tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13716931.post112990551237944275..comments2023-06-23T18:28:12.061+10:00Comments on Bowling for Illidan: Brave New Worldboy_fromOzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12354698665016613894noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13716931.post-1133004775361575602005-11-26T22:32:00.000+11:002005-11-26T22:32:00.000+11:00I'm flattered, anon.But I do have a life outside t...I'm flattered, anon.<BR/>But I do have a life outside this blog, so don't get antsy if you have to wait a day or two for replies<BR/><BR/>Rocky, you can't hold today's HR activists responsible for the Indian government's actions in the 1940's. In any case the global human rights movement was in its infancy back then, today I think you'd see quite a bit of protest about hanging someone like Godse.<BR/><BR/>Groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch don't apply double standards, they hold every government to the same principles. But often it's only their criticism of western governments that gets picked up by the media, which creates a false impression of bias. Or it's these criticisms that are latched onto and misrepresented by those for whom the US and Australia can do no wrong.<BR/><BR/>You can call them 'prejudiced' in the sense of sometimes being over-zealous and insensitive to structural or cultural constraints faced by target governments. But you can't accurately call them hypocrites.<BR/><BR/>10:31 PMboy_fromOzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12354698665016613894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13716931.post-1132982102205497002005-11-26T16:15:00.000+11:002005-11-26T16:15:00.000+11:00John, we are waiting for your precious comments.John, we are waiting for your precious comments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13716931.post-1132903771094641702005-11-25T18:29:00.000+11:002005-11-25T18:29:00.000+11:00Lee, I partially agree with you. All the Human Rig...Lee, I partially agree with you. All the Human Rights activists aren't bad. But don't forget they are highly prejudiced and have double standards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13716931.post-1132903641978335912005-11-25T18:27:00.000+11:002005-11-25T18:27:00.000+11:00Gandhi's assassin was hanged. Where were human rig...Gandhi's assassin was hanged. Where were human rights? Human Rights always seem to moan about capital punishment, but didn't intervene that time. Surely Gandhi was a big shot, but his assassin didn't deserve a death penalty. Even if a bastard massacres 100s of people human rights always protect that bastard from death penalty. But in Gandhi's case they didn't protect his killer from death penalty. Don't forget, human rights were in full swing at that time. But they have their double standards. They are just too biased.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13716931.post-1132738903806136182005-11-23T20:41:00.000+11:002005-11-23T20:41:00.000+11:00Human rights are minimum standards that bind socie...Human rights are minimum standards that bind society's treatment of the individual, e.g. you can't torture people, you can't imprison them without trial. These are principles that liberal democracies were built on, long before 'human rights' emerged as a movement (post-1945). <BR/><BR/>Obviously criminals take advantage of rights like due process, but that's no reason to abolish them. <BR/>There's no evidence that basic rights encourage criminal behaviour in the first instance. <BR/><BR/>As for George Bush being corrupt, I've never said that. I don't believe he's 'corrupt' in the sense of exploiting his office for personal gain, although his administration has allowed certain interest groups to profit unethically and sometimes illegally (e.g. US companies in postwar Iraq).boy_fromOzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12354698665016613894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13716931.post-1132649747439606242005-11-22T19:55:00.000+11:002005-11-22T19:55:00.000+11:00Human Rights' corruption can't be proved as of now...Human Rights' corruption can't be proved as of now, because they are wily cunning operators. Do you have any concrete proof of Bush's corruption? See the point. If such things were so easy to justify, then this world would would be "Crime free" place. But in any case you can't deny the fact that criminals feel encouraged to kill people because of the moral support from human rights. They know whatever they do, human rights will save them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13716931.post-1132527885076725032005-11-21T10:04:00.000+11:002005-11-21T10:04:00.000+11:00if you can give me an example of HR activists coop...if you can give me an example of HR activists cooperating with terrorists, I'm all ears.boy_fromOzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12354698665016613894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13716931.post-1132488004038758612005-11-20T23:00:00.000+11:002005-11-20T23:00:00.000+11:00Friend, let me make it clear, I am not a supporter...Friend, let me make it clear, I am not a supporter of Bush or Iraq war. But let's face it, most of the human rights activists are actually in cahoots with terrorists and they support them in every possible way to continue spreading terror throughout the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13716931.post-1131240949719099382005-11-06T12:35:00.000+11:002005-11-06T12:35:00.000+11:00"When terrorists kill innocent people, all the hum..."When terrorists kill innocent people, all the human rights go to sleep"<BR/><BR/>I don't think there's any evidence for this statement. Human rights law prohibits what terrorists do as much as what the US govt has done since 9/11. The fact that HRL can't affect the behaviour of the terrorists but can affect that of the US govt is no reason for it not to pursue the latter objective. <BR/><BR/>Defending the rights of terrorists is not equivalent to sympathising with them. It's the same rationale for letting white supremacist nutters like <A HREF="http://bowlingforillidan.blogspot.com/2005/09/white-australia-redux.html" REL="nofollow">Andrew Fraser</A> speak their mind - basic rights often have to be protected in the most distasteful cases. <BR/><BR/>If the US govt wants to abolish the rule of law within its own borders, that's its own business. But they're not entitled to do the same for every other country in the name of American security.boy_fromOzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12354698665016613894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13716931.post-1131217395885125882005-11-06T06:03:00.000+11:002005-11-06T06:03:00.000+11:00"the War on Terrorism means the end of human right..."the War on Terrorism means the end of human rights..." It's very true because human rights thrive on terrorists to make a living. If terrorism and crime ends, it would be curtains for human rights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13716931.post-1131190302100738122005-11-05T22:31:00.000+11:002005-11-05T22:31:00.000+11:00Where were the human rights when terrorists destro...Where were the human rights when terrorists destroyed WTC and Pentagon, killing thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with politics? Where were human rights then? When terrorists kill innocent people, all the human rights go to sleep. But when terrorists die, every human rights advocates come to their aid. Are human rights only meant for terrorists and rapists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com