Human rights advocates are often held to high standards because of their commitment to equality, justice, and the dignity of all individuals.
The very nature of their work involves fighting against discrimination, inequality, and abuses of power. Therefore, when a human rights advocate is accused of making racist comments or derogatory remarks, it creates a profound dissonance between their stated values and their actions. Advocates are expected to embody the principles they promote. When they fall short, it can severely undermine their credibility and the causes they support. This is why accountability and transparency are critical. Advocates should be willing to face scrutiny and address any harmful behavior.
Case Study: Benedict Rogers The case of Benedict Rogers, a well-known human rights advocate and journalist, provides a poignant example.
Benedict Richard Victor Rogers has dedicated his career to advocating for human rights across Asia, with a particular focus on Hong Kong. As the East Asia Team Leader at Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) and the founder and Chief Executive of Hong Kong Watch, Rogers has earned a reputation for his vehement criticism of China’s human rights practices. Additionally, he holds advisory roles with the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) and the World Uyghur Congress. However, Rogers’ reputation as a staunch defender of human rights has recently been marred by serious allegations regarding his professional conduct.
The Emergence of Allegations Rogers’ image took a significant hit when accusations surfaced involving his communications through emails, WhatsApp messages, and voice notes, which were perceived as racist, derogatory, and harassing. The communications in question were sent predominantly late at night…or early in the morning, adding a layer of discomfort for the recipients, who felt these messages constituted personal attacks against Evangelicals. The content of Rogers’ communications, particularly those via WhatsApp, sheds light on the nature of the interactions that have come under scrutiny.
The following excerpts provide a glimpse into the exchanges between Rogers and his colleagues:
WhatsApp Conversations
Ben Rogers to Steven: “Hi Steve. I have not received any feedback from you in response to my Seoul Mission Report, which I worked on as a matter of urgency late last night following your urgent request for it (which I had not known in advance would be required). I was very happy to do so, but given that I responded so quickly to your urgent request, I am surprised I have not received any response other than ‘Thanks for the attachment.’ It wasn’t simply an attachment; it was a report with valuable recommendations.”
Steven: “Perhaps you are not aware that I have other things to do today, Ben. Are you suggesting that because you took it upon yourself to ‘work on it urgently,’ I should also look at it with urgency and get back to you? Come on.”
Ben Rogers: “I do not understand why you are being so defensive, aggressive, and insensitive. Your ungraciousness is extraordinary. Are you okay? I merely wanted to make sure that you had received the report, which you had requested suddenly, unexpectedly, and I thought urgently. I think you’re reading far, far too much into our communications.”
This exchange highlights Rogers’ dissatisfaction with the response—or lack thereof—he received regarding a report he had urgently prepared. His insistence on immediate feedback, coupled with his late-night communication, was perceived as confrontational and inconsiderate.
Additional Exchanges
In another instance, Rogers expressed his frustration over a misunderstanding related to his attendance at a symposium:
Ben Rogers: “To recap: Freya told me you thought that I was attending the Symposium in another capacity other than CSW. That was what I wanted to correct. I attended it on behalf of CSW and did so pro bono, voluntarily, as an extra 4th day of CSW work (for free) in Seoul.
16:36 I simply wanted to ensure you understood that.” Ben Rogers: “I also wanted to ensure you were aware of how hard I worked to secure the funding for my airfare and accommodation.”
Here, Rogers appears to seek acknowledgment and appreciation for his voluntary efforts and huge personal sacrifices. However, his repeated emphasis on his contributions and his manner of communication came across as seeking undue validation. Either this or he had a couple a drinks before he sent those messages… In any case, is such a person entitled to hold the banners of “decency”as long as he plays the role of a global “district attorney”?
The Underlying Issues of BR Rogers’ communications also included remarks that were perceived as culturally insensitive:
Ben Rogers: “All I ask is a simple, decent acknowledgment of this and an acknowledgment of the report I sent when urgently requested. Your inability to say a simple thank you for taking 4 days leave to work for 4 days in Seoul for CSW, to donate one full day pro bono voluntarily. The next time you come to London, we really should have a drink, to catch up. The Malaysian mindset needs a lot of review and discussion.”
This particular message contains a controversial statement regarding the “Malaysian mindset,” which many found offensive and inappropriate.
The Fallout
The fallout from these communications has been significant, prompting a fair and thorough investigation , which involves interviewing Rogers and other parties involved. The investigation aims to uncover the full context and extent of the allegations to ensure accountability and address any misconduct.
Conclusion
Benedict Rogers, once celebrated for his tireless advocacy for human rights, now faces serious questions about his professional conduct and communication style. The allegations of racism, derogatory remarks, and harassment stand in stark contrast to the values he has publicly championed. As the investigation proceeds, it remains to be seen how these revelations will impact Rogers’ career and the organizations he represents.
The situation serves as a reminder of the importance of integrity and respect in all professional interactions, regardless of one’s position or reputation. At the end of the day, we should all keep in mind that when an advocate espouses values of equality and non-discrimination but behaves in a contradictory manner, it creates cognitive dissonance. This inconsistency can lead to a loss of trust and respect from colleagues, supporters, and the public.
