| Submit your comments on this article |
| International |
| Mary Robinson: Human rights cannot be sacrificed in search of justice |
| 2002-04-28 |
| The title is pulled from the original article. My initial reaction was, "Huh? That doesn't make any sense..." Then I saw it was Mary Robinson, so it didn't have to make sense. Then I read the article and that's not exactly what she said, but apparently the way the Arab editor interpreted it. Funny syntax is courtesy Arabic News. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson affirmed "the importance of upholding fully human rights and humanitarian law standards in combating terrorism," she noted, pledging her Office's full support for "any initiative the Commission may think appropriate in order to signal clearly that human rights should not be sacrificed in the fight against terrorism." Well, that makes sense. Her job is human rights, and like many in a field she doesn't see anything outside her purview. Not being a professional human rights activist myself, I'm under the probably mistaken impression that not being shot or blown up because of one's religion or ethnicity would be a fundamental human right, and even that legitimate governments should be protected from damage or overthrow by armies of mercenaries. Mrs. Robinson also voiced concern over "a possible trend seeking to weaken the protection role that this Commission has been exercising." She said this was evident in voting patterns on country situations marked by a preference for excluding action if consensus was not possible. The same would appear to apply to anything relating to military action, and Ms Robinson has been one of the major perpetrators — kind of a bucket on the American foot. We won't mention anything about ideological preferences having anything to do with it, or whether as an observer she's partial or im-. And let's not bring up Bob Mugabe, either... "The core role of the Commission in protecting human rights through drawing attention to violations and abuses must be retained, but it is clear that in the future it needs to be matched by a much more significant commitment to provide resources for technical cooperation and advisory services to assist countries in building and strengthening their national capacity in the rule of law, the administration of justice, and adherence to human rights norms and standards," she said. Did that make any sense? Didn't think so... [The] UN Secretary General had stated "States must also take the greatest care to ensure that counter-terrorism does not, any more than sovereignty, become an all-embracing concept that is used to cloak, or justify, violations of human rights," adding Justice must be both "the means and the end." First time through that didn't make any sense, either. On second reading, I could see that it was such a magnificent example of a windy platitude that I'm thinking of having it stuffed and mounted in my den. Seems to me the the counter-terrorism aspect and the human rights aspects need not be mutually exclusive in most instances. In those instance where they are, the counter-terrorism would necessarily have to take precedence, because the human rights are dependant on being defended against those who would dismantle them. I think I see what he thinks he means — you don't want the Gestapo kicking in doors at 2 a.m. at will — but if we don't take reasonable steps toward self-defense, then it'll be somebody else's Gestapo kicking in the door at will after they've destroyed our society. Admittedly, the definition of "reasonable" can be a matter for quibble, but an absolutist position against any compromise is necessarily self-negating. If we never kick in anyone's door at 2 a.m., then those who devote their entire lives to the destruction of us and all we stand for have free reign, don't they? |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |