing their homes are simply part of everyday life.

The children of Gaza deserve to grow up, play, go to school, receive medical care and have the opportunity to imagine a future. They deserve a dry bed, a safe home, warm clothes and a childhood that is not constantly overshadowed by fear. They are not statistics, collateral damage or bargaining chips in any political dispute. They are human beings whose rights must be protected without exception.

The international community has a duty to act. Immediate, safe and sufficient access for humanitarian aid must be guaranteed. The entry of shelter and reconstruction materials must be allowed, civilians must be protected and respect for international humanitarian law must be demanded. Humanitarian assistance cannot be made dependent on political interests or turned into a means of exerting pressure on a population that has endured unbearable suffering for far too long.

This is not about choosing some human beings over others. It is about defending life, dignity and the human rights of every person. And that is precisely why we cannot remain indifferent to what is happening in Palestine.

No one should have to choose between the fear of being bombed and the fear of dying in the rain. No child should have to spend an entire night clinging to their mother while floodwater engulfs the place they call home. And no people should have to keep proving, time and again, their right to live with dignity.

I hope the rain does not wash away what little hope Gaza has left, and that the world finally stops looking the other way.

Palestine needs justice, protection and humanity.

No more indifference.

No more abandonment.