Amnesty International and practicing what you preach

[khib70]

Gita Sahgal is the head of the gender unit at Amnesty International. She has been suspended from her post for doing this:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7017810.ece

So when it comes to Islamism, an organisation with a long and honourable record of defending free speech, has suspended an employee for allowing her conscience to speak. A stark illustration of the intellectual left's current relativist "three wise monkeys" attitude to Islamic extremism.

Thought I'd draw this to everyone's attention, since I strongly suspect the usual suspects wont:wink:

[hibsbollah]

Gita Sahgal is the head of the gender unit at Amnesty International. She has been suspended from her post for doing this:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7017810.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7017810.ece)

So when it comes to Islamism, an organisation with a long and honourable record of defending free speech, has suspended an employee for allowing her conscience to speak. A stark illustration of the intellectual left's current relativist "three wise monkeys" attitude to Islamic extremism.

Thought I'd draw this to everyone's attention, since I strongly suspect the usual suspects wont:wink:

I just disagree with her. As their statement said “We need to be engaging with those people who we find most unpalatable. I don’t consider anybody a terrorist until they have been charged and convicted of terrorism.” Whether you agree with his views on the Taliban or not, Begg was tortured and held without charge for years in Guantanamo, and as such Amnesty are justified in speaking on the same platform as him.

Do you think of Amnesty International as 'the intellectual left'? I always considered human rights as something that concerned both ends of the political spectrum?:confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

Gita Sahgal is the head of the gender unit at Amnesty International. She has been suspended from her post for doing this:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7017810.ece

So when it comes to Islamism, an organisation with a long and honourable record of defending free speech, has suspended an employee for allowing her conscience to speak. A stark illustration of the intellectual left's current relativist "three wise monkeys" attitude to Islamic extremism.

Thought I'd draw this to everyone's attention, since I strongly suspect the usual suspects wont:wink:

Isn't it, though, just as simple as Csaba's case? She spoke out in public against her employer. A case of an untenable position, in any employment.

[khib70]

I just disagree with her. As their statement said “We need to be engaging with those people who we find most unpalatable. I don’t consider anybody a terrorist until they have been charged and convicted of terrorism.” Whether you agree with his views on the Taliban or not, Begg was tortured and held without charge for years in Guantanamo, and as such Amnesty are justified in speaking on the same platform as him.

Do you think of Amnesty International as 'the intellectual left'? I always considered human rights as something that concerned both ends of the political spectrum?:confused:
You're entitled to disagree with her. No problem. But do you honestly support her being suspended from her post for following her conscience. Can't you see the irony in an organisation like Amnesty doing that?

And the statement you quote about "engaging with people" is not from Amnesty at all, but from Moazzam Begg himself. And as David Aaronovitch points out
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article7019817.ece
Begg's organisation's website openly supports several people who have been tried and convicted of terrorist offences.

I've always had the utmost respect for Amnesty for defending human rights objectively and without the cultural and political relativism which blights much of the left and right. It would appear that the current leadership are leaning much more towards a relativist position with their shameful treatment of Gita Sahgal.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Gita Sahgal is the head of the gender unit at Amnesty International. She has been suspended from her post for doing this:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7017810.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7017810.ece)

So when it comes to Islamism, an organisation with a long and honourable record of defending free speech, has suspended an employee for allowing her conscience to speak. A stark illustration of the intellectual left's current relativist "three wise monkeys" attitude to Islamic extremism.

Thought I'd draw this to everyone's attention, since I strongly suspect the usual suspects wont:wink:

Where does it say anything about her being suspended?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Gita Sahgal is the head of the gender unit at Amnesty International. She has been suspended from her post for doing this:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7017810.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7017810.ece)

So when it comes to Islamism, an organisation with a long and honourable record of defending free speech, has suspended an employee for allowing her conscience to speak. A stark illustration of the intellectual left's current relativist "three wise monkeys" attitude to Islamic extremism.

Thought I'd draw this to everyone's attention, since I strongly suspect the usual suspects wont.

I don't get this bit either. :confused:

[Sylar]

Where does it say anything about her being suspended?

Not like you to be too lazy to do your own research :wink:


Statement by Gita Sahgal

7 February 2010

This morning the Sunday Times published an article about Amnesty International’s association with groups that support the Taliban and promote Islamic Right ideas. In that article, I was quoted as raising concerns about Amnesty’s very high profile associations with Guantanamo-detainee Moazzam Begg. I felt that Amnesty International was risking its reputation by associating itself with Begg, who heads an organization, Cageprisoners, that actively promotes Islamic Right ideas and individuals.

Within a few hours of the article being published, Amnesty had suspended me from my job.

A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when a great organisation must ask: if it lies to itself, can it demand the truth of others? For in defending the torture standard, one of the strongest and most embedded in international human rights law, Amnesty International has sanitized the history and politics of the ex-Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg and completely failed to recognize the nature of his organisation Cageprisoners.

