Let's stop all this hyprocrisy,guys.

No one really gives a damn about the millions who have died and enslaved in the Congo,Rwanda,Darfur,Sudan, Somalia and nearly every other African country; no one gives a damn about the millions who have died in South American drugs related murders and judicial killings; no one has really given a damn about the fate of the Tamils in Sri Lanka; no one has given a damn about tyhe people in Burma so why should we suddenly got all that self-righteous about the fate of women and children in Islamic countries where they form a part of their legitimate culture sanctioned by their religion?

socratease

Dear Foxy,

I can't read examinator's mind so I don't know what was meant - only what was said. The Golden Rule is based on what one decides is good for others without consulting the others. As such it may be used to justify wrongs. George Fox, the Quaker, in the seventeenth century told the slaveholders of Barbadoes:

"And consider seriously this, and do you for and to them as you would willingly have them or any other do unto you were you in the like slavish condition, and bring them to know the Lord Christ." p. 62 of "The Arrogance of Faith" by Wood. Presumably what a slave wants most is not to be a slave, but Fox put his own desires on them and recommended missionising them rather than freeing them.

Dear Socratease,

When you write, "No one really gives a damn about..." you are making a generalisation about a lot of others. Religion can sometimes be used for good. William Wilberforce found in his religion the inspiration for opposing the slave trade. Eventually it was ended in Great Britain, and his efforts had a great deal to do with it. Many white people participated in the civil rights movement to see that black Americans had the same rights as white Americans. Some people do really give a damn about .... and actually put themselves on the line.

BAYGON

You suggest sanctions against Zimbabwe.

The Zimbabwe economy is such a wreck that sanctions are meaningless. There's nothing for the populace to buy anyway. Not even food.

BAYGON

You write:

"clearly our challenge is to work with the Pakistan government to ensure that Sharia law does not violate human rights"

Had the Pakistani government not effectively lost control of Swat there would be no question of imposing shariah on what appears to be, judging by election results, an unwilling populace. Therefore working with the Pakistani government is besides the point.

We could I suppose try to work with the Pakistani Taliban however:

--Would they be interested in what kafirs have to say about shariah?

--How would the Pakistani Government react were we to try and work with what is effectively a rebel army within the borders of Pakistan.

BAYGON

You suggest "diplomatic pressure" against Burma.

It is hard to find any country that has been subjected to more diplomatic pressure than Burma these past DECADES. It has changed nothing.

Cont'd

Again a reminder. I am talking about what actions the AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT, not individuals, should take when it comes to human right abuses in other countries where Australia has no vital interests at stake.

FRACTELLE writes:

"..he [Steven] could've used the plight of Tibetans…"

I specifically mentioned China. It is not only Tibetans who are oppressed by the Chinese Communist regime.

Let's look at China more closely. Bad as it is, it is a better place than it was under Mao. Faced with a country that is moving, albeit slowly and haltingly, in the right direction maybe the best option is to do nothing. Maybe we can hope that China will follow the same trajectory as South Korea.

Basket case dictatorship – better economic management -> liberalisation -> democracy.

Except for BAYGON nobody here seems to have much appetite for any sort of military intervention. However often that is the only thing that appears to work. What else could have been done in the case of Kosovo?

Kosovo is in many ways interesting. A sovereign country was PARTITIONED ALONG ETHNIC LINES. Using that precedent why not partition Sudan three ways:

--An Arab Muslim North

--A Black Christian / Animist South

--A Black Muslim Darfur

It would require force but it may be the only thing that would work. On the other hand, splitting states along ethnic lines establishes a precedent that could ignite civil conflict across the world.

I ask all those who favour interventions here to consider the truth of an old maxim.

THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS

It is often not clear whether some action will do more harm than good. Unless we are pretty damn sure that what we are proposing will do good we should do nothing.

FIRST DO NO HARM.

It is my experience that most interventions have had the consequence of prolonging and worsening suffering and misery

"It is my experience that most interventions have had the consequence of prolonging and worsening suffering and misery"

Steven,

Assuming that we tend not to hear about the interventions that have worked out well, I think this can be re-phrased as "an intervention acts to accelerate the propensities of the people caught up in it".

In other words, if the dominant propensity of a dominated group is to fight back, they will fight back. If it is to curl up in a ball and slowly die, they will do that. And if it is to grasp the nettle and make the best of the situation, they will do that.

As a potential interventionist, the moral of the story is to pick your interventions carefully.

Davidf and others
The golden rule is a measuring stick not a batten with which to beat someone into submission.
In the discussion thus far I was trying to determine a base standard (absolute ideal) and therefore not open to negotiation i.e. standard Kilo is in a vault some where and is for all intents and purposes absolute. I reject the notion that national/cultural/religious consensus should be used as basic Human rights as all of the above are and have their own artificial agendas. The primary purpose of any organization is it survival and therefore at times there will be conflict with the human rights of the individual in some degree.

Notwithstanding in reality the golden ideal is for human reasons unachievable. What one does with the standard is often determined by other practical and external uncontrollable (by the individual) factors. If you/culture/nation/religion chose to use 900 grams as your standard that is your (c/n/r) choice but in the final analysis it is not a kilo (i.e. absolutely right).

For the purposes of discussion let’s assume the absolute human right is TO LIVE. (Without life all other rights are moot.) We all notwithstanding illness etc we all want to live.

Now, we come to the organizational level of flawed human judgement e.g. which side is ‘correct’ Christianity or Islam, Israel or Palestine.
Under the undeniable absolute standard, none of the above.

Therefore the arguments are essentially about supremacy of ones opinion i.e. some lives in a right to life concept are more important than others….sorry this has as much validity as a stoush over tapestry V quilting only *far* more deadly.

It’s a logical nonsense to say that if Hitler criticised Stalin for genocide that the criticism wasn’t valid because he too was a butcher. In essence if the criticism is about breaching the right to life it is justified regardless of its source.

We spend far too much effort creating false basis to justify the unjustifiable.
Therefore criticism of internation behaviour is Valid.