Problems with Amnesty International
Martillo
> In article <RJC.91Ma...@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk> r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
> > AI does not get slammed ... for ideological bias because they
> > have, quite sensibly IMO, chosen to limit themselves to an
> > ideological framework which is more or less the least common
> > denominator... For instance most people think torure is wrong,
> > independent of their economic idiology. They are also careful to
> > separate out their critisisms so that even someone who objects
> > to one of their categories will be in general support ...
> I concur with Mr Caley's assessment, and I think he describes
> one of the reasons that Amnesty International commands such
> broad respect.
> > As far as I can see, this is exactly the kind of very sesnsible
> > pragmatic approach for which the ACLU is being flamed in this
> > thread. ... They have chosen to limit their efforts to areas
> > which are broadly agreed in US society, freedom of speech, freedom
> > of assembly, due process etc. ...
> Russell
AI has merely been more careful at marketing than the ACLU.
AI has focused on 3 areas of human rights violations:
1) capital punishment by states,
2) torture by states and
3) political imprisonment by states
which no one really likes and which are often present in both the
civilized Western world and in areas dominated by howling 3rd world
savages. As a consequence AI is able to pontificate as if there is a
moral equivalence between modernism and pre- or extramodern savagery.
This concept of moral equvilence is quite popular among various segments
of the Luddite, anti-USA and loony left.
A more practical approach might be based on Kantian ethics and recognize
that there is a need for capital punishment, torture and political
imprisonment in a few selected cases.
A particularly disgusting mass murderer in Georgia used to videotape
himself as he would torture to death children between the ages of 4 and
7. Later he would watch the videotapes to get sexual gratification.
When he was finally caught, the police were unable to find the bodies of
all the children he murdered, so the police had parents of missing
children come in to watch the videotapes in order to see if they might
be able to identify their children among the victims. Such a criminal
is a monster, and there is no reason to imprison or to try to
rehabilitate him. Yet AI would actually expend resources to prevent the
execution of such a monster.
In cases of atomic and some other forms of terrorism, torturing a
perpetrator for information is quite reasonable. If AI would expend
resources, to prevent torture of an atomic terrorist to find where he
planted nuclear bombs and if the attack succeeded as a consequence,
turning over the senior officials of AI to the victims of the nuclear
terrorism would probably not be an unreasonable approach.
As for political detention, opposing the political incarceration of an
advocate of democracy is generally reasonable (though I can probably
identify cases where such opposition is unreasonable), but incarcerating
Nazis for political crimes in Germany in the 20s would be far more
defensible at least in hindsight in view of the number of deaths their
politics facilitated. Some politics like Marxist, Nazi and some forms
are rabid nationalist are basically criminal and really there is no
destinction between these types of politics and mayhem, assault, robbery
or murder.
AI refuses to take a position against the subjugation of women which is
a far clearer issue of human rights. But unfortunately taking such a
position would underscore the ethical superiority of the West over the
primitivism of the 3rd world.
Likewise AI refuses to take a position against sharia` as a source of
encouragement to violate human rights because such a position would
underscore the ethical superiority of the West over the Islamic world.
AI international is fairly selective in its definition of states in that
AI refuses to deal with issues of human rights violations of the PLO
although 100 countries recognize it as a state and even though it really
does have almost a complete set of the attributes which states normally
have (and in fact probably more attributes than Lebannon has).
From speaking with the NE AI official who deals with this issue, I have
the impression that this decision to ignore human rights violations of
the State of Palestine is part of an AI political strategy to work
against policies of the State of Israel which AI has concluded are a
source of major human rights violations in the Levant. In opposing
Israeli policy, AI is apparently reluctant to cloud the issue by dealing
with issues of Middle East politics with an even-handed approach.
Unfortunately, AI's stance probably does not further the cause of human
rights in the Arab world and may be counterproductive with respect to
Israel.
Now to tell the truth, I don't particularly mind AI taking political
stands against policies which are sources of human rights violations, as
long as AI justifies such policies with rigorous and public analysis so
that one can determine whether the goal of AI is there furtherance of
human rights via specific political tactics or the furtherance of a
specific political agenda which is cloaked in empty rhetoric of human
rights.
Political activism is just as much big business as making cars or
supplying oil. Organizations like AI and the ACLU must therefore be
subjected to as much scrutiny as GM and Exxon. In fact, since AI and
the ACLU claim a higher ethical status than GM and Exxon, they should in
fact be subject to more scrutiny than GM and Exxon.
Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
--
The statements contained in this article solely represent the views of
the author and in no way do they reflect the official opinion or policy
of Clearpoint Research Corporation.
eric ivanov
>
>Political activism is just as much big business as making cars or
>supplying oil. Organizations like AI and the ACLU must therefore be
>subjected to as much scrutiny as GM and Exxon. In fact, since AI and
A few years back I was taught that Exxon Group dealt with
$60,000,000,000 a year and that GM employed about a million persons.
