BHHRG

About BHHRG

The British Helsinki Human Rights Group monitors human rights and democracy in the 57 OSCE member states from the United States to Central Asia.
* Monitoring the conduct of elections in OSCE member states.
* Examining issues relating to press freedom and freedom of speech
* Reporting on conditions in prisons and psychiatric institutions

Size of text
  • Decrease font size
  • Default font size
  • Increase font size
Uzbekistan tragedy: Intervention or Chaos? Or Intervention and Chaos
HITS: 878 | 24-08-2005, 11:56 | Comments: (0) | Categories: Uzbekistan , PR and human rights

“The worst is not; so long as we can say, ‘This is the worst’”
Shakespeare, King Lear (IV, I, 27)


The universal clamour for “something to be done” about Uzbekistan reaches from the serried ranks of proponents of the invasion of Iraq to find its elusive WMD and overthrow Saddam Hussein to that crusade’s fiercest critics. Ironically, those who doubted every jot of the Bush Administration’s claims about the nature and weaponry of Saddam’s regime are as gung-ho for intervention in Uzbekistan as Washington’s hawks. Unanimity like this among opinion-makers ought to make observers’ queasy. Even if they were right in their analysis of what happened in Andijan, are there solutions not naively optimistic in thinking that Western intervention will necessarily promote a solution which makes matters better for Uzbeks?
Remember Mobutu’s Zaire, for instance. Before his downfall in 1997, everyone agreed there too that nothing could be worse than that regime’s kleptocrat. Well, 3 million dead later, perhaps it is time for human rights activists to prepare for the worst case consequences of their own success. Yet Mobutu is still trotted out as simply an example of American hypocrisy during the Cold War when he was backed as an anti-Communist, rather than seeing the unanimous Western governmental and media campaign to remove him in 1997 as a classic example of short-sightedness on the part of the moral indignation brigade.[1]

Read more
 
Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Deficiencies in palliative care
HITS: 4012 | 20-02-2002, 04:03 | Comments: (0) | Categories: Netherlands , PR and human rights, World health

It is often claimed, especially by opponents of euthanasia, that one of the reasons why euthanasia is practiced so widely in the Netherlands is that palliative medicine is underdeveloped there. Palliative medicine is medical treatment whose purpose is to cure symptoms where there is no hope of curing the underlying illness. This was developed, especially in England, after the Second World War.
A leading opponent of euthanasia in the Netherlands is Dr. Karel Gunning. He presides a Dutch and an international organization of anti-euthanasia doctors. He is highly critical of the present arrangements, and says, "The whole law is complete nonsense because doctors know in advance that they cannot be punished. If they fill in the forms wrongly (explaining why they put an end to their patients’ life) they will simply be asked to fill them in again."

Read more
 

Human Rights TV

Loading...

Google

Login




Other sites

News

Human rights group says Egyptian army tortured protesters - Los Angeles Times
Al-Arabiya Human rights group says Egyptian army tortured protesters Los Angeles Times CAIRO -- Human Rights Watch has accused the Egyptian military of beating and torturing protesters detained ...

UN Human Rights Chief Jets in - AllAfrica.com
BBC News UN Human Rights Chief Jets in AllAfrica.com By Obert Chifamba, 21 May 2012 Harare — UNITED Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Ms Navanethem Pillay arrived in Zimbabwe yesterday for a ...

Chinese human rights activist Chen arrives in US - CNN
Bloomberg Chinese human rights activist Chen arrives in US CNN Chinese human rights activist Chen Guangcheng arrived Saturday evening in the United States, bringing an end to a diplomatic firestorm ...



COUNTRIES


Albania

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Belarus

Bosnia Hercegovina

Bulgaria

Croatia

Czech Republic

France

Georgia

Great Britain

Hungary

Italy

Latvia

Macedonia

Moldova

Montenegro

Netherlands

Poland

Serbia

Slovakia

Ukraine

Uzbekistan

Yugoslavia

Cyprus

Estonia

Germany

Ireland

Romania

Russia

Sweden

United States

Lithuania

EU