Pixelated Semantics

Making definitions

Dear oh dear. The US State Department's annual report on human rights progress around the world in 2004 "rebukes" Riyadh for a record of abuses that "far exceeds" advances, called Egypt's rights ledger "poor" and said "serious problems remained" in Pakistan. Which is rather unfortunate as these three countries have been of sterling assistance to America and it's increasingly out of control agencies in their "rendition" of "terror suspects" for torture. "Promoting human rights is not just an element of our foreign policy - it is the bedrock of our policy and our foremost concern" said the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs. They comment on "credible reports of torture" from those countries as if somehow their own abuse of human rights can somehow be nicely extricated from the picture. And the State Dept criticises the Saudis for their treatment of women in society on the same day that another wing of the extremist Bush administration insists "sexual rights" or the "fundamental right to abortion" do not exist for women. (Indeed they accuse women's interest groups of "trying to hijack the term and trying to make it into a definition", as if language is solely the perogative of politics. However, in an increasingly Orwellian world, perhaps it now is.) To speak of "serious human rights abuses" while aiding and abetting their commission is perhaps the most egregious act of hypocrisy that government has ever attempted. Perhaps the clincher is the NYT's coverage, which highlights "reports of arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, impunity, poor prison conditions - particularly in pretrial detention facilities - and arbitrary arrest and detention" - by the 2004 Iraqi government, under American occupation.

Item posted by AutoEditor at 1:02 pm ::