I think AI doesn't even compare with that (don't know for ACLU though),
unless the formers' business dropped dramatically or the latter had
an exponential growth.
>subjected to as much scrutiny as GM and Exxon. In fact, since AI and
>the ACLU claim a higher ethical status than GM and Exxon, they should in
>fact be subject to more scrutiny than GM and Exxon.
Typical JCSMA rethoretical bullshit. It's the one with the lowest
ethical standards that must be most scrutinized.
>Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
>
>--
>The statements contained in this article solely represent the views of
>the author and in no way do they reflect the official opinion or policy
>of Clearpoint Research Corporation.
--
eric iva...@imag.fr
Fritz SANDS
| moral equivalence between modernism and pre- or extramodern savagery.
| This concept of moral equvilence is quite popular among various segments
| of the Luddite, anti-USA and loony left.
To be more precise, AI operates "as if" there is an equivalence between
modern savagery, pre-modern savagery, and extramodern(?) savagery. People
who look at recent architecture might now think of post-modern savagery,
but I digress.
Anyway, such equivalence seems fine by me. At a certain point, the difference
between getting your kidneys smashed in by a 3rd-world uniformed thug in
Africa vs an officer in the LAPD is more of academic than practical interest.
| A more practical approach might be based on Kantian ethics and recognize
| that there is a need for capital punishment, torture and political
| imprisonment in a few selected cases.
Gosh -- ethical justifications for torture. But only in a 'few' cases.
[nasty child murderer]
| Such a criminal
| is a monster, and there is no reason to imprison or to try to
| rehabilitate him. Yet AI would actually expend resources to prevent the
| execution of such a monster.
Arguements for and against the death penalty will, I am sure, be rehashed.
As a practical matter, life in prison gets the monster off of the streets.
[arguement to torture clues out of an atomic terrorist]
So, split the numbers. Is is OK to torture clues for 1000 deaths? 100?
10? 1?
| As for political detention, opposing the political incarceration of an
| advocate of democracy is generally reasonable (though I can probably
| identify cases where such opposition is unreasonable), but incarcerating
| Nazis for political crimes in Germany in the 20s would be far more
| defensible at least in hindsight in view of the number of deaths their
| politics facilitated. Some politics like Marxist, Nazi and some forms
| are rabid nationalist are basically criminal and really there is no
| destinction between these types of politics and mayhem, assault, robbery
| or murder.
But, of course, there is such a distinction.
First, the stopping Hitler early shtick. Banning lawyers would have stopped
Robespierre, so should we ban lawyers (well, maybe a bad example, as the
chorus of YES YES YES rises over UseNet)?
Again, there is no coherent, precise (you know, legal) way to decide that
certain political view are, in themselves, criminal, without getting
into the kinds of abuses that AI chases after.
The whole point, with capital punishment, torture, and political imprisonment,
is not that some society somewhere would have been better off if somebody
had been executed, tortured, or imprisoned, but that these three tools are
consistently used as repressive tools by a wide variety of governments, and
that the only way to coherently attack them is to attack them in all
cases.
Fritz Sands
David Morning
[Lots of stuff deleted]
HEAR! HEAR!
Dave
> Fritz Sands
Martillo
> In article <21...@crackers.clearpoint.com> mart...@crackers.clearpoint.com (Martillo) writes:
> | As a consequence AI is able to pontificate as if there is a
> | moral equivalence between modernism and pre- or extramodern savagery.
> | This concept of moral equvilence is quite popular among various segments
> | of the Luddite, anti-USA and loony left.
> To be more precise, AI operates "as if" there is an equivalence between
> modern savagery, pre-modern savagery, and extramodern(?) savagery. People
> who look at recent architecture might now think of post-modern savagery,
> but I digress.
Sands presents the basic article of faith of all modern enemies of the
ethical development of the human race. Modern western society is not
morally equivalent to traditional Arab/Islamic, Indic or Chopstick
culture. Modern western society is founded in a fundamental rejection
of pre-modern savagery which is replaced by an Enlightenment ideology
based on scientific rationalism, natural rights, property rights and
social contract from which all concepts of human rights develop.
By definition, anyone who wants to promulgate human rights must demand
the eradication of Arab/Islamic, Indic, Chopstick and Marxist culture
because while modern western societies may commit savagery as an
aberration, Arab/Islamic, Indic, Chopstick and Marxist cultures are
savagery *by definition* and they continually show themselves to be even
more savage empirically.
Since AI continually obscures this fundamental principle, AI is not a
promoter of human rights but is in many ways a hindrance to the
promotion of human rights.
