Amnesty International

This is your mistake to believe that oppressed people don't want to be free.

Joseph Botwinick

 

If people want to live under tyranny, then why don't tyrants allow free speech? Why don't they allow free elections? Why don't they allow the right to emmigrate? Why do brutal tyrants like Stalin, Saddam, et al torture, imprison, and murder dissenters? Your argument is devoid of logic. The reason they don't allow any choice whatsoever is because they know if they did, people would choose to live in a free society everytime over living under tyranny. Further, if oppressed people don't want to be free and live under a government that values human rights, then what is the purpose of AI? The conepts of democracy and human rights are not exclusive of each other. They are directly related.

Joseph Botwinick

 

These are the same questions you asked in the thread you initiated prior to this one. As I stated then, it is directly related to the definition of "tyrant."</font>[/QUOTE]Most people recognize a tyrant as a person who oppresses his own people to keep himself in power. It is generally a person who is not in a democratically elected government. They generally do not allow free speech or the right to emmigrate. You see, if they did that, they would lose their power because either people would elect new leaders or they would leave. Then, said tyrant would not have a nation. Please don't play Clinton doublespeak word games with me. Everyone here knows what the definition of "is" is.

Indeed. Bear in mind that you are answering your own question every time you post. Two questions for you: since you openly criticize the Amnesty International, exactly what are you doing to end the abuses of human rights in the world? [/QUOTE]

Off topic and irrelevant to this discussion. If you really are interested in knowing, start a new thread and I will be happy to tell you. But, don't hijack this thread by debating a personality instead of debating the issues.

What aspects of your work should AI adopt in their work?[/QUOTE]

They should champion freedom which leads to more human rights, and confront tyranyy which is, by definition, opposed to human rights. That is it.

...........and since the ruler/government is a tyrant/tyranny, by virtue of the definition of these words, that is why "they don't allow any choice whatsoever."[/QUOTE]

Bingo. I think you are catching on.

This question has already been answered more than once. If you do not choose to accept the answer, then that is fine. But you already answered this question with your initial post, when you copied directly from their website.[/QUOTE]

By your own mistaken argument, if people don't want to be free, then it is not worth our time fighting for their freedom. The same should be true about human rights as well since they are directly related.

You have reiterated this opinion once again. How do you explain the people of Iran, who willingly choose to live in a repressive country? What about the people of Saudi Arabia? [/QUOTE]

1. I don't think it is an opinion. I think that it is pretty widely accepted that the direct effect of democracy is more respect to human rights. Do you believe that freedom of speech is crucial to human rights? What about the right to emmigrate? How about free elections? If you answer yes to these three questions, I honestly don't see how you could seperate the issue of democracy from the issue of human rights. They go hand in hand.

2. People don't willingly choose to live in repressive societies. That is a contradiction of ideas. Repressive societies don't allow any choice. Repressive regimes like Saddam would put on fake elections every now and then where 100% of the vote would go to Saddam. You and I know better than to think that 100% of millions of people were for Saddam. Your logic is flawed.

3. Iranian dissidents: Hashem Aghajari

Ahmad Batebi

Siamak Pourzand

Suadi Dissidents:

Mohammed Said Al-Taib and other human rights activists arrested for advocating human rights in the Saudi Kingdom were released only after being forced to sign a pledge to end their human rights activities in Saudi Arabia

Joseph Botwinick

 

Scott,

Do you believe there is a direct link between Democratic States and respect for human rights? How about a link between tyrannical dictatorships and disregard for human rights? It seems to me that AI would be more effective in their mission of advocating for human rights if they were to also advocate for Democracy and confront Tyrannical dictatorships as a barrier to human rights. What do you think?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Why is that, Scott? What about advocating Democracy would hinder their work for human rights? Do you not see the connection between Democracy and respect for human rights? IMO, AI would do well to read Rick Warren's book The Purpose Driven Church and apply some of those principles to their work. The way I see it right now, they have a mission, but one of their policies goes contrary to their mission, their purpose if you will.

Joseph Botwinick

 

It would seem to me that there are people in these nations who are not too happy with the regime they have and would like to have a change. However, since they live under a tyrannical regime which does not respect Democracy / human rights, that doesn't seem to be in the cards. Seriously, don't you think that if they had the freedom of speech, free elections, or the right to emmigrate, that they would utilize these freedoms? Wouldn't these democratic reforms lead to more respect for human rights? It would seem that not everyone in Iran and Saudi Arabia agree with you about being happy with tyranny.

Joseph Botwinick

 

1. It is not my opinion that there are people in these nations who are not happy with tyranny. If they were, then they would not have been arrested and / or given the death sentence for advocating human rights. These kind of things, BTW, don't happen in Democratic societies.

2. For some reason, you don't want to answer my questions. You have avoided them at every turn. The answer to these questions go to the heart of the debate. I readily recognize the policy of AI. I, however, think the policy is counterproductive and contrary to their mission. If you honestly answer the questions that have been asked by me "...so many times..." that you "...have lost count", I think you would be able to figure out why I believe that and it would be abundantly clear.

3. I am suggesting that democratic principles such as free speech, free elections, and the right to emmigrate are universal and should be the right of all people on earth. If the clear majority in both nations really want to live in an oppressive regime, then they would not need to suppress free speech, or deny the right to emigrate. If this is clearly what the majority of people want in these country, then why impose death sentences on those who dissent? Why throw people in prison and then insist that they pledge to stop advocating human rights before you will let them out of prison? What are the leaders afraid of?

Joseph Botwinick

 

1. About Senator McCarthy: Was he left in jail or did he eventually make it out (honestly, I concede that my knowledge of that is defencient, so help me out)? Are people still being treated that way today? If he did make it out, or if those policies are not still in effect today, would you please tell me why? What happened to change the way that things are done here?

2. Well, actually, no you haven't answered my questions. You have given me the AI position, but you yourself, have not answered my questions about what you think. Why is that?

3. Now, that was just silly.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Did a little internet research on McCarthy. As I said, my knowledge is pretty defencient on him and so I realize the stupid mistake I made in assuming that MCcarthy was the so-called victim of human rights abuses. Here is something I did find though:

Now, from what i just read, I don't see where anyone was imprisoned, tortured, or killed for expressing their freedom of speech. I do see where a Senator tried to abuse his power, was shunned by the free press (free speech), by his colleagues in the Congress, and by public opinion and ended up failing in his purpose. I am not sure how you are going to compare that event with what happens in tyrannical governments who have no free speech, and no accountability to the public.

Joseph Botwinick

 

No, not really. That would certainly solve all the problems/issues you address with seemingly every post, especially the part about immigration. A one-world government would most certainly address that point. </font>[/QUOTE]That's emmigration . You do know the difference between the two right? What does a one world government have to do with oppressed people wanting to emmigrate out of a nation with a tyrannical government?

Joseph Botwinick