You are on page 1of 2

Date: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 Human Rights Violations Three cases going through international courts serve

as perfect examples of the fluid defining line of human rights' violations. If you were to ask anyone near you what they thought such violations were, they might answer rape, torture, false imprisonment and other horrible crimes against one of more people. And those definitions are what the world courts are grappling with. Lets take the example of Germanys laws concerning sex offenders (including pedophiles): In order to reduce their sentence and, according to the offenders to ensure they no longer have any urge to offend, Germany gives offenders the option of castration. And indeed, of the 104 surgically altered between 1970 and 1980 only 3% have reoffended. The problem is, are they being coerced with the dangling carrot of reduced sentencing? Are they being pressured to become normal by going under the knife? And what about women offenders? Do they have equal access to surgical remedies? The same dilemma is facing the courts in Czechoslovakia with the added perspective that the exCommunist regime could and did mandate castration if the judge thought it best for society. This enforced castration does not sit well with Czechoslovakias new status as a member of the European Union. Old cases are being dusted off, new cases are being appealed. The Council of Europe is investigating. This is not a small matter. Fall foul of the Council and your whole membership could be downgraded. Meanwhile, in Germany, a country never to do things by half, they are faced with opposition by a long-winded but capable organization called the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). CPT is hot on the case and is referring it to the World Court in The Hague. Their argument is that: The physical effects are irreversible and may have serious physical and mental consequences; Surgical castration does not conform to recognized international standards and is not mentioned in guidelines drawn up by the International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders (IATSO); There is no guarantee of a lasting reduction in the sex offender's testosterone level; and It is "questionable" whether consent to surgical castration "will always be truly free and informed." They may be right, meanwhile offenders who would like to return to some semblance of normal life are having an option taken away from them. And recently the Council of Europe also sanctioned Germany over this castration policy.

And that takes us to Guantanamo. During the conflict in Afghanistan, several very young boys were captured (rescued really) from enemy sex-dens and returned to their parents who promptly sold them (forced to sell them) to Taliban pedophiles again. Thats the culture. The Marines didnt like that, so next time they captured these boys they wanted to keep them safe. Where to put them? What holding facilities do they have for kids? None. So they sent them to keep them safe to Gitmo. And in Gitmo the pedophile prisoners went at the boys again. So they build a separate block (tents and such) for the boys. And then the international do-gooders (and I do not use that term pejoratively) got involved, insisting that it was a human right violation to keep children prisoners of war. Which it is. And the boys were sent back home... you guessed it, the outcome was not pleasant. So just where is the defining line of Human Rights in all of this? When do Human Rights rules etched in stone begin to promote more evil and immoral consequences? In the end, our government and those in Europe need to reign in their habit of hiding morality behind the cloak of rules and law. The law is sometimes an ass at least until the public demands it to be changed.