4 responses

1. 

   Natalie Solent

   June 12, 2005

   I would like to take issue with your saying, “now people can hide behind their opposition to “social and cultural” rights.”
   For me it’s not a matter of hiding behind anything. In many respects I *do* – openly – oppose their vision of social and cultural rights. I think they support things that would do harm.
   I acknowledge that they also still do good. The question is, does the net amount of good they do make it worth one’s while to subscribe to AI rather than some competing charity – or even to keep the money. Different people will have different answers. I let my subcription lapse two or three years ago. I don’t want AI to cease to exist, just to change back to what it was.

   Loading…

   Reply
2. 

   Rob Read

   June 13, 2005

   “Diworsified” is a good word for what AI did.

   Loading…

   Reply
3. 

   duncan

   June 19, 2005

   Let’s focus on what AI has actually done since it began working to oppose violations of economic, social and cultural rights:
   # opposed the position of the government of zimbabwe which demanded that starving people show Zanu-PF (dominant political party) loyalty cards to gain the food aid they needed
   # opposed the restrictions of movement in the Occupied Territories which mean that women are forced to give birth in the dirt beside checkpoints rather than in hospitals
   # opposed the failure of the Brazilian government to ratify indigenous peoples land rights which leads to conflict with prospectors and death threats.
   These are just some examples. Do any of you genuinely feel that these are not human rights concerns?
   If you agree, but think that AI should have maintained its “focus”, it is worth remembering that AI is de facto the worlds largest human rights organisation, and its restriction of its work to a subset of civil and political rights helped to give weight to the notion that other human rights were some how of lesser value.
   It would have been quite easy for AI to bury its head in the ground and talk about maintaining focus, which might seem sensible to a few politically conscious liberals in rich countries, but would have left the organisation looking increasingly privileged, white and irrelevant in large parts of our changing world. Post cold war it really would have been the wrong option to resist change.
   Tim adds: “subset of civil and political rights helped to give weight to the notion that other human rights were some how of lesser value. ”
   But that’s rather the point. There are many of us who do think that some other things described as human rights are indeed of lesser value. Rights to jobs, unions, strike, free health care, free education……I’ll agree that they’re all good things to have, all part and parcel of a civilised society, but not rights in the same sense as the right to free speech, a fair trial and so on. AI made a mistake, to my mind, by broadening its focus as not all ofthe things they now claim are rights are what all people agree are in fact human rights (rather than desires).

   Loading…

   Reply
4. 

   duncan

   June 20, 2005

   well then tim you are expressing your opinion. It is not justified by international law, which recognises both the right to free and compulsory primary education just as it recognises the right to freedom of expression; the right to the highest attainable standard of health, just as the right to life. (universal declaration of human rights, international covenants on civil and political, and economic, social and cultural rights).
   Just to be clear, that in international law, both civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural rights are human rights of equal value.
   Denying that is a political statement, but it is wrong in law.
   Tim adds: Well, yes, but then that’s one of my complaints with international law.

   Loading…

   Reply