Tuesday, 27 March 2012

Sexual offences in the United Kingdom


According to a news report on BBC One presented in 12 November 2007, there were 85,000 women raped in the UK in the previous year, equating to about 230 cases every day.

The 2006-07 British Crime Survey reports that 1 in every 200 women suffered from rape in that period.

It also showed that only 800 people were convicted of rape crimes that same year, meaning that less than 1 in every 100 rape survivors were able to convict their attacker.

According to a study in 2009 by the NSPCC on young people aged between 13-18, a third of girls and 16% of boys have experienced sexual violence and that as many as 250,000 teenage girls are suffering from abuse at any one time. 12% of boys and 3% of girls reported committing sexual violence against their partners.

Rape in Sweden


Sweden has the highest incidence of reported rapes in Europe and one of the highest in the world. According to a 2009 study, there were 46 incidents of rape per 100,000 residents. This figure is twice that of the UK which reports 23 cases, and four times that of the other Nordic countries, Germany and France. The figure is up to 20 times the figure for certain countries in southern and eastern Europe.

The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention claims that it is not "possible to evaluate and compare the actual levels of violent crimes... between countries", but that in any case the high numbers are explained by a broader legal definiton of rape than in other countries, and an effort to register all suspected and repeated rapes. It asserts that comparisons based on victim surveys place Sweden at an average level among European nations

Rape in the United States


According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 191,670 victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005.

1 of 6 U.S. women and 1 of 33 U.S. men have experienced an attempted or completed rape. (according to Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault)

The U.S. Department of Justice compiles statistics on crime by race, but only between and among people categorized as black or white. The statistics for whites include hispanic and non hispanic whites combined. There were 194,270 white and 17,920 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2006.

However, the report does give a note that for the instances of white-on-black rape the statistic is based on 10 or fewer sample cases.

According to the RAINN about 3.3% of rapes in the US are black-on-white and 3.4% are white-on-black. Some types of rape are excluded from official reports altogether; the FBI's definition for example excludes all rapes except forcible rapes of females, a significant number of rapes go unreported even when they are included as reportable rapes, and a significant number of rapes reported to the police do not advance to prosecution.

U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1999) estimated that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, with 99% of the offenders being male.

Denov (2004) states that societal responses to the issue of female perpetrators of sexual assault "point to a widespread denial of women as potential sexual aggressors that could work to obscure the true dimensions of the problem."

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the adjusted per-capita victimization rate of rape has declined from about 2.4 per 1000 people (age 12 and above) in 1980 to about 0.4 per 1000 people, a decline of about 85%. But other government surveys, such as the Sexual Victimization of College Women study, critique the NCVS on the basis it includes only those acts perceived as crimes by the victim, and report a higher victimization rate.

From 2000–2005, 59% of rapes were not reported to law enforcement. One factor relating to this is the misconception that most rapes are committed by strangers. In reality, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 38% of victims were raped by a friend or acquaintance, 28% by "an intimate" and 7% by another relative, and 26% were committed by a stranger to the victim. About four out of ten sexual assaults take place at the victim's own home.

Drug use, especially alcohol, is frequently involved in rape. In 47% of rapes, both the victim and the perpetrator had been drinking. In 17%, only the perpetrator had been. 7% of the time, only the victim had been drinking. Rapes where neither the victim nor the perpetrator had been drinking were 29% of all rapes.

Contrary to widespread belief, rape outdoors is rare. Over two thirds of all rapes occur in someone's home. 30.9% occur in the perpetrators' homes, 26.6% in the victims' homes and 10.1% in homes shared by the victim and perpetrator. 7.2% occur at parties, 7.2% in vehicles, 3.6% outdoors and 2.2% in bars.

According to a statistical average over the past 5 years, about 60% of all rapes or sexual assaults in the United States are never reported to the authorities.

Despite a decline of 60% since 1993, the US still has a relatively high rate of rape when compared to other developed countries. For more information, see the statistics subsection of the article Rape in the United States.

Friday, 16 March 2012

UN asks Israel to free Palestinian woman

UNITED NATIONS: A United Nations human rights expert on Wednesday urged Israel to release Hana Shalabi, a Palestinian woman prisoner, who has been on a hunger strike for nearly a month.

“The situation of Ms Shalabi is morbid and life-threatening,” said Richard Falk, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories. “This is an appeal to the conscience and to humanity and a desperate call to all of us.”

