Please Help New English Review
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Search by author:

by Title:

by Keyword or ISBN:

Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
by Ibn Warraq
The New Vichy Syndrome:
by Theodore Dalrymple
Jihad and Genocide
by Richard L. Rubenstein
Second Opinion
by Theodore Dalrymple
The New English Review Symposium 2009 Booklet - Understanding the Jihad in Israel, Europe and America
Geert Wilders: Why I Am In America Fighting For Free Speech
Not With a Bang But a Whimper: The Politics and Culture of Decline
by Theodore Dalrymple
In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas
by Theodore Dalrymple
Defending The West:
by Ibn Warraq
Nations, Language and Citizenship:
by Norman Berdichevsky
Romancing Opiates
by Theodore Dalrymple
Which Koran?
by Ibn Warraq
Our Culture, What's Left of It
by Theodore Dalrymple
What The Koran Really Says
by Ibn Warraq
Life at the Bottom
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Origins of the Koran
by Ibn Warraq
Why I Am Not Muslim
by Ibn Warraq
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky
Leaving Islam
Edited by Ibn Warraq
The Danish-German Border Dispute, 1815-2001: Aspects of Cultural and Demographic Politics
by Norman Berdichevsky
Thursday, 10 March 2011
Verdict on “Anti-Muslim Riot” Exposes Human Rights Bias

When I tell people I do human rights work, they immediately assume I am some sort of leftist.  (Now, if people also know that I have a Ph.D. from an Ivy League University, live in Chicago, am a vegetarian, and am also Jewish; it seems impossible for me to be anything else.) Their assumption is wrong, however, as I like to characterize my work as “human rights from the right.” The assumption exists, however, because the left claims a monopoly on human rights work, has appropriated its language for its dubious purposes, considers conservatives—the way our First Lady described the US—as “downright mean”; and the media and other opinion makers promote those assumptions.  The self-styled human rights standard bearers—Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN Human Rights Commission—act on the belief that the United States is the “evil empire” and that Israel’s sole raison d’être is to oppress Muslims. The human rights deception is not only false but destructive as well because it recognizes collective rights when asserting individual rights is the way to oppose oppression and pull out of abject poverty. It also self-servingly defines human rights activism in terms of handouts (read: redistribution) and anti-US, anti-Israel screeds. A verdict last month in an Indian courtroom on one of the left’s and Islam’s biggest human rights shibboleths, however, exposed this deception.

In 2002, Hindus in the Indian state of Gujarat attacked local Muslim communities, resulting in death and destruction. Now, to be clear and before people cry that my piece justifies the collective attacks, there can be no justification for deliberately targeting innocents, regardless of people’s anger or the events that sparked it. I will leave that sort of dubious morality to those who ignore Arab attacks on innocent Israelis in Sderot and elsewhere. What is also not justified, however, is the way the “usual suspects” have defined the actions as “Hindu extremism” and used it to throw rocks at every effort from the Indian Right. Their definition has now become “common knowledge” and another bit of evidence that seems to support the Muslim community’s attempt to paint itself as an international victim. The aforementioned verdict exposes that lie.

Gujarat, however, was not an anti-Muslim event, so much as it was an inter-communal event with blame enough for both Hindu and Muslim communities. In the left’s rants about the riots, it conveniently forgets to highlight the grisly event that sparked them: the crime of arson on a train of Hindus returning from a religious pilgrimage that also caused death and destruction. On February 21, 2011, an Indian court ruled that the arson was deliberate and the work of Muslim community leaders. Demonstrating that the court was not biased, it actually acquitted two-thirds of the defendants, convicting 31, ten of whom received a death sentence. Moreover, while it took nine years for India to admit that the inter-communal violence was the result of a planned event by Muslim leaders, while it long ago arrested others for their part in the riots that followed—including a Member of Parliament and other prominent individuals. But it did not stop the left from demonizing Hindus and the Indian Right.

What’s the point?  After almost a decade of biased reporting, no verdict will remove from the public minds the false claim that Gujarat is evidence that Muslims do not enjoy equal rights in India; another screed that demonizes the Indian Right as deadly and bigoted. Just as Muslims, the left, and the uniformed still believe that Israelis killed Muhammad al-Dura and in the phantom Jenin massacre; even though both accusations have long ago been proven false.

Call them co-conspirators or simply useful idiots, but through its blind adherence to ideology over people, those elements in the international human rights industry that are wedded to leftist ideology and the petrodollars that fund them have become an indispensible cog in the wheel of international jihad—instead of representing the best in all of us.

Posted on 03/10/2011 7:54 AM by Richard L. Benkin
No comments yet.
Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:
The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

RSS Site Feed
RSS Feed