yes unfortunately.

2. Why? Can this be justified?
Why:?
It happens in every war situation unfortunately. It happened in ww2, before they liberated the west from the monster Hitler. But it was the duty of the armies to liberate the people.

When a suicide bomber blows himself/herself in Colombo, fighting in Iraq or afghanistan or every time neo nazi’s racial attack takes place against a non-white person in Europe, etc. human rights are equally violated. The point is that we select and over-expose some, ignore others.

can be justified ? No. None of these can not be justified.

3. Can certain procedures be put in to minimise abuses?

Yes. End terrorism. End the war with minimum casualities. Go that extra mile to speak to the opponents. Try to solve the problem betiween ourselves as one nation. offer friendship typical compassion that we buddhists/hindus/muslims/cristians have inherited from our great cultures.
(We have all the blessings of all gods in this country.)
Safeguard the nation against any foreign/local elemants who may try to take advantage of the situation. Listen to our neighbouring/friendly countries.

4. Are there alternative means to achieve the same end?

Eliminate poverty. This can be done only by fighting corruption, ending the war, being proud of our own things.
do not let others dictate us.
stop begging from others. Of course
get help from friendly counties. Help them too as equals. They are as interested as ourselves about the stability of the region.

We have the worlds most prosperous and beautiful country. if we can all unite as brothers and sisters definitely we can make things work.

thanks.
Bulathsinhala

I used to use that technique to my students at the Univ of Papua New Guinea. One of such a question was, “What will happen and what would you and your community would do if the Sun never rises again?” As a moderator I would probe and put limits when the discussion goes off track, and ask questions.

May be Groundviews could pose the question, “What would happen to the people living in Sri Lanka if all people in Sri Lanka loose the urge and ability to physically or mentally harm another person?” Sanjana will be the best person to be the moderator, like Robertson. The readers can be the Panel. Just a thought.

The implication of that sentence, and what follows it, is that the rights violations taking place in Sri Lanka are so minimal as to be ‘irrelevant’, if compared to violations committed by Western powers. That sounds like a very convenient position for any perpetrators of rights violations here. Are we to think that the victims of violations will respond by saying that, ‘Oh well, the West does worse things’? I’m sure that would comfort them.

Mahindapala, and Janaka Perera, have attacked Western powers as using human rights for political agendas. In many cases that’s incontrovertible, and a cause for condemnation. But with statements like this, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that his own attack is also motivated by specific agendas.

If we get caught up in detailed responses to Perera’s article, I think we’re allowing him to set the agenda for the discussion. That’s a useful diversion for perpetrators of abuses here, in Sri Lanka’s own cities and towns. When such positions are repeated ad nauseum in the mass media, they become a major propaganda tool in favor of the perpetrators. By allowing Perera and his kind to set the debate, in effect we start playing a game that distracts from the cold, hard facts of abuse.

Personally, I’d rather engage with debates that work towards the curtailment of rights violations, here, and everywhere, including condemnation of all regimes’ abuses, Western and otherwise. However as a debating device, Perera’s article leads us in the opposite direction, condemning one set of perpetrators in a manner that distracts from others, the ones closer to home, in our own neighborhoods. Is that really the kind of debate we want to engage in?

There are several publications on the history of human rights, and the mixture of idealism and compromise, principle and politics, that have led us this far. It hasn’t always been a clean story, but it has led to strong instruments and concepts in support of human dignity. Perhaps one useful publication is Geoffrey Robertson’s ‘Crimes Against Humanity – The Struggle for Global Justice’. There are others written by non-Western rights activists. I’m sure they weren’t all writing for the money.

I agree completely with what you are saying.

It seems to me that if ordinary people “examine the facts” and make a stance, then the focus on NGOs, etc will lessen, and positions of commentators such as Mahindapala’s will become less relevant.

From my brief experience in living and travelling relatively widely throughout Sri Lanka, it seems to be that many Lankans tend not to “examine the facts”, and therefore it becomes acceptable to beat the child…

My question is: is it right to beat the child?

1. things in the west are as bad or worse
2. therefore they have no moral standing, so to speak, to criticise us.

Local NGO’s are assumed to be puppets of ‘western’ NGO’s and therefore have no standing either.

May I suggest that we forget the NGO’s and examine the facts, and reflect on them :

1. Are human rights being violated?
2. Why? Can this be justified?
3. Can certain procedures be put in to minimise abuses?
4. Are there alternative means to achieve the same end?

Yes – a tad lazy on my part to simply cut and paste – I should have summarised and reflected.

However, I am curious to see what other readers of GroundViews thinks about this piece.

During the past few hours, George Bush has demanded the following of Iran: “”We believe Iran had a secret military weapons program and Iran must explain to the world why they had a program”.

Why?

I am interested in double standards, and I am trying to work out if countries that have not acknowledged their own dirty business has the right to criticise the dirty business of others.

The commentary above provoked me to consider this idea of double standards further – from individuals, nation-states and international agencies…

Hopefully, there’ll be a few more comments from readers on the above commentary…

Does a father who beats his child have the right to criticize another father who beats his child? Does a father who beats his child have the right to criticize another father who beats both his children?

Sam.

Since I don’t usually allow authors to post unoriginal content on this site, I would strongly suggest that you can explain why you found this article interesting and share your opinion on the questions it poses and issues it raises.

Thanks and best,

Sanjana

You’re kidding,right? BALANCING?! Surely he doesn’t mean that certain traditional duties are more importand than human rights? i.e.some “things that are done, simply because that is the way they were always done” are more importand than human rights? What a moron.

Getting back to the point: The human rights record of Western countries are irrelevent. Human rights should be respected because that is what is right!