Do you have any understanding of human rights law at all, or what exactly warrants sanctions against a nation for violating human rights?
I have a decent understanding of this subject matter- decent i say, because i am not familiar with the exact legalese.
Let me state absolutely categorically - there are almost NO nations AT ALL who have not violated human rights in some way or another in some fashion or another since the establishment of the various treaties by which we judge basic standards of human rights.
Agreed. Which makes 'barring a nation' absurdly hypocritical unless you are talking on a far more efficient and damaging programs like apartheid.
I did a research piece on Australian breaches of human rights agreements recently, and there are plenty which would seem incredibly insignificant on the global scale, but did happen. For example, there was an official challenge at the federal level on the grounds of a human rights agreement breach because in Tasmania sodomy was still illegal, which was seen (correctly, imo) to violate the implied right to privacy and freedom of reasonable behaviour enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for a gay man living in that state.
This is under the assumption that human rights violations happen only in internal matters and not external.
. Which do you think is a more direct and unquestionable violation of human rights agreements, invading Iraq and thereby going against international opinion and engaging in a war which may potentially be decided by an international court without power to be illegal, or refusing to ban honor killings, a practice SPECIFICALLY prohibited in MANY human rights agreements, including the big one - the UDoHR? Which nation, in your rational, reasonable, unnationalistic mind would be more deserving of a ban from test cricket?
Both are pretty much guilty. Its 'to-MAY-toes/to-MAH-toes' to me.
Irrespective of whether the international court of law have some actual power or not, the question of justice and fairplay must never be tied to the power equation. Hence judiciary(at least in theory) MUST be indepedent of the executive branch of the government.
There are quiete a few human rights attrocities that have happened in Iraq...the catalouge is volumnous.
Since many have died in a systematic, pre-planned template without any reasoning to fairness or in agreement of international LAW ( btw- the war in iraq is in violation to international LAW- not just a matter of difference in opinion between several nations), it is no different to honor-killings or systematic targetting of mugabe's regimen.
People are people- its irrelevant whether you target your own citizens or go butcher people on the other corner of the globe.
In answering this question why not ask why the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and various other impartial, non anglo-australian biased groups of significance have also singled out Zimbabwe? Could it be that in Australia and England, people's homes are not being bulldozed without reason? That the elections are not rigged? Those who speak out against the government are not exiled from the country, threatened with violence or death or even kicked off the cricket team? Any of the OTHER things which these groups have pointed out?
The same Amnesty International, Human Rights Wtch and various other impartial 'non anglo-australian' groups highlight the human rights disaster in Iraq.
They have certainly not singled out Zimbabwe while sitting mum on Iraq as you seem to imply.
Why was it apartheid South Africa was banned from test cricket, while Australia where aboriginals were marginalised in society was not? Could it be a question of an absolutely monsterous difference in scale and severity, perhaps? The same as this, perhaps?
Scale is different, severity, atleast until recently, was not.
Why did Australia escape international sanctions ? because of several geo-political reasons and a much more descrete operatoin from the establishment.
The end results ( apart from a difference in scale) were pretty much the same- but then again, scale is dependent on base population and the aborigines never numbered as many folks as colored folks in RSA.
but to suggest that the ban of Zimbabwe would equate to a necessary ban for Australia and England from international cricket has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have EVER heard on this forum. It is just despicably arrogant and ignorant of the relevant facts, and does a great disservice and insult not only to the people of those countries you single out for criticism, but also those have suffered under Mugabe in Zimbabwe for you to so belittle their plight.
ironically, the guy who works in the nearby safeway is a zimabwean refugee and he shares the EXACT SAME train of thought as i do- that it is hypocritical to single out Mugabe while not singling out the 'allied' nations in Iraq, who, if anything, have perpetrated human rights violations in the same scale (if not higher) than Mugabe has.
Dont get me wrong- i am not advocating Mugabe to be set scot free.
I would want the whip cracked hard on Mugabe- but so too on the 'allied nations' in Iraq.
At the end of the day, what the bottomline is, is this: Mugabe is committing human rights disaster against his own people, while the allied nations are committing human rights disasters against the Iraqi people. As i said,to-MAY-toes, to-MAH-toes.
Same shyte.