The case of Marxism is particularly telling. The original theoreticians
of the Anglo-French Enlightenment were absolutely insistent on the
sanctity of property rights for the obvious reason that rights like
freedom of expression are relatively meaningless if a person has to fear
he might be derived of his property because of his opinion. In a sense
freedom of thought and expression are derivate of the right of property.
Yet, citizens of Marxist countries have generally not had rights of
property and as such all citizens of Marxist countries have been
prisoners of conscience. By focusing only on infrequent cases of
extreme confinement, AI has acted to create the impression of moral
equivalence between the situation of political rights in the West where
a few prisoners of conscience exist and political rights in Marxist
countries where practically all citizens are prisoners of conscience.
Yet Amnesty International which is willing to take political stands with
respect to the occupation of the West Bank which is a continuing source
of violation of human rights is unwilling to take a political stand
against the fundamental evil of Marxism which is a continuing source of
violation of human rights.
Another telling case is the situation of women in Muslim countries. A
majority of Muslim countries have personal status laws on the books
which allow men to confine wives, daughters or sisters to the home even
if they do not wish to be so confined. In these countries the
subjugation of women is formalized in the national legal code.
In fact except perhaps for Turkey, those Muslim countries which do not
legalize such confinement do not work to undermine the attitudes which
encourage such confinement and therefore permit such confinement
extra-legally and in fact these countries are co-conspirators in
extra-juridical confinement. In Muslim countries most women are
unjustly imprisoned in violation of their human rights as part of a
political order which demands the subjugation of women. Yet Amnesty
Internation which is willing to take political stands with respect to
the occupation of the West Bank which is a continuing source of
violation of human rights is unwilling to take a political stand against
the fundamental evil of Arab/Islamic culture which is a continuing
source of violation of human rights.
> Anyway, such equivalence seems fine by me. At a certain point, the difference
> between getting your kidneys smashed in by a 3rd-world uniformed thug in
> Africa vs an officer in the LAPD is more of academic than practical interest.
Clearly you have not dealt with Indian, Kenyan, Egyptian or Latin
American cops. The most brutal US cop is a gentleman by the standards
of the 3rd world. When you deal with rude, crude, savage and
uncivilized populations, sometimes rude, crude, savage and uncivilized
methods must be used. Unfortunately most people in the world are not up
to the level of understanding of ethics which the supporters of the ACLU
believe they are. Even the US has subpopulations which are barely out
of the stone age and only respond to stone age methods. The ACLU would
be more creditable if it showed some cognizance of this problem.
> | A more practical approach might be based on Kantian ethics and recognize
> | that there is a need for capital punishment, torture and political
> | imprisonment in a few selected cases.
> Gosh -- ethical justifications for torture. But only in a 'few' cases.
Well, some of us actually live in the real world, and have to deal with
some nasty realities which a valid ethical system has to face.
> [nasty child murderer]
> | Such a criminal
> | is a monster, and there is no reason to imprison or to try to
> | rehabilitate him. Yet AI would actually expend resources to prevent the
> | execution of such a monster.
> Arguements for and against the death penalty will, I am sure, be rehashed.
> As a practical matter, life in prison gets the monster off of the streets.
That's total garbage, and even if you can truly guarantee that he will
never be paroled, how can you guarantee that he won't escape? In any
case, I am unwilling to see any of my tax dollars go to the upkeep of
such a monster. There are many underfunded zoos which could make better
use of the tax dollars.
> [arguement to torture clues out of an atomic terrorist]
> So, split the numbers. Is is OK to torture clues for 1000 deaths? 100?
> 10? 1?
Under Kantian theory a person only has a claim to rights, if he can
recognize an ethical obligation and conform his behavior to it. A
member of a terrorist cell who has information about a terrorist attack
even on one person may have foreited his claim to human rights if he
refuses to make his information available to the authorities because he
has not recognized an ethical obligation, and does not conform his
behavior to this ethical obligation.
Suppose the terrorist attack were to take place on Fritz Sands, by
reasonable Kantian standards, there might be grounds to torture the
terrorist to obtain information so that the attack on Sands might be
prevented. By Sands's standards torturing the terrorist would be wrong,
and the terror attack on Sands would probably proceed successfully and
Sands would probably be dead. Such a probable outcome may indicate
some basic flaw with Sands's viewpoint.
> | As for political detention, opposing the political incarceration of an
> | advocate of democracy is generally reasonable (though I can probably
> | identify cases where such opposition is unreasonable), but incarcerating
> | Nazis for political crimes in Germany in the 20s would be far more
> | defensible at least in hindsight in view of the number of deaths their
> | politics facilitated. Some politics like Marxist, Nazi and some forms
> | are rabid nationalist are basically criminal and really there is no
> | destinction between these types of politics and mayhem, assault, robbery
> | or murder.
