PART I: Narrative on Personal Experience on an Article in UDHR Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Seattle MEPS attack in 2011 Seattle MEPS attack in 2011 happened when I was still in middle school. The attack did not take place as scheduled as the law enforcement was able to contain it even before it took place. My childhood friend Rahma used to offer me company and we spent much of the time together. Bearing in mind we were in the same school. It was not hard to find each other together. When the news was passed that the potential MEPS attackers were Islamic radicals, things changed around our area especially for Rahma. That very evening after school, she stayed indoors without much chatting online. Days following that, most people were giving the family suspicious looks and even some kids teased her at school. Rahma was a Muslim and just like fellow female believers, she had hijab always. This was and still is a mark that was used to identify Muslims. She was born of a Syrian father and Lebanese mother who met after moving to States. The parents were citizens and so was she but her family got a lot of backslash for being a Muslim. If it’s not the kids picking her at school, it’s the rest who used to give her the looks that are suspicious. The MEPS attack was all over the news and for Muslim families it was hard for them. Rahma and I would still spend time together in school however, this was just a few days to summer break. Her family stayed indoors most of the time to avoid the nasty and unwelcoming looks as well as verbal unnecessary confrontation. July was fast approaching but there was a bit of unrest around owing to the potential attacks. Bearing in mind it was directed at Federal facility, memories of similar attacks such as 911 would be revived in the media and online. At some point, graffiti writings of something like “Muslims are terrorists” were done on their garage door. The family thereafter left for a summer vacation to somewhere in New Jersey and their house sold a month after. I never heard from her again since they moved and her previous contacts online went unanswered. Discrimination drove the family away and our friendship was halted. PART II: Question that arises when you look at the articles of the declaration in relation to one another The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has covered human rights that should be observed by nations that subscribe to it. These rights cover various aspects of human life to ensure that each and every person’s dignity is effectively observed. However, a question can be raised on stipulations and application of one Article from a different one’s perspective. That means the application of one Article might raise questions from another’s perspective. Let’s t.

1. PART I: Narrative on Personal Experience on an Article in
UDHR
Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without
any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are
entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in
violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such
discrimination.
Seattle MEPS attack in 2011
Seattle MEPS attack in 2011 happened when I was still in
middle school. The attack did not take place as scheduled as the
law enforcement was able to contain it even before it took
place. My childhood friend Rahma used to offer me company
and we spent much of the time together. Bearing in mind we
were in the same school. It was not hard to find each other
together. When the news was passed that the potential MEPS
attackers were Islamic radicals, things changed around our area
especially for Rahma. That very evening after school, she
stayed indoors without much chatting online. Days following
that, most people were giving the family suspicious looks and
even some kids teased her at school. Rahma was a Muslim and
just like fellow female believers, she had hijab always. This was
and still is a mark that was used to identify Muslims. She was
born of a Syrian father and Lebanese mother who met after
moving to States.
The parents were citizens and so was she but her family got a
lot of backslash for being a Muslim. If it’s not the kids picking
her at school, it’s the rest who used to give her the looks that
are suspicious. The MEPS attack was all over the news and for
Muslim families it was hard for them. Rahma and I would still
spend time together in school however, this was just a few days
to summer break. Her family stayed indoors most of the time to
avoid the nasty and unwelcoming looks as well as verbal
unnecessary confrontation.
July was fast approaching but there was a bit of unrest around

2. owing to the potential attacks. Bearing in mind it was directed
at Federal facility, memories of similar attacks such as 911
would be revived in the media and online. At some point,
graffiti writings of something like “Muslims are terrorists” were
done on their garage door. The family thereafter left for a
summer vacation to somewhere in New Jersey and their house
sold a month after. I never heard from her again since they
moved and her previous contacts online went unanswered.
Discrimination drove the family away and our friendship was
halted.
PART II: Question that arises when you look at the articles of
the declaration in relation to one another
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has covered human
rights that should be observed by nations that subscribe to it.
These rights cover various aspects of human life to ensure that
each and every person’s dignity is effectively observed.
However, a question can be raised on stipulations and
application of one Article from a different one’s perspective.
That means the application of one Article might raise questions
from another’s perspective.
Let’s take Article 12 and Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Article 12 can basically be said
to enshrine the concept of right to privacy. It further invites the
law to protect against such attacks on the privacy. That means
the privacy, honor, reputation of such persons should always be
observed according to the Article. With such right being
observed, the rights of a person will not be under attack by
other persons as well as institutions which might want to
interfere. Article 19 on the other hand comes forth with freedom
of expression and opinion. That encompasses airing expressions
with no interference. It also has receiving sand seeking as well
as imparting the information via available media regardless of
the limits. The person expressing oneself or passing the opinion
as well as soliciting it has no barriers that seek to stop the

3. person. That opens a wide spectrum on what a person a can do
while in the course of airing their views through the media/any
forum.
The question now boils down to, what will happen when
the exercise of freedom of expression and opinion is tantamount
to violation of privacy. That aspect draws one to a scenario
where a right of privacy is being breached while in the course
of enjoying the human right of right to expression. The
application of the stipulations of the Articles will at such point
be in a deadlock with each party purporting to express their
freedom as outlined in the stated in the declaration. A good
example can deduce from the internet as the media, Person A
who a public figure and a person B who happens to be a
blogger. Person B may write an article in their blog about how
domestic issues are affecting the operation of public figure
while in the course of such person’s duties. However, while
doing so, did the same person attack the privacy, honor and
reputation of such president enshrined under Article 12?
Let’s take another example of former secret of state Hillary
Clinton’s so called private email server. Without dwelling so
much into the substance of the emails, the mails were in a
private server which means it private under Article 12. Can the
person brought up and commented on the emails who be said to
be enjoying their opinion, expression, seeking as well as
imparting information or breaching privacy, honor and
reputation?
The question/problem of the limit of exercise of the rights
conferred by the declaration is paramount since enjoyment of an
individual’s right at the expense of another is improper and
unfair. One person may be enjoying the rights at the expense of
the other. Such incidences especially with myriad of internet
arenas such as social media have necessitated the question. An
individual can publish any information they feel like to other
persons in the media. People are feel to express themselves in
the social media freely which is basically the rationale behind
social media. However, the implications of such expressions

4. even though it’s in line with Article 19 can lead to infringing
Article 12 on privacy, honor and reputation.
In summary therefore, the question of limitation of Article 19
applications to avoid infringing Article 12 on privacy clearly
evident in the declarations. The limit has not been stated in the
declaration which makes some people suffer when others are
enjoying their rights and that why it’s a problem. Such a
problem can lead to lack of enjoyment of a person’s right since
another one is infringing such rights when exercising theirs.