Who's watching the human rights watchers?

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME
Who's watching the human rights watchers?
Tulsathit Taptim
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Can you be a political activist and a human rights advocate at the same time? The answer is no - simply because a political activist can discard innocent human lives if needs be.

This is not to say that all political activists are bad. This is to say that there can be good and bad political activists. Someone can even be "good" at being a "bad" activist, if you know what I mean. These are facts that the world generally accepts.

There is no such flexibility if you are a human rights advocate. You have to care about everybody's basic rights, full stop. And the right to life is the most fundamental and undisputed standard. When the lives of innocent people are taken, it's the biggest deal as far as you are concerned. Nothing is bigger, not even what laws are applied to hunt down, arrest and interrogate the suspects.

Don't get me wrong. A human rights advocate can condemn the ways suspects are hunted down, arrested and interrogated. But the same rights advocate must also condemn, in an even stronger manner, the incident that triggered the manhunt in the first place. No suspect in the Erawan Shrine bombing has been blown to pieces or had loved ones taken away from them so violently. We fight for the rights of suspects if they are unfairly treated, but we also have to fight for the lost innocent lives, especially if we call ourselves defenders of human rights.

Many political activists mistake themselves for human rights advocates. Again, it's not wrong to be a political activist, fighting for or against people you like or hate. It's just not right for political activists to double as champions of universal rights. Try to live that double life and sooner or later you will be found out as a hypocrite. But worst of all, by attaching basic liberties to a political agenda, you give human rights a very bad name.

How many red-shirt protesters were killed and injured during the uprising in 2010? Political activists ask this question, whereas a human rights advocate must ask this: How many red-shirt protesters were killed in 2010, how many yellow-shirt protesters were killed and injured in 2008, and how many including children were killed during protests against the government of Yingluck Shinawatra?

All lives must be equal if you are a human rights advocate. If you can't live with this principle, political activism is your best bet. It's not easy to be a genuine human rights advocate, I know. But as they say, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Thailand's political conflict has spawned political activists. Do you know why? It's partly because it's so easy to be one. You log on to Facebook or write a blog to condemn assaults on protesters, blocking of websites, blackouts of TV programmes, military detention or application of controversial laws, and there you go. You may even manage to convince yourself that you are a hero. There are a lot of bad things going on out there for us to criticise, and to feel good about doing so.

You can take sides. That's what political activists do. They can be "selective", or even hypocritical, and nobody cares. When red-shirt leaders are silent about deaths of yellow-shirt demonstrators and vice versa, people understand. When a human rights advocate is silent about a deadly incident and then suddenly turns vocal about less serious incidents, serious questions are asked.

You can voice your "personal opinions" if you are an activist. If you advocate human rights, your "personal opinions" must be in line with the principle that all innocent lives are equally sacred.

Wikipedia has this definition: Human rights are "commonly understood as inalienable, fundamental rights, to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being, and which are 'inherent in all human beings' regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal."

Activism, meanwhile, "consists of efforts to promote, impede or direct social, political, economic or environmental change, or stasis".

The distinctions are stark. It's clear what is easy and what is hard. Yet the aforementioned points are not what makes advocating human rights the hardest thing to practice. Most of us can't be human rights advocates because we can't adhere to the overriding principle. That is the requirement that we accept what other people think, even if we don't agree with them. Why? Because they have the basic right to be different from us.

But we have the right to be imperfect. We have the right not to accept what other people think. We have the right to block access to our online accounts or scream from the top of our lungs against "silly" or "undemocratic" or "barbarian" ideas. We don't have the right, however, to do all that and call ourselves supporters of human rights.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Whos-watching-the-human-rights-watchers-30268418.html


-- The Nation 2015-09-09

[BSJ]

What a poorly written article. Save your 5 minutes for something that is written better!

[candide]

Too late, unfortunately. I already read it.....

[jaidam]

One Andy Hall is worth a million medal chested big-faced civil servants. The million medal chested big-faced civil servants are not worthy of licking <deleted> from under Andy's shoes never mind keeping a watch on him or his ilk.

