Funny that this should come out after the “redundancy” of Gita Sahgal – though it still remains that many people Amnesty would call friends have particularly unpalatable views of women, and many other things for that matter.

It’s actually more important this came out after that affair because it shows the charge that Amnesty had “abandoned” womens rights is basically a pile of steaming hot shit.

Are you quite sure it means that Sunny. It’s not that I think they aren’t well-meaning but it does look like they employ a certain measure of relativism. With the timing of this and the recent words spoken by a certain Claudio Cordone I don’t think this will silence the critics.

I’m sure it won’t silence some critics. I’m just not convinced most of those critics are interested in human rights.

You can surely see the shortfall here though, that Amnesty representatives have championed people who neither you or I would call advocates of human rights. Moazzam Begg might be someone who has spent time in the ghastly illegal (or is the problem not that it was illegal, but that those who created it were above the law) dwelling Guantanamo but it is the issue, not the person, who Amnesty should concern themselves with.

The impression that is given off with Gita Sahgal is that amnesty has chosen the unpalatable cageprisoner member (with his links with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man who tried to blow up a transatlantic jet on Christmas Day) over her, and have today issued a 2-page document of soft data probably saved up for bad PR times such as these. I really don’t think this can be overlooked.

I should add that the link between Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and the Cageprisoners, to which organisation Moazzam Begg is involved with, has been written about in this Times article by Sean O’Neill, Crime and Security Editor, whose words we may or may not believe.

“Funny that this should come out after the “redundancy” of Gita Sahgal” it is, in fact Amnesty are so conniving they actually went back in time 5 years and started their Stop Violence Against Women campaign.

Um, the woman in the accompanying photograph may have been mistreated, but the scene looks more like a certain male fantasy about a vulnerable yet still attractive woman. Plus, she appears to be European, not one of the ethnic groups mainly associated with AI’s gender unit.

This strikes as more representative.

Surely if Amnesty are making Sahgal ‘redundant’ it because there is no more work for her to do?

Wouldn’t a simple statement ‘Job Done’ have sufficed?

I love that you’ve chosen a scantilly clad model to go with a “Women’s Rights” article. Very subversive.

Sunny,

You may reckon “the charge that Amnesty had “abandoned” womens rights is basically a pile of steaming hot shit” (incisive analysis, by the way) but it seems clear that Amnesty won’t be doing much for women’s rights in Iraq, Afghanistan or indeed any other state or region where extreme Islamic groups operate.

Wouldn’t want to offend the nutters in Cageprisoners now would we?

Personally, I don’t understand why anyone should feel that women in Afghanistan have less or different rights than women anywhere else. I must be missing something …

it seems clear that Amnesty won’t be doing much for women’s rights in Iraq, Afghanistan or indeed any other state or region where extreme Islamic groups operate.

Recent press releases by Amnesty

Attack on Afghan female politician highlights growing risk to women

Afghan women human rights defenders tell of intimidation and attacks

Also, from Iraq: Human rights briefing

Women are also suffering violence at the hands of their fathers, brothers and other relatives, particularly if they try to choose how to lead their own lives. Many face terrible retribution if they refuse to be forcibly married or dare to associate with men not selected by their families – even though Iraqi legislation specifically prohibits forced marriage, and the right to choose a spouse is guaranteed under international law applicable in all parts of Iraq. Some women are reported to have been killed by male relatives who the authorities have then failed to bring to justice.

Carl

Moazzam Begg might be someone who has spent time in the ghastly illegal (or is the problem not that it was illegal, but that those who created it were above the law) dwelling Guantanamo but it is the issue, not the person, who Amnesty should concern themselves with.

But how can you be concerned about the issue of a gross violation of human rights without regard for the individuals who have actually suffered from such violations?

have today issued a 2-page document of soft data probably saved up for bad PR times such as these.

The document was one of several released to coincide with the general election campaign with the aim of putting pressure on the parties to include support for human rights in their agenda.

Wouldn’t want to offend the nutters in Cageprisoners now would we?

you’re right – I’m also pissed off they didn’t condemn the US decision to assassinate Awalaki without trial. Oh wait, you were concerned about that weren’t you?

13 –

“how can you be concerned about the issue of a gross violation of human rights without regard for the individuals who have actually suffered from such violations?”

good point – but I don’t think that logic holds everywhere. Basic freedom of speech dictates that a person should not be put in prison for stuff which they have thought or said (within reason). Moazzam Begg has some rather unpalatable ideas (to say the least) and Guantanamo Bay is a place in Cuba where Americans keep people without trials (my objection) – but nonetheless Moazzam Begg has some rather unpalatable ideas and that’s why amnesty should maintain a distance.

Unlike with some of the left, and I’m not acusing anyone here of applying this, but my enemy’s enemy is not my friend. I don’t have to like the people I don’t want in Guantanamo Bay.

“The document was one of several released to coincide with the general election campaign”

Well it was good timing though wasn’t it. But I’m not bothered by that, my contention is does their proximity to Moazzam Begg not run into conflict with their obviously well-meaning line on the international rights for women? I’d say a resounding yes.

my contention is does their proximity to Moazzam Begg not run into conflict with their obviously well-meaning line on the international rights for women? I’d say a resounding yes.

No, that’s not the question to ask – because then they shouldn’t be allowed to work with orgs like the Catholic Church. I want to know what specific views of MB post Gitmo we’re talking about here firstly.
But that isn’t the main point. The main question should be: has Amnesty’s work been compromised by working with Begg? No it hasn’t. And not a single shhred of evidence has been proved to show that.