Extract
[...] Dignity has constitutional value and legal scope. And what Arendt says is that dignity cannot just be proclaimed, it must be lived. So, if we don't give people a real place in the world, then it's worth nothing. That's why in this specific context, dignity must be an inalienable right for every individual, regardless of any favor, unlike charity, which remains a granted favor. Subsequently, Arendt tells us that what is at stake is 'belonging to the community' (l.25-l.26). Without belonging to a community, these concepts lose all their meaning. [...]
[...] They force states and international organizations to react, even reluctantly. Let's take the example of the Syrian refugee protests in Europe, who used social networks to denounce their situation, organize gatherings, and raise public awareness. The hashtag #RefugeesWelcome, which went around the world, is a symbol of this digital mobilization. However, 'privileges, blessings, and condemnations are inflicted upon them at the whim of chance'10. This then becomes an international excuse to mask political indifference. A refugee can fall on a welcoming host country or on a nation that rejects them: it all depends on the circumstances, not on their actions. [...]
[...] Out of fear and revenge. These men and women had done nothing wrong, but because they were perceived as a potential threat, their citizenship ceased to protect them. Ironically, one can say that democracies love to shift the blame by saying they are much freer than totalitarian regimes, but under a democracy, injustice is glossed over by moralizing speeches. In some ways, democracies act exactly like what they condemn. At least, under tyranny, injustice is 'honest' because it is clear. [...]
[...] It tells us that this absence of legal obligation towards the rightless is a flaw in the international system in our modern era. By way of comparison, J.J. Rousseau says that our body belongs to the State. From the cradle, the State has nourished it. In return, it asks for something. It's a give-and-take. The State, from our birth, plays a role of "institutional parent": it nourishes us, educates us, protects us. In return, it expects our participation in its functioning: work, taxes, respect for laws. Is the State really a benevolent parent or an authoritarian parent? [...]
[...] She questions the idea that freedom is 'the very essence of human rights'1. Why? Because she will demonstrate that, even if freedom is put on a pedestal, it is nothing without a legal and political framework to guarantee it. De facto, when someone is deprived of fundamental rights (in this case, human rights), freedom becomes a meaningless concept. Because freedom only makes sense if it is accompanied by a legal status that gives an individual a place in society. This is her way of directly stating her principle from the outset. [...]