[puukao]

Who's watching the watchers??

It's all a big conspiracy!!!

Who knows that he doesn't know really only knows...

and who is the person to watch who says they don't watch but really watches and sees only what the blind man wants to see

[baboon]

Too late, unfortunately. I already read it.....

Then you are a better man than I. I simply couldnt be bothered trawling through it after the second or third paragragh.

[deckape]

If they need to change hearts and minds they will have to do a lot better than that drivel.

[Charlie1]

Hey Tulsathit,

the next time the junta wants you to write something like this, work a little harder on it, OK?

[MZurf]

"Who's watching the human rights watchers."

Easily one of the biggest problems Thailand is facing!!!

[h90]

What a poorly written article. Save your 5 minutes for something that is written better!

Lucky I stopped after the first sentence....

[deckape]

Hey Tulsathit,

the next time the junta wants you to write something like this, work a little harder on it, OK?

Wouldn't be surprised if he lurks from time to time. An article like this is aimed at foreigners, not expats. But we are the only ones who care enough to 'read' (I scanned it) this pap and comment on it.

[phoenixdoglover]

Dreck. One big straw man argument.

[Jon Wetherall]

Who's watching the human rights watchers?

That's easy. Nobody., They're good people so nobody needs to watch them. Yes yes, the UN thinks they're a bunch of clowns, and so do I, but Mr P thinks they're wunnerful. So does his boss, so there's no chance of anything changing. Good Chinese stock in them thar blood vessels

Edited September 9, 2015 by Jon Wetherall

[Srikcir]

An amusing article.

The author poses a question in the title. Then his discussion follows a completely different question.

Who is watching the human rights watchers?

It is those who disdain transparanecy and accountability for their own violation of human rights. The current regime has shown it is watching anyone closely who begins to publicly advocate human rights over absolute control. From that perspective a human rights advocate BECOMES a political activist ... and an Enemy of the State

[Emster23]

"Can you be a political activist and a human rights advocate at the same time? The answer is no - simply because a political activist can discard innocent human lives if needs be"

One of the more inane arguments I have read here in years, and that is saying something!

[ianf]

Human Rights organisations can be set up by those who are trying to manipulate world politics in the interests of their own state. Existing Human Rights organisations can also be easily manipulated - as has Amnesty International (whom I used to work for) who issued a report fairly recently on Thailand which is so off the mark to be unbelievable. I used to trust them - but no more. It is too easy for these people to be infiltrated by those who have an entirely different agenda. I believe this has happened to Amnesty. Sad but true.

Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and Global Voices have all been funded at some point by people with very dubious connections. Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy are two US organisations with close links to Thaksin's advisors Robert Amsterdam and Kenneth Adelman. The latter was at one time chairman of Freedom House. Here is a network of organisations with connections to people who themselves have been cited as human rights abusers and so on and with political connections that run right into the heart of the USA political elite.

There was a time when Human Rights Organisations were composed of people who had genuine concerns about the plight of minorities and ultimately about us all. No longer. Their propaganda style was too effective to be ignored by those who seek to manipulate and then control world affairs.

[NickJ]

I know who......Bankers........

[dageurreotype]

What a poorly written article. Save your 5 minutes for something that is written better!

S'okay. As soon as I see that author's name at the top I skip it anyway

[oneday]

OMG, drivel from a 4 year old.

[AleG]

Beware of the Mother Theresa's of this world:

The people that paint themselves as champions for a righteous cause to disguise other agendas, be it from self delusion or outright mendacity, can cause serious damage.

Firstly by by diverting resources and attention away from people and organizations that really address the issues they claim to champion and secondly because they are likely to, consciously or unconsciously, help to perpetuate what they purportedly fight against because that safeguards the environment in which they thrive.

Then of course there's the outright conmen making a living out of exploiting people's sense of charity.

[jmccarty]

The Scientologists are watching of course!

[taiwanatoa]

Who,s watching ? :

http://prachatai.org/english/node/5455?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+prachataienglish+%28Prachatai+in+English%29