The tragedy here is that the necessary defence of the torture standard has been inexcusably allied to the political legitimization of individuals and organisations belonging to the Islamic Right.

I have always opposed the illegal detention and torture of Muslim men at Guantanamo Bay and during the so-called War on Terror. I have been horrified and appalled by the treatment of people like Moazzam Begg and I have personally told him so. I have vocally opposed attempts by governments to justify ‘torture lite’.

The issue is not about Moazzam Begg’s freedom of opinion, nor about his right to propound his views: he already exercises these rights fully as he should. The issue is a fundamental one about the importance of the human rights movement maintaining an objective distance from groups and ideas that are committed to systematic discrimination and fundamentally undermine the universality of human rights. I have raised this issue because of my firm belief in human rights for all.

I sent two memos to my management asking a series of questions about what considerations were given to the nature of the relationship with Moazzam Begg and his organisation, Cageprisoners. I have received no answer to my questions. There has been a history of warnings within Amnesty that it is inadvisable to partner with Begg. Amnesty has created the impression that Begg is not only a victim of human rights violations but a defender of human rights. Many of my highly respected colleagues, each well-regarded in their area of expertise has said so. Each has been set aside.

As a result of my speaking to the Sunday Times, Amnesty International has announced that it has launched an internal inquiry. This is the moment to press for public answers, and to demonstrate that there is already a public demand including from Amnesty International members, to restore the integrity of the organisation and remind it of its fundamental principles.

I have been a human rights campaigner for over three decades, defending the rights of women and ethnic minorities, defending religious freedom and the rights of victims of torture, and campaigning against illegal detention and state repression. I have raised the issue of the association of Amnesty International with groups such as Begg’s consistently within the organisation. I have now been suspended for trying to do my job and staying faithful to Amnesty’s mission to protect and defend human rights universally and impartially.

[hibsbollah]

You're entitled to disagree with her. No problem. But do you honestly support her being suspended from her post for following her conscience. Can't you see the irony in an organisation like Amnesty doing that?

And the statement you quote about "engaging with people" is not from Amnesty at all, but from Moazzam Begg himself. And as David Aaronovitch points out
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article7019817.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article7019817.ece)
Begg's organisation's website openly supports several people who have been tried and convicted of terrorist offences.

I've always had the utmost respect for Amnesty for defending human rights objectively and without the cultural and political relativism which blights much of the left and right. It would appear that the current leadership are leaning much more towards a relativist position with their shameful treatment of Gita Sahgal.

It doesnt say she was suspended:confused:

Ah OK. Well i'd like to see what Amnesty say first. I'd imagine she's crossed some sort of line re-slagging her employers.

[hibsbollah]

I don't get this bit either. :confused:

I think he's suggesting you're too partisan to be objective about the case:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Can someone talk to me please? :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Can someone talk to me please? :greengrin

I agree with you:greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Not like you to be too lazy to do your own research :wink:

I read throught he article and others and couldn't see anything about it. But fair enough.

I'm slightly confused how it's considered strange for her to be suspended seeing as she's essentially publicly accused her employers of being tacitly supportive of the Taliban.

This is an awfully confusing thread.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I think he's suggesting you're too partisan to be objective about the case:greengrin

But I've got no vested interest in Amnesty International, yet it's supposedly conspicuous that I - presumably it was at least partially referring to me - haven't made reference to it (which isn't that difficult considering I hadn't heard about the case until khibs' post)...

I'm dreadfully confused.

[khib70]

I think he's suggesting you're too partisan to be objective about the case:greengrin
Not really, and it wasn't aimed at him in particular. I was expressing the view that had this been an employee being suspended for criticising their organisaton's links with,say, Israel, there would have been a thread up like a shot, and the howls of outrage would be audible in Wick.

And I would support such an employee, before anyone asks. I don't do relativism

Sorry for causing confusion by not linking to the statement about her suspension.

And on the "criticising your employer" issue - would anyone want this to be a sacking offence anywhere, not just in an organisation devoted to human rights?

[khib70]

I read throught he article and others and couldn't see anything about it. But fair enough.

I'm slightly confused how it's considered strange for her to be suspended seeing as she's essentially publicly accused her employers of being tacitly supportive of the Taliban.

This is an awfully confusing thread.
:agree:My bad, probably.

And she has done nothing of the sort. She has accused her employers of sharing platforms with someone who is openly supportive of the Taliban.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Not really, and it wasn't aimed at him in particular. I was expressing the view that had this been an employee being suspended for criticising their organisaton's links with,say, Israel, there would have been a thread up like a shot, and the howls of outrage would be audible in Wick.

And I would support such an employee, before anyone asks. I don't do relativism

Sorry for causing confusion by not linking to the statement about her suspension.

And on the "criticising your employer" issue - would anyone want this to be a sacking offence anywhere, not just in an organisation devoted to human rights?


:agree:My bad, probably.