> But, of course, there is such a distinction.
> First, the stopping Hitler early shtick. Banning lawyers would have stopped
> Robespierre, so should we ban lawyers (well, maybe a bad example, as the
> chorus of YES YES YES rises over UseNet)?
> Again, there is no coherent, precise (you know, legal) way to decide that
> certain political view are, in themselves, criminal, without getting
> into the kinds of abuses that AI chases after.
There are some obvious cases. If a political group identifies some
group of human beings as vermin fit only to be killed, the politics of
the political group can safely be designated criminal.
> The whole point, with capital punishment, torture, and political imprisonment,
> is not that some society somewhere would have been better off if somebody
> had been executed, tortured, or imprisoned, but that these three tools are
> consistently used as repressive tools by a wide variety of governments, and
> that the only way to coherently attack them is to attack them in all
> cases.
> Fritz Sands
Isn't this the standard technique whereby the looney left delegitimizes
any government policy? If the ability of citizens and government to make
ethical distinctions between evil and unpleasant but necessary policies,
the state becomes paralyzed. If such paralysis is Sands goal, as it
apparently is the goal of AI and the ACLU, he basically belongs to the
enemies of the ethical development of the human race because
unfortunately for decent people, the enemies of humanity like Stalin,
Castro, Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Hitler, Khomeini et al. don't worry
about such niceties as the potential of a given political technique for
abuse.
Fritz SANDS
|
| Sands presents the basic article of faith of all modern enemies of the
| ethical development of the human race.
And a pleasant good morning to you, too.
Let's see now, because I, allong with Amnesty International, oppose torture
by all governments, I am an "enemy of ethical development".
Yep. Sure.
| Modern western society is not
| morally equivalent to traditional Arab/Islamic, Indic or Chopstick
| culture. Modern western society is founded in a fundamental rejection
| of pre-modern savagery which is replaced by an Enlightenment ideology
| based on scientific rationalism, natural rights, property rights and
| social contract from which all concepts of human rights develop.
When "modern western society" commits savagery -- torture, political
murder and detention, etc. -- then it is morally equivalent to any
other rude culture. Labelling something as "modern" doesn't make it
superior or moral.
| By definition, anyone who wants to promulgate human rights must demand
| the eradication of Arab/Islamic, Indic, Chopstick and Marxist culture
| because while modern western societies may commit savagery as an
| aberration, Arab/Islamic, Indic, Chopstick and Marxist cultures are
| savagery *by definition* and they continually show themselves to be even
| more savage empirically.
|
| Since AI continually obscures this fundamental principle, AI is not a
| promoter of human rights but is in many ways a hindrance to the
| promotion of human rights.
Let's see now -- by protesting denial of human rights in *all* societies,
AI is hindering human rights. Sure.
| By focusing only on infrequent cases of
| extreme confinement, AI has acted to create the impression of moral
| equivalence between the situation of political rights in the West where
| a few prisoners of conscience exist and political rights in Marxist
| countries where practically all citizens are prisoners of conscience.
Don't be an ass. Anyone can look at the AI folders on the USA and the
USSR, and draw obvious conclusions -- ones that are even starker *because*
AI uses specific cases and criteria, instead of the blanket "all Soviet
citizens are prisoners of conscience" statements.
| When you deal with rude, crude, savage and
| uncivilized populations, sometimes rude, crude, savage and uncivilized
| methods must be used. Unfortunately most people in the world are not up
| to the level of understanding of ethics which the supporters of the ACLU
| believe they are. Even the US has subpopulations which are barely out
| of the stone age and only respond to stone age methods. The ACLU would
| be more creditable if it showed some cognizance of this problem.
Well, LAPD has room for some new traffic policemen. I guess you could go
show them how to do it right.
| Isn't this the standard technique whereby the looney left delegitimizes
| any government policy? If the ability of citizens and government to make
| ethical distinctions between evil and unpleasant but necessary policies,
| the state becomes paralyzed. If such paralysis is Sands goal, as it
| apparently is the goal of AI and the ACLU, he basically belongs to the
| enemies of the ethical development of the human race because
| unfortunately for decent people, the enemies of humanity like Stalin,
| Castro, Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Hitler, Khomeini et al. don't worry
| about such niceties as the potential of a given political technique for
| abuse.
How nice.
I will try once more.
AI is opposed to capital punishment, torture, and political detention
because those "government policies" are so easily abused to be, in their
opinion and mine, de facto abuse. If it is your contention that a
government would be paralyzed if it cannot torture people at will -- as
your posts on the subject seem to indicate -- then we have fundamental
disagreements on the perogatives of governments and on ethics.
Fritz Sands
D.Y.
