Prior to, during, and after the APEC 2007 protests in Sydney, a group calling themselves Human Rights Monitors captured some media attention.
When they heard about us, they were initially quick and keen to talk to us. That was, until they discovered that we, unlike them, were going to monitor violence on both sides i.e. police violence and demonstrator violence. Then they dropped us like a hot potato.
It appears that the Human Rights Monitors think all protester violence is always justified and not a human rights issue. In other words, protesters have human rights, but citizens, business owners, police, etc, don't have any human rights. The latter are apparently considered subhuman and therefore "fair game".
We wanted to get into an email debate with this group about this issue, but to date their spokesperson has not responded with any substantive arguments, except to point out that he thought our ethics were "interesting".
To be fair, we think Human Rights Monitors provided important legal support to the protesters and we applaud the group for this.
Our problem is that we think their name is misleading people into assuming that they give a damn for the human rights of victims of protester violence. It is this partisan approach to "justice" which we find disconcerting.
Should they read this and wish to reply, I will publish their reply as an "update" to this article.
Nonviolence, as a strategy, is the most powerful and effective way to bring about social change on a large scale. Our aim is to promote nonviolence as the core value influencing the way people and organisations deliver their political message. We need you, individually and collectively, to help us achieve our aim.
About Nonviolence
Contact Us
email
We welcome and value your input.