Mr Falk urged the international community to intervene on her behalf.

“Israel ought to end its inhumane treatment of Ms Shalabi. Release her immediately.”

Criticism of Human Rights Watch

The international non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) has been accused by critics of being influenced by United States government policy, in particular in relation to reporting on Latin America; ignoring anti-Semitism in Europe or being anti-Semitic; biases in relation to the Arab–Israeli conflict; and unfair and biased reporting of human rights issues in Eritrea and Ethiopia. Accusations in relation to the Arab–Israeli conflict include claims that HRW is biased against Israel and that requesting or accepting donations from Saudi Arabian citizens causes it to be biased; it has also been accused of unbalanced reporting against Hezbollah in Lebanon and against Palestinian militant groups.

HRW has publicly responded to criticisms relating to its reporting on Latin America and in the context of the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Poor research and inaccuracy

The Rupert Murdoch owner of The Times, accuses HRW of a lack of sufficient expertise to report on warfare because the organization has never hired any former members of any military or any person with expertise in warfare with the sole exception of Marc Garlasco. The Times accuses HRW of overriding its own researcher who wished to rescind a factually inaccurate report accusing Israel of responsibility for the Gaza beach explosion (2006).

HRW has been accused of bias in gathering evidence because it is said to be "credulous of civilian witnesses in places like Gaza and Afghanistan" but "sceptical of anyone in a uniform." Robert Bernstein, founder of HRW, now accuses the organization of poor research methods, for relying on "witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers."

According to The Times, HRW "does not always practice the transparency, tolerance and accountability it urges on others."

The pro-Israel research institute NGO Monitor has accused HRW of "faulty methodology", "misrepresenting international law", and "promoting the BDS agenda". In addition, in 2012, New Europe wrote that HRW "allegedly erased references in its reports to its previous cooperation with the Gaddafi regime, including organisation's MENA Director Sarah Leah Whitson's role in marketing Saif al-Islam Gaddafi as a reformer

Selection bias

The Times accuses HRW of "imbalance" since it ignores many human rights abusing regimes while covering other zones of conflict "intensely", notably Israel. It issued 5 lengthy reports on Israel in one 14 month period, whereas in 20 years it has issued only 4 reports on the conflict in Kashmir, despite the fact that there have been 80,000 conflict-related deaths in Kashmir and the fact that "torture and extrajudicial murder have taken place on a vast scale." It issued no report on post-election violence and repression in Iran. One source told The Times, "Iran is just not a bad guy that they are interested in highlighting. Their hearts are not in it. Let’s face it, the thing that really excites them is Israel.” The Times also accuses HRW of failing to report on human rights abuses of Arabs when "perpetrators are fellow Arabs."

Ideological bias

HRW founder Robert Bernstein now accuses HRW of allowing repressive regimes to play a "moral equivalence game" by failing to distinguish the evidence available from open and closed societies, and of failing to recognize the "difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally."

The Times accuses HRW of filling its staff with former radical political activists including Joe Stork and Sarah Leah Whitson, writing, "theoretically an organization like HRW would not select as its researchers people who are so evidently on one side."

HRW has been accused of being unwilling or unable to perceive threats posed by radical Islam because their leftist ideology leads them to see criticism of Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda and similar groups as "a dangerous distraction from the real struggle." An example was the 2006 verbal attack on Peter Tatchell, who was accused of racism, Islamophobia and colonialism by HRW staff for criticizing Iranian execution of homosexuals

Fund-raising policies

HRW has been criticized for cooperating with the Saudi government by holding fundraisers in that country, and for not releasing the names of its Saudi donors.

On 7 September 2010, it was announced that George Soros planned to donate 100 million US dollars to Human Rights Watch. Soros's donation was criticized by Gerald Steinberg, the founder of the pro-Israel research organization NGO Monitor

Accusations of bias for or against particular nations

Allegations of bias concerning Latin America

Claims have been made regarding alleged HRW bias with regards to Haiti, Venezuela and Honduras. Robert Naiman, policy director of Just Foreign Policy, has claimed that HRW is "often heavily influenced" by United States government policy.


