Fractelle:

"....... AND back up our words with actions like repatriation of Australians on death row in other countries for interment here."

What, bury them ALIVE?

Any doubts I had as to attributing membership of the Cysterhood of the Coup de Grace to you have gone straight out the window!

stevenmeyer:

"China, while better than it was under Mao, is an extremely oppressive regime and not just in Tibet. Are we going to do anything MEANINGFUL to express our displeasure? We are not. We continue to trade with China because too many Australian jobs depend on it and because we like getting the cheap consumer goods made there. We have done more to protest Japanese whaling than China's destruction of the Tibetan people and their culture."

I agree with the general thrust of this argument which is about national hypocrisy and economic self-interest.

However, the 'we' in the claim might need to be qualified somewhat. Amnesty International, for example, has a team of voluntary 'Human Rights Defenders' who write, agitate and otherwise support the outing of human rights abuse wherever it occurs including Australia and China.

AI's latest brochure specifically cites China which flouts UN embargoes on selling arms to warring nations. Many of these Chinese weapons end up in the hands of child soldiers. The other examples listed in the brochure include torture in Algeria, official hangings in Iran, and military brutality against civilians in the Sudan.

The current issue of 'New Internationalist' (March 2009) also has a feature article on the 50th anniversary of the Dalai Lama's flight from Chinese-occupied Tibet.

So not all of 'us' just wring our hands and do nothing. If only governments did more!

Spot on Spikey. The problem with this discussion is that there seems to be an implicit assumption that because our governments tend to be selective in their willingness to tackle human rights abuse it follows that the general population shares that view.
The reality is that most of the electorate is either indifferent or unaware of what is happening in the world at large and so governments are given a virtual carte blanche with respect to issues like human rights.
Organizations like Amnesty International do a great deal to expose what is really happening but I know from my teaching that little gets through.
We run a mature age tertiary re-entry programnme and every year I find that the bulk of our students are blissfully ignorant of a great deal of human rights abuse.
The item that sparked this thread would be among those events in the outside world that will have passed most people by; it is not as if it has dominated the news.
Another example of the difference between government action and public opinion was reported by Paul Krugman. A newspoll asked whether or not the USA Govt spent too much on foreign aid. The answer came in with about 80% agreeing. That same poll asked how many cents in the dollar the US should spend. Again about 80% opted for about 10 cents. The American govt spends less that 1 cent in the dollar.
So lets not confuse the government with what the people want or would want if they knew the facts.

Steven,
I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop…Israel/Palestinian conflict. I suspect you’re making a case for that.

In truth we as individuals can’t do much beyond what has already been said particularly given our species tendencies toward….self interest dictating myopic focus. Issues like the perverted capitalistic system we live under is merely a manifestation of that. So too are our views on religion, culture and patriotism.

All this neither alters nor negates the correctness of human rights as an absolute virtue.
The issue then becomes a personal one i.e. we all are faced with laws most of us choose to ignore or break them often to suit our convenience, laziness, or for personal gain. If apprehended or our fault is pointed out the responses given is indicative of the individual’s commitment to doing the correct thing. Rarely do we accept our guilt gracefully.

• Quite the contrary we first deny,
• Offer ‘excuses’ to either avoid the penalty or assuage our guilt with “everybody does it…they’re speeding more than me”
• then it’s a silly law
• Finally we abuse the individual with “mind your own business (you busybody)” when in truth societal rules are everybody’s business/ responsibility.

This is particularly true when it come to breaches of human rights by nations. Only they have a PR , spokesperson to try and avoid responsibility by :

• First they deny it happened
• Then excuse/justify ‘we had to, they made us, they are more evil than us.
• Plead for perspective.
• then point out the transgressions of the accuser…or you don’t have the authority the UN hasn’t done anything (implying it must be ok) finally become abusive tell others to mind our own business….
In reality wrong is wrong. As I said we are all human and institutions will all err the point is what you/country does about rectifying the breach in practical terms determines their morality or depth of commitment to ethical behaviour.
At least this is my humble reasoning and basis for my comments anyway.

Forrest, my dear boy

""....... AND back up our words with actions like repatriation of Australians on death row in other countries for interment here."

What, bury them ALIVE?"

What a difference a single "N" makes, here I am totally against the death penalty and one typo and I could've inflicted one of the worst ways to die on an Aussie crim.

Oooops.

Good thing I'm not writing policy anymore...

Cheers

Dear Steven,

This is an interesting thread and you
argue your case well. I've been reading
the various posts and have now decided
to again attempt to tell you why I feel
that overseas human right abuses should
be of concern to us all. I'm not advocating
military involvement but I do feel strongly
that as a country we have to speak up - otherwise
we demean ourselves as a civilised society.

I'm sure that buried beneath the surface of
our love for our country and its people is
also a vision of a world built on freedom
and equality for all of mankind.

One may not be able to rid the world of atrocities
but we certainly can speak up against them. We
certainly shouldn't condone such behaviour, which
our silence and turning a blind eye would do.