Wednesday, August 22, 2007
“Ours is a movement dedicated to upholding human rights, not specific theologies.”
Even before it met in Mexico at the start of August, the International Council of Amnesty was being urged, by representatives of the Catholic Church, to reverse their Executive Council’s recommendations on sexual and reproductive rights. Instead the International Council affirmed those recommendations, as noted in this press release - “Amnesty International committed itself to strengthening the organization’s work on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and other factors contributing to women’s recourse to abortion and affirmed the organization’s policy on selected aspects on abortion (to support the decriminalisation of abortion, to ensure women have access to health care when complications arise from abortion and to defend women’s access to abortion, within reasonable gestational limits, when their health or human rights are in danger), emphasizing that women and men must exercise their sexual and reproductive rights free from coercion, discrimination and violence.” More details here. Subsequently the President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace is reported to have said that there should be “no more Catholic financing of Amnesty International” and, more generally, urged Catholic organisations worldwide to withdraw their support.
From the detail of Amnesty International’s affirmation of policy
Amnesty International supports women in claiming their rights. The lived experience of girls and women including of those with whom we work directly, shows how central are sexual and reproductive rights to their freedoms including their right to be free from gender-based violence and as a remedy where they have been subjected to such violence:
Forced and child marriage is a violation of girls’ and women’s sexual and reproductive rights.
The decision by Amnesty to affirm the policy comes after a two-year world-wide consultation within the organisation and they responded to the criticism here.
“We are a movement to protect citizens including the believer but we do not impose beliefs. Ours is a movement dedicated to upholding human rights, not specific theologies. Our purpose invokes the law and the state, not God. It means that sometimes the secular framework of human rights that Amnesty International upholds will converge neatly with the standpoints of certain faith based communities; sometimes it will not.”
But perhaps the most interesting comparison of responses comes from Amnesty Italy, as reported here
Amnesty Italy said in a statement in April that it had decided to involve itself in issues relating to abortion “to the extent that they are directly linked to its actions for the right to health and against violence against women.”
and Amnesty International’s Irish section, as noted by this Irish Times report [subs req]
Noeleen Hartigan, Amnesty International Ireland’s programmes director, has confirmed the Irish branch has effectively opted out of the controversial new policy, which seeks to address the lack of abortion availability, especially following mass rapes and ethnic cleansing.
Whilst the decidedly anti-choice website LifeStyle.net has additional quotes
Hartigan explained the actual situation to LifeSiteNews.com, saying, “The International Secretariat will, in consultation with national sections, develop campaigning actions to support women’s sexual and reproductive rights, including where relevant, action on selected aspects of abortion. At this point, when campaigning actions are to be implemented, all national sections of Amnesty International will decide which of these are relevant and appropriate to undertake at the domestic level.”
She continued, “In the Irish Section we will not be campaigning on the issue as it is not something our membership wish to work on. Amnesty International is one movement,” she further explained. It is diverse in its membership throughout the world and within Ireland.”
While not actively campaigning on abortion, Amnesty Ireland has not severed itself from the “one movement” Amnesty International and the abortion policy that it promotes. As Amnesty’s deputy secretary-general Kate Gilmore said, quoted by Kaiser Network, “No one country can step away from the decisions of the organization as a whole.” She added, “In Ireland’s case, it’s a matter of promoting other campaigns and finding areas that Ireland can work to its best strengths.”
At the start of this week Michael Evans, the RC bishop of East Anglia, and an active member for 31-years, resigned from Amnesty - which prompted this response from Amnesty spokesman Philippe Hensmans, “Amnesty is not a Catholic organization, and we can understand that the bishop, being part of the hierarchy of the church, can take no other position.”
Last night, Newsnight, hosted a debate between the two [RealPlayer file 34 mins in] where the focus was on tip-toeing through the minefield of competing rights.. something that our local representatives have still to do..
Pete Baker @ 03:14 PM
Thank you Patrick, however I doubt that in the cases in India or indeed in many if not most of the cases in China the abortions or post birth infanticide are “forced” as the parents concerned simply do not want a girl.
If these abortions are not forced by the government does AI believe it is fine for the parents to carry out this procedure? If so and the government of India for example passed a law prohibiting abortion on the basis of fetus gender would AI support or condemn such a move?
Posted by on Aug 23, 2007 @ 07:07 AMMaria, as I’m sure you will have guessed (the clues being in our name and in the location of our meeting last week), we are a global movement rather than a UK organisation and the policy position outlined above was overwhelmingly adopted by the global membership through our democratic structures.
Posted by on Aug 23, 2007 @ 09:05 AM“(the clues being in our name and in the location of our meeting last week)”
LOL. Good to Amnesty haven’t lost their sense of humour, what with trying to hold back the darkness on a daily basis.
Thank you for your posts, Patrick. Very illuminating.