The 2004 Haiti rebellion was a coup d'etat that removed elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti either voluntarily (according to US authorities) or involuntarily (according to Aristide and supporters) from the Americas on a US plane accompanied by US security personnel on 29 February 2004. Z Communications author Joe Emersberger claimed that HRW had accurately reported on human rights violations in Haiti following an earlier coup against Aristide, in 1991, but that it was inaccurate in reporting the relative numbers of violent deaths before and after the 2004 coup. Emersberger estimated the relative numbers of deaths as about 20–30 per year before the 2004 coup versus 1000 in the first month following the coup. He stated, "HRW's reports were not only inexcusably sparse, but they legitimized the overthrow of Aristide" and that HRW "knew that criminals were being incorporated into the police; yet they were silent about this contributing factor to the abuses that occurred under Aristide."


Human Rights Watch's work in Venezuela became the subject of controversy in late 2008. In September 2008, Venezuela expelled two HRW staff accused of "anti-state activities" Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro said "These groups, dressed up as human rights defenders, are financed by the United States. They are aligned with a policy of attacking countries that are building new economic models." On December 17, 2008 an open letter was sent to the HRW Board of Directors in response to an HRW report, entitled, A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela. 118 scholars from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, México, the United States, the U.K., Venezuela, and other countries publicly criticized HRW for a perceived bias against the government of Venezuela. The open letter criticized the report by stating that it "does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility." The letter also criticized the lead author of the report, Jose Miguel Vivanco, for his "political agenda", and called on Mr. Vivanco to discuss or debate his claims in "any public forum of his choosing". Hugh O'Shaughnessy accused HRW of using false and misleading information, and said the report was "put together with the sort of know-nothing Washington bias..." Kenneth Roth, director of Human Rights Watch responded, claiming the letter misrepresents "both the substance and the source material of the report.". Tom Porteous, Human Rights Watch's London director, replied saying that O'Shaughnessy "...not only fails to provide any evidence for these allegations" but that "...more seriously he misrepresents HRW's positions in his apparent determination to undermine our well earned international reputation for accuracy and impartiality."


On 21 August 2009, 93 academics and authors from the UK, US, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Colombia and other countries published an open letter in which they criticised HRW for HRW's "absence of statements and reports" on human rights violations in Honduras after 8 July 2009, following the coup d'état of 28 June 2009. The authors of the statement said that after 8 July, HRW had not "raised the alarm over the extra-judicial killings, arbitrary detentions, physical assaults, and attacks on the press - many of which have been thoroughly documented - that have occurred in Honduras, in most cases by the coup regime against the supporters of the democratic and constitutional government of Manuel Zelaya." The authors requested HRW to make a strong statement against the human rights violations and to conduct its own investigation into them. The letter signers stated that the Obama administration was supporting the de facto Roberto Micheletti government, by providing "aid money through the Millennium Challenge Account and other sources" and by training Honduran military students at the School of the Americas, and that the Obama administration was ignoring Honduras' human rights situation.

Four days later, HRW published a summary of a preliminary version of a major human rights report in Honduras by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) that had been released by IACHR on 21 August. HRW referred to its earlier reports published up to 8 July, stating "Given the scope of alleged abuses, and the region's history of bloody coups leading to massive violations, human rights advocates believed the situation warranted the direct intervention of the region's most authoritative human rights investigative body, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights." HRW did not state whether or not its summary of the IACHR preliminary report constituted a response to the 93 academics' and authors' appeal

Anti-Israel or pro-Arab-League bias

Aryeh Neier, a founder of Human Rights Watch says that it "is wrong to suggest that open societies should be spared criticism for human rights abuses" Neier also states that Robert L. Bernstein's contention that the difference between "wrongs committed in self-defense and those committed intentionally" is not made by the laws of war. And that It is also a dangerous distinction. On such grounds, groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq that murdered tens of thousands of civilians after the American invasion of 2003 could claim excuses for their crimes.

Anatol Sharansky, argued "here is an organization created by the goodwill of the free world to fight violations of human rights, which has become a tool in the hands of dictatorial regimes to fight against democracies," he said this week. "It is time to call a spade a spade. The real activity of this organization today is a far cry from what it was set up 30 years ago to do: throw light in dark places where there is really no other way to find out what is happening regarding human rights." Kenneth Roth has responded that "Israel accounts for about 15 percent of our published output on the region" and that "our war coverage in the region has documented violations by all sides". Roth argued that "by failing to hold those responsible to account, Israel increases anger and resentment among the Palestinian population and in the wider Arab world, and undercuts moderates who wish to pursue peace." Scott MacLeod of Time Magazine commented that Israel's policies can't be shielded from a group like Human Rights Watch.

