• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Amnesty International: Evil and must be destroyed.

"Evil and must be destroyed" is a bit over the top (I assume for dramatic effect). But AI has certainly lost its way when a true advocate for human rights is thrown aside for questioning the judgment of her superiors in providing a platform for a radical hate group. For shame.
 
ravdin said:
"Evil and must be destroyed" is a bit over the top (I assume for dramatic effect). But AI has certainly lost its way when a true advocate for human rights is thrown aside for questioning the judgment of her superiors in providing a platform for a radical hate group. For shame.
Click to expand...

Hey. Someone gets it.

I knew there had to be one. :cool:
 
ravdin said:
"Evil and must be destroyed" is a bit over the top (I assume for dramatic effect). But AI has certainly lost its way when a true advocate for human rights is thrown aside for questioning the judgment of her superiors in providing a platform for a radical hate group. For shame.
Click to expand...

It's like the ACLU: a group that started out with great motives, and did a lot of good work, but over the past few years has become heavily politicised and now appears to cut those of a certain political bent a lot of slack they do not cut for those of other political views.
And then you have those who think that such groups are holy and beyond criticism.
 
Begg is a noted torture victim. He appeared in this documentary about the practice of torture and seemed to talk articulately and passionately about why torture on Muslim prisoners is wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_to_the_Dark_Side

He actually seemed like a reasonable person in the doc. Not at all like an extremist. He said, if memory serves, that if he wasn't a terrorist and innocent of all terrorist activities before going to Gitmo, well, his treatment at the hands of the Americans would certainly have made him one. Meaning he wasn't one and was innocently accused in the first place and tortured wrongly.
 
I think one of the people commenting on the article sums it up well:

...snip....
philip astles

AI UK has a statement on it's site saying Gita Saghal was not suspened for her views on Begg. Don't know if that is true or not.

AI should defend anyone that has been imprisoned without trial, no matter what they are accused of, have done in the past, or whatever. However AI should not thereafter continue to associate itself with someone they campaigned for if there is evidence that the person has committed other crimes or crimes against humanity or encourages others to do so. Just because someone is "Bad" doesn't mean that AI campaigning for them to have a trial or be released was wrong. You just might not want to AI to hang out with them afterward and be all chummy. There is a difference here between wanting someone to have justice and agreeing with everything they say and do.

...snip...
Click to expand...
 
Gita Sahgal didn't question AI's arguing for the release of Moazzem Begg. She just didn't think AI should have promoted him and Cageprisoners as champions of human rights.

Here's the Times article linked through Hitchens commentary:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7026143.ece

Here's an interview with Ms. Sahgal:
http://www.human-rights-for-all.org/spip.php?article30

Ms. Sahgal may be totally wrong, but it's disgraceful that AI would suspend her for voicing her opinion. Given the timing mentioned in the Times article, I don't buy that she was suspended for other reasons.

Please ignore trollish hyperbole and consider the actual situation.
 
dudalb said:
It's like the ACLU: a group that started out with great motives, and did a lot of good work, but over the past few years has become heavily politicised and now appears to cut those of a certain political bent a lot of slack they do not cut for those of other political views.
And then you have those who think that such groups are holy and beyond criticism.
Click to expand...

The Southern Poverty Law Center is another example. They did such great work fighting against the Klan but have sinced turned into simply a partisan political outfit.

I think this sort of thing is something that all NGO's have to fight against. They are almost all started by people who are very passionate about a specific cause, charity, etc (the primary mission), but after they've been operating for years they often change priorities away from their stated primary mission to something else. The primary mission often changes to something political and/or simply the continuance of the NGO (and the continuance of employment) even if they have to constantly move the goalposts or completely change their primary mission.

MADD is another example: the founder of MADD has criticized it for becoming an organization for radical prohibitionists.

I remember reading an essay by Patrick Moore in which he mentions that he knew it was time to get out of Greenpeace when 1) they started offering a 401k, and 2) tons of previously pro-communist activists joined after the fall of the Berlin wall.
 
Last edited:
MikeMagnum,

I think part of what you are talking about is covered under The Iron Law of Institutions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom