In the National Post today, Jonathan Kay took a critical look at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in his article Three reasons why Winnipeg’s Human Rights Museum is doomed to failure.

The Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg has become the great naked emperor of public life in this country. Most intelligent people know that the project is a bad idea. Yet no one wants to be seen as opposing "human rights" — let alone remembrance of the Holocaust. So the construction crews are still working, funded in part by $100-million in government money. They are building the Mirabel Airport of Canadian museums — a white elephant that will do nothing to further human rights or honor Israel Asper and the other well-intentioned worthies who put this project in motion.

- The National Post

The Mirabel Airport of Canadian museums, kind of catchy isn't it? Anyway, for the sake of brevity his three main points are:

1. Human rights is an abstract concept, not a thing or event which are the two categories commonly featured in museums.
2. The museum is unlikely to inclusive of all human rights abuses due to limited space, leading to infighting among various groups.
3. The museums scope is too broad to present properly and it's location leaves much to be desired.

Anyone who knows me well knows that I am rarely an optimist; however, I have to disagree with Jonathan on a number of points.

1. While there are few museums dedicated to abstract concepts (my inner accountant loves the idea of a "due process museum") abstract concepts have a nasty way of manifesting themselves in real life.
   Take Apartheid as an example. In the beginning Apartheid was an abstract concept, and the real world implementation of this concept brought about decades of oppression. Abstract concepts often have a lot of impact politically, economically and socially, and deserve some amount of recognition and study.
2. Sadly the world has more atrocities than we can document in one building, so the space issue is unavoidable. I agree that grouping atrocities into 'The Holocaust' and 'Everything Else' will leave people justifiably upset.
   In my mind, the ideal way to handle this is by having no fixed exhibitions, but having three which are changed over every three years on a rotating schedule. No one can get too upset since there won't be any permanence to the selections. Is this likely to happen? I doubt it, but I can always hope.
   This would also allow the museum to cover current events easily and ensure a steady stream of new content. Imagine if the museum was already open and could have an Arab Spring exhibit ready for the following year? That would be impressive.
3. As much as I love Winnipeg, this city isn't the first place I would consider building a museum with 'National' in its name. Drawing tourists from outside Manitoba will be tricky since our image tends to be far from exciting.
   To this I say "You need to start somewhere". No one expects tourists to flock to Winnipeg in droves when we have a museum, at least no one who I would call sane. However, now that we have the addition of a respectable hockey team we have got the ball rolling. There isn't a single solution that will improve Winnipeg's status in the world, but a process of intelligent and continuous improvement will.

When I look at all this, I see that we have some obstacles which need to be overcome but I don't think that they are insurmountable.

Jonathan concludes his article by speculating that the taxpayers will be required to support the museum in the future. I'm not entirely convinced this is as terrible as he makes it out to be. Having a place to educate my children about human rights is one of the better uses of my tax dollars that I can think of.