>ethical development of the human race. Modern western society is not
>morally equivalent to traditional Arab/Islamic, Indic or Chopstick
>culture. Modern western society is founded in a fundamental rejection
>of pre-modern savagery which is replaced by an Enlightenment ideology
Very interesting talk concerning "moral equivalence". But exactly whose
moral standards are we talking about? To speak of non-Western cultures as
savage is at best meaningless - there can be no savagery without the measuring
stick of some set of universally accepted moral criterion. You are imposing
Western moral standards upon non-Western cultures, without realizing that
such standards are meant only to be guidelines for Western societies and
not binding otherwise. Morality is but a social convenant designed to
facilitate the mutual survival of members of a society. To insist that one's
particular convenant should apply to all is essentially racist and unjust.
>
>By definition, anyone who wants to promulgate human rights must demand
>the eradication of Arab/Islamic, Indic, Chopstick and Marxist culture
Again, there's no reason that Western moral standards should be enforced as
the law of the entire human species. Furthermore, wouldn't the "eradication
of Arab/Islamic, Indic, Chopstick and Marxist cultures" most likely involve
breaches of Western moral standards?
>Since AI continually obscures this fundamental principle, AI is not a
>promoter of human rights but is in many ways a hindrance to the
>promotion of human rights.
>
I suppose your "fundamental principle" involves the forced indoctrination of
western values to the less civilized specimens of the human race, an inevita-
ble process in the eradication of inferior cultures. Sorry bud, colonialism
died with Charles de Gaulle.
>he might be derived of his property because of his opinion. In a sense
>freedom of thought and expression are derivate of the right of property.
I don't deny the importance of the right of property. But your statement
above is misleading. The right of property has long existed in Europe,
as well as various dark corners of the world languishing under the gloom of
inferior cultures. Yet needless to say, the freedoms of thought and expression
are relatively new concepts in the Modern European tradition, and have not
graced the vast majority of the afore-mentioned dark corners of the world.
>of violation of human rights is unwilling to take a political stand
>against the fundamental evil of Marxism which is a continuing source of
>violation of human rights.
Marxism as a philosophy has little to do with Marxism as it's practiced.
We might as well ask AI to take a "political stand against the fundamental
evils" of existentialism, or continental rationalism. The more practical
answer to your accusation is that it simply would not be relevant for AI
to take an ideological stand of any nature. AI is not a group espousing
a particular brand of political philosophy. AI is essentially a watchdog
group which monitors political human rights abuses. Unless a government
has written political persecution into its laws (there's no such gov't),
AI has no business taking a stand against that gov't as a whole.
>violation of human rights is unwilling to take a political stand against
>the fundamental evil of Arab/Islamic culture which is a continuing
>source of violation of human rights.
Again, AI is chartered as a watchdog group for human rights abuses of a
*political* nature. There's no doubt in my opinion that the human rights
of women in many Arab countries are being violated. And I am sure AI will
adopt one as a POC if one has been imprisoned for advocating equal rights
for women in an Arab state.
>of the 3rd world. When you deal with rude, crude, savage and
>uncivilized populations, sometimes rude, crude, savage and uncivilized
>methods must be used.
This is an incredibly racist statement to make.
Unfortunately most people in the world are not up
>to the level of understanding of ethics which the supporters of the ACLU
>believe they are.
How sad. And as long as you treat them with stone-age methods, they will
respond in a stone-age manner.
> ... Stuff concerning capital punishment ... <
>That's total garbage, and even if you can truly guarantee that he will
>never be paroled, how can you guarantee that he won't escape? In any
>case, I am unwilling to see any of my tax dollars go to the upkeep of
>such a monster. There are many underfunded zoos which could make better
>use of the tax dollars.
One important reason in the argument against the death penalty is the
possibility of wrongful punishment and the endless possibilities for abuse.
By the way, I forgot to mention that the death penalty is most often
practiced in rude, crude, savage and uncivilized Arab, Indic, chopstick and
Marxist cultures.
>Under Kantian theory a person only has a claim to rights, if he can
>recognize an ethical obligation and conform his behavior to it. A
> stuff deleted ...
I am impressed with the way you invoke Kantian philosophy the way some
people invoke the Holy Scriptures. Oh yes, since you are a moralist,
under Nietchian philosophy you would be most decadent.
>
>Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
>--
>The statements contained in this article solely represent the views of
>the author and in no way do they reflect the official opinion or policy
>of Clearpoint Research Corporation.
I hope not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Yang | If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!
d...@cs.brown.edu | - Albert Einstein, on "100 Authors Against Einstein"
uunet!brunix!dy d...@browncs.bitnet Brown University Prov RI 02912
att...@breeze.bellcore.com
> In article <21...@crackers.clearpoint.com> mart...@crackers.clearpoint.com (Martillo) writes:
[...]
Martillo writes:
> >he might be derived of his property because of his opinion. In a sense
> >freedom of thought and expression are derivate of the right of property.
>
David Yang replies:
> I don't deny the importance of the right of property. But your statement
> above is misleading. The right of property has long existed in Europe,
> as well as various dark corners of the world languishing under the gloom of
> inferior cultures. Yet needless to say, the freedoms of thought and expression
> are relatively new concepts in the Modern European tradition, and have not
> graced the vast majority of the afore-mentioned dark corners of the world.
>
Martillo
> >of violation of human rights is unwilling to take a political stand
> >against the fundamental evil of Marxism which is a continuing source of
> >violation of human rights.
>
David Yang
> Marxism as a philosophy has little to do with Marxism as it's practiced.
> We might as well ask AI to take a "political stand against the fundamental
> evils" of existentialism, or continental rationalism. The more practical
> answer to your accusation is that it simply would not be relevant for AI
> to take an ideological stand of any nature. AI is not a group espousing
> a particular brand of political philosophy. AI is essentially a watchdog
> group which monitors political human rights abuses. Unless a government
> has written political persecution into its laws (there's no such gov't),
> AI has no business taking a stand against that gov't as a whole.
Sorry David, but I can think of several governments which have political
persecution written into its laws. Have a closer look at ROMANIA!
The Rumanian Marxist Regime LEGALLY maintained surveillance and
persecution of the Hungarian minority. It came under the general
heading of "un-Romanian" activities. Quite a few people were tried and
CONVICTED on such charges. [See the various submissions by human rights
groups for the Helsinki Accord Review, for UN Human Rights Review, etc.]
The current (1991) neo-Marxist Romanian regime of Iliescu continues this
policy, albeit with some modifications. The Minister responsible for
the new Romanian Security Forces (nee Securitate) has rehired 15,000
Securitate offices "for their invaluable job skills". [See AP news a few
months back.]
[Hungarians are native inhabitants of the north-west Rumania which were
part of Hungary until 1919.]
Leslie A. Walko
Martillo
> In article <21...@crackers.clearpoint.com> mart...@crackers.clearpoint.com (Martillo) writes:
> >ethical development of the human race. Modern western society is not
> >morally equivalent to traditional Arab/Islamic, Indic or Chopstick
> >culture. Modern western society is founded in a fundamental rejection
> >of pre-modern savagery which is replaced by an Enlightenment ideology
> Very interesting talk concerning "moral equivalence". But exactly whose
> moral standards are we talking about? To speak of non-Western cultures as
> savage is at best meaningless - there can be no savagery without the measuring
> stick of some set of universally accepted moral criterion. You are imposing
> Western moral standards upon non-Western cultures, without realizing that
> such standards are meant only to be guidelines for Western societies and
> not binding otherwise.
Of course, I realize this. Well, then the British Antislavery Society
was wrong, as well as the campaign against apartheid and AI altogether
since human rights are after all a Western concept completely alien to
Islamic, Indic, African and Chopstick cultures.
> Morality is but a social convenant designed to
> facilitate the mutual survival of members of a society. To insist that one's
> particular convenant should apply to all is essentially racist and unjust.
Morality is garbage. If I am a religious Muslim male and you are a
non-Muslim or women who dares to consider himself my equal, Islamic
morality probably requires me to punish you. However, if I start from
some reasonable system of ethics like Kantian ethics I would conclude
that you were right to consider yourself my equal and that Islamic
morality was evil. Morality at least in this example is morality
because "god" says it is. Ethics provides an analytic framework by
which reasonable human beings can deduce reasonable behavior.
> >By definition, anyone who wants to promulgate human rights must demand
> >the eradication of Arab/Islamic, Indic, Chopstick and Marxist culture
> Again, there's no reason that Western moral standards should be enforced as
> the law of the entire human species. Furthermore, wouldn't the "eradication
> of Arab/Islamic, Indic, Chopstick and Marxist cultures" most likely involve
> breaches of Western moral standards?
The Western Social/Cultural system makes the West strong enough to
impose Western standards on the rest of the world.
Eradicating traditional pre-modern culture involves no breach of Western
ethics at all. In fact, eradicating slavery, racism, religious bigotry
and oppression of women which characterize African, Indic, Chopstick and
pre-modern culture may be required by Western ethics. After all the
development of modern Western ethics and culture required the
eradication of pre-modern pre-Enlightenment traditional Western culture.
In any case, if the African, Indic, Chopstick or Islamic culture spheres
were strong enough they would not even think twice about eradicating
Western culture, because such behavior is normal in these cultures.
> >Since AI continually obscures this fundamental principle, AI is not a
> >promoter of human rights but is in many ways a hindrance to the
> >promotion of human rights.
