SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Original URL: World leaders abandoning human rights: Amnesty
World leaders are undermining human rights for millions of people with regressive policies and hate-filled rhetoric, but their actions have ignited global protest movements in response, a rights group said.
US President Donald Trump, Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and China's President Xi Jinping were among a number of politicians who rolled out regressive policies in 2017, according to Amnesty International's annual human rights report published on Thursday.
The human rights body also mentioned the leaders of Egypt, the Philippines and Venezuela.
"The spectres of hatred and fear now loom large in world affairs, and we have few governments standing up for human rights in these disturbing times," Salil Shetty, Amnesty's secretary-general, said.
"Instead, leaders such as el-Sisi, Duterte, Maduro, Putin, Trump and Xi are callously undermining the rights of millions."
[...] The regressive approach to human rights adopted by a number of world leaders has, however, inspired new waves of social activism and protest, Amnesty said, highlighting the example of the Women's March in January last year, which began in the US before becoming a global protest.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by turgid on Saturday February 24 2018, @07:25PM (7 children)
You often hear many an ignorant bigot saying things like, "I don't need human rights because I haven't done anything wrong." They seem to think that human rights are some kind of conspiracy to stop criminals being punished.
I have just googled the European Convention on Human Rights [coe.int].
In summary, here are the Articles in Section I.
Article 1. Obligation to respect Human Rights.
Article 2. Right to life.
Article 3. Prohibition of torture.
Article 4. Prohibition of slavery and forced labour.
Article 5. Right to liberty and security.
Article 6. Right to a fair trial.
Article 7. No punishment without law.
Article 8. Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 9. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Article 10. Freedom of expression.
Article 11. Freedom of assembly and association.
Article 12. Right to marry.
Article 13. Right to an effective remedy.
Article 14. Prohibition of discrimination.
Article 15. Derogation in time of emergency.
Article 16. Restrictions on political activity of aliens.
Article 17. Prohibition of abuses of rights.
Article 18. Limitations of use of restrictions on rights.
Now, what is it about these things that rational adult human beings in this day and age object to? I'm sure there are many Soylentils who would love to elucidate.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday February 24 2018, @09:20PM (1 child)
As far as I can tell, it comes down to this: Some people enjoy the prospect of hurting and even killing other people. Even if only by proxy. Even if the people in question in no way deserve it. These kinds of sadists can't be satisfied with consensual S&M, they're looking to do these terrible things to people who they know are completely unwilling.
Now, this set of desires can translate into simple criminality, such as serial killers. However, it can also get mixed with a mindset where they think about people in terms of groupings, tribes, and teams that they were born into. How the groupings are defined is largely arbitrary: It could be "Englishmen", "Manchester United Supporters", "The Bloods", "white people" (who actually qualifies has shifted about a lot on that one), "Catholics", etc. This was satirized perfectly by Babylon 5 when they had 2 factions of an alien race chosen by pulling ribbons out of a hat, and those 2 factions were in short order engaged in lethal combat.
Add in the obedience effects demonstrated by Stanley Milgram, and you have a recipe for everything that went on in Auschwitz.
For example of this in action, when the news about what was going on in Gitmo became public, there were a lot of people going "Ra ra ra! Yeah! Get them! They killed us on 9/11, this is revenge!" It didn't actually matter to them that the vast majority of the people in Gitmo weren't involved in 9/11 in any way. It didn't matter that the torture didn't yield any useful information whatsoever. It didn't matter that most of them didn't know anyone who had died in 9/11 or had even been anywhere nearby. It was very simply "They" hurt "us", therefor "we" must hurt "them". And sure, they dressed it up with clinical language like "enhanced interrogation techniques", and talked about "weapons of mass destruction" but what they meant was "We want to hurt and kill people."
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 25 2018, @03:24AM
Everything you say is true, and it shakes me to the core. Because it seems this is part of human nature, and perhaps one in fifty people is enlightened enough to pull their head out and see past it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday February 25 2018, @03:07PM (1 child)
I'll bite. Whats being pushed has little to no relationship with carefully selected paperwork.
Its the same situation with global warming thing, or gun control.
So, sure, in one sense I'll oppose some carefully selected theoretical unimplemented documents no one could disagree with, that happen to have no correlation of any sort with Jackboots-on-the-Ground because I don't like the actions and plans of the completely disconnected from those documents Jackboots-on-the-Ground.
Another classic example is why wouldn't everyone love the fables in Marx's fair tale utopian novel? After all, the jackboots on the ground in the USSR only killed 50 million people implementing something in its name.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday February 25 2018, @03:39PM
2 + 2 = 5? I see,
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @08:09PM (2 children)
Article 6 gets you your fair trial. OK, fair enough. Then what? Here is what: you lose it all.
I'd kind of enjoy torturing bad people to death. It's messy and probably low pay, so I wouldn't pick it for a career, but maybe a few times a year I'd do it for free. (thus the low pay -- supply and demand determines that) Lots and lots of us would occasionally work for free. Think how many people would be happy to just shoot the bastards, without any of that nonsense with blank ammo. Start slowly, with lots of non-fatal shots, maybe even having a contest to see how many separate shots can be taken before a death.
Just yesterday, as I was having anchovy pizza, I couldn't help but imagine how it would be interesting to inject somebody with anchovy paste. It could be an IV. I'd love to try that. Die fucker, die!!! Then my mind went to other things I could inject. Disease-ridden poo would be good. Bleach would be good.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:03PM
I see you read the Daily Express.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 26 2018, @03:46AM
Has it occurred to you yet that when you stoop to the level of a monster you become a monster as well? I could definitely kill people, but not torture them; one single clean shot to the back of the head level with the brain stem.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...