Re: Indonesia detains democracy activist after post to mailing list (fwd)

At 03:18 PM 8/19/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote:
> You know, Amnesty
> has some outstanding policies regarding accuracy, objectivity, and
> universality.

Such as their policy that disappearances in Cuba are only mentioned in 
a vague and euphemistic way somewhere in the fine print of the middle
of their Cuban reports, whereas similar disappearances are shouted from
the rooftops when they happen in right wing South American dictatorships?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              				|  
We have the right to defend ourselves	|   http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind	|  
of animals that we are. True law	|   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the	|  
arbitrary power of the state.		|   jamesd@echeque.com

On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, James A. Donald wrote:

> At 03:18 PM 8/19/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote:
> > You know, Amnesty
> > has some outstanding policies regarding accuracy, objectivity, and
> > universality.
> 
> Such as their policy that disappearances in Cuba are only mentioned in 
> a vague and euphemistic way somewhere in the fine print of the middle
> of their Cuban reports, whereas similar disappearances are shouted from
> the rooftops when they happen in right wing South American dictatorships?

In a word, no. I wasn't talking about their policy to oppress the Easter
Bunny, either. 

I meant their policy of not taking sides, which in Latin America has often
meant that they have less of a left-wing bias than Human Rights Watch. They
do not describe people with loaded terms like "pro-democracy," "worker's
rights advocate," "freedom fighter," or "social justice activist." They say
"this person is in prison for political reasons," and leave it at that.
Usually, they don't even identify the reasons -- just the abuse of state
power.

I've always favored a carefully tailored formalistic approach to human
rights and free speech issues, without taking sides on the underlying issues
of political controversy. Amnesty and the ACLU generally follow this
approach. When they have deviated from that approach to make sweeping
statements not tied to *individual* human rights, as Amnesty's general
opposition to apartheid and the ACLU's guarded support for majority-minority
gerrymandering, I have opposed them.

Happily, most of the time, they stay above the fray, which I believe is the
only appropriate role for a "human rights organization." I have no objection
to anti-communist, anti-fascist, or whatever organizations, but I don't
think they should bill themselves as human rights organizations. The
Wiesenthal Center to be a "human rights organization"; it's an anti-fascist
organization, which does some good, some bad, but always focused on one
issue. Human Rights Watch didn't start out as a "human rights organization"; 
it started out as an anti-communist organization. They have since broadened
their scope and international coverage considerably, but their history of
making substantitive statements on larger political questions remains.
Ironically, now they tend to show a leftist bias.

-rich

ON
> 
> On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, James A. Donald wrote:
> 
> > At 03:18 PM 8/19/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote:
> > > You know, Amnesty
> > > has some outstanding policies regarding accuracy, objectivity, and
> > > universality.
> > 
> > Such as their policy that disappearances in Cuba are only mentioned in 
> > a vague and euphemistic way somewhere in the fine print of the middle
> > of their Cuban reports, whereas similar disappearances are shouted from
> > the rooftops when they happen in right wing South American dictatorships?
> 
> In a word, no. I wasn't talking about their policy to oppress the Easter
> Bunny, either. 
> 
> I meant their policy of not taking sides, which in Latin America has often
> meant that they have less of a left-wing bias than Human Rights Watch. They
> do not describe people with loaded terms like "pro-democracy," "worker's
> rights advocate," "freedom fighter," or "social justice activist." They say
> "this person is in prison for political reasons," and leave it at that.
> Usually, they don't even identify the reasons -- just the abuse of state
> power.
> 
> I've always favored a carefully tailored formalistic approach to human
> rights and free speech issues, without taking sides on the underlying issues
> of political controversy. Amnesty and the ACLU generally follow this
> approach. When they have deviated from that approach to make sweeping
> statements not tied to *individual* human rights, as Amnesty's general
> opposition to apartheid and the ACLU's guarded support for majority-minority
> gerrymandering, I have opposed them.
> 
> Happily, most of the time, they stay above the fray, which I believe is the
> only appropriate role for a "human rights organization." I have no objection
> to anti-communist, anti-fascist, or whatever organizations, but I don't
> think they should bill themselves as human rights organizations. The
> Wiesenthal Center to be a "human rights organization"; it's an anti-fascist
> organization, which does some good, some bad, but always focused on one
> issue. Human Rights Watch didn't start out as a "human rights organization"; 
> it started out as an anti-communist organization. They have since broadened
> their scope and international coverage considerably, but their history of
> making substantitive statements on larger political questions remains.
> Ironically, now they tend to show a leftist bias.

Liar, you support imprisoning and deporting people based purely on their 
political ideas, such as the bile your mouth puked up all over the net this
whole year.  Re: Ernst Zndel and his years of imprisonment by a court 
for merely expressing his racist ideas, racist political ideas being 
strictly illegal in Canada, hell everywhere in the so called white world 
except for the USA, so far.


--
National socialism is the opposite of everything today.

Skippy the Mad Troller <qut@netcom.com> Bcc'd to cypherpunks:

> Liar, you support imprisoning and deporting people based purely on their 
> political ideas, such as the bile your mouth puked up all over the net this
> whole year.  Re: Ernst Zndel and his years of imprisonment by a court 
> for merely expressing his racist ideas, racist political ideas being 
> strictly illegal in Canada, hell everywhere in the so called white world 
> except for the USA, so far.

Point of fact: since he came to Canada, Zundel has spent a total of 4 1/2
*days* in minimum-security lockup. The other seven errors in the paragraph
above aren't worth responding to. 

For further, totally off-topic reading on Skippy and me, see:

 http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/h/harman.david
 http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/nyms/an572010
 http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/g/graves.rich
 http://www.stanford.edu/~ajg/project.html

-rich