Whilst I appreciate and accept that the core issues that concern all of us is the brutal rape and murder of Canny Ong and more generally, violence against women perpetrated by men, I maintain that the view by Awam programme manager Manohari is unhelpful, simplistic and sexist.

As a human rights NGO and therefore necessarily public figures, leaders of the All Women's Action Society of Malaysia are accountable for their statements and actions. Whatever noble causes championed by the group and others, the means must justify the ends and not the other way around.

If Manohari wishes to portray Awam as a women/human rights group, then she must be consistent in using human rights tools in her advocacy for women's right. Surely her statement cannot in the 'human rights sense' be correct.

The danger of Manohari's statement is that it promotes sexism, maintains and perpetuates the division of the sexes - as it looks at all men as the enemy simply because they are men. It is the similar sort of argument used by many misguided law enforcement agencies who target black men as 'potential' perpetrators of violent crimes and Arabs or Muslims as 'potential' terrorists.

When PAS leader Nik Aziz made a statement to the effect that all women should cover up in hijab to avoid rape - everyone was up in arms and rightly so. Surely his statement was wrong in the 'human rights sense' by placing the blame on women. But if we were to follow Adek and Alina Rastam's rationale, we should not be concern with the nitty-gritty of Nik Aziz's statement because the issue at stake here is violence against women.

We however deplore such racial and sexist profiling as discriminatory and something that cannot be defended even though the core issues here are the security of the persons, society and the state. Surely if an NGO was to say that all black men are 'potential' muggers or that all Muslims from the Middle East are 'potential' terrorists - these statements are wrong irrespective of the statistics of muggings and terrorism.

Similarly, we do not condone statements that all whites are racists and are 'potential' discriminators even though they have for generations caused systemic and appalling discrimination against blacks.

And the argument goes on for Jews, Muslims, Hispanics, Hindus, Malays, atheists, Chinese, gays, socialists, aborigines and Indians - it is not helpful and discriminatory to base an argument or decision on stereotype.

As for the core issue of violence against women, I doubt that members of the public or other human rights activists would be so swayed to the extent that they would not support a anti-violence against women campaign solely on Manohari's statement.

That would be immature and selfish. The cause is good and the crimes despicable whether rape, sexual abuse, incest, assault or murder.

But such a statement I think does affect the alliances and the choices that one makes, ie one may pause and wait or rather join another group that can look at the issues as an individual phenomenon rather than blaming all crimes against women on men simply because they are men.

Such a statement also influences and perpetuates the general perception that 'feminism' or 'women's rights groups' - though they are not necessarily the same - are 'emotional' and man-hating.

This development certainly does not augur well with women's causes in general, and especially so in Malaysia where women rights are still finding difficulty to find equality. In many parts of the Western world, feminism is already viewed negatively, seen as outdated and counter-productive to women's rights.

The greatest danger I fear is that women's groups whether individually or as a classification risk being dismissed totally in the future by less enlightened entities due to such sweeping statements and inconsistencies.

What about grayer issues like affirmative action for women or rights of Muslim women in religion, society and family? Surely the issues are much more complex and would not be aided with similar statements.

It is silly to say that my concerns are just due to the male ego. There is really no need for personal attacks. My concerns are the protection, preservation and promotion of all human rights - for men and women.

I just hope that all human rights activists can look at the human rights issues at stake instead of the gender, religion, political belief or race of the perpetrator or victim in order for us to struggle for the betterment of our fellow human beings and society.

Let us try to remain consistent when speaking and acting publicly on all human rights issues and not discard principles that are dear to human rights when we feel like it. The chief human rights principle I am referring to is the non-distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.