BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A human rights black hole

With the exception of the far greater human rights abuse of the expulsion of the islanders there have been few actual abuses on the Chagos Islands. Mauritius however itself does not have a clean record. The U.S. State Department notes there have been arbitrary arrests, particularly of the opposition parties with the leader of the Militant Socialist Movement having been arrested and interrogated as a result of naming the government a “paedophile government” for not suspending a teacher accused of raping a student. “Other reported human rights problems included official corruption, violence and discrimination against women, abuse and sexual exploitation of children, discrimination and abuse based on sexual orientation, discrimination against persons living with HIV/AIDS, restrictions on labor rights, antiunion discrimination, and child labor.”[1] [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Mauritius 2012 Human Rights Report’, State Department, 2012, http://photos.state.gov/libraries/mauritius/882940/huma_risghts_report/Human%20Rights%20Report%202012%20Mauritius.pdf
National interests

There is no national interest in the Chagos Islands or Diego Garcia. If there were true national interests then Diego Garcia would be a British base not a US one, handing such security over to the US clearly shows that the UK does not have sufficient national interests at stake to maintain a base on the islands themselves. Moreover if it is in the national interests of the United States to have a base there is little reason to assume that the US could not negotiate similar terms from the government of Mauritius as that of the UK to secure those interests.
Chagos islanders don’t all want to belong to Mauritius

If there is concern with the Chagossians becoming ‘second class citizens’ then this can be addressed in negotiations to return the islands to Mauritius. The British have not in the past been willing to take the views of the islanders into account, there seems to be little reason why they now should just because the UK might now stand to benefit. Regardless a poll of all Chagossians might equally lead to the islands being handed over to Mauritius.
Marine protection

The establishment of the MPA is clearly an attempt to strengthen UK control over the islands. A State Department cable leaked by wikileaks states “He [Colin Roberts, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) Director Overseas Territories] asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents.”[1] Moreover the UK, or rather the US occupation, is not good for the environment either. The US base at Diego Garcia has accommodated nuclear-powered submarines opening the potential for radiation leaks as has happened before in Japanese ports. Similarly a large amount of air and sea traffic creates the possibility of oil spills; there have been at least four major spills at Diego Garcia, the one in 1991 involved 160,000 gallons being lost.[2] [1] Mills, Richard, ‘HMG floats proposal for marine reserve covering the Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory)’, Wikileaks, 15 May 2009, http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09LONDON1156_a.html [2] Carey, Sean, ‘The UK’s role in Diego Garcia: green fingers or red faces?’, New Statesman, 7 September 2009, http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/09/diego-garcia-chagos-british
Mauritius is far closer

The UK should not be controlling territory that is almost 5786 miles away from London. The Chagos Islands should be under the sovereignty of an Indian Ocean country like Mauritius that is much better placed to look after the interests of the islands. The age when countries had the right to control territory half a world away on the basis of might makes right are long gone. The Chagos islands, as with other remnants of colonialism, should be handed over to the nearest state with a good claim. In this case Mauritius.
Uti Possidetis

The borders of states that gain independence are set by the administrative boundaries that the colony had prior to independence. This prevents any gaps in sovereignty, or any attempt by the coloniser to keep a chunk of the territory, and the conflict this would inevitably bring. General Assembly Resolution 1514 made this clear “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”[1] This also means that Mauritius should have control of the Chagos Islands which were, up until 1965, a part of Mauritius. [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’, un.org, resolution 1514 (XV), 14 December 1960, https://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml
Self determination

The most important principle of the international system since the end of the Second World War has been self determination; the right of nations or peoples to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development".[1] The UK has staunchly defended the right of self determination in other cases such as the Falkland Islands about which the Foreign Secretary, William Hague has stated “We have always been clear that we believe in the rights of the Falklands people to determine their own futures and to decide on the path they wish to take. It is only right that, in the twenty-first century, these rights are respected.”[2] The UK has also said it will accept the result of a referendum in Scotland. If areas that are far more important to the UK are allowed their self determination so should the Chagossians. [1]  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en [2] Foreign & Commonwealth Office, ‘Falkland Islands vote to remain British Overseas Territory’, gov.uk, 12 March 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/falkland-islands-vote-to-remain-british-overseas-territory
A human rights black hole