HRW has been accused of bias against the state of Israel of issuing one-sided and hostile reports attacking Israel and of having an anti-Israel agenda by general circulation newspapers, the Israeli government and supporters of Israel. Political Science Professor and former consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Gerald M. Steinberg of Bar Ilan University, head of NGO Monitor, a pro-Israel NGO[44] accused HRW of having "a strong anti-Israel bias from the beginning". He claimed their reports were based primarily on "Palestinian eyewitness testimony" — testimony that is "not accurate, objective or credible but serves the political goal of indicting Israel". According to David Bernstein HRW is "maniacally anti-Israel". Mark Regev (spokesman for Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu) has said that "We discovered during the Gaza operation and the Second Lebanon War that these organizations come in with a very strong agenda, and because they claim to have some kind of halo around them, they receive a status that they don't deserve," in reference to HRW's and Amnesty International’s allegations of human rights violations by Israeli forces during those conflicts.

There have been a number of accusations that HRW has either ignored anti-Semitism, or is anti-Semitic itself. Ana Palacio, former Foreign Minister of Spain, in a speech given to the Anti-Defamation League in 2005 said, “NGOs like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International pay little attention to anti-Semitism.” It has also been suggested (by ADL) that criticism of Israel may be motivated by anti-semitism. Abraham Foxman writing in the New York Sun has said "not in an "eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth" fashion which Mr. Roth cited and is a classic anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews".

Sarah Leah Whitson, director of HRW's Middle East and North Africa division, responding to the criticism said "in the case of Israel, where our focus is primarily on the violations of international law and humanitarian law in the occupied Palestinian territories, the fact that government is a democracy is completely irrelevant because the rule in place in the occupied territories is military rule, it is not a democracy". In July 2009, Larry Derfner writing in the Jerusalem Post in response to the criticism of HRW accused Israel's Prime Minister's Office and NGO Monitor of "smearing" human rights organizations. In August 2009, Iain Levine, Program Director for HRW stated "If the Israeli government wants to silence critics, it should fully investigate allegations of wrongdoing and take action to end the abuses."

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, wrote an editorial in The Jerusalem Post in August 2009 that the reports on recent Israeli human rights violations had "given rise to an intense campaign by the Israeli government and some of its uncritical supporters to smear the messengers and change the subject." He went on to write that the "problem is not the messenger carrying news of that misconduct, whether Judge Goldstone or the human rights groups that have been the target of a disinformation campaign launched by the Israeli government and some supporters. The problem is the conduct of the Israeli military."

According to The Times, "most" of the Middle East department staff of Human Rights Watch "have activist backgrounds — it was typical that one newly hired researcher came to HRW from the extremist anti-Israel publication Electronic Intifada — unlikely to reassure anyone who thinks that human-rights organisations should be non-partisan."

Garlasco incident

Marc Garlasco, a senior investigator for HRW, has been criticized for being an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia. Emma Daly confirmed in March 2010 that Garlasco resigned from Human Rights Watch in February 2010, and offered no elaboration. “He has written a book, about Nazi-era medals. In one post he wrote: "That is so cool! The leather SS jacket makes my blood go cold it is so COOL!" Commenting on allegations concerning Garlasco in the media, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's policy director said on September 9, 2009 that Human Rights Watch's employment of "a man who trades and collects Nazi memorabilia" as its senior military expert is a "new low". HRW issued a rebuttal to the allegations which stated that the "accusation is demonstrably false and fits into a campaign to deflect attention from Human Rights Watch's rigorous and detailed reporting on violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by the Israeli government." noting that Garlasco, "has never held or expressed Nazi or anti-Semitic views."

Helena Cobban, a fellow Middle East analyst of the Human Rights Watch Middle East advisory board, noted that Garlasco engaged with "people who clearly do seem to be Nazi sympathizers," something she called "extremely disturbing,"

HRW replies that Garlasco "covered Iraq as a senior intelligence analyst at the Pentagon" The Guardian reports that he served in this role for 7 years. In addition they write that he was chief of high-value targeting during the Iraq war in 2003, was on the Operation Desert Fox (Iraq) Battle Damage Assessment team in 1998, and led a Pentagon Battle Damage Assessment team to Kosovo in 1999. He also participated in over 50 interrogations as a subject matter expert.

In a piece for The National, Alan Philps writes that "the Netanyahu government and its supporters have set out to destroy the credibility of the UN Human Rights Council and all non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in the human rights field." "The aim is clearly to delegitimise the organisation at a time when its rights-based analysis coincides with the some of the views of the US president Barack Obama," Philps continued.

