You are on page 1of 3

Double Standard

Defintion#1a set of principles that allows greater freedom to one person or group than to another Definition#2 Economics . bimetallism.

Fair trade versus free trade labour standards versus double standards
The premise behind the argument for more free trade is that free trade is the best way of achieving economic development and so, ultimately, higher living standards. But history has shown that more free trade has not brought prosperity for all. It is in their arguments against fair trade that the double standards of free-traders are most clearly exposed. Many of the arguments free-traders use against linking labour standards to trade under the banner of fair trade revolve around claims that workers in developing countries are just so happy to have any sort of job at all, they really have no desire for improved rights. They argue that inclusion of core labour standards in trade agreements will end up hurting the very people they are supposed to help. Double standard can been seen most clearly in countries like Malaysia, where workers in the electronics export sector are denied the opportunity of joining trade unions; Mexico, where the systematic failure of the state to apply the law in the maquiladora free trade zones deprives over a million, mainly young women workers of basic rights; Turkey, where free trade zone workers are denied the right to strike; Lesotho, where workers in export estates producing goods like textiles and garments face violation of basic working conditions, police violence and shootings; and Egypt, where child labour is extensively employed in export sectors like commercial agriculture, textiles, leather and carpet-making. There are a myriad other examples from export sectors around the world which have been extensively documented by the ILO and the international labour movement.

A case of double standards

Its not only the West, but also Muslims who have double standards, Pakistanis and Arabs more so than others. While the West keeps mum over Israels excesses against Palestinians, its Nato ally Turkeys suppression of Kurds, Indias policy towards Kashmiris, Bahrains and Saudi Arabias oppression of their Shia citizens, Western leaders cry from the rooftops for the rights of Syrian, Chinese, Iranian and North Korean people living under a tyranny.

And now about us and our double standards. We want our madressahs and hijabs and missionaries preaching in the UK, which readily obliges because it respects your right to practise your faith (France and even Turkey will not allow half as much freedom to their Muslim populations), but here in Pakistan we wont have the Ahmadis call themselves Muslim even though they recite the same kalema and pray the same prayer; we wont allow Christian missionaries either. Double standards abound. In the UAE Muslims can drink alcohol in a bar, but taking liquor is a punishable offence for them; in Qatar, it is your nationality, and not your faith, that decides whether you can legally consume alcohol: a Muslim from UAE, Turkey, Indonesia or India can, but a Muslim from Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia or Iran cannot.

China Lashes Out At US "Hypocrisy", Blasts US Human Rights "Double Standard" In Pursuing "World Hegemony"
In what can only be described as a stunning deterioration in foreign relations between the world's two superpowers, US State Department of the annual report on human rights, which expressed sharp criticism of the human rights records of China, North Korea, Cuba and Belarus, among others, China decided it has had enough. Less than 48 hours later, it has lashed back at the US with a report that is making headlines at every government controlled, and otherwise, media in mainland China, which makes a mockery of the US double standard when it comes to human rights, and exposes US "hypocrisy" which China (rightly many would claim) asserts is merely a pretext for continued US attempts at world "hegemony". "The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2010 was released by the Information Office of China's State Council, or cabinet, in response to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2010 issued by the U.S. Department of State on April. The U.S. reports are "full of distortions and accusations of the human rights situation in more than 190 countries and regions including China. However, the United States turned a blind eye to its own terrible human rights situation and seldom mentioned it,"." The war of words hits a new all time record: "The United States has taken human rights as "a political instrument to defame other nations' image and seek its own strategic interests," the report said. While illustrating a dismal record of the United States on its own human rights, China's report said the United States could not be justified to pose as the world's "human rights justice." "However, it released the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices year after year to accuse and blame other countries for their human rights practices," the report said. These moves fully expose the United States' hypocrisy by exercising double standards on human rights and its malicious design to pursue hegemony under the pretext of human rights, it said. The report advised the U.S. government to "take concrete actions to improve its own human rights conditions, check and rectify its acts in the human rights field, and stop the hegemonistic deeds of using human rights issues to interfere in other countries' internal affairs." While that last sentence may not be an explicit warning for the US to shut the hell up and focus on its own dirty laundry, or else, it sure does sound like one.

The Global Double Standard on Human Rights

When we talk about rights for the rich, we have this glorious language that were all very familiar with, that we all practically know by heart. We talk about unalienable rights, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The whole purpose of government is to secure these rights. Were very passionate and clear about these rights for ourselves, meaning us: rich people in the West. And what happens when we try to talk about rights for poor people? There was a report done on governance by the World Bank and the language is not quite as inspiring as all men are created equal. Its more like careful development of detailed results framework, consideration of budgeting and staffing implementations, further consultations with stakeholders. Thats about as close as youre going to get to any suggestions of consulting anybody. In development documents, this is the kind of language you use when you want to very skillfully say absolutely nothing. So youre writing a report on governance and individual rights, but you dont want to talk about human rights, so you find a very elaborate set of buzzwords that mean absolutely nothing.