babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Venezuela expels Human Rights Watch campaigners - bravo!
quote:Originally posted by M. Spector: How is the watch dog supposed to know what the people don't? "Human rights" organizations don't have special access to secrets.
Canada doesn't have a watch dog. So how come we know so much about what our government is doing? Hell, we even know all about what the governments of Venezuela, Zimbabwe, the USA, and Iran are doing, to the extent that we seem to have all sorts of advice to offer them about human rights.
I guess they don't have access to secrets and maybe human rights organization is the wrong word. But somebody has to keep an eye on our elected leaders, and, no, we don't know everything our leaders are doing. But Venezuela does have an opposition party which helps to keep the government on the straight and narrow. So I guess I'm belly aching over nothing. I just wonder if we will end up in a situation similar to what occurred when Stalin was alive. Hugo may become a dictator, and some leftist may support him no matter what.
Actually I think I'll delete that last bit. Chavez may have his quirks, but he isn't evil, and he certainly isn't as nasty as the people who oppose him. He hasn't pulled a Mugabe either, which says something. I guess I'm just looking for social democratic needles in a post colonial haystack where there aren't any, at least none that the people want.
Groups like Human Rights Watch and so-called human rights academics like Ignatieff and Dershowitz have transformed the field of human rights into a suspect propaganda industry that reflects the will of the US and other western power brokers.
There are many grass roots organizations around the world that do much to advance human rights causes but tend to avoid branding themselves as human rights activists since the term has become rather tainted in the last few decades. These smaller groups tend to focus on specific causes and issues.
quote:On September 10 President Evo Morales of Bolivia declared the US ambassador persona non grata. On September 11 (the 35th anniversary of the military overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile) the president of Venezuela asked the US ambassador there to leave the country. President Hugo Chбvez believed he was facing the possibility of an imminent coup d'etat in which he said the US administration were involved. President Morales believed that his government was facing serious destabilisation which was also being fomented by the US. A third country, Paraguay, announced 10 days previously that it had detected a conspiracy involving military officers and opposition politicians.
Latin America now faces its most serious crisis since the reintroduction of democracy at the end of the 20th century. The plot against democracy in Venezuela centred on a conspiracy, revealed in telephone conversations between senior military officers broadcast on national television, to assassinate the democratically elected head of state. In Bolivia, the separatist prefects of the five eastern and southern departments have begun a campaign of violence and economic sabotage designed to destabilise the democratic regime.
These events show unequivocally who defends democracy and who threatens it today. We are appalled by the failure of much of the international media to provide accurate and proportionate coverage of these events. All democrats throughout should rally to defend democracy in Latin America.
Signed:
Harold Pinter, John Pilger, Tony Benn, Ken Loach, Jean Lambert MEP, Ian Gibson MP, Kelvin Hopkins MP, Billy Hayes, General secretary, CWU, Bill Greenshields
quote:The new techniques of warfare include the use of both lethal (violent) and nonlethal (nonviolent) tactics. Both ways are conducted using the same philosophy, infrastructure, and modus operandi. It is what is known as Cyberwar. For example, the tactic of swarming is a fundamental element in both violent and nonviolent forms of warfare. This new philosophy of war, which is supposed to replicate the strategy of Genghis Khan as enhanced by modern technologies, is intended to aid both military and non-military assaults against targeted states through what are, in effect, "high tech" hordes. In that sense there is no difference, from the standpoint of the plotters, between Iraq or Ukraine, if only that many think the Ukraine-like coup is more effective and easier
Even without the evidence that most of these NGOs are compromised by their sponsors, what passes as a "Human Rights" frame of reference is really a diminished version, a "National Individual Rights".
What is most telling about these organizations that purport to focus on nations and Human Rights, is the de-coupling, or downplaying, of the extraterritorial activities of a nation--and the avoidance of ranking them in a "foreign aggression index".
On one hand you can have domestic governments that are internally repressive but not given to extraterritorial aggression, and others relatively better in domestic human rights but highly destructive of the Human Rights of non-nationals.
What greater attack on Human Rights than imposing external political will on others in other regions by way of unjustified military incursions, the denying the political will of its victims by the means of destruction, occupation and death.
I guess they don't have access to secrets and maybe human rights organization is the wrong word. But somebody has to keep an eye on our elected leaders, and, no, we don't know everything our leaders are doing. But Venezuela does have an opposition party which helps to keep the government on the straight and narrow. So I guess I'm belly aching over nothing. I just wonder if we will end up in a situation similar to what occurred when Stalin was alive. Hugo may become a dictator, and some leftist may support him no matter what.
[ 20 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Are you hitting on me? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
There are many grass roots organizations around the world that do much to advance human rights causes but tend to avoid branding themselves as human rights activists since the term has become rather tainted in the last few decades. These smaller groups tend to focus on specific causes and issues.
The new Gladio in action? 2005
Gladio: Death Plan for Democracy Peter Chamberlin 2008
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
by Greg Wilpert
What is most telling about these organizations that purport to focus on nations and Human Rights, is the de-coupling, or downplaying, of the extraterritorial activities of a nation--and the avoidance of ranking them in a "foreign aggression index".
On one hand you can have domestic governments that are internally repressive but not given to extraterritorial aggression, and others relatively better in domestic human rights but highly destructive of the Human Rights of non-nationals.
What greater attack on Human Rights than imposing external political will on others in other regions by way of unjustified military incursions, the denying the political will of its victims by the means of destruction, occupation and death.
Yes we do. It's called parliament. more specifically the NDP. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]