Human rights are a subset of politics. (It's fashionable to label as “nonpolitical” any matter of politics that the speaker thinks is important, as if “politics” as a label only applied to trivialities, but that's not what it means and, more relevantly, not why HN often prefers to avoid things that are in that domain but not particularly intellectual novelties.)
No. Absolutely not. Politics often impinges on human rights, yes. But human rights are not a subset of politics, and absolutely should not be couched in political terms. Issues that are rightly called political are those over which reasonable people may disagree. This highlights that "politics" doesn't only apply to trivialities --myriad real political issues come to mind. My point here is that to argue that this particular issue is political would be beyond the pale, as support of the alleged actions is not a humanly just or reasonable position: one could certainly make it into a political issue, if one were heartless enough, but such evil isn't worth discussion. This is not a political issue. Deciding that it is one would be despicable.
Politics is that which fills the space when violence and scarcity do not dominate psychic considerations.
Political discussions can only occur in a context where there are human rights, where human beings in authoritative positions adhere to laws and rules related to their jobs.
Public talk that defends the systemic, ungoverned practice of violence is not political, it's propaganda (and worse).
Corporate laws are a subset of politics.
Labor practices are a subset of politics.
Internet governance is a subset of politics.
Systemd vs others is a subset of politics.
Compensation packages are a subset of politics.
Stock ownership is a subset of politics.
Available food is a subset of politics.
Water purity is a subset of politics.
Air quality is a subset of politics.
Power generation is a subset of politics.
Not political at all? Do we really think the USA is running something close to a Experimental Concentration Camp? Exactly what are they experimenting on, what don't we know about hysterectomies?
Or do we think the USA is making women infertile as a form of population control? Seriously?
I suspect it follows your politics which is why it's "not political". We aren't conflating anything.
Why do you think that people are being sterilized in a camp at the border at which people are not allowed the right for a trial, did not commit any crimes, and are not allowed to leave? Seriously, I'm hoping there is an explanation that is less horrific.
> Not political at all? Do we really think the USA is running something close to a Experimental Concentration Camp? Exactly what are they experimenting on, what don't we know about hysterectomies?
I think is 1) this story is probably true, 2) it is not the result of any kind of explicit national policy. My guess is the real problem here is malpractice by the gynecologist coupled with a criminal lack of competent oversight by the prison officials. My understanding is prisons scrape the bottom of the barrel of the medical profession (i.e. hiring doctors with bad records that no one else wants), and the actual complaint focuses on one doctor:
> According to Wooten, ICDC consistently used a particular gynecologist – outside the facility – who almost always opted to remove all or part of the uterus of his female detainee patients.
> “Everybody he sees has a hysterectomy—just about everybody,” Wooten said, adding that, “everybody’s uterus cannot be that bad.”
> “We’ve questioned among ourselves like goodness he’s taking everybody’s stuff out…That’s his specialty, he’s the uterus collector. I know that’s ugly…is he collecting these things or something…Everybody he sees, he’s taking all their uteruses out or he’s taken their tubes out. What in the world.”
IMHO, people who are saying (at this point) that this is the result of a systematic policy are jumping to conclusions. If that's true, it'll probably take a least a few weeks for the investigations to confirm it.