In a piece for the Christian Science Monitor, Robert Marquand notes that a U.N. report "Jurist Richard Goldstone, head of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, chief prosecutor for the Yugoslav war-crimes tribunal" showed illegal white phosphorus use consistent with Garlasco's first hand testimony which was provided to the Monitor. Marquand further wrote that it wasn't okay "to use Garlasco to distract from or obfuscate findings that war crimes and crimes against humanity may have taken place in Gaza".

Criticism of fund raising in Saudi Arabia

Some columnists have criticised Human Right Watch for requesting, encouraging or accepting financial donations in Saudi Arabia, and have criticised HRW's methods in which it requests, encourages or accepts these funds. According to the critics, these methods include the descriptions of HRW's "battles" and arguments with Israel and its supporters. Herb Keinon, a columnist for the Jerusalem Post, and Jeffrey Goldberg, a correspondent for the Atlantic (magazine) and former columnist for the Jerusalem Post, claim this compromises HRW's integrity. In an email exchange, Jeffrey Goldberg asked HRW director Kenneth Roth if funds were raised to fight back against pro-Israel lobbying groups. Roth responded, "The Saudis obviously are aware of the systematic attacks on us by various reflexive defenders of Israel. Everyone is." During fundraisers, he states that these complaints are common in "discussions" and is not just exclusive to Saudi Arabia. Mark Regev (spokesman for Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu) has said that "A human rights organization raising money in Saudi Arabia is like a women's rights group asking the Taliban for a donation," in response to HRW's fund raising visit to Saudi Arabia.

David Bernstein of the George Mason University School of Law writes, something's "wrong when a human rights organization goes to one of the worst countries in the world for human rights to raise money to wage lawfare against Israel." although IPS latter claimed he apologized for suggesting that HRW didn't also discuss Saudi human rights abuses during the meetings.

Human Rights Watch says the allegations that HRW had "compromised its neutrality" by meeting with Saudi donors were based on "misleading assumptions and wrong facts". HRW notes that staffers made two presentations in Saudi Arabia in May 2009 in private homes to people who were interested in Human Rights Watch. Among an estimated 50 guests at a reception in Riyadh, there were three with governmental affiliations, "the spokesperson for the Ministry of Interior; the deputy head of the Human Rights Commission, a governmental organization; and a member of the Shura Council, a government-appointed consultative body." According to HRW, none of those individuals were solicited for funds and HRW never accepts funds from government officials in any country. HRW stated that there is no reason why Saudi citizens cannot legitimately want to support human rights. Gerald Steinberg, the executive director of NGO Monitor, said that the HRW defense was an "absurd attempt to cast a distinction between soliciting Saudi officials and prominent members of society who owe their very position to the regime."

HRW told IPS that the notion "that any money from Saudi Arabia is tainted because it comes from a country with a totalitarian ruling regime is a gross generalisation." adding "The ethnic background of our donors is irrelevant to the work we do,...It's not relevant to our work in Israel that many, many of our donors are Jewish. And it's not relevant for the work that we do that we get money from Arab countries".

According to HRW, its work in Saudi Arabia was discussed at the receptions, including "coverage of women's rights, the juvenile death penalty, domestic workers, and discrimination against religious minorities". HRW also claimed, "No other human rights group has produced a more comprehensive, detailed, and thorough body of work on Saudi Arabian human rights issues in recent years than Human Rights Watch" (HRW Saudi Arabia). Although the Gaza situation was covered, HRW claimed that the coverage was justified as the Gaza war dominated worldwide headlines and is a regional issue in Saudi Arabia. Criticism of HRW as anti-Israel was juxtaposed against the accusations HRW faces in much of the Middle East that HRW is soft on Israeli human rights violations.

In 2008, HRW issued five single-country reports and one multi-country report criticizing the Saudi Arabian government and in August 2009, HRW issued a report "Human Rights and Saudi Arabia's Counterterrorism Response: Religious Counseling, Indefinite Detention, and Flawed Trials" criticizing the Saudi Arabian government's counterterrorism program.