The Chagos Islands have been excluded from almost every human rights treaty from the Geneva conventions (III/IV), the Convention against Torture, through to the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Resulting in what Peter Sand calls “a kind of human rights black hole” which has enabled rendition flights to pass through the base. This is possible because the British government claims they have no permanent inhabitants. Sand suggests “the fiction of the “unpopulated archipelago”, staunchly defended by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office [FCO], will inevitably come back to haunt its authors in the very near future”.[1] With the islands being ‘uninhabited’ they are not entitled to an Exclusive Economic Zone under the UN Law of the Sea. Britain’s claim to the islands as a whole is also made more tenuous. [1] Harris, Peter, ‘Review Article: Not just a military base: Reframing Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands’, African Affairs, 110/440, pp.491-99, 2011, http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30876673/491.full.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1390995657&Signature=taza7RS2t3sg7FG%2BmU0AR3Y3Byg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline p.496
National interests

It is in British and US national interests that Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands stay under UK control with the UK continuing to allow a US base on the islands. Diego Garcia is clearly strategically located as a base in the middle of the Indian ocean a base that may be useful for action in any direction. The military base has a significant runway, satellite tracking facilities, and is one of only five control bases for the GPS. It has been used in every US military operation in the Middle East since 1973.[1] The island is therefore a necessary base for combatting terrorism and maintaining a US presence in the region. The UK has said that it will keep the islands until it is no longer needed for defence, with the Middle East as unstable as it ever has been now is not the time to be giving up the islands. [1] Salter, Mark B., and Mutlu, Can E., ‘Securitisation and  Diego Garcia’, Review of International Studies, 2012, http://www.canmutlu.com/Publications_files/RIS.pdf, p.6
Chagos islanders don’t all want to belong to Mauritius

Many of the people of the Chagos Islands don’t want to belong to Mauritius. They want the right to return to their homeland, but also that the Chagos Islands should remain British. Allen Vincatassin, a leader of the Diego Garcians in the UK, argues “We were second-class citizens in Mauritius and if they govern the islands, we will be second-class citizens in our own land… We are British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, which we are proud to be. We believe we are part of this country. In a normal situation the people would come first but it seems the state of Mauritius comes before the rights of our people.”[1] The islands when resettled could survive very well as a part of the UK just as other territories such as the British Virgin Islands do with administration done locally but sovereignty remaining with the UK. [1] Morrison, Alex, ‘Chagos Islands’ future lies with UK’, theguardian.com, 25 January 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/25/chagos-islands-uk-mauritius
This proposal is simply an invasion of privacy.

The individual right to privacy must certainly encompass the digital realm as proposition says. It is also undeniable that individual privacy enhances individuality and independence. However, this privacy can and should be regulated lest parents leave children ‘abandoned’ to their rights. [1] “One cannot compare reading a child’s journal to accessing his or her conversations online or through text messages,” says Betsy Landers, the president of the National Parent-Teacher Association of the US and explains, “It’s simply modern involvement.” [2] Thus, Hillary Clinton argues, “children should be granted rights, but in a stage-by-stage manner that accords with and pays attention to their physical and mental development and capacities.” [1] Applying this principle, children should be given digital privacy to an equitable extent and regulated whereby both conditions depend upon the maturity of the child. [1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review.  Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013. [2] Landers, Betty. “It’s Modern Parental Involvement.” New York Times. 28 June 2012: 1. New York Times. May 2013.
Monitoring is lazy parenting.

Opposition claims that monitoring is ‘laziness’. Admittedly, monitoring makes digital parenting more efficient and comprehensive. But, such technology makes parenting practical, not ‘lazy’. As it is, many people blame technology for their own shortcomings. [1] Thus, parents need to know that monitoring will not do all the work for them. It is not lazy to monitor your children, it is clearly essential that children are monitored when involved in activities such as sports. The internet is a dangerous environment just as the sports field is and should have similar adult supervision. [1] Bradley, Tony. “Blaming Technology for Human Error: Trying To Fix Social Problems With Technical Tools.” About. About. 30 Mar 2005.
Other parental controls are more practical and reasonable to administer.

While it is practical to use these parental controls, it is not always realistic to set such limited parameters to the digital freedom of children. Children need to understand that they have the capacity to breach their parents’ trust. [1] This not only allows a child to understand how to interact sensibly with the internet, but to experience taking an initiative to actually obey parents in surfing only safe sites. Selectively restricting a child’s digital freedom does not help in this case. Thus, monitoring is the only way for children to experience digital freedom in such a way that they too are both closely guided and free to do as they wish. Moreover, this is also self-contradictory because opposition claimed that children are capable of circumvention which children would be much more likely to do when blocked from accessing websites than simply monitored. [1]        Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review.  Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.
Monitoring is a hindrance to forming relationships both outside and inside the family.

