posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 10:13 AM
Strange that this thread isn't getting more attention - S&F for you!
I can't imagine many of us are aware that this is happening, yet the article is written in a tone conveying both the UK and India have reached a
somewhat diplomatic understanding of non-interference and the UK is only providing funding. How doesn't this qualify as a human rights violation?
Sometimes I wonder if certain practices aren't first tested on countries the world isn't concerned with, so that later, when tested on a population
like the UK's or US's, it can be stated that this practice has been in action for years. Unless people can justify why it only matters when it's
happening to them, they'll accept the rationale. It'll just be easier for everyone.