Allegations of anti-Israel bias

Ron Kampeas in an analysis published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency criticizes HRW reports for "Reconstructions of the horrific death of civilians replete with painstakingly gathered evidence are coupled with bewildering omissions of context and blended into a package that assumes an inherent Israeli immorality," and "efforts to turn criticism of individual officers and soldiers into a wholesale indictment of Israel’s military establishment and the decision to resort to military force." According to Kampeas, the HRW reports on the 2009 fighting in Gaza "fail to assess evidence -- including videos of Israeli forces holding their fire because of the presence of civilians -- that Israel has provided to show that such incidents were the exception to the rule; they fail to examine what measures Israel has taken to prevent civilian deaths, which would be pertinent in examining any claim of war crimes."

In October 2009, Robert L. Bernstein, the founder of HRW, criticized the organization's policy in the Middle East in a New York Times op-ed. Bernstein questioned the fact that "with increasing frequency, [HRW] casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies... The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region." Tom Porteus, director of the London branch of Human Rights Watch, replied that the organization rejected Bernstein's "obvious double standard. Any credible human rights organisation must apply the same human rights standards to all countries." Jane Olson and Jonathan Fanton wrote "we were saddened to see Robert L. Bernstein argue that Israel should be judged by a different human rights standard than the rest of the world" and "as long as open societies commit human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch has a vital role to play in documenting those violations and advocating to bring them to an end."[68] Human Rights Watch noted that Bernstein brought his concerns to the Human Rights Watch Board of Directors in April 2009 and also noted that the board unanimously rejected his view that Human Rights Watch should report only on closed societies, and expressed its full support for the organization's work.

In April 2010, The New Republic published a very lengthy and critical piece about HRW, discussing HRW's "giving disproportionate attention to Israeli misdeeds." Specifically, "Robert James - a businessman, World War II veteran, and member of the MENA [Middle East and North Africa Desk of HRW] advisory committee who has been involved with HRW almost since its inception -calls the group 'the greatest NGO since the Red Cross,” but argues that it is chronically incapable of introspection. “Bob [Bernstein, founder and former chair of HRW] is bringing this issue up on Israel,” he says. “But Human Rights Watch has a more basic problem. ... They cannot take criticism.'"

The New Republic, referring to Bernstein's OpEd piece in the New York Times, quotes Bernstein, saying, "Yet, as difficult as it was to go public, Bernstein does not believe that Human Rights Watch left him with much choice. 'They think they’ve heard me out,' he says. 'You see, they think they’ve listened to me until they can’t listen anymore. Actually, they haven’t listened at all.'"

In November 2010, Bernstein gave the Shirley and Leonard Goldstein Lecture on Human Rights at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. During this lecture, he accused HRW of "fault[ing] Israel as the principal offender" in the Israel-Palestine conflict and suggested that groups like HRW were responsible for polarization on university campuses.

In December 2010, Jennifer Rubin, writing in her Washington Post blog, described HRW as "an anti-Israel group masquerading as one devoted to human rights".

In January 2012, New Europe quoted an NGO Monitor report which said that HRW gives "disproportionate attention" to 'Israel and the Occupied Territories' which received "more attention in 2011 than Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, or Iraq." The article also said that the HRW reports continued to show "bias on Israel," and that "all op-eds published on the Arab-Israeli conflict in major media focused on allegations against Israel."

Anti-Arab-League or pro-Israel bias

In regard to reporting on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Israel-based journalist Jonathan Cook claimed that by making statements regarding the intentions of Israel and Hezbollah to target or to avoid targeting civilians that were not justified by the available evidence, HRW "[seemed to distort] its findings to placate the Israel lobby". Cook stated, 'HRW is accusing Hezbollah of committing graver war crimes than Israel, even though it killed far fewer civilians both numerically and proportionally, because its rockets are "less accurate"'. A representative of HRW responded, defending the organisation's objectivity. Cook countered that he did not criticise the empirical aspects of HRW's research, only its interpretation of that research. HRW has also been criticised for taking Israel's side in its condemnation of the Palestinian use of human shields. Norman Finkelstein has criticised HRW for "seeking to appease pro-Israel critics after taking the heat for its report documenting Israeli war crimes in Lebanon?".

Ignoring Islamic laws

A prominent Saudi human rights activist has described the Human Rights Watch report on the rights situation in Saudi Arabia as contradicting the truth in some of its items and does not take into account in many cases the religious background of the people of Saudi Arabia.