It is true that trust is a cornerstone of relationships. Admittedly, the act of monitoring may initially stimulate feelings of distrust which are particularly destructive in relationships. But nonetheless, trust is earned, not granted. The only proactive way to gauge how much trust and responsibility to give a child in the digital world is monitoring. By monitoring a child, parents come to assess the initial capability of the child in digital responsibility and ultimately the level of trust and the level of responsibility he or she deserves and to be assigned subsequently. Ideally, the initial level of monitoring and follow-through should be maximum in order to make clear to the child that he is being guided. Only when a child proves himself and grows in digital maturity can monitoring and follow-through be gradually minimized and finally lifted. [1] [1]          Bodenhamer, Gregory. Parents in Control. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995 Inc. Web. May 2013.
Monitoring prevents cyberbullying.

Social approval is especially craved by teens because they are beginning to shift focus from family to peers. [1] Unfortunately, some teens may resort to cyberbullying others in order to gain erroneous respect from others and eliminate competitors in order to establish superficial friendships. Over the last few years a number of cyberbullying cases have caused the tragic suicides of Tyler Clementi (2010), Megan Meier who was bullied online by a non-existent Josh Evans whom she had feelings for (2006), and Ryan Halligan (2003) among others. [2] Responsible parents need to be one step ahead because at these relevant stages, cognitive abilities are advancing, but morals are lagging behind, meaning children are morally unequipped in making informed decisions in cyberspace. [1] One important way to make this guidance more effective would be if parents chose to monitor their children’s digital behavior by acquiring their passwords and paying close attention to their social network activity such as Facebook and chat rooms, even if it means skimming through their private messages. Applying the categorical imperative, if monitoring becomes universal, then cyberbullying will no longer be a problem in the cyberspace as the perpetrators would be quickly caught and disciplined. [1] Bauman, Sheri. Cyberbullying: a Virtual Menace. University of Arizona, 2007. Web. May 2013. [2] Littler, Chris. “8 Infamous Cases of Cyber-Bullying.” The Sixth Wall. Koldcast Entertainment Media. 7 Feb 2011. Web. May 2013.
Monitoring allows parents to correct children who are wasting their time.

Parents also need to monitor their children to ensure that they are properly using the time they have with the computer and the mobile phone.  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation 40% of 8- to 18-year olds spend 54 minutes a day on social media sites.[1] and that “when alerted to a new social networking site activity, like a new tweet or Facebook message, users take 20 to 25 minutes on average to return to the original task” resulting to 20% lower grades. [2] Thus, parents must constantly monitor the digital activities of their children and see whether they have been maximizing the technology at their disposal in terms of researching for their homework, connecting with good friends and relatives, and many more. [1]        Foehr, Ulla G., Rideout, Victoria J., and Roberts, Donald F., “Generation M2 Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds”, The Kaiser Family Foundation, January 2010, p.21 [2]        Gasser, Urs, and Palfrey, John, “Mastering Multitasking”, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, March 2009, p.17
Monitoring decreases children’s involvement with pornography.

A 2005 study by the London School of Economics found that “while 57 per cent of the over-nines had seen porn online, only 16 per cent of parents knew.” [1] That number is almost certain to have increased. In addition sexting has also become prevalent as research from the UK suggests “over a third (38%) [of] under 18’s have received an offensive or distressing sexual image via text or email.” [2] This is dangerous because this digital reality extends to the real world. [3] W.L. Marshall says that early exposure to pornography may incite children to act out sexually against other children and may shape their sexual attitudes negatively, manifesting as insensitivity towards women and undervaluing monogamy.  Only with monitoring can parents have absolute certainy of what their children are doing on the Internet. It may not allow them to prevent children from viewing pornography completely, but regulating the digital use of their children in such a way does not have to limit their digital freedoms or human rights. [1] Carey, Tanith. “Is YOUR child watching porn? The devastating effects of graphic images of sex on young minds”. Daily Mail. Daily Mail and General Trust. 25 April 2011. Web. May 2013. [2] “Truth of Sexting Amongst UK Teens.” BeatBullying. Beatbullying. 4 Aug 2009. Web. May 2013. [3] Hughes, Donna Rice. Kids Online: Protecting Your Children in Cyberspace. Michigan: Fleming H. Revell, 1998. ProtectKids.  Web. May 2013.
Monitoring raises digital awareness among parents.

