A Different Definition of Human Rights

In so lovable a world that even animals enjoy their own rights to be protected against man’s savagery, why should not terrorists have their own protectors to defend them against threats that might be of any harm to them? There are those who believe that the only way to achieve their goals is through theA Different Definition of Human Rights force of violence and perishing other fellow human beings. We may call them terrorists. But there are others who believe that it is an idea for itself and they are also human beings that deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of having shown no respect for others’ rights and the life of their victims.
The advocates of the terrorists reason that according to the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights they are human beings and thus, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” and that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”. But, do they deserve to be dealt according to the same rights and rules that non-terrorists do?
There come situations when the same terrorists whose atrocities have stained the history of a nation adopt a new tactic to pose as non-terrorist and pro-democratic, believing that the new generations have totally forgotten what they have done in the past. Or find an opportunity to be cared by some who, for political interests, forget their globally chanted slogans of “combating terrorism” and pretend to be concerned about the spread of violence against their own nations. For them, the enemies of their enemy, even if they themselves would already call them terrorists and hold in leash to curb their threat, are not terrorists with no conscience and spirit of humanity; suddenly they turn to be human beings whose rights have been disregarded and they consider it a responsibility to take a valiant effort to defend them.
The EU’s decision to remove, if the EU foreign ministers reach the conclusion, the terrorist cult of Mojahedin Khalq from its terrorist blacklist will not change the group’s terrorist nature at all. The Iranian history has countless instances of bloody chapters depicted by brutal atrocities of Mojahedin Khalq terrorists, not speaking of their evil conspiracies against Iraqi people when they came to collaborate with the ousted dictator.
The EU foreign ministers are to meet on Monday in a bid to make the final decision on the group’s status and possibly take the group off the 27-nation bloc’s list of terrorist organizations. It happens just at a time when the group is reported by the Iraqi government to have plotted suicide attack against the Iraqi security forces protecting the group’s main resident camp, Camp Ashraf.
I do believe that majority of those members held in Camp Ashraf are no more part of the terrorist group since they are held against their will and are ready to leave if the opportunity is granted. They are also victims of a terrorist ideology that the leaders never consent to change. For sure, even if the EU wins the consensus to take the group out of the terrorist list, they can never change the ideology upon which the group is founded. They have to explain for the public opinion that how is that some of their allies sent forces to Iraq to confront terrorism but discuss to exonerate a terrorist group settled there of the charges for which the Iraqi government is determined to expel them. Whose rights are really being violated; the victims or the victimizers? Who knows, maybe they have developed a different version of defining human rights!

 

Service

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button