NationStates Jolt Archive

Now I have been a member of Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/) for four years. In that time I took it as a given that it was our moral duty to criticise, highlight and campaign against human rights abuses everywhere in the world.

Recently on this forum I have come across some who believe it to be arrogant to criticise human rights abuse in other parts of the world. And it's coming from the most surprising sources. Namely people who I would expect to be principled defenders of human rights.

For example, Bottle said this here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11684315&postcount=75):
The thing is, I live in a country that is run by Christians, and I believe in taking the log from mine own eye before pointing out the mote in my neighbor's. My first responsibility is to make sure that my own culture is behaving in a just and reasonable manner.

I'm not trying to attack any posters.

I'm just shocked that anyone would think that we shouldn't criticise abuse of human rights.

I feel that we must address human rights violations at home or violations we have commited abroad (Gitmo, etc.), and pay equal attention to violations commited by others.

However, I personally think the Schrub has no right to condemn others of rights violations, considering he's now admited that he's a torturing fuck.

Now I have been a member of Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/) for four years. In that time I took it as a given that it was our moral duty to criticise, highlight and campaign against human rights abuses everywhere in the world.

Recently on this forum I have come across some who believe it to be arrogant to criticise human rights abuse in other parts of the world. And it's coming from the most surprising sources. Namely people who I would expect to be principled defenders of human rights.

For example, Bottle said this here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11684315&postcount=75):


I'm not trying to attack any posters.

I'm just shocked that anyone would think that we shouldn't criticise abuse of human rights.

Fairly reasonable sentiment … focus your energy on where you can have the most effect. That’s where I would put most of my effort, not forgetting other abuses but not fretting over what you have the least ability to change.

Its called effective use of resources

Indeed

Rights are something that have to be fought for and won.

we cannot go around the world 'giving' people rights, they have to take it for themselves.

not to mention that it's quite a double standard to depose leaders for torturing people when our leaders do so.

Fairly reasonable sentiment … focus your energy on where you can have the most effect. That’s where I would put most of my effort, not forgetting other abuses but not fretting over what you have the least ability to change.

Its called effective use of resources

Just because we can't change human rights abuses in certain countries doesn't mean we shouldn't complain. When someone gripes about what the USA does, and gives a "meh" to Saudi Arabia or China, I start thinking they have an agenda.

Fairly reasonable sentiment … focus your energy on where you can have the most effect. That’s where I would put most of my effort, not forgetting other abuses but not fretting over what you have the least ability to change.
I agree with pragmatism. Although Amnesty's method of letter-writing may sound useless, they have resulted in the release of 44,000 political prisoners and improvement in the situations of thousands of others. If people from all over the world are writing to one guy it is very effective.

Rights are something that have to be fought for and won.

we cannot go around the world 'giving' people rights, they have to take it for themselves.
As I said, Amnesty's campaigns have led to the release of 44,000 political prisoners. We clearly can give people rights, though if they want to establish a situation where their rights cannot be violated they'll probably have to do it for themselves.

However, I personally think the Schrub has no right to condemn others of rights violations, considering he's now admited that he's a torturing fuck.
I agree, but I don't see how King Büsch has much to do with this topic, other than as a target for human rights campaigns.

Human rights abuses are human rights abuses no matter where they take place, and should be condemned whenever they are found.

Human rights abuses are human rights abuses no matter where they take place, and should be condemned whenever they are found.

what are human rights abuses, before we continue this debate we need to clearly define what meaning of the phrase is.

I believe for serious offenses yes, but we must take care not to practice cultural imperialism.

what are human rights abuses, before we continue this debate we need to clearly define what meaning of the phrase is.
1. Custard creams are a right. Any person who denies another the biscuit of perfection is guilty of torture under international law.

what are human rights abuses, before we continue this debate we need to clearly define what meaning of the phrase is.