Human Rights Watch responds to criticism

In the wake of the Goldstone report, HRW accused in 2009 Israel and its supporters of an organized campaign of false allegations and misinformation aimed to discredit the group over its findings over the Gaza War. HRW ties the criticism to a statement by a senior official in the Israeli prime minister's office in June 2009, pledging to "dedicate time and manpower to combating" human rights organisations. HRW said it concluded the criticism amounted to an organized effort since attacks from different sources appeared to be co-ordinated. HRW said that similar language and arguments in criticism implied that there had been prior coordination. Iain Levine of HRW said "We are having to spend a lot of time repudiating the lies, the falsehoods, the misinformation".

A group of 10 Israeli rights groups has protested that the Israeli government has been attempting to "instill fear and silence or alarm vital organizations" that were engaging in free public discourse.

Allegations of bias concerning Africa

HRW has also been accused of unfair and biased reporting of human rights issues in Eritrea and Ethiopia.


In April 2009, HRW published a report that accused the Eritrean government of being responsible for serious human rights violations. Sophia Tesfamariam, Director of the US Foundation for the Horn of Africa refuted the allegations in the report which she described as an "anti-Eritrea report" and stated "HRW goes to great lengths to embellish the truth in its attempts to paint a bleak picture of Eritrea and its government". She described it as “not only short on facts and evidence, but also short on intellectual and professional integrity”.


The Ethiopia government has also raised questions about HRW's methods. It commissioned a report of its own that dismissed Human Rights Watch's allegations of human rights abuses in the Ogaden as hearsay and its methods as slapdash.

Wednesday, 7 March 2012

Racial divide runs deep in U.S. schools, study finds

(Reuters) - Black and Latino students across the United States are far more likely to be suspended than white students - and far less likely to have access to rigorous college-prep courses, according to a sweeping study released on Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights.
The trove of data, collected from 72,000 schools serving 85 percent of the nation's students, revealed tremendous disparities in the public school experiences of minority and white students.
Some of the most striking findings involved discipline: one in five African-American boys - and one in 10 African-American girls - was suspended from school during the study period, the 2009-10 school year.
Overall, African-American students are 3-1/2 times more likely to be suspended or expelled than their white peers. And 70 percent of students arrested or referred to law enforcement for disciplinary infractions are black or Latino, the study found. Other researchers have found that students who are repeatedly punished by being barred from campus are far more likely to drop out.
Academic opportunities also vary widely by race. Among high schools that serve predominately Latino and African-American students, just 29 percent offer a calculus class and only 40 percent offer physics. In some school districts, those numbers are even more glaring. In New York City, for instance, just 10 percent of the high schools with the highest black and Latino enrollment offer Algebra II.
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan was careful to say that his department is "not alleging overt discrimination in some or all of these cases."
But he said he hoped the data would prompt soul-searching as educators across the nation confront inequities.
"In the big picture, this is really about self-analysis," Duncan said. He urged teachers and administrators to "look in the mirror, at the good, the bad and the ugly, and figure out what's going on."
That may be easier said than done, said Kevin Welner, director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
The data hint uncomfortably at crude assumptions and enduring stereotypes about "who should be in school, who should be preparing to go to college, who can learn" - and "many of those beliefs stem back from before you or I were born," Welner said. "That's hard to change."
Other studies over the decades have found similar racial disparities in student discipline and academic opportunity. But the new report, which Duncan is scheduled to release today in an event at Howard University, is more detailed and comprehensive than most.
It breaks down the national data district by district and school by school. And it looks at racial disparities in realms as varied as access to pre-kindergarten programs; success in Advanced Placement courses; and the use of physical restraints on students with disabilities.
The release of such wide-ranging data "is very important for is if we're to gain the national will to overcome our aversion to looking at race," said Russell Skiba, who directs the Equity Project at Indiana University's School of Education. "It's tough to talk about race. It's awkward. But this data gives us a bit of a road map."
The report, known as the Civil Rights Data Collection, seeks to prod change by calling attention to districts that have used what Duncan called "best practices" to reduce inequities.
It points, for instance, to a high school in Montgomery County, Maryland, that serves a largely black and Hispanic population - and enrolls those students in physics at an impressive rate. The report also highlights an elementary school in an impoverished neighborhood of Dade County, Florida that enrolls nearly 17 percent of its black and Hispanic students in a program for gifted students, more than triple the national rate.
Duncan said he hoped administrators in other districts would ask how those schools had achieved their success, then follow suit. "There are some encouraging things in this data," he said. "Frankly, there are some very troubling things as well. But the only way forward is to know the truth."
(Reporting by Stephanie Simon in Denver; Editing by Eric Walsh)