From: qut@netcom.com (Skip)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:26:11 +0800
To: rich@c2.org
Subject: Re: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Activity
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GUL.3.95.960820090807.8262A-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <199608210012.RAA11460@netcom.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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.