I believe for serious offenses yes, but we must take care not to practice cultural imperialism.
Amnesty uses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm) as a yardstick.

obviously things like that shown by Philosopy (right to custard creams) would, if taken seriously, be cultural imperialism, because people in the west like custard creams but othes may not.

I agree, but I don't see how King Büsch has much to do with this topic, other than as a target for human rights campaigns.

The point I was trying to make is that someone who himself/herself condones or instigates rights violations has no right to condemn other nations for any violations.

Criticize? Certainly! Rail against? Of course! Lend succor? For sure!

But the problem is deep. What you or I might consider basic may not be. For instance, the Amnesty document spells out very clearly that monarchy is a violation, as everyone has a right to elect their leaders. I can certainly see where trying to enforce that might upset people who LIKE living in a monarchy, even though they don't get to pick their rulers. So the judgement that democracy is a human right comes smack dab up against cultural imperialism. There are other examples...

Yes, if you see people being sold as slaves, or genocide being committed, you SHOULD speak out. But we must be careful not to assume that just because WE do things a certain way, it is right for everyone.

I would say it would be very hard to criticise other countries for human rights abuses, without being prepared to have the "Yeah, well you're doing it too! See X,Y and Z" argument thrown back at you.

This is especially relevant when Americans criticise (for the right reasons I may add) and them having G. Bay or Abu Ghraib thrown back at them. This should not detract from the original complaint. If one criticises Sudan over Darfur, one cannot go "Oh, yeah, ok" when G. Bay is used as a retort.

It should be acknowledged that everywhere has its problems, that those problems and blotches are also being fought against in the spirit of human rights and this should not detract from the vocality (if that's even a word) of protestors in the West.

In essence, yes. Yes we should, while openly embracing that we're not perfect either- but dammit we're trying our best.

Many things that would be considered human rights abuses in some countries are considered to be cultural norms elsewhere, and vice versa.

I would say it would be very hard to criticise other countries for human rights abuses, without being prepared to have the "Yeah, well you're doing it too! See X,Y and Z" argument thrown back at you.

This is especially relevant when Americans criticise (for the right reasons I may add) and them having G. Bay or Abu Ghraib thrown back at them. This should not detract from the original complaint.
I think it's unfair for you to throw Guantanamo Bay at Americans who are also against G-bay. It's only hypocritical if they support the US human rights abuses.

It should be acknowledged that everywhere has its problems, that those problems and blotches are also being fought against in the spirit of human rights and this should not detract from the vocality (if that's even a word) of protestors in the West.

In essence, yes. Yes we should, while openly embracing that we're not perfect either- but dammit we're trying our best.
Yes I would also want to emphasise that criticising oter countries does not amount to a declaration of the perfection of our own.

I can certainly see where trying to enforce that might upset people who LIKE living in a monarchy, even though they don't get to pick their rulers.
If you want to implement human rights you're going to upset the people who like to violate human rights. Suck it up.

I think it's unfair for you to throw Guantanamo Bay at Americans who are also against G-bay. It's only hypocritical if they support the US human rights abuses.

Well.... that was my point :)

I'm just shocked that anyone would think that we shouldn't criticise abuse of human rights.

Insofar as you believe human rights are universal, then you are justified in criticizing other nations for their human rights abuses. But bear in mind that not everyone sees human rights as universal, or necessarily agrees with you as to which human rights are universal. Even the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a distinctly Western flavour.

Insofar as you believe human rights are universal, then you are justified in criticizing other nations for their human rights abuses. But bear in mind that not everyone sees human rights as universal, or necessarily agrees with you as to which human rights are universal.
I'm sure that oppressors don't.

Even the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a distinctly Western flavour.
It was ratified by many non-western nations.

Individual citizens can and should be critical toward governments that abuse human rights. International non-profit organizations also. When Amnesty International and it's members protest, I hold no objection.

But governments? I say, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Few things sicken me like the 'holier-than-thou' attitude of the average politician.

