When they support one that matching to their mind set-up or ideology, they might overlook the right of other one.... E.g. violent protester vrs. police.
Human rights defenders should have a very special place in their communities. They defend the human rights of the most valuable being by revealing their freedom and even their lives. They say they don't show anything to the eyes of unresponsive, unconcerned and probably cowardly masses of people. A peaceful atmosphere should not be expected in the encounters of those who try to show important human rights problems and those who cause these problems (probably the police). Of course, there will be tension when those who want to maintain the so-called stable order and those who want to show the problems in this order. And they can express themselves and their ideas through media news from their tensions. In this way, human rights problems spread to the public sphere, but because they are spread from a tense environment, negative thoughts about activists can arise. However, their level of education and social sensitivity are far above their societies and I think they are indispensable for a democratic society.
Yes they are very biased. This is prevalent even in the criminal justice system. Political affiliations also play a factor in these biases.
since Human rights are a tool in Politician hands; YES, most of activists are biased.
Yes they are. All activists are biased towards the causes they are actively trying to support.
No they are not biased. It is the response/reaction/resistance that they get from the opposing side that triggers them into a state that is/may be seen as being biased. Action and reaction is opposite and equal and so the reaction/response of the Human Rights Activist is normally equal and opposite to the situation at hand. Extinguish/annihilate the human rights issue and there will be no reaction whatsoever from any Activist
The science of rights:
https://www.academia.edu/37021128/Scientific_Proof_of_Our_Unalienable_Rights
Are Human Rights Activists Biased? This is a very interesting question. The simplistic answer is YES THEY ARE BIASED IN FAVOUR OF HUMAN RIGHTS. This may confuse the reader because bias may be interpreted in a negative sense, but I wish to employ it here in a positive manner. I do not dispute the fact that as human beings they human rights activists may have political or ideological bias but this does not mean that they are actuated by this bias to act/speak out in a manner detrimental to the state or organisation that is alleged to have violated human rights. Since these human rights activists are pointing out the ills of a state or organisation viz a viz human rights observance they are viewed as opponents, when in fact they are acting in the interest of the victim or the underdog. Thanks, George W.K.L.Kasozi, Associate Dean Faculty of Law Uganda Christian University, and also Academic and Management Consultant Faculty of Law, Bishop Stuart University, Kakoba Mbarara, Uganda.
In all honesty they definitely are biased even if they might not necessarily know it. Typically when addressing issues to do with Human Rights there is definitely a violation that necessitates these activists to even advocate for Human Rights. Keeping in mind, that there is the good guy and the bad guy. This is because the only reason for the existence of activist groups is because there has been a violation with that notion they will definitely be biased towards those violating it.
As long as any rights movement is apolitical and devoid of any ideology with a specific cause and outcome in mind objectively, then they are not biased. But all of us are aware of that this ideal context is impossible and bias is bound to emerge and it becomes dangerous when it turns selective.
I reckon that the first question we need to ask is whether we consider human rights to be inalienable, infrangible etc. If yes, then human rights activists simply demand what any person is due. Therefore, I would be careful with using the word "bias" in this context. The only situation in which I could think of a certain type of bias is when not all of human rights activits' expectations are met and they (as many other activists) fail to appreciate a gesture, however small it would be, made by the other side (authorities, different institutions).
In this context, specifically, The international non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) has been the subject of criticism from a number of observers. Critics of HRW include the national governments it has investigated, NGO Monitor, the media, and its founder (and former chairman), Robert L. Bernstein.
The criticism generally falls into the category of alleged bias, frequently in response to critical HRW reports. Bias allegations include the organization's being influenced by United States government policy, particularly in relation to reporting on Latin America, and the misrepresentation of human-rights issues in Eritrea and Ethiopia. Accusations in relation to the Arab–Israeli conflict include claims that HRW is biased either against Israel, or pro-Israel. HRW has publicly responded to criticism of its reporting on Latin America and the Arab–Israeli conflict.
https://www.rappler.com › world › regions › asia-pacific › 198824-singap
https://www.ngo-monitor.org › reports
No deberían serlo, pero estadística nos dice que como humanos se politizan y generalmente la denominada izquierda ha cooptado los organismos e instituciones de derechos humanos, inclusive algunos delinquen bajo esa sombrilla.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Cognitive Science
- Mind