Talk:Human Rights Watch

From Academic Kids

-Human Rights Watch has for long been one of my favorite fairly NPOV sources of information. They have always been sort of absolutist in their judgements: they don't seem to allow for any circumstances whatsoever in which a soldier might legitimately kill a civilian, whereas I might excuse it if the civilian were repeatedly stabbing the soldier with a carving knife.
-Recently I've been alarmed by some of the POV rants embedded in what seem to be NPOV reports. It's like a bunch of field workers submit perfectly lovely reports, and then a party agent or manager lays a thick curtain of goo over the top.
-Could someone do me a favor? read the following report--it's not too long, though the actions described are repugnant--and see if you can find evidence to contradict my observations.
HRW report on Serbian rapes of Kosovar Albanians (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/fry/)
-The report states clearly many times that the abuses were organized and part of the national effort to intimidate Albanians "as weapons of war and instruments of systematic "ethnic cleansing." ". Yet I see no shred of the usual forms of evidence that would be used to prove this:

• An interview with a high-level army official
• a printed order

-It says that the crimes were so widespread--96 plus unguessably many more--that they must have been organized, but given the hypothetical set-up:

1. Thousands of 16-25 year old males
2. ordered to rape tens or hundreds of thousands of women
3. as an intimidation effort, which means that private rape is pointless

-I would expect quite a few more rapes and thousands more witnesses.
-Does the report offer any justification at all for its conclusions, beyond clear speculation? I.e "They must have known..." the librarian

Agreed..It was bad, but I think they've jumped to conclusions too quickly.

Thoughts re HRW and similar is that a pattern tends to emerge, one I think we've seen in regard to Amnesty International as well.

Initially, they gained a lot of respect for honestly good work. They deserved it. However, since about the 1980s, I'm getting the impression that AI (particularly) and HRW have become captive to their fame. Now, they almost reflexively follow whatever political agenda may be popular at the time (typically, but not always, liberals), declaring it to be a matter of human rights.

It could be argued that AI lost a lot of what made them great once they expanded beyond political prisoners into far greyer areas.

HRW, similarly, seems to have become rather trapped by the environment they travel in (primarily, in the US, the Democratic Party). If they didn't take sides, and actively made an effort to stay out of the limelight (instead just getting their work to people who could do something), I'd respect them. --Penta 00:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm just curious but exactly what is wrong with the human rights watch? Human rights = individual rights. Therefore it's imperative for the organization to support human rights. This would of course go contrary to most people who don't believe in individual rights. If human rights are conditional instead of absolute than their organization would be called the human rights conditional watch or something similar? --blurryeye 18:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Generally, as they've become more assertive about protecting human rights, they've inevitably ended up treading on various American ideological toes, such as the death penalty, abstinence-only sex education, etc. Whereas protecting the human rights of political prisoners is uncontroversial in the U.S. (at least it was before Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib), a more complete advocacy of human rights must inevitably be branded "taking sides" and "following a liberal agenda" from those who feel that any criticism of the U.S. is unseemly. —Ashley Y 23:15, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

---

That Human Rights Watch is a human rights organization is a truth; that it has no ideological bent is a flat out lie. There is nothing objective in the position that allowing the killing of murderers as punishment for their crimes violates human rights, while not allowing the killing of unborn babies in the form of abortion does the same. This is a left-wing POV, just as the Christian Coalition's reverse view (pro-Death Penalty and anti-Abortion) is a right-wing POV. Demanding that prisoners be allowed condoms in prison is an issue worthy of debate, but it is not a "human rights" issue. Opposing the "humiliation" of convicted sex-offenders by giving them distinctive license plates is a worthwhile topic of debate, but it is not a "human rights" issue. Supporting greater penalties for perpetrators of "Hate Crimes," where those who commit crimes against "minorities" (inc. whites with Spanish surnames) are given harsher sentences is not objectively a "human rights" issue, and libertarians overwhelmingly oppose such measures. That the fact that black males commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime, and are therefore disproportionately represented in prisons and in the serving of long sentences, does not objectively amount to "human rights" violations (see Race and Incarcartion in the United States, a 27 February 2002 report). That defining marriage as being between one man and one woman amounts to "human rights" violations is a left-wing POV, not an objective one (esp. given that traditional Mormons are prohibited from marrying multiple people and the HRW has no problem with that form of discrimination).

Many if not most of its stances are objectively pro-human rights, but not all are. It is a lie to say the above positions taken by HRW are either objective or non-ideological.

Cryptico 2005 June 12

I agree. 199 22:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But there's no such thing as "objectively pro-human rights" anyway. To be pro-human rights is an ideology the same as any other moral position. —Ashley Y 01:40, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Also, HRW may or may not be liberal (no great surprise if so, since human rights are central to liberalism, almost a common thread between the different strands), but they can hardly be called left-wing. —Ashley Y 01:52, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Then why is this organization called a human rights organization, if there's no such thing, objectively, as "human rights"? Human rights are important to liberals and conservatives alike, but giving murderers the same consideration as innocents and giving unborn babies no consideration at all is hardly non-ideological. Being anti-death penalty and pro-abortion can objectively be called "left-wing," just as the reverse can objectively be called "right-wing." Why not call them anti-human rights since they are against unborn babies having any? If you're going to play the relativism game, then don't even bother to call this group a "human rights" organization.

Cryptico 13 June 2005

Because there is such a thing, subjectively, as human rights. It's what people feel humans should be entitled to by way of legal protections etc. There's consensus about this, by and large, but it's not a perfect consensus, so there'll be disagreements as you point out. HRW represents one particular set of opinions on that, but of course others feel differently. —Ashley Y 06:02, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

And there is such a thing, subjectively, as a liberal activist group, even if there is no universal "consensus" as to what exactly a "liberal" issue is. That same-sex marriage and abortion on demand and harsher penalties for whites who murder blacks than for blacks who murder whites are considered "human rights" issues by HRW, when there is NO consensus or anything like a consensus for these points of view, shows it to be a human rights/liberal group. That you happen to agree with them doesn't change that fact.:Cryptico 2005 June 18