But governments? I say, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Few things sicken me like the 'holier-than-thou' attitude of the average politician.
Yes I agree, which is why I'm glad that many Irish politicians have a clean enough record to criticise everyone from Israel to Sudan.

Yes I agree, which is why I'm glad that many Irish politicians have a clean enough record to criticise everyone from Israel to Sudan.

*snort*

Yes I agree, which is why I'm glad that many Irish politicians have a clean enough record to criticise everyone from Israel to Sudan.

Which is why they tend to be respected by all sides in international mediation too.

I absolutely believe that we have the right, nay, responsibility, to criticize human rights abuses wherever they might occur, be it in our own backyard, or 10000 miles away.

1. Custard creams are a right. Any person who denies another the biscuit of perfection is guilty of torture under international law.

Amen to that! Custard creams should be provided by the NHS!

Absolutely, human rights abuses must be exposed and criticized no matter where they occur or who commits them -- but we should try to do so without hypocrisy.

It pisses me off when some people criticize a certain group (nation, religion, political party, etc) for abuses, but try to make excuses for the same abuses committed by their own group. If you condemn torture, then you condemn torture. Period. For example, I won't accept any argument that condemns torture committed by foreign governments but excuses the same actions as somehow "not torture" when, for instance, Americans do it.

Human rights violations are just that. Not "this one guy from that one country violations". If you believe in human rights, you believe they extend to all peoples, where ever they may be. Anything less is hypocritical & to me at least, indicates nationalist superiority complex bordering on outright racism.

In the 11 years I've been a member of Amnisty, my concerns has always extended to all peoples, whether they're crackwhores or activists getting abused by the local police, forigners getting tortured in prisons funded by my government, or forign states abusing their own citizens for reasons wholly unconnected to myself.

It's about human beings for fuck's sake.

It's obviously easier to start at home, but there is no reason & can never be no reason to stop there.

We should criticize human rights everywhere, without regard to their country of location.

The degree to which we do so, however, should be proportionate not to the severity of the abuse, but to the status of public opinion. Most people think of Osama Bin Ladin, rightfully, as a mass murderer, so it's rather superfluous to spend great quantities of time exposing why and how he is so. Certain US presidents, however, are another story.

I'm sure that oppressors don't.


It was ratified by many non-western nations.

I have a bit of a problem with conflating human rights with civil rights. To me, human rights would include the right to personal liberty, the right to access food, water, shelter, medicine, the right to equal protection under the law of one's nation, the right to speak freely, get information and education, and the right to have freedom in spiritual expression or lack thereof, etc. These are things that directly affect the life and liberty of human beings equally.

Civil rights, however, are more about the citizens' ability to participate in and/or control government and society. And in this, I think the form of the liberty is less important. People die if you deny them food. However, human lives do not hang in the balance in the choice between a good hereditary king and good elected president, provided they are both good at their jobs. And, frankly, I do not think a bad elected president would be preferable to a good hereditary king, just because he was elected. Unfortunately, I can't remember which ethics writer said this, but I read something recently the gist of which was that freedom means different things to different people, and that the people of a nation, therefore, are the best judges of the quality of their own freedoms and civil rights.

So, let's say there is a monarchy out there (Bhutan, perhaps, or Monaco), where the people do not get to choose their leaders or representatives, where they must follow strict rules about taxation and other limitations, but where they are well fed, have great social services, and are totally free to speak their minds, publish, associate, travel, marry whomever they like, have as many children as they like, worship or not as they please, etc. And if you ask these people, they say they are pleased with the way their country is organized and they do not feel oppressed in any way. Are they free or not? This ethics writer would say that by their own measure, they are, and that's what counts. If we come in and tell them that, regardless of what they like, they are not free enough and must make a change, aren't we denying them a freedom -- the freedom to choose their own way of living?

