Jan Matthieu wrote: > I wonder if not having to wear a burka can be considered a human right.
If you're unsure, look up the articles 3, 5, 8, 11, 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights -- they're all violated by the rules around having to wear a burka. > I have no doubt those people, who think they do Afghani women a favor by > trying to 'liberate' them from the outside mean well. But some disasters > are wrought by the well meaning. No doubt the communist regime meant to > do well for the equality of male and female by abolishing the dowry > practice; only it wasn't accepted by the majority of the population that > just wasn't ready for it, it was considered an attack on their culture, > tradition and religion I'm well aware that human rights have been used as a pretext for imperialist invasions (as in Kosovo too) -- keyword "humanitarian bombings". This is especially disgusting because the imperialists first fomented the problem (by supporting local HR violators) and then "solved" it by even worse HR violations. Of course that's a hypocritical and wrong way to extend respect for HR. > the taliban repression > could never have happened without the communist meddling in the first > place. Wrong. It could never have happened without US funding, which started _before_ the Soviet intervention! (Brzezinsky admitted it in his famous 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur) The US funding continued until 2001 for various reasons (i.a. concerning drug trade). > I hope this opinion doesn't make me a bad human rights activist? That, and a bad foreign policy advisor too. ;-) ----- Salvador Sanchez wrote: > By the way, my own "portable prison", five days a week, is a jacket and a > tie. At least I have some degree of freedom choosing colors. Another very common "portable prison" in the West is the Bluejeans (where even the color is prescribed ;-}). This classic symbol of the US-typical combination of primitivism (goldrushers) with decadence is being worn in Europe even by old professors to display "youth" or whatever PR myth they associate with them. This idiocy extends to "Greens" (despite the big environmental damage from jeans) who thusly reveal their true colors (literally). It hurts my eyes, and I never wear jeans. ----- Alan Lewis wrote: > > Few victims want to admit that they are being victimized, > > especially if they have been brainwashed all their life, > > True. And who is going to decide who is the one who has really > been "brainwashed all their life"? Do we represent the vanguard, > saving the benighted masses from their false consciousness -- the > fruit of the awful fate of not having been born in a rich, liberal, > post-Christian "democracy"? Of course Westerners have been brainwashed too, as I pointed out i.a. in my postings about Americanization... There are many subtle forms of victimization. > > That's like asking a SUV driver whether he feels safe, and when > > Bubba says Yea, then conclude that SUVs _are_ safe. > > Whether or not SUVs are safe is a matter of empirical fact (or > falsehood), not a matter of Bubba's opinion or feeling. The point of my comparison was this: Does Bubba _realize_ that he is being victimized by the car industry by buying a supposedly safer car that is in fact less safe? Bubba thinks he's not, but he is victimized. And yes, the victimization is a matter of empirical fact in _both_ the SUV and the burka case. > (See, by the way, Jim Kalb's very interesting > human rights critique page at http://www.rightsreform.net; also, > see generally Kalb's http://www.counterrevolution.net) I certainly agree, see my comments to Jan above. > Perhaps the Afghanistanis, or the > whole Muslim world, could organize a cultural relief mission to > the U.S., designed to offer alienated and wealth-obsessed > Americans some hope of restoring their souls. I'm happy to be of assistance in that mission! ;-) Chris
