Should human rights groups ignore violations of human rights by democracies?

[Violet_Crumble]

The founder of Human Rights Watch has come out recently attacking the group he founded and saying that he founded it to focus on 'closed regimes' and not democracies. That would mean he believes that the US shouldn't have been criticised at all for the invasion of Iraq. Having been a member of Amnesty International for a few years, I'm hoping their founders weren't so hypocritical as to believe that people whose human rights are violated by democracies aren't worthy of support, because I think I'd take my contributions elsewhere pretty quick if that were the case. I won't post the article that the founder of HRW wrote, as I don't want this thread shoved down to the I/P forum and want to discuss the wider issue of global human rights and whether human rights are really dependent on who's violating them...

[Zoeisright]

1. Of course not.

Violations of human rights are violations of human rights no matter where they occur.

Otherwise it's just rank hypocrisy.

[Angry Dragon]

2. No

Violations are violations no matter where they happen....

[daedalus_dude]

3. Actually, I think the opposite is true. Human rights violations are worse when done by democracies.

Because democracies should be held to higher standards.

It is easy to criticize something that happens in a "closed regime". After all, everyone likes to badmouth "those banana republics".

If a country, however, claims to be an integral part of "the civilized world" then it must behave that way at all times, IMO.

I think human rights groups should focus first on violations done by democracies.

[RC]

4. Statring with the United States of America..

Not only is that country guilty, but they support human right violations by other countries also.
It would send a strong message to have the top officials of the george w bu$h administration stand trial in the World Court.

[stray cat]

5. I think they are more likely to criticize democracies

they are not likely to make much of a difference pointing out problems in North Korea or Sudan

[daedalus_dude]

8. But in return, it is much easier to "join the choir" on North Korea etc.

There is not much of a dispute. Everyone agrees that those countries are "bad". Whether or not someone does something about it is another story, but at least conceptually you are not making any type of "risky" statement by critizising one of these countries from the outside. No one is gonna lose their job or get bashed by the media for saying "North Korea sucks" (unless they happen to live there). Replace "North Korea" by "Israel" or "USA" and you have a totally different story.

[bemildred]

6. That's how "democracies" become "closed societies", by ignoring things. nt

[Solly Mack]

7. Violations are violations regardless

Still, the hypocrisy is greatest in democracies that violate human rights. Much the same as some people wrap themselves up in the flag to excuse all manner of bad deeds, governments will wrap themselves in the democracy label as an excuse for their own crimes and violations - because they had good intentions, don't ya know.