I would apply this relativist way of thinking only to civil rights, though. I personally would not accept a claim that a nation has a right to oppress or kill members of an unpopular religion, or to abuse women, or to institute slavery and slave trafficking, just because it's "their way of doing things." Just like I would not tolerate a nation willy-nilly declaring wars and invading other countries out of some claimed tradition. Because those kinds of abuses harm or end human lives and that is a violation of human rights, and I think human rights are universal to a degree that civil rights may not be.

EDIT: The degree to which human right are universal is absolute, by the way. Civil rights may be negotiable. Human rights, absolutely non-negotiable.

We should criticize human rights everywhere
Lol.

The degree to which we do so, however, should be proportionate not to the severity of the abuse, but to the status of public opinion. Most people think of Osama Bin Ladin, rightfully, as a mass murderer, so it's rather superfluous to spend great quantities of time exposing why and how he is so. Certain US presidents, however, are another story.
Indeed. See post #5.

EDIT: The degree to which human right are universal is absolute, by the way. Civil rights may be negotiable. Human rights, absolutely non-negotiable.
Yes civil rights vary from country to country. It becomes imperialist when you start insisting that every country meets your ideas of civil rights.

I'm sure that oppressors don't.

Thanks for the thoughtful, non-inflamatory response. There is genuine disagreement among human rights advocates and claimants as to which rights should be considered as universal human rights. Not everyone agrees that property rights are human rights. Not everyone agrees with the individualistic nature of the current human rights regime.


It was ratified by many non-western nations.

Or their westernized ruling elites.

Or their westernized ruling elites.
Well who else would you suggest? The people that think it's suitable to give the death penalty to rape victims?

Now I have been a member of Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/) for four years. In that time I took it as a given that it was our moral duty to criticise, highlight and campaign against human rights abuses everywhere in the world.
.

Is this a duty of ours because we are somehow enslaved by you or is it because we are indoctrinated and coerced into having the same ethics and morality as you? Because frankly I prefer to pick and choose when and to which causes I am duty bound. I find the bindings holding me to a duty are much stronger when I choose the duty. The bindings hardly chafe at all when my ethics and morals lead me to trust and believe in a cause and duty to the cause. I find that whenever I tolerate and allow another person to parade out his ethics to shame me into being harnessed his cause and to perform his duties I am never comfortable in his harness nor enthusiastic about the duty. In fact I resent having someone trying to put their duties on me, especially when the person attempts to do so by stooping to using shame to leverage me. So do fuck off and take your shame and duty with you.

Now I have been a member of Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/) for four years. In that time I took it as a given that it was our moral duty to criticise, highlight and campaign against human rights abuses everywhere in the world.

Recently on this forum I have come across some who believe it to be arrogant to criticise human rights abuse in other parts of the world. And it's coming from the most surprising sources. Namely people who I would expect to be principled defenders of human rights.

For example, Bottle said this here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11684315&postcount=75):


I'm not trying to attack any posters.

I'm just shocked that anyone would think that we shouldn't criticise abuse of human rights.


There's nothing wrong with criticizing the human rights abuses of other countries, but not if such is done as a defense for our own.

Many conservatives, some on this very board, respond to accusations of human rights abuses by the US with "well what about Saudi Arabia?" and there are two big problems with that.

A) Is that where we've set the bar? We want to be "not as bad as Saudi Arabia?"
B) The statement is used as a dual excuse for both our treatment of people and our choices of countries to invade. But if we were concerned with Humane government, why did we attack Saddam whose crimes were commited in the 80's with our blessings? Why did we not attack Uzbekistan instead of making them our allies. Why did we not invade Sudan that's commiting genocide now that we could have stopped, instead of worrying about a massacre that we precipitated two presidents ago?