Parents who are willing to monitor their children’s digital communications also benefit themselves. By setting up the necessary software and apps to secure their children’s online growth, parents familiarize themselves with basic digital skills and keep up with the latest in social media. As it stands there is a need to raise digital awareness among most parents. Sonia Livingston and Magdalena Bober in their extensive survey of the cyber experience of UK children and their parents report that “among parents only 1 in 3 know how to set up an email account, and only a fifth or fewer are able to set up a filter, remove a virus, download music or fix a problem.” [1] Parents becoming more digitally involved as a result of their children provides the added benefit of increasing the number of mature netizens so encouraging norms of good behavior online. [1]        Livingstone, Sonia, and Magdalena Bober. “UK Children Go Online: Surveying the experiences of young people and their parents.” UK Children Go Online. Second Report (2004): 1-61.
This proposal is simply an invasion of privacy.

 Children have as much right to privacy as any adult. Unfortunately there is yet to be a provision on the protection of privacy in either the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights, though the Supreme Court states that the concept of privacy rooted within the framework of the Constitution. [1] This ambiguity causes confusion among parents regarding the concept of child privacy. Many maintain that privacy should be administered to a child as a privilege, not a right. [2] Fortunately, the UNCRC clearly states that “No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation,” [3] making child privacy an automatic right. Just as children should receive privacy in the real world, so too should they in the digital world. Individual rights, including right to privacy, shape intrafamilial relationships because they initiate individuality and independence. [1] [1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review.  Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.P.764 [2] Brenner, Susan. “The Privacy Privilege.” CYB3RCRIM3. Blogspot. 3 April 2009. May 2013. [3] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition.  Geneva.  United Nations Publications.  Google Search.  Web. May 2013.
Monitoring is lazy parenting.

The proposition substitutes the good, old-fashioned way of teaching children how to be responsible, with invasions of their privacy, so violating an inherent rights [1]. Such parenting is called remote-control parenting. Parents who monitor their children’s digital behavior feel that they satisfactorily fulfil their parental role when in fact they are being lazy and uninvolved in the growth of their child. Children, especially the youngest, are “dependent upon their parents and require an intense and intimate relationship with their parents to satisfy their physical and emotional needs.” This is called a psychological attachment theory. Responsible parents would instead spend more time with their children teaching them about information management, when to and when not to disclose information, and interaction management, when to and when not to interact with others. [2] That parents have the ability to track their children is true, but doing so is not necessarily likely to make them better adults [3]. The key is for parents and children to talk regularly about the experiences of the child online. This is a process that cannot be substituted by parental monitoring. [1]        United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition.  Geneva.  United Nations Publications.  Google Search.  Web. May 2013. [2] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review.  Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013. [3] “You Can Track Your Kids. But Should You?” New York Times. 27 June 2012: 1. New York Times. May 2013.
Other parental controls are more practical and reasonable to administer.

 Monitoring would be extremely tedious and time-consuming. Many teens send over 100 texts a day, it would clearly be very time consuming to read them all along with all other digital communication.[1] By contrast content filtering, contact management, and privacy protection parental controls, which can be used to block all incoming and outgoing information, require only minimal supervision. Parents who meanwhile deem their children immature when it comes to social networking and gaming can instead impose user restrictions on the relevant websites and devices. [2] Administering these alternative parental controls leave for more quality time with children. In this case, only when children acquire sufficient digital maturity and responsibility can these controls be lifted. As they have learnt to be mature in the digital environment the children would most likely continue to surf safely even when the parental controls are lifted. [1]        Goldberg, Stephanie, “Many teens send 100-plus texts a day, survey says”, CNN, 21 April 2010 [2]        Burt, David.  “Parental Controls Product Guide.” 2010 Edition. n.d.  PDF File. Web. May 2013.
Monitoring is a hindrance to forming relationships both outside and inside the family.

If children are being monitored, or if it seems to children that they are being monitored, they would immediately lose trust in their parents. As trust is reciprocal, children will also learn not to trust others. This will result in their difficulty in forging human connections, thereby straining their psychosocial growth. For them to learn how to trust therefore, children must know that they can break their parents’ trust (as said by the proposition before). This will allow them to understand, obey, and respect their parents on their own initiative, allowing them to respect others in the same manner as well. [1] This growth would only be possible if parents refuse this proposition and instead choose to educate their children how to be responsible beforehand. [1]        Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review.  Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.