Why HRW’s website blocked in Thailand? (Part 1)
10/12/14
Over the
years, by claiming the mission to “protect human rights worldwide”, Human
Rights Watch (HRW) published repeatedly distorted information about human
rights issues, making irrational requires against the government in some
countries and it is always opposed. In this context, the fact that HRW’s
website has been banned in Thailand
recently is a warning to it.
World
opinion considered that the action of Thailand
was in response to the November 25 report HRW on the situation of human rights
in Thailand.
As of this report, HRW criticized the Thailand’s militant government has severe
repression of basic freedoms of man after six months since the coup (May 22);
even B. Adam, director of Human Rights Watch in Asia also said that the human
rights situation in Thailand “fell into bottomless pit”.
Thailand protested human rights report and blocked
HRW website were a blow to the long-standing shaken reputation of this
organization. This is not the first time and Thailand is not the only country
that has been criticized by HRW. Many countries around the world, some
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the media and Mr RL Bernstein - one of
the founder and former chairman of Human Rights Watch have repeatedly
criticized HRW itself. It can divide the criticisms to HRW into two categories,
including: Weak research capacity, lack of accurate reporting and biased
attitude and ideological advantage.
Every
year, Human Rights Watch published the so-called human rights report reflecting
the situation of human rights in nearly 100 countries, including Vietnam. This
would be normal if the HRW has an objective attitude, honesty and willingness
to contribute to the development of human rights in the world in general and of
each country in particular. Unfortunately, the information and reviews made by HRW were primarily amasse and
untrue leading to a question that what the real purpose of the HRW? They
proclaimed themselves a “mission” then regarded it as a condition to hide under
the “guise of human rights” that intrusive into the internal affairs of
countries in the world? There is a problem that can not help paying attention
that for many years, the so-called HRW’s report only focused on civil and
political rights, ignoring the economic and social rights. HRW stated that
their mission is to protect human rights worldwide, forcing governments to
terminate the form of abuse of power, respect the rules of international law on
human rights, namely the Declaration UN human rights (UN), which provides full
political rights, civil, economic, social and cultural. However, it seems that
HRW is not “satisfied” with the provisions of the UN Declaration of Human
Rights as written requires governments to guarantee the social, economic rights
for the people, whether their requirements are contrary to the values that HRW
pursuing? Maybe the persons who working for Human Rights Watch consider the UN
Declaration of Human Rights states that “the right to food, clothing, housing
rights, entitled to health care and other social services” (Article 25), "”he
right to be shared the benefits of scientific progress” (Article 27) as the
individual’s responsibility but is not the government’s so they only focus on pursuing
and supporting freedom of religion and xpression. The operations of HRW shows that
they are protecting the fundamental rights of people in an one-sided ways. (To be continued)
All comments [ 10 ]
HRW's annual reports are “false assertions”.
HRW also made false assertions. For example, contrary to assertions in its news article1, capital punishment is not prohibited by international law.
A large number of countries, including many modern, developed countries (like the US) impose the punishment.
In Singapore, capital punishment has contributed to low rates of crime and drug use; and is overwhelmingly supported by Singaporeans.
Statements in HRW’s Report relating to detentions, freedom of speech and association, and the civil rights, as reported in your article, are likewise inaccurate.
HRW’s casual approach towards research and analysis, has been criticised by none other than its founder.
HRW “often relies on witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage”.
please Sue and bankrupt them
We should arrest the HRW people and put them in jail.... or sue them if they are lying, isnt that what you are all good for?
The truth is out there.
Your comments