According to the link, this map was derived from information provided by Amnesty International. As it’s comes via France, perhaps not many people in the English speaking world would notice it.
(Note: I couldn’t find an English version of the article).
The USA top scores with six out of a possible fifteen symbols on the Amnesty International map (my occasional translations, where partly needed).
• Tortures, crimes violents; (torture, violent crime)
• Exécutions extrajudiciaires; (Extra judicial executions)
• Peine de Mort; (Death penalty).
• Exécutions;
• Discrimination et violences contre les femmes; (Discrimination and violence towards women).
• Détentions arbitraires.
The next highest scoring countries are Israel, Angola, North Korea and Nepal with four symbols each.
The other 50 countries from all continents get between one and three symbols.
Zimbabwe gets one symbol against its name (abuse by security forces).
I’m inclined to think many Dopers would be strong supporters of Amnesty International, but would the propagation of this kind of information be sufficient to damage or destroy the credibility of Amnesty International?
First of all, unless I misunderstand, Amnesty is not saying that the US is the worst human rights offender in the world, but that the US has violated human rights in the most different ways of all countries in the world.
Second of all, it seems to me that the sensible reaction to something like this is “is it true and if so what the hell do we do about it?”, not “will this damage Amnesty’s credibility”?.
Interesting report! Strange to mix in human rights violations with crimes of civilians (crimes of violence toward women, violent crime).
“O wad the power the Giftee gee us to see ourseles as ithers see us.” – Robert Burns
A quick review at the fifty or so countries on the map provided indicate that many more than the USA deserved a score of six (or more).
Based on that assessment, I question both the motives and integrity of the AI people who decided what countries get what symbols.
If they are simply dishonest propagandists, as the distribution of symbols on this map would indicate, then they, and the organisation with which they are associated, do not deserve to be taken seriously.
The sensible reaction to this is to examine the data. If the data can be safely judged to be untrustworthy, then the rational response would be to reject both the findings and to mistrust the organisation responsible for propagating said data.
You can argue that neglecting to protect a right is just as bad as violating it yourself. Perhaps that view is more natural from the perspective of more “positive” human rights that is more common in some European countries.
There’s not a week that goes by without British news reporting arbitrary detention of journalists/opposition politicians, torture, mass evictions (“operation clean out the trash”) etc.
What did AI hope to achieve by publishing this list?
I’m sorry, but yes you are. It is your contention that AI is dishonestly or deceptively omitting symobols from certain other countries on the map. You seem to expect us to accpt your assertion without support. That’s not going to happen.
What symbols were omitted from Zimbabwe?
I don’t think you understand the scoring system.
For what? Please itemize exactly what symbols were wrongly omitted.
List them.
It’s obvious that you don’t understand the scoring system. In the future you should make an effort to understand the subject matter before you write an OP.
Was this map actually drawn up by Amnesty international or did a French website use AI as a source of some sort for a map they drew up themselves? Can any other French readers help us out?
Because if AI didn’t draw this map then the entire OP is disingenuous and deceptive.
Thanks for the itemization. That’s all I was asking for. It appears that this website may indeed be somewhat less than honest.
However, since it apparently has nothing to do with Amnesty International it’s all a moot point, isn’t? What we may have a established is that there is an anti-American idealogue in France. Have you heard about the Lindbergh baby?
The site in question titles the chart with “the world chart of violations of human rights according to Amnesty International and Reuters”. The site then claims in the opening paragraph that Reuters produced the chart for a free newspaper.
So it is Reuters who produced the biased chart, not AI.
I doubt that Reuters produced it (as it is now) either. I have a feeling the owner of the website tampered with it. I wouldn’t mind seeing a link to the original chart.
In any case, we’ve established that Amnesty International had nothing to do with it.