Does anyone have any evidence that human rights workers in Colombia are "terrorists" and "cowards"?

utopiacowboy says on Mar 26, 2005, 13:43:

Kikiortiz11, who is "us"? There seem to be different groups of people in Colombia that could be described as "us". To much of the population, the group that "terrorizes us" is the "Colombian" army. To others, it may be the AUC or to others the FARC. "The Armed Forces are there as defense of the people." Many Colombians would disagree which is why even when they do not actively support the guerrilla groups they do nothing to help the army.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Mar 26, 2005, 15:33:

Don't count ME in your US "Chavez would march on Colombia without hesitation." Any evidence suggesting this?

"The Armed Forces are there as defense of the people." What people? Certainly not those in San José de Apartadó, or the victims of massacres that occurred by omission or comission of the armed forces. Is this the "corruption" that you are talking about? Can't be: Until proven otherwise, these are part of a plan to intimidate politically active civilians (presumption of innocence applies in courts, not when deciding policy). And that constitutes terrorism.

"Who is it the one kidnapping, extorting, and yes TERRORIZING us???" Don't count me in your US, because I didn't have any problems with the FARC while working in their territory, but I was continuously harrassed by members of the Brigada (13?) working in Sumapaz.

"You need to look at our situation and compare it to what it would be if the FARC takeover." Thinking in terms of such binary choice is quite simplistic (to say the least). If you believe that someone supports the FARC and the only thing you can say is that, you are missing the point, by a LONG shot. First, because in a forum like this it is more likely to be your misperception: many of us keep our distance from both government and subversion, which sometimes can be misinterpreted as supporting any kind of opposition toward those that we criticize. And second, even if you were correct, the motivations for supporting or sympathizing with the FARC are VERY diverse: wouldn't you be interested in assessing those motivations before simplifying them?

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Mar 26, 2005, 17:46:

Terms are tools "so EVERYONE has the responsibility to RESPECT other people's rights."

In practical terms, what does this mean? That if you break the law, you should be punished by the State, right? All member states of the UN have accepted the UDHR as their law, therefore it is their privilege and duty to protect individuals against abuses of their rights. This should be pretty uncontroversial.

Long before the UDHR, however, States have -by definition- punished those that break the law. The UDHR was not created to add more laws to those already existing; it was created for something different and new: to hold STATES accountable for the protection of a minimum set of individual rights. It is since then qualitatively different to be killed by a thug than by your own government, and we need different terms for each. You can call them whatever you want, but in international law the latter (and not the former) constitutes a violation of human rights (shorthand for "violation of the pledge that you made in 1948 regarding the protection...") You can extend the term to the former if you want, but then most people would assume that you are putting the government and the thug at the same moral level. Or you can invent a new distinction ("failure to protect"), but few will care to learn your new nomenclature. Terms are tools, conventions that coordinate actions with a purpose in mind, and this one is currently used to keep governments on task regarding certain obligations.

I hope this shows that the "tutela" example and your following question are irrelevant.

BTW, you seem to assume that the abuses commited by illegal groups in Colombia are not denounced by major HROs. They are:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR231242002
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/07/09/colomb77.htm

"is being declared by a number foreign governments as a HR violator good enough of a criterion in deciding whether your primary business is the violation of human rights?"

I think your "primary business" should probably be defined by what orients your activity, not by what other people perceive you are doing. If I wanted to know what is the "primary business" of IBM, I'd go to their webpage and hit the "about us" button.

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Copete says on Mar 28, 2005, 14:33:

Sr. Tertius... Fundametally, the UDHR declared (for the first time) a core of universal principles on which the laws of every country should be based. Contrary to what you said, some of those laws did not exist and still do not exist in many countries. Unless you think that in places like Cuba or China people have the right to free speech and political association, for instance.

Now, from the text of the UDHR one doesn't conclude that only governments can violate human rights, and you'll need to come up with something different to show this is the case. Again, the principle that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" doesn't look like something that could only be violated by a government. If anything, your distinction between "violations of human rights" (by a government), and "abuses" (by persons and criminal organizations) is quite irrelevant. In any country, penalties for a crime are given according to the seriousness of the crime, not by the type of person/organization who comitted the crime. Even HROs, as you pointed out, are somehow concerned about the "abuses" as well.

And I'm not denying the "abuses" of guerrillas and such aren't denounced by HROs. However, they leave the feeling that it's all just a tactical move designed to do good PR (as you said) and protect them from accusations of impartiality, rather than part of their principal commitment.

On the other hand, you keep deliberatly trying to blur the line between respect for human rights and protection of human rights. For example: A policeman has the duty both to enforce the law and abide by the law; he can be accused and prosecuted for failing to do either of them, and I don't think the distinction between these two different responsibilities is irrelevant. Again, can you state which of the two HROs are supposed care about primarily?

And you're just spliting hairs on the "primary business" deal. Of course no criminal organization will state that their primary business is crime. Call it "primary activity" or whatever; the bottom line is that the worldwide perception of their activity is that it violates human rights. That should be a pretty objective criterion.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Mar 28, 2005, 18:28:

No HR court will take your case "Contrary to what you said, some of those laws did not exist and still do not exist in many countries"

I'm sorry if I wasn't completely clear: I meant to say that before the UDHR, States had laws (a judicial system of some kind, not necessarily consistent with HR), and that the UDHR wasn't meant to just add more laws to national legislations, but commit nations to the promotion and protection of certain individual rights. It wasn't meant to be a framework of national constitutions either: in form, it was simply a commitment, a pledge.

"from the text of the UDHR one doesn't conclude that only governments can violate human rights"

One concludes that from the use of the declaration (again, as a commitment, pledge), if not from the fact that it is signed by UN member nations, but not from an individual's interpretation of the text. From the text of the Scout Oath one doesn't conclude either that only scouts can violate it ("morally straight"? not me): but the fact that it was written by scouts and usually pledged by scouts suggests that it only makes sense to ask, for example, whether a scout violated it.

It seems to me that you have taken a term and ascribed a meaning of your choice to it, one that the HR community doesn't share. We can leave it there and you can continue with your monologue. But what I and all legal systems in the known universe would strongly disagree with is that crimes committed by a government stand at the same level as crimes committed by individuals. It is well accepted that the first (and specifically, HR violations) are dealt with through a completely different judicial system than the second, and all nations recognize (at least some of) these systems. Take, for instance, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (recognized by all OAS are members): it is meant to deal with human rights VIOLATIONS, and it is appropriately organized to referee between STATES and individuals. If you go over there and accuse the FARC of HR violations, they will tell you that (a) you are misusing the language, and (b) it is the role of the Colombian judicial system to prosecute the FARC. However, you can bring the Republic of Colombia to the Court, and they can prosecute it.

"they leave the feeling that it's all just a tactical move designed to do good PR"

It's more than just a feeling: that's what they are doing. Because it is not their job. I don't know if it is "tactical", but it wouldn't make much sense that, having the means to help States comply with their HR commitments, they wouldn't do it just because it's not their job. It's a matter of being a good citizen. It has nothing to do with impartiality, as I explained already.

"Can you state which of the two HROs are supposed care about primarily?" If I follow your analogy correctly, you should think of the HRO as a police "watchdog": it should care equally that the police protects and does no harm. But if a regular civilian breaks the law, it shouldn't be its primary concern: that's what the police is there for in the first place.

"And you're just spliting hairs on the 'primary business' deal." That's probably because the "primary [whatever]" is a nonsensical term. Let's say we have a huge debate about what the "primary activity" of the AUC is. "Fighting the guerrilla" some will say, "no, violating human rights" somebody else may say, and so on. Finally, we come to a decision: it can't be violating HR, because no HR court will take the case. Let's say it's "fighting the guerrilla". Then what? What's the point of making this distinction? Someone may insist "no, it is protecting the privileges of the Colombian oligarchy". Maybe, yes. So what? What's the relevance of just making such statement by itself? You are asking for hairs to be split.

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.