This is a discussion on Human Rights in Academia within the Activism / Media / Campaigns forums, part of the Important category; Here's a short forum posting from my college. It's private and hidden so no point in supplying a link, but ...
Here's a short forum posting from my college. It's private and hidden so no point in supplying a link, but here are the contents:
Quote:
Human Rights
by Rebecca Kelly - Friday, 7 December 2007, 02:37 PM
What do you know about Human Rights and Human Rights abuses around the world?
How can people in this country work to improve Human Rights globally?
For more information about Human Rights you can click on the links below: http://www.un.org/rights/ http://www.amnesty.org/
Quote:
Re: Human Rights
by Karl - Saturday, 8 December 2007, 11:59 PM
I have spent a considerable amount of my personal time researching human rights and can confirm that both the UN and Amnesty are not worth using as references. Naturally, I mean no offence to the OP by stating this - as I recognise most folk will simply believe what they're told without question and thus repeat misinformation without any personal involvement. A common error amongst humans.
Both the above sites are extremely biased in their funding sources and their output. For example, they both condemn the practise of FGM (rightly so) but are strangely silent on the similar issue of MGM (wrongly so). Why, you may ask? Because they're following the money... And when people such as Oprah only look at one side of a two sided coin, such as FGM, those who rely on the media darlings for their support will do the donkey work the media darlings 'persuade' them to investigate. FGM & MGM (Female/Male Genital Mutilation) occurs around the world. In more developed countries, FGM is stamped out - while MGM is performed routinely on baby boys in hospitals based on various reasons, mostly commonly religious, traditional and health misinformation. In less developed countries, FGM and MGM is carried out by parents of the same sex as the child - at a much later time in life, about eight or so years old. While FGM is a horrible issue to contend with, so is MGM. I've seen videos of both being performed. As FGM is well documented, I won't spend too much space on it. However, MGM is not - so, hoping I do not overstep the boundaries of the forum, I will explain briefly what occurs. The boys are stood in a line with two adults holding an arm each of each child. A third adult uses a paid of tongue like prongs to clamp the foreskin down in place and then stretch it out to it's maximum. A forth adult then slices it off. No pain relief, no medicines, no antibacterials, they're just left laying on the floor with blood pouring from their now mutilated and torn extremety. FGM is performed similarly, but with female adults holding the female girls down so as to perform what in short is known as a clitorectomy. To listen to the UN and amnesty, you'd be forgiven for believing that MGM is only ever performed in clean, sanitized conditions while FGM is only ever performed in dirty, third-world conditions. That is not true.
MGM has recently started hitting headlines (thought it's been killing and ruining sexual functionality of boys as long as FGM has been doing for girls) in recent times and finally Doctors are waking up to the issues being created by this blind bigotry, and are now making fuller investigations. One pro-MGM group tried to claim that doing so to boys would decrease AIDS (not amongst boys, but amongst girls - apparently, boys just simply do not matter)... not surprisingly, this turned out to be yet more propaganda based on junk science. Nonetheless, the problems that MGM (death, disfunction, etc.) cause is now being realised and addressed by the medical profession. You would think, that as the UN and Amnesty claim to be about human rights - they would be ahead of the medical profession in condemning this crime against humanity. It will be years before either of them even notice this issue, let alone actually do anything about it.
That is ONE of many reasons I don't give either organisation any credibility. There are many more reasons of course, but i thought I would share that one with you.
I appreciate the thought on Human Rights, and realise academia is tightly ... controlled, but I'm fairly certain a bit more research could be done in order to promote less biased and money-hungry organisations could be sought out for this kind of thread.
ETA: I forgot to add, Oprah - the one who funds and condemns FGM so heavily, used her magazine and show to promote a face cream for women... Which would you believe used the cut off foreskins as one of it's ingredients. She conveniently 'forgot' to mention this fact while promoting the face cream.
Has the word 'hypocrite' formed on your lips, yet?
Quote:
Re: Human Rights
by Karl - Tuesday, 15 January 2008, 12:55 PM
Rather strangely, I've received a few emails about my above post which appear to have been posts that have since been deleted..?
