Why I don't believe in "Human Rights" as it exists today

Although I usually don't indulge in political discussions, I wanted to start a debate on the so-called "human rights" as it exists today. The other Iraq thread started me on a line of thinking which I want to share here. Please try to discuss peacably. Call me a troll if you will, but I am being brutally honest.

It's not that I don't believe in human rights. But the present system of human rights in many parts of the world is nothing but a politically motivated, biased and corrupt system...

Think about it.

Everywhere I read the newspapers, I'm sick of it. Human Rights activists are more interested in protecting a terrorist or a naxalite from harm. There is a huge hue and cry when a terrorist or a militant is shot dead by security forces but these very same human rights activists don't care about the hundreds of civilian lives lost. They are a political group that wants to take advantage of the fringe of society for their own purposes.

This must happen in many countries, but in India, this form of political correctness has become the norm. When Indian soldiers in the border area sacrifice their lives defending the country's soil, nobody is bothered because it is part of his job. But when a soldier shoots a man wrongly in the heat of his job thinking him to be a terrorist, he is condemned as a criminal. When a terrorist group deliberately targets civilians (Esp. if they belong to a particular community) there is selective condemnation but the Human Rights activists are not worried about bringing the terrorists to book.

Police atrocities are always highlighted, but then when a dangerous naxalite when shot dead under suspcious circumstances there are calls for inquiries and commissions to "investigate" his death...

Why? For sympathy votes...

The result has been disastrous here with a rise in extremist violence because of this general tolerance and/or acceptance of violence. The policies of the present Central government also aid in this...

Political correctness has reached sickening levels in society. Society has reached a stage of sickness where it's become the norm to condemn one form of violence but being apathetic to another. A healthy patriotism is no longer a virtue but looked upon with suspicion.

This is especially so in our mainstream English media...

Something for Human Rights activists to ponder and correct. Their goals are laudable but the system as it exists today is a farce.

I think there should be a balance.

I think the same, Harishankar. We're so obssessed with not offending the wrong people...

You know, recently there was an assassination of a political leader in my neighbouring state Andhra Pradesh.

When the previous state government was in power, this naxalite group was banned under law and there was a tight check on their activities. Chandrababu Naidu was extremely unwielding on the naxalite menace and he kept things in check.

The minute a new government came to power, they lifted that ban and wanted to initiate talks with this group. This was nothing but populism at its worst or best, whichever way you look at it... highly inadvisable and politically motivated...

They rewarded the government by murdering one of their own ruling party leaders. Now the lesson has been learnt and the group has been banned again, but then the situation is much more lawless now than before... it was widely applauded by the groups supporting human rights because this naxalite group was supposedly a "people's" fighting force but whose members were willing to kill and murder innocents for their own benefit.

You see the pressure of human rights has cost a member of the government his life. They wake up, but too late...

Yeah,but you should try to figure out why a guy would want to become a terrorist, especially in context of what is transpiring in the North and north-east India.There has been practically no development in Kashmir and in the north-east. Most people in the plains dont ever get to knowhow people survive out there.The living conditions there are apalling.It's as if they are a different nation who have little in common with the mainland folk.It is quite understandable that dissension has grown to present levels of intolerances in these parts.Heck,the administration here in these parts is acarried on surreptitiously by the Pakistanis and Chinese.I think theses folk should be brought into the Indian mainstream,before we could expect a resiprocative gersture.The same goes for the naxals,although I too would like to see tougher action against these lawbreakers.

Simple...

In the North East and in Kashmir, we've been infiltrated for a long time now. It's a fact that illegal immigration is the bane of the NE while terrorism is the bane of Kashmir.

However, the political system is what is tolerant of this nonsense going on. Sure, people are frustrated, but because of the ineptitude political system which is populistic, there is encouragement for these people to become law-breakers...

There is too much lawlessness in the country. Terrorism does not arise due to social problems. It arises due to anti-nationalism pure and simple.

Molly coddling them will only encourage the growth. It's happening all around India now... the process of lawlessness is growing...

`ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS'
(Orwell's all-caps, not mine).

Seriously, the parallels between your (Harishankar's) views and Orwell's (both as in animal farm and 1984) are obvious: the system is good, but the individuals are weak.

Just sprung to mind.