> I suppose your "fundamental principle" involves the forced indoctrination of
> western values to the less civilized specimens of the human race, an inevita-
> ble process in the eradication of inferior cultures. Sorry bud, colonialism
> died with Charles de Gaulle.
Well, then you have to be more opposed to AI, than I am, because AI is
pure Western cultural imperialism.
Anyway, my family lived in Syria during the French mandate. It was much
better then in Syria than before or after. Given the miserable
performance of most 3rd world countries, it may be time to give
colonialism a 2nd try. It would probably improve the world level of
human rights.
> >he might be derived of his property because of his opinion. In a sense
> >freedom of thought and expression are derivate of the right of property.
> I don't deny the importance of the right of property. But your statement
> above is misleading. The right of property has long existed in Europe,
> as well as various dark corners of the world languishing under the gloom of
> inferior cultures.
You are incorrect. Inviolability of the property rights of people who
are generally disliked is a new concept, and it is counterintuitive tha
guaranteeing such rights should improve the general welfare.
> Yet needless to say, the freedoms of thought and expression
> are relatively new concepts in the Modern European tradition, and have not
> graced the vast majority of the afore-mentioned dark corners of the world.
> >of violation of human rights is unwilling to take a political stand
> >against the fundamental evil of Marxism which is a continuing source of
> >violation of human rights.
> Marxism as a philosophy has little to do with Marxism as it's practiced.
> We might as well ask AI to take a "political stand against the fundamental
> evils" of existentialism, or continental rationalism. The more practical
> answer to your accusation is that it simply would not be relevant for AI
> to take an ideological stand of any nature. AI is not a group espousing
> a particular brand of political philosophy. AI is essentially a watchdog
> group which monitors political human rights abuses. Unless a government
> has written political persecution into its laws (there's no such gov't),
> AI has no business taking a stand against that gov't as a whole.
Your distinction between Marxism as philosophy and Marxism as it's
practiced is bogus as Leszek Kolekowski has persuasively argued. This
false distinction is part of the disinformatsia disseminated by the
radical anti-Enlightenment reaction. Anyone propounding this
distinction can be assumed a potential traitor to the human race and
should be so treated.
I could make a good case that self-avowed Marxist and Islamic
governments have written political persecution into their laws.
> >violation of human rights is unwilling to take a political stand against
> >the fundamental evil of Arab/Islamic culture which is a continuing
> >source of violation of human rights.
> Again, AI is chartered as a watchdog group for human rights abuses of a
> *political* nature. There's no doubt in my opinion that the human rights
> of women in many Arab countries are being violated. And I am sure AI will
> adopt one as a POC if one has been imprisoned for advocating equal rights
> for women in an Arab state.
Since the personal status laws are part of the legal code of most Muslim
countries, a Muslim male who practices seclusion acts as an agent of the
state. AI makes a big point of defending individuals who are imprisoned
simply because they happen to complain about the price of bread. To
distinguish between such a case and the imprisonment of a woman simply
because she happens to be a woman is pure sophistry.
> >of the 3rd world. When you deal with rude, crude, savage and
> >uncivilized populations, sometimes rude, crude, savage and uncivilized
> >methods must be used.
> This is an incredibly racist statement to make.
I spend a lot of time in the 3rd world. It is probably more racist and
dangerous to deny the facts.
> Unfortunately most people in the world are not up
> >to the level of understanding of ethics which the supporters of the ACLU
> >believe they are.
> How sad. And as long as you treat them with stone-age methods, they will
> respond in a stone-age manner.
And if you don't they will kill you. It's that simple.
> > ... Stuff concerning capital punishment ... <
> >That's total garbage, and even if you can truly guarantee that he will
> >never be paroled, how can you guarantee that he won't escape? In any
> >case, I am unwilling to see any of my tax dollars go to the upkeep of
> >such a monster. There are many underfunded zoos which could make better
> >use of the tax dollars.
> One important reason in the argument against the death penalty is the
> possibility of wrongful punishment and the endless possibilities for abuse.
> By the way, I forgot to mention that the death penalty is most often
> practiced in rude, crude, savage and uncivilized Arab, Indic, chopstick and
> Marxist cultures.
The usual refusal of leftist anti-Western ideologues to make a
distinction between use of a technique and abuse of a technique. In the
3rd world syringes are often misused to become an agent of spreading
disease. Should syringes be banned in the 1st world?
> >Under Kantian theory a person only has a claim to rights, if he can
> >recognize an ethical obligation and conform his behavior to it. A
> > stuff deleted ...
> I am impressed with the way you invoke Kantian philosophy the way some
> people invoke the Holy Scriptures. Oh yes, since you are a moralist,
> under Nietchian philosophy you would be most decadent.