Is this a duty of ours because we are somehow enslaved by you or is it because we are indoctrinated and coerced into having the same ethics and morality as you? Because frankly I prefer to pick and choose when and to which causes I am duty bound. I find the bindings holding me to a duty are much stronger when I choose the duty. The bindings hardly chafe at all when my ethics and morals lead me to trust and believe in a cause and duty to the cause. I find that whenever I tolerate and allow another person to parade out his ethics to shame me into being harnessed his cause and to perform his duties I am never comfortable in his harness nor enthusiastic about the duty. In fact I resent having someone trying to put their duties on me, especially when the person attempts to do so by stooping to using shame to leverage me. So do fuck off and take your shame and duty with you.

So this is just a long-winded and vulgar way of saying "I like torture and don't want it to stop?"

So this is just a long-winded and vulgar way of saying "I like torture and don't want it to stop?"
I suspected as much.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing the human rights abuses of other countries, but not if such is done as a defense for our own.

Many conservatives, some on this very board, respond to accusations of human rights abuses by the US with "well what about Saudi Arabia?" and there are two big problems with that.

A) Is that where we've set the bar? We want to be "not as bad as Saudi Arabia?"
B) The statement is used as a dual excuse for both our treatment of people and our choices of countries to invade. But if we were concerned with Humane government, why did we attack Saddam whose crimes were commited in the 80's with our blessings? Why did we not attack Uzbekistan instead of making them our allies. Why did we not invade Sudan that's commiting genocide now that we could have stopped, instead of worrying about a massacre that we precipitated two presidents ago?
I agree with this post, also add that many conservatives have no problem with America's alliance with Saudi.

I think that we should keep human rights abuses high on the international agenda; still, we must face the fact that there are limits at what we can do abroad. We can criticize authoritarian regimes, but will this work? Sadly, our governments mostly pay lip-service to human rights. I would rather see silent diplomacy in addition to economic incentives.

We should not be too dogmatic, and we should also realize that there remains a lot to do at home and in fellow democracies with a better chance of success. Therefore I would advise all to be most critical of your own government.

Now I have been a member of Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/) for four years. In that time I took it as a given that it was our moral duty to criticise, highlight and campaign against human rights abuses everywhere in the world.

Recently on this forum I have come across some who believe it to be arrogant to criticise human rights abuse in other parts of the world. And it's coming from the most surprising sources. Namely people who I would expect to be principled defenders of human rights.

For example, Bottle said this here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11684315&postcount=75):


I'm not trying to attack any posters.

I'm just shocked that anyone would think that we shouldn't criticise abuse of human rights.

Er, I clicked on the link....are you intentionally being misleading or do you interpret such statements as
I object to sexist and woman-hating bullshit no matter which Invisible Super-Powered Patriarch is backing it.
to mean the exact opposite of what it clearly means?:rolleyes:

Given what appears to be a clear attempt to mislead people as to what was actually said by the poster (you know the one that you did take the trouble to name in the quote exert) I find your "I'm not trying to pick on anyone" claim, all I can say is for a fair and balanced post, your OP sure makes good flame bait...

Well who else would you suggest? The people that think it's suitable to give the death penalty to rape victims?

Again, thank you for a thoughtful and non-inflamatory response. I would suggest that universal human rights would probably enjoy a fairly universal degree of recognition among humans. The fact that some people think there it is suitable to give the death penalty to rape victims does not mean that is a human right. Although those people do have a right to propound their perspective ... the right of freedom of speech.

yes, we should.

Again, thank you for a thoughtful and non-inflamatory response. I would suggest that universal human rights would probably enjoy a fairly universal degree of recognition among humans. The fact that some people think there it is suitable to give the death penalty to rape victims does not mean that is a human right. Although those people do have a right to propound their perspective ... the right of freedom of speech.
The majority of humans probably don't think that capital punishment is suitable there. I think most humans would support most of the human rights as written.

The majority of humans probably don't think that capital punishment is suitable there. I think most humans would support most of the human rights as written.

Agreed. Although human rights would be something more than what the majority of humans happen to believe at any particular point in time. Otherwise they would constantly be changing. They would probably need substantially more than majority support in principle to be considered truly "universal".