Human Rights Groups: Defending Human Rights

A reading writes in to note that in today's New York Times alone you can find researches with Human Rights Watch noted as important sources for articles on election fraud in Nigeria, and on Taliban War crimes in Afghanistan. Yesterday, we had HRW getting media play in an article on the violent suppression of a peaceful protest in Russia. And, of course, back on April 1 HRW was cited in a story about Guantanamo Bay.

In short, Human Rights Watch is, for better or for worse, fighting the good fight for human rights consistently and around the world. Nevertheless, the right has consistently tried to foster the impression that the human rights community's criticisms of US policies in Guantanamo and regarded detentions more generally are fostered by hostility to the United States. Such groups also stand accused of "ignoring" human rights violations in whatever country happens to be the right-wing's designated Enemy of the Month. In fact, however, both these strains of argumentation would only appear credible to people who didn't have any actual concern for human rights and therefore remained studiously ignorant of what actually goes on in the world and who does what to bring attention to it. People like, well, conservative hectorers whose interest in the subject extends precisely as far as it's useful to generate support for starting wars.

Comments

I think you'll find that the really noxious attacks come not from the right specifically but from the pro-Israel lobby, who don't like the fact that HRW, Amnesty International and B'teselem (the Israeli human rights organization) catalogue IDF abuses against Palestinians.

Posted by Freddie | April 16, 2007 11:02 AM

Exactly. I'd like to see questions formed from information like this put into the Pew Poll on news knowledge. Being able to list the cast of characters is one thing; knowing when you're being bamboozled is another thing altogether.

Posted by DanF | April 16, 2007 11:08 AM

From the article:

“This police violence is only the latest example of the growing government hostility toward peaceful dissent in Russia,” Holly Cartner, the executive director of the Europe and Central Asia division at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. “It has to be viewed in the context of intensifying harassment of the political opposition, human rights defenders and independent media in Russia.”

Is there any chance that stuff like this will make you less glib about 'Putin bashers'?

I'll grant you that (1) a lot of criticisms of Russia are made in bad faith and that (2) VP's predesesors weren't exactly saints either. But neither of those points make what's happening there now any less concerning.

Posted by bh | April 16, 2007 1:16 PM

Granted I'm tired, and it's Monday morning, but I've read the first sentence of this post three times already and I still can't figure out what it's trying to say.

Posted by ks | April 16, 2007 3:48 PM

ks-

The second word is clearly supposed to be "reader." I can't help you with what "researches" is supposed to mean. At that point you just have to skip the rest of the sentence and move on. MY don't do proofreading.

Posted by mrgumby2u | April 16, 2007 5:42 PM

The most obnoxious part about the right wing criticism of human rights groups is that, contrary to this criticism, they invariably *do* have a history of criticism of the regimes that are the right wing's cause du jour.

Posted by 3pointshooter | April 17, 2007 1:50 AM

I know fat people often have self esteem problems but honestly is the only way you can feel good about yourself by imagining your opponents to be diabolically bad?

Do you seriously believe that there are no legitimate criticisms that can be made of any human rights groups? that you just have to be a warlusting psychopath devoid of empathy to do so? Come on chubby, raise your game.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | April 17, 2007 4:55 AM