I am an ethicist and despise morality. You should learn some basic
terminology. I could argue the same points from several other ethical
systems. I just consider Kant somewhat more straightforward. An
accusation of decadence by Nietzshean standards is essentially a
compliment.
> >Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
> David Yang | If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!
Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
Martillo
> In article <21...@crackers.clearpoint.com>, mart...@crackers.clearpoint.com (Martillo) raves:
> - In article <78...@brunix.UUCP>, d...@cs.brown.edu (D.Y.) writes:
> - > Again, there's no reason that Western moral standards should be enforced as
> - > the law of the entire human species. Furthermore, wouldn't the "eradication
> - > of Arab/Islamic, Indic, Chopstick and Marxist cultures" most likely involve
> - > breaches of Western moral standards?
> - The Western Social/Cultural system makes the West strong enough to
> - impose Western standards on the rest of the world.
> In other words, "might makes right."
No, right makes might. The intellectuals and ruling elites of France
and Britain during the Enlightenment hit upon the right way to organize
human culture and society. As a consequence those countries which
espouse the values of the Anglo-French Enlightenment have reasonably
happy populations, can fead their populations, are very wealthy and
dominate the globe.
> I find your grasp of Western culture, not to mention other cultures, to be
> seriously lacking.
Howso? I am basically bicultural in Western and Arabic culture speak
several Indo-European and Semitic languages and can get by in Cantonese.
I read even more languages including classical Latin, Hebrew, Greek and
Arabic.
My wife is esentially tri-cultural in English, Chinese and Malay
culture. I daresay I have a fairly good multicultural background and
experience.
> This, of course, by your logic, makes me wrong, and you, of course, are
> entitled to force me to accept your twisted world view.
Well, you haven't shown any knowledge of Western culture except perhaps
that you can write English. Let's not even compare average standards of
living. Just note that modern Western culture is the only valid culture
simply because it is the only one that can feed its own and external
populations very reliably. No other culture which has ever existed
could make that claim.
> Go ahead. Try to force me. We'll see whose side Western culture is on.
You haven't a clue. I doubt that it will be on the side of those who
uncritically accept the views of former and would-be thirdworld
oppressors who are anti-Western because Western colonial rule would
prevent them from committing the horrible attrocities which they want to
commit and which they have committed in the past.
Stalin called people like you useful idiots in a different but related
context.
> Christopher M. Conway | U*ix and C Guru
Christopher M. Conway
-
- In article <78...@brunix.UUCP>, d...@cs.brown.edu (D.Y.) writes:
-
- > the law of the entire human species. Furthermore, wouldn't the "eradication
- > of Arab/Islamic, Indic, Chopstick and Marxist cultures" most likely involve
- > breaches of Western moral standards?
-
- impose Western standards on the rest of the world.
In other words, "might makes right."
I find your grasp of Western culture, not to mention other cultures, to be
seriously lacking.
This, of course, by your logic, makes me wrong, and you, of course, are
entitled to force me to accept your twisted world view.
Go ahead. Try to force me. We'll see whose side Western culture is on.
--
Christopher M. Conway | U*ix and C Guru
wom...@nfinit.enet.dec.com | The Second Amendment is ABOUT military
wom...@jupiter.nmt.edu | weapons. We have the RIGHT and DUTY to
wom...@juliet.ll.mit.edu | overthrow a tyrannical government.
t...@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu
I would like to say the following:
1. I lived for over thirty years among Moslem Arabs (note: not all Arabs
are Moslems) and came to interact with thousands of them. I can report
that I have not met a single soul among them who desired that their
basic (life, property, pursiut of happiness) or derivative human rights
be denied. Is this a statistical fluke or what. I know for sure that
I am an honest reporter.
2. Similarly, as an African I have met lots of Africans who would want
to deny the rights of other africans (predominantly Westernized leftists).
Yet, I am yet to meet a single African who recognized that being
molested by his/her government is an African tradition. Again, I may
ask: Is this a statistical oddity !!!
3. African women had the right to vote before Swiss women.
4. The Sudanese (East Africa) had their first election in 1953 and had
four more free and fair general elections. Most of the Soviet Union
does not know what the terms mean. And the election of B. Yeltsin
was the first free election in Russia's long, long history.
5. The largest democracy is India (hardly a Western society, I would add)
Wake up guys.... Stop rebroadcasting apologies for Third World dictators...
Self-celebration is OK [you have alot to shout about] just don't do it
at the expense of your fellow human beings.
t...@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu
1. Would all this eradication include white males living in US and UK;
both groups indulge in what we could easily call "pre_modern",
unethical practices. Think Globally, Act Locally !!!
2. As regards mistreatment of women: Does the term include rapes
and domestic violance (especially that by working class western
men) or is it limited to whether a woman's testimony carries the
same weight as that of the man !!!!!
Just wondered !