Stevenlmeyer would like to know what advice human rights activists would give to the Australian govt about the violation of human rights in tyhe Swat Valley.
I begin to wonder at the value in engaging in debate with someone who is clearly not reading what the consistent tenor of the responses to his original post have been.
Human rights activists have consistely maintained the position we must do what we can to support individuals whose human rights are violated irrespective of where these people may live.
The constant return to Islamic fundamentalism suggests a different agenda on Stevenlmeyer's part. Are the violation of human rights in the Swat Valley any more or less important than the denial of human rights here in Australia - just look at what is happening in our own backyard to indigenous Australians or what is happening in the USA (have a read of Inequality Matters 2008) Have a look at what is happening in Japan, Burma, China and Romania to ethnic minorities. Indeed one is hard pressed to find anywhere where human rights are uniformly respected. Are the Tamil Tigers or the Aceh and West Iran separatists rebels or people attempting to seize their human rights?
One of the reasons it is difficult to make headway on human rights is that governments (our own included) prefer to turn a blind eye to the violation of human rights if our own economic interests are threatened by taking a moral position. One of the reasons the Taliban is so strong is that it suited the West to support them when Russia invaded Afghanistan, they were prepared to turn a blind eye to their fundamentalism. It is not the Taliban that has changed it is Western policy especially now that the Taliban is expanding its influence throughout the 'stans.
Yet for all that Stevenlmeyer wants to hold human rights activists to account...

BAYGON writes:

"Human rights activists have consistely maintained the position we must do what we can to support individuals whose human rights are violated irrespective of where these people may live."

Fair enough. In this SPECIFIC case, the Swat Valley, with which SPECIFIC people do you expect the Australian Government to work. How, SPECIFICALLY, do you expect them to work with aforementioned people?

If you do not feel comfortable discussing this SPECIFIC case feel free to discuss any other SPECIFIC case of OVERSEAS human right violations. All I ask is that you move beyond feel-good generalities and get SPECIFIC.

To the extent that violations of Aboriginal human rights occur within Australia – ie not overseas – they are clearly the business of the Australian Government among other bodies. This is a bit of a red herring on your part BAYGON.

To all Human Rights Activists here:

The Guardian newspaper's Jason Burke has an interesting view. In an article titled "Our skewed world view won't let us see the real Pakistan" he writes:

"The west can no longer afford to impose its values and notions of democracy on countries that neither want nor need them."

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jasonburke

Note that while the article is mainly about Pakistan Mr. Burke does not confine his conclusions to Pakistan. He seems to feel that in general Western governments should refrain from trying to impose what he calls western "notions of democracy" on any other country.

Is democracy a "western" notion? Are there "non-Western" notions of democracy? In what way do they differ from "western" notions? How can you protect human rights in the absence of democracy?

How would you respond to Mr. Burke's point of view?

Previously Mr Burke had written:

"When gunmen attacked the Sri Lankan cricket team in broad daylight, they struck in the heart of the most cosmopolitan city in Pakistan. Now the residents of Lahore fear that the religious violence that blights other regions has taken root on their own doorstep."

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/08/pakistan-lahore-terrorism

Those "activists" who, like BAYGON, are not comfortable addressing human rights issues that arise from Islamic fundamentalism may want to consider Sri Lanka. The government there is involved in a decades long civil war with the Tamil Tigers. Contrary to popular belief it was the Tamil Tigers, not Muslims, who initiated the practice of suicide bombing in the post-war era.

For the latest news see:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=aIIXjjSmqFVk&refer=india

Is the Sri Lankan Government guilty of human rights violations? If yes then what are they?

Are the Tamil Tigers guilty of human rights violations? If yes, what are they?

SPECIFICALLY how, if at all, would activists like to see the Australian Government intervening in Sri Lanka?

Should the Tamils be allowed to secede from the rest of Sri Lanka?