Thursday, March 4, 2010

Amnesty International betrays founding principles over jihadists

For years Amnesty International has refused to acknowledge the human rights of the unborn. Now atheist and former AI supporter, Christopher Hitchens, argues that the human rights organization has further lost its way by refusing to distance itself from jihadists. He starts his criticism in Slate with a brief recitation of history.

"It's an old story, but it bears retelling. One day at the dawn of the 1960s, a lawyer named Peter Benenson was reading the newspaper on the London subway. He came across a small item reporting that two students from Portugal—then still a fascist dictatorship running a filthy empire in Africa—had been sentenced to seven years imprisonment for raising a toast to liberty in a public place in Lisbon. After a short cogitation, he decided to take action, and his open letter concerning "prisoners of conscience" was published on the front page of the London Observer. You may never have heard or read about this micro-event or its macro consequences, but I am willing to wager that you have heard of Amnesty International, which was the great tree that sprouted from this acorn. Its "branches"—the innumerable local groups that sprang into existence—have been responsible for the release of many political prisoners and the public shaming of many of the regimes that hold them."

Read the evidence.
He concludes: "Amnesty International was not set up to defend everybody, no matter what they did. No organization in the world could hope to do that. IRA bombers and Khmer Rouge killers and Gens. Pinochet and Videla were not Amnesty prisoners when they eventually faced the bar of the court. The entire raison d'ĂȘtre of the noble foundation was to defend and protect those who were made to suffer for their views. In theory, I suppose, this could include the view that women should be chattel, homosexuals and Jews and Hindus marked for slaughter, and all the rest of the lovely jihadist canon. But—see above—Cageprisoners defends those who have gone slightly further than merely advocating such things. It's well-nigh incredible that Amnesty should give a platform to people who are shady on this question and absolutely disgraceful that it should suspend a renowned employee who gave voice to her deep and sincere misgivings...."


  1. Why don,t you ever show pictures of the innocent detainnes-shackled like dods for over 7 years-that this god fearing country keeps imprisoned?Why don,t you ever show innocent iraqi and afghanastan babies born with horrific birth defects because of our 2 decade blitz and"smart bombing"campaigns.You finally invoke the memory of the late great john paul the 2nd,but you of course never mention his vehement horror of the military/masonic/immoral invasion of vastly inferior countries.stop pretending to be pro-life catholics and followers of the vicar of christ.You are american/protestant/catholics.John paul the great would have nothing to do with the fear and war mongering that you sponsor...elliot

  2. elliot,
    Thanks for caring enough to post. But why do you always sound rabid? Seriously. How is someone supposed to respond to "you never mention his vehement horror of the military/masoic/immoral invasion of vastly inferior countries." This isn't an argument it's an accusation and even at that it's more of a rant. Get serious if you want discussion.