And she has done nothing of the sort. She has accused her employers of sharing platforms with someone who is openly supportive of the Taliban.

She hasn't been sacked, she's been suspended.

I don't know, this is all astonishingly vague. I'm not really sure why I'm even responding, but...

If someone publicly criticised their employer for its ties to Israel - let's for the sake of argument say a BAE employee - he would be able to point to a series of clear human rights abuses in which his employer was complicit. Therefore I would support the employee.

In the same way, Sahgal should have to point to similar levels of proof concerning Begg's 'open support of the Taliban' or other organisations guilty of concrete human rights abuses to gain the same level of support. Can she? She certainly doesn't come close in the statement posted above, which would surely be the perfect place to do so.

It seems Begg has started legal proceedings against the Sunday Times and has posted this response.

[/URL]http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=31015 (http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=31015)


I was shocked and extremely disappointed to see your article in today's Sunday Times make no reference at all to the questions you so ardently sought to have answered (as mentioned below) and, that I explained to you in some detail in our telephone conversation yesterday.

Your headline makes a serious accusation: that it proves to expose a tangible link between Amnesty and the Taliban. Can I ask exactly who in the Taliban you are referring to that is either linked to Amnesty or me?


It seems very odd that your article, which is entirely about Amnesty's relationships with me, carries very little in the way of responses from me which you so clearly went out of your way to seek. Why is that?


When asked about the nature of my relationship with Amnesty you make no mention of my response: that I work very closely with them and that it stretches back to the time that Amnesty worked with my father when I was in Guantanamo.


I told you clearly that if you wanted to know my (and Cageprisoners') views about Awlaki to refer to the article that is on our website: (http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=30886)[url]http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=30886 (http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=30886) in which you could have quoted, had you wished, the following:


"Cageprisoners never has and never will support the ideology of killing innocent civilians, whether by suicide bombers or B52s, whether that’s authorised by Awlaki or by Obama. Neither will we be forced into determining a person’s guilt outside a recognised court of law." This article also deals with any concerns about the recent Christmas day plot - something you asked us about.


When asked specifically about the Taliban I told you my view: that I have advocated for engagement and dialogue with the Taliban well before our own government took the official position of doing the same - only last week - although, I did not say, like the government, we should be giving them lots of money in order to do so.



I also clearly told you, though you deliberately chose to ignore, that I had actually witnessed what I believe were human rights abuses under the Taliban and have detailed them in my book, from which you conveniently and selectively quote. I added that the US administration had perpetrated severe human rights abuses against me for years but that didn’t mean I opposed dialogue with them. I even told you that Cageprisoners and I have initiated pioneering steps in that regard by organising tours all around the UK with former US guards from Guantanamo and men who were once imprisoned there. Cagreprisoners is the only organisation to have done so. (One of these soldiers, upon in response to your article sent this message to me: They are attacking you and your causes...don’t forget you have real support by some of us ex-Soldiers who have seen the light... I expect he too will be accused by your likes of being brainwashed by me). Instead, you simply say, without qualification, 'He defended his support for the Taliban....’


Had you - and Ms Sahgal no doubt - done your homework properly you'd have discovered also that I was involved in the building of, setting up and running of a school for girls in Kabul during the time of the Taliban, but of course, that wouldn't have sat well with the agenda and nature of your heavily biased and poorly researched article.


In relation to MS. Sahgal, I told you - and you were fully aware - that I appeared on a BBC Radio 4 show, Hecklers, alongside her, Tariq Ramadan, Lord Nazir Ahmed, Tahmina Saleem (ISB) and Daud Abdullah (MCB). I told you that her analysis of the situation on this programme was so poor and skewed that she referred to all of us as 'partners of the government in the war against terror' until I reminded I was sitting on the panel.


I told you too that I have never since spoken to Ms. Sahgal and that if she had any concerns about my work she has never put them to me and that I found it most odd that she found it more appropriate to discuss this in the media first. Again, had you done your research properly you'd have made some reference to our first meeting on Radio 4 where I iterated that the way to solve conflicts can be found in the Northern Ireland model (engaging with 'terrorists). I have engaged in several such initiatives, some of them hosted by Amnesty, asking people to look at this episode as a place to find solutions. Bizarrely, Ms. Sahgal, through her argument, seemed to reject this view. Whilst it gives me no personal pleasure to hear of the suspension of Ms. Sahgal for holding her view the newspapers were not the right place to air them without first putting them to Cageprisoners or me.


You had also interviewed my colleague, Asim Qureshi, but again failed to mention anything thing he said to you in relation to the work of Cageprisoners and our relationship with Amnesty International.


To conclude, I believe your article, is written in a style clearly designed, intentionally or by negligence, to damage our relationship with human rights organisations and discredit the work we do in advocating for the rights of those who have suffered terrible human rights abuses. As such, I have referred your article to your editor and the Press Complaints Commission as a formal and major complaint and, to my lawyers to pursue legal action.


Moazzam Begg