Muammar Gaddafi Voted As Human Rights Hero Of The Year

Dr Heidrun Eckert and Louis Szondy

Voting in an online poll by Amnesty International USA for “Human Rights Hero of 2011” is bringing up some human rights champions, that the western media have ignored. One favorite is Michael Jackson, and another is a human rights activist in Bahrain, Nabeel Rajab, while currently in the lead with more people still voting, is Muammar Gaddafi.

Allowing for the fact that Arabic names have numerous spellings, the race is clearly between Nabeel Rajab and Muammar Gaddafi. Votes are still for the entire month of January, so please continue to vote forMuammar Gaddafi, for reasons we elaborate upon below (and please use that exact spelling when voting).

Many people in the world are happy to see Muammar Gaddafi on the top of voting for the “Human Rights Hero of 2011” award, after he had been due to receive a United Nations award for his contribution to human rights, but instead one month before it was due, the United Nations allowed bankrupted western countries to wage a massive war on Libya, killing over 100,000 and razing entire cities to the ground, while the media focused on the spreading of rumors and disinformation.

Fears are that Amnesty International, which earned the nicknameAmnesia International because of its failure to expose and oppose the massive human rights violations of NATO and its mercenaries in Libya,in spite of wide spread video, photographic and documentary evidence, will avoid giving him this prize too.

Yet for his many fans who marvel at the Green Charter Human Rights Document which was law in Libya, the prize is not the issue at stake. Voting for Muammar Gaddafi is a means of informing people:

When 1.7 million Libyans, one third of the entire population and 95% of the capital city were demonstrating for Gaddafiand the Jamahiriya system of direct participatory democracy, the main stream Western press did not even mention it, after having assisted yet another war on false pretenses “humanitarianism” while actually a grab for resources, destroying Africa’s most wealthy infrastructure, while allowing a real humanitarian disaster in East Africa to go without aid.

Voting for Gaddafi via the West’s leading human rights organ which many read cannot be ignored, so perhaps Amnesty International will forge or not mention the real results, as it is a big slap in the face to that organization and its outdated concept of human rights: the UN document which was drafted by oppressive colonialist governments in 1949. People will start thinking: Human Rights Hero Gaddafi? Then hecannot be what our politicians and press makes us believe. This inner change will be of consequences:

– Press needs readers. If they can no more sell their old stories, they will have to publish what people want: Truth. Or, more people will turn to truth news agencies such as Mathaba.

– All of us wish that the pilots of whatever army would refuse to execute inhuman orders such as bombing. By doing so they risk their existence and the existence of their families. As long as they are misinformed, they will hardly develop the needed courage to meet the consequences. But if they see:

“This Gaddafi is not the brutal dictator we were told, on the contrary. His followers are no fanatics but reasonable beings standing for Human Rights.”

Then the chances are great that they obey the voice of their heart. Then more and more others will follow their example. Even the most criminal government can only act as long as there are people obeying their orders. Governments, knowing this, will be more cautious in giving orders when risking public disobedience.

– Last but not least: Imagine Hillary Clinton when learning about the votes for the man whom she wanted to be killed and who appears to be most alive in the hearts of people.

One drop of water is helpless. An ocean is most powerful. So there should be more such opportunities which are simple to handle in any place of the world. So please, you too cast your vote, and use the exact spelling Muammar Gaddafi because the disadvantage of having an Arabic name is that there is not one way to spell it in English, but dozens — another clear indication of the significance of the voting for Muammar Gaddafi, as his vote is divided among many different spellings, and it is not certain Amnesty International will take the time to go through all the votes submitted to tally them together, even assuming they’ll make this embarrassing announcement.