Posted by on Aug 23, 2007 @ 10:01 AMDawkins: “LOL. Good to Amnesty haven’t lost their sense of humour, what with trying to hold back the darkness on a daily basis. “
Feh! A bunch of whiny do-gooders who have the same effect on these matters as would an individual snapping their fingers at the problem every five minutes. They hype motes, occasionally comment on planks, before sweeping them back under the rug so they can holler about the motes again. The sort who get squishy over a cop-killer’s poetry while wearing Che t-shirts to anti-death penalty rallies.
As I said before, there are far graver (no pun intended) human rights issues in Sudan than whether or not everyone has access to a Planned Parenthood clinic. In fact, were something actually done about the graver problems, oh, like the janjaweed militias, a lot of the other problems would start to fall into place. Not sure that the Muslims of the Sudan (not the Christians or animists, either, come to think of it) would embrace abortion, but without the bad-actors, the perceived need for this “service” would be reduced. It’s a wee bit like the “Free Tibet” crowd—lots of noise, but, beyond putting a new “Free Tibet” bumpersticker on their Volvo one a decade or so, what do they really do?
Posted by on Aug 23, 2007 @ 01:55 PMDread Cthulhu,
No doubt the many peeps whose release from hellholes of prisons Amnesty has helped effect will appreciate your support. As will the many thousands of others whose plights this excellent organization has championed throughout the years.
Best not to confuse AI with UN—although I admit the initials are remarkably similar.
Posted by on Aug 23, 2007 @ 02:12 PMDawkins: “Best not to confuse AI with UN—although I admit the initials are remarkably similar. “
As is their lack of efficacy… but at least AI doesn’t go to the trouble of putting the bad-actors in charge of the committees tasked with investigating the bad actors.
AI’s prescriptions are almost always palliative (at best), rather than curative—case in point, they want to make sure that the folks in Sudan have access to abortion. Now, glossing over the notion that this prescription is unlikely to have much impact, insofar as the lack of abortion availability is *NOT* even a secondary problem in the area in question, let alone the primary issue—i.e. it won’t solve the problem of which the rapes and unwanted pregnancies are a SYMPTOM. Also, it is not a “solution” the local populace—Muslim or Christian—will embrace. Beyond letting a few folks feel morally superior, what does this actually accomplish, beyond creating an unnecessary and divisive rift?
Posted by on Aug 23, 2007 @ 02:36 PMDread Cthulhu,
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, have you ever even looked at an Amnesty website?
Try this one and get back to me.
Posted by on Aug 23, 2007 @ 02:50 PMDawkins: “Jesus, Mary and Joseph, have you ever even looked at an Amnesty website? “
Oooooooh… self-promotion… now I’m pursuaded… /sarcasm off
Who do you expect me to believe, “your” website or what I see with mine own eyes, out in the real world, Dawkins?
You have been singularly unable to address the points in play, starting with Amenesty’s new-found interest in abortion is a silly notion, doing more to divide than unite. Don’t believe me? Even the comments above from AI national level spokespersons has indicated that this move is divisive, with some nations soft-peddling (or not-peddling) the new position. If it’s not playing well in Italy or Ireland, its certainly not going to play in Africa, where they still take their religions seriously.
AI is more about perceived Western moral superiority than anything else, populated by folks who follow the “throw money and moral platitudes” approach to solving problems, generally at targets who really don’t care about the opinion of Westerners.
Moral persuasion only works where there is a reasonably compatible pair of morals in play. Amnesty, in general, fails to acknowledge this.
Besides, anyone so irony-impaired not to grok the Che shirt at a anti-death-penalty rally is too ignorant to take seriously.
Posted by on Aug 23, 2007 @ 03:18 PMDread Cthulhu,
Nothing good to say about Amnesty’s extraordinary track record? No insults to retract?
OK. Goodbye.
Posted by on Aug 23, 2007 @ 03:42 PMPatrick,
I observe that you haven’t addressed my points about the questionable claims Amnesty has made and you have repeated.
Curiously, complaints about the partisan, undemocratic nature of Amnesty’s “consultation” aren’t limited to the UK.
This comment on another blog is illuminating:
“As Red Maria says, the UK respondents didn’t support the change. The general membership in the US WAS NEVER CONSULTED (my emphasis - Maria). The policy was discussed at regional meetings in the US late last year, but: a) most members don’t attend those meetings; and b) pro-life Amnesty members who tried to present the case for continued neutrality on abortion were told that the new policy was NOT BEING DEBATED (my emphasis - Maria), and that the discussion would only be about how best to implement it. Callers to Amnesty’s US national office in May 2006 WERE EVEN TOLD THAT AMNESTY WASN’T CONSIDER A CHANGE IN POLICY ON ABORTION AT ALL AND THAT THAT WAS JUST A RUMOR! (my emphasis - Maria) Members in the Australia chapter are also apparently very upset, based on the press I’ve been seeing from there.”
So Amnesty members in Ireland, the UK and the US - some of Amnesty’s largest national sections - are being ignored or deceived. This is not consistent with the assertion that the policy was “overwhelmingly adopted by the global membership through our democratic structures.”
