Biased Narratives: A Response to Prem Dhakal
Dear Prem Dhakal,
You recently challenged me to answer your list of criticisms of the Human Rights Watch report on the 2015 killings in Nepal.
I appreciate that you took the time to write these at length, and will respond to specific claims in due time. But first, I must clarify a few issues.
I do not represent Human Rights Watch
Please do not be confused about my role in the Human Rights Watch report. Human Rights Watch did not pay or recruit me. I’m just a programmer who fact-checks for fun. Please understand, it is not my job to defend HRW’s reputation, though you may have formed that impression:
I did not prove the HRW report was perfect in my article Nepal Public Figures Challenge Human Rights Watch. Rather, I proved specific accusers were wrong.
Now I must address problems in your public communication.
Smearing
You accused me of malicious dishonesty multiple times:
The word you chose — “smearing” — means spreading lies to damage reputation. You told your Twitter followers I was lying in order to hurt Nepali people. But where is your evidence?
Unless you prove I was lying, you are the one smearing me.
Do you see the irony?
In private, you gave me a general apology: “I apologize if you found my tweets yesterday nasty.” I appreciate your sentiment. But in public, what did you say? What have you told your followers, who gave RTs and ❤️s to your “smearing” and other charged statements?
A Biased Narrative
Consider how you criticized Human Rights Watch for a “biased narrative” and omitting information. Then compare this with your own actions:
What information did you omit on Twitter? — That you apologized to me in private, saying you were “angry.”
What is the narrative you spread on Twitter?
Let’s tell a story quoting directly from your tweets:
Prem Dhakal reveals that @robpenner is a smearing, hell-bent crusader. He goes thumping his chest with a glorious style of deriding the whole Nepali media. Robert has a campaign against Nepali media and opinion makers. He only talks to editors and people with more twitter followers and superstars. Robert treats Prem as a nobody who doesn’t deserve his response, that makes him worse than the discriminating Nepali state. But now Robert is fearful, hesitant, incapacitated and may lack balls.
Does this qualify as a biased narrative?
The Real Problem
I am not complaining about hurt feelings — your language is too extreme to take to heart. Unfortunately, you have undermined your own position in the debate.
It is hypocritical for you to criticize “biased narrative” and “smearing” when you have just done that yourself. You need to give evidence before telling the public that I’m “smearing” and “deriding” Nepali people.
However, I do not think you are malicious like others I’ve encountered online. I believe your explanation — that you acted out in anger. But since your private apology, almost a week has passed without making things right publicly. Please consider how to improve the quality of this debate.
But the real problem is not a debate over a report. The real problem is that over 50 Nepalis were killed, and families are still waiting for justice. Dozens of protesters who killed police have already been arrested. But police have not charged the officers who killed civilians. Nepal’s own human rights agencies NHRC and THRD Alliance agree that police used excessive force and were not acting in self-defense when they shot children and other civilians.
We can still debate narratives, and I am preparing rebuttals to your claims. But we should never lose the focus on justice for victims’ families and prevention of future brutality. Otherwise, our words are just words.
Update: Prem Dhakal gave a partial apology publicly:
But he still claims I was “smearing”:
I checked the WordWeb dictionary and found Dhakal had misrepresented its definition of “smear”:
Dhakal is also unapologetic for his lack of accuracy:
Nepal Human Rights Commission
Four-year-old Chandan Kumar Patel and 13-year-old Ranjana Chhetri were among the four shot dead by police in a clash between protesters and the security agency on Tuesday. NHRC spokesperson Mohna Ansari said the right to life of innocent children, who were not involved in the protest, was violated.
Recommendations to the Government of Nepal
7. To take legal action against individuals and personnel involved in killing incidents with the use of excessive force by the security agency (Nepal Police and Armed Police Force) and using domestic weapons by the agitators through criminal investigation immediately and provide appropriate relief and compensation to the victim’s families.
Terai Human Rights Defenders Alliance
At least two out of the protesters killed … in police firing were hit in the back. This suggests that the Nepal Police and Armed Police Force were shooting when people were fleeing rather than posing an imminent threat to life. One victim was shot twice while he lay injured on the ground. All victims were found to have sustained bullet injuries above the knee in the head, chest and stomach, further suggesting that police were not minimizing their use of lethal force, as required under both international standards and national law.
We have found that the security agencies are using excessive force in violation of international human rights law and the Local Administration Act and urge them not to repeat this. We also urge the concerned agencies to form an independent and impartial commission to probe these serious crimes.
Follow me at https://twitter.com/robpenner
