We lose any moral authority in judging other countries when we murder our unborn in huge quantities. Sadly we are a laughing stock to Islamic world when we kill the most vulnerable. It really prevents Australia from being able to judge the barbaric practices, beliefs and actions of Islam.

It seems that many people see this issue very clearly but it is one in which I cannot, ever, come to a conclusion. Every semester I pose this problem to different classes and also, to date, no concensus has ever been reached there either.

I do believe that we should always stand up for truth and honesty and rights.

But whose truth?

And of course we should support honesty and transparency - but what if WE are seen as the dishonest ones?

And why should we call for punitive measures like sanctions and embargos for other regimes when our own systems trample the rights of our own citizens - the poor, Aboriginals, pensioners - and we do not adopt the same fervour?

How would we feel if the hotly disputed cause, say, of the Aboriginals were taken overseas and picked up by media, activists, the United Nations? Read these threads. Many posit vehemently the view that aboriginals are not worth the time, or money already spent in their cause.

But a rabid media picking up on photos of a depressive, beaten, woman and child juxtaposed with a photo of a group of white Australians fine dining in a Sydney restaurant could arguably turn a tide of world-wide condemnation our way. Embargos and sanctions aimed at us from those upholding their duty to protest human rights might muddy the waters of the certaintly of the answer to the question this thread poses

Whose truth is THE truth?

I was convinced I knew the truth about the Tibet/China question until I came here and talked with, observed and learned from Tibetan and Chinese citizens. It’s a different truth to that of the activists, politicians and media.

I lived through the sanctions period in South Africa which resulted in a legacy of such violence, poverty, and horror that it is doubtful even Dante could have envisaged it. That truth is also a different truth.

The truth I thought I was familiar with in PNG is also a different truth to that printed in papers, magazines and advanced by others.

Whose "right" is Rights?

Runner,

If "killing the unborn" in our country is wrong, is killing people in other countries somehow morally better?

Romany,

How about these as a set of truths:

In the modern world, the human side, in all its diversity, is always stepped on and pushed aside for the sake of expediency.

When one group in society is travelling well, they are doing so off the back of other groups.

One group's solution is another's millstone - the reason this imbalance continues is because each group is trapped in its own world and can't see the other's situation.

Each group has its negative experiences as an opportunity/prompt to learn from its mistakes, throw off its limitations and grow.

Romany part of the problem with a global civic society is the question of boundaries - where does a state's legitimate sovereignity finish and global interests start? The Bangkok Declaration basically stated that the states in South east Asia would determine what constituted human rights. Others have argued that the way describe human rights is a form of western Imperialism. Yet others have argued that there is simply no way that we can ever get global agreement with respect to what is meant by human rights.
Sight and sight has a number of articles that deal with this theme you can find it here http://www.signandsight.com/features/1835.html

Romany and others
I would like to know what is logically wrong with my post's assertions that human rights are rights and independent of the accuser's morality and particularly in this situation. Consensus is irrelevant here.

BTW “Israel's former UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman, has urged Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to "keep away" from the upcoming UN World Conference Against Racism to be held in Geneva in April. Gillerman warns that the conference — commonly known as Durban II — will be used as a stage to condemn Israeli policies and equate Zionism with racism” www. newmatilda.com.au