--Jonas

The point of democracy is to make rules that satisfy the majority

The point of political correctness is to make rules that satisfy a minority

Conflict between the two is inevitable

The point of democracy is that every citizen, whether in the majority or a minority, has equal rights in society. Unfortunately, democracy has been corrupted by people who believe it means the majority has the right to impose its will on the minority.

The basic idea behind human-rights is that they apply to all humans. No one should be in a position to decide who deserves them more (are more equal, see above).

Maybe history will call the terrorists from today 'freedom fighters' tomorrow. It all depends on which side you stand (and finally, which side wins). But this should not alter human rights. They apply, no matter if you think someone deserves them. If humans can't even agree on basic rights, then good night.

It may not be popular to fight for the rights of a terrorist, it is probably not very popular to defend a murderer in court. But it is necessary.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by Crito The point of democracy is that every citizen, whether in the majority or a minority, has equal rights in society. Unfortunately, democracy has been corrupted by people who believe it means the majority has the right to impose its will on the minority.

Extremely well put.

I would also add that democracy has been seriously corrupted by people demanding their rights, but not accepting the responsibility that goes with those rights. Rights come with responsibilities, and there is no separating the two.

The point of democracy is that every citizen, whether in the majority or a minority, has equal rights in society. Unfortunately, democracy has been corrupted by people who believe it means the majority has the right to impose its will on the minority.

. . . and political correctness attempts to correct this by imposing the will of the minority on the majority.

In a society where everybody is equal, rules are made for the majority: If rules are made for a minority, then the minority is 'elevated' to a superior status.

A feudal system, with royalty and nobility, does this, by creating a small 'ruling class'. Modern democracy attempts to prevent it. It doesn't do so perfectly, and the imperfections are targeted by the Politically Correct to undermine the democratic principles in favour of a special interest group.

Leading to situations like a driving license photo that doesn't show the holder's face, and being unable to fly your own flag in your own country.

When a minority rules, the minority holds a superior status, and democracy cannot be said to be in effect.

If that were the case, the majority could just pass law(s) not allowing those with minority opinions to vote. Clearly, therefore, democracy is not about appeasing the majority.

Harishankar, I only partially agree with you on this. On the one hand--yes, all murders and cruelty are human rights violations, whether committed by a government or by terrorists. On the other hand, the government has a responsibility to the people they govern--terrorists do not.

I used to be a high school teacher. If students misbehaved, they were punished or scolded or educated. If a teacher misbehaved, that teacher was fired. It's a different standard of judgment because those positions have different responsibilities. A teacher must watch out for her students--that's part of her job description. Students don't have to watch out for each other. They should, but they won't be kicked out of the school for not looking after other students.

Why do people get so upset about government brutality? Because governments have rules and can be held accountable for their actions. Why do people get less upset about terrorists? Because terrorists don't have rules, and they can't be held accountable for their actions.

Also, terrorists--while their actions may be objectionable--do what they believe. Governments, however, may say they believe one thing (humans should be treated with dignity) and then practice another. No terrorist says, "Hey, I don't believe in blowing up innocent civilians" and then blows them up.

It's the hypocrisy and accountability that separate the two. No one likes innocents being killed, but when they're killed by the very system that's supposed to protect them, it's even more abhorrent.

I also agree with the topic post. During the iraq war American POW's were killed and female officers raped by Saddam's forces, yet some US soldiers poor cold water on some PoW's and/or make them wear udnerwear on their head and you would have though we totured them to death and hung them outside for show. Yes its wrong but where were all these activist when Iraq was doing its atrocities? Same for the terrorist detention center in cuba. The amount of human right whining that goes on over that place is amazing. Guards need to habdle the toran with white gloves, they get really decent meals, the guards need to wear special slippers during prayer hours so they don't disturb anyone. Sheesh the standard federal prisons are not that nice yet here are people who most of the time were caught in afghanistan or iraq attack US troops sometime skilling them and were caught getting treated like they are at a god damn resort.

Thats my rant anyways.

I don't object to your post, Hari, because I know next to nothing about the situation in India. But I do think you came up with a very poor title. It should have read: "Why I don't believe in "political correctness" as it exists today."

If you really think abondoning human rights can help you fight terrorism you're really just as bad as 'the terrorists'.