Of the one 'staff' member who emailed me a couple of times, I'm unable to reply via email as their profile is not accessible to me.
So, I shall respond here to the two points made:
~~~~
Rebecca Kelly:
"I suggest you do you do your research"
~~~~
Thank you for your suggestion, however, I need to point out at this moment that indeed I have done my research - hence my lengthy response above.
I understand the atrocities of FGM and of MGM, however, certain groups with agendas prefer to turn a blind eye to half the population of third world countries being tortured... And there are many documented accounts of baby boys in the more civilized countries dying from shock and other complications arising from the barbaric act of genital mutilation which they are enforced to endure.
I used to be very pro-feminist in my early years, but matured once I realised how biased and sexist they are... such as marginalizing domestic violence against men and excusing ill behaviours of half the population while condemning ill behaviours of the other half.
Additionally I run my own website with articles & a forum where a LOT of data has been collected, including professional and academic. For example, when Strauss tried to release information expressing that men & women are violent in similar numbers, he received death threats, as did Christina Hoff-Summers (as did her children) and Erin Pizzey (opened the first women's refuge in London). Oddly though, when Erin Pizzey & Strauss were releasing documented accounts of male on female violence, the same group sending death-threats were all over them like flies on doggy-doo and couldn't get their work in print quick enough. The agenda has been spelt out loud & clear. Demonization of half the planet's population based on possession of XY chromosomes instead of the 'preferred' XX.
Trust me, I have done my research - I've been researching this movement for over five years now.
~~~~
Rebecca Kelly:
"Just wondering if you have you ever read the full Declaration of Human Rights? All 30 articles? "
~~~~
No, I cannot say I have.
Have you? And regardless of whether you have or not, what exactly are you implying or trying to suggest? We know the U.N. & Amnesty both have reams of pages dedicated to half the populations' problems, but when we delete the first two letters from that page - there is nothing for the remainder. Not a peep. It's almost as if the other half of our planet doesn't exist in their eyes.
~~~~
Alexander Wood:
"dude that is an incredibly good point."
~~~~
Thank you kindly, I just find it to be blatant bigotry on Oprah's side to be promoting the results of MGM (which occur in her own country) while condemning FGM (which doesn't occur in her own country).
Quote:
Re: Human Rights
by Rebecca Kelly - Tuesday, 15 January 2008, 02:58 PM
Hello Karl,
Thank you for your response. I am not challenging your opinions in a way - after all you have the right to free speech. What I am suggesting is that you perhaps make yourself aware of the larger picture and the enormity of the Act. I AM familiar with all 30 articles, having done a substantial amount of research myself and all I can say is that the world is certainly a better place for the Act.
Quote:
Re: Human Rights
by Nick Taylor - Wednesday, 16 January 2008, 04:41 PM
I'd just like to say I find Karl's argument to be well considered and expressed. It is sometimes hard to sympathise with single issue politics, but it’s also very refreshing to hear intelligent, passionate comment. More power to you, Karl.
I can't help but wonder WHY the other comments were deleted... I can't imagine they in anyway broke the ToS for the college forum...
Out of the gloom a voice spake unto me. 'Smile and be happy, Things could get worse."
So I smiled and was happy, and behold... Things did get worse.
"What I am suggesting is that you perhaps make yourself aware of the larger picture" - polite but dismissive
This web site is financed partly through advertising. To help keep this site alive you may wish to peruse our sponsors. Clicking them will open in a new window. To lower the amount of advertisements you see, register for an account and enjoy a more enriched experience.
Karl, you might at some point like to back up your stance against Amnesty International by refering to the 'Quadrant' journal (last year, Oz) in which one of the early activists exposed its origins.
AI was devised by two members of the British Communist Party who put their idea to the then ComIntern, an offshoot of the NKVD - the KGB's predecessor - to get Communist supporters released from jails after the Spanish Civil War. They deliberately ignored any other innocent people jailed for many years, concentrating soley on Communists.
AI is hardly a defender of Human Rights although that is how it is seen by many.
I have tried all my life to leave the place better than I found it.
But there are 6 billion other buggers out there messing it up.
5th-June-2008
