What do we mean by non-agenda driven human rights? Not all that long ago, we went to Amnesty International's web site and looked for articles on the "war on terror." They had six, five were about Guantanamo. The lead story on the web site was AI's outrage over Shi'ites being treated as "second class citizens" in Saudi Arabia. The outrage seemed misplaced considering we had just seen evidence of anti-Hindu atrocities in Bangladesh; the focus on Guantanamo seemed way out of line with no one being blown up or having their heads cut off there; and there were certainly an ample supply of accusations (largely unsubstantiated) against Israel with no parallel material about the deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians. "Agenda-driven human rights." Such a misguided use of the millions in grants and small donations by concerned individuals. Such a willful ignorance of real human rights abuses in order to serve ideology first. "Agenda-driven human rights." Political agenda first, human rights a distant second.
Agenda-driven human rights assumes Israel is wrong and that nothing more than occasional grudging and qualified culpability is assigned to its genocidal foes. Agenda driven human right assumes that people with only one ideology or set of positions can bring about justice. Agenda-driven human rights stands shoulder to shoulder with the human rights violators and sees the United States as the Great Satan. In the decades since radical Islam has become the scourge of humanity, agenda-driven human rights has spent most of the time justifying it.
Forcefield is non-agenda driven, in that we reject those assumptions; we believe that those assumptions have prevented human rights victims from getting relief and they have strengthened and encouraged the victimizers. Forcefield is most emphatically not anti-Israel; in fact, we are concerned about the growing justification among many for disregarding its human rights. We are most emphatically not anti-US and, unlike Amnesty International, believe that Guantanmo and Abu Ghraib were reactions to much worse and much more deadly actions in the current war, and not the worst things about it. For us, political correctness and what passes for human rights these days has nothing to do with what we will take on. But the severity of the violations and the lack of defenders will go far in determining where we choose to make our stand.
Finally, our non-agenda human rights organization outright rejects anyone that calls (either directly or incrementally and de facto) for the destruction of Israel, India, or the United States as free and independent nations.
Human rights freed from its far leftist bias; human rights freed from its knee-jerk anti-Israel bias; human rights freed from its penchant to locate the cause of these problems in the United States.
to learn how you can write articles for Forcefield