Again, perhaps Mr Corrigan can tell us why Amnesty members have been ignored or deceived.Posted by on Aug 23, 2007 @ 07:01 PMPatrick, you write:
the policy position outlined above was overwhelmingly adopted by the global membership through our democratic structures
This is badly at odds with the experience I and other pro-life Amnesty members had. With regard to the “democratic structures” through which this decision was made, I have a few questions:
* In what ways were members informed of, and encouraged to express their views on, the proposed change in AI’s policy on abortion?
* Did AI keep track of calls, letters, e-mails and faxes from members expressing their views on the proposed policy? If so, how would you characterize member correspondence—generally for the new policy, against it, or split? If not, why not?
* What experts were consulted during the decision-making process? Were any of them proponents of human rights for the unborn child, pro-life feminism, or the consistent life ethic?
* When was the decision to adopt the policy actually made?
* Was there ever any chance that the new policy on abortion would not be adopted? If so, what circumstances would have led to its rejection?
Thank you very much for any information you can provide.
(By the way, I am the person who wrote the comment Red Maria quoted above.)
Posted by on Aug 23, 2007 @ 11:20 PMThank you, Dread Cthulu for articulating at length the very suspicion of Amnesty that has long been developing in my mind.
I was just plagued by a vision of the raped and abused women of Darfur, once they had Amnesty graciously confer “rights” upon them, slipping into their Miatra roadsters and tootling along to the local abortion clinic before refreshing themselves with a skinny latte at Starbucks and a little light handbag shopping afterwards in the mall to cheer them up.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:04 AMDawkins, thin-skinned, aren’t you? Wnless you *ARE* one who wears Che t-shirts to anti-death penalty rallies and doesn’t understand the irony, there is nothing for you to take personally. *IF* you are such, I’m sorry, but reading a history pertinent to the subject will clear it up for you.
The short form would appear that someone with AI pulled an autocratic move, tried to pass it off as the will of the organization. Now, as the chickens come home to roost, excuses are being made and denials presented. The move, as evidenced from the quotes in the story and a number of the posters isn’t playing well. The lies used to present the policy change are being questioned.
Rory: They’re a shower—a couple steps behind the Peace Corps. types who proscribe solutions unsustainable by the populations they seek to help. At lease the PC A) wants to help and B) has good intentions.
The AI crowd would appear to be just another of the causettes—they want to feel like they are making a difference without having to question their prescription’s appropriateness or efficacy, even to take Red Maria and Jen R at their word, amongst themselves. A needlessly divisive policy change has been made. It will be interesting to see what happens next, mayhap in the Chinese sense of the word.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 02:39 PMOh look, Patrick Corrigan has disappeared. As soon as his carefully spun statements are scrutinised for factual content he melts away. His silence is more eloquent than anything I could say.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 03:15 PMAbortion is a very emotive issue so it is no surprise that this discussion has generated so much heat. In my view abortion is wrong. If two people have engaged in a relationship, however fleeting, and the result is a pregnancy then I would be treating them as less than human if I expected that they would not live up to their responsibilities and provide for their child. There are however two difficult cases where the general presumption against abortion presents a problem. The easier to resolve is where the mother’s life is genuinely threatened if the baby if carried to full term. In this case society may make a judgement and that judgement must surely be that the mother rather than the unborn child should live. The more difficult case is where, generally in a war situation, the mother becomes unwillingly pregnant through rape. I simply confess that I have no response to the dilemma posed by this case. On the one hand the child conceived is no less worthy of life than any other but on the other hand to expect all women (some I’m sure would cope) to accept the situation seems just too cruel.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 05:35 PMStupid move. losing my support (and many others).
An organistaion that claims to be pro human rights yet tramples over the views of their own members.
What about the mass extermination in India and China of unborn babies. That ani’t forced.
Who’s rights do you support there? The mothers cause the baby happens to be a girl??
They’ll look back in centuries to come (if the world still exists) and be ashamed at what so call civilised man got up to.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 07:48 PMRed Maria: “Oh look, Patrick Corrigan has disappeared. As soon as his carefully spun statements are scrutinised for factual content he melts away. His silence is more eloquent than anything I could say. “
This is a suprise? Surely, once it’s clear the Emperor has no clothes, you don’t expect him to hang about…
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 07:50 PMDavidD: That was a fair enough analysis… but let me ask you this—who do you think this shift is policy is truly aimed at?
Africa and South America? Surely not—these are places where religion is still taken deadly seriously (some places more seriously (or more deadly) than others). China and India? Hell, this is almost cover-fire for their policies, or will be molded into such by those governments.
No, I suspect this is simply just a cheap attempt to wrench the wheel of the organization further to the left and grind a little harder at those nations of the Europe and North America. As evidenced by the posts from some pro-life members, this was not a subject of debate, some sock-puppet’s words to the contrary notwithstanding. This appears to have been an autocratic decree, with some of the national level leaders apparently suprised and/or unhappy with the change.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 04:54 PMAnd do you know what else, Dread Cthulu? The sock puppet - Patrick Corrigan - isn’t just anyone. He’s a high level Amnesty official, director of its Northern Ireland operations, in fact.
But when challenged to verify certain questionable statements he disappeared. The director of Amnesty Northern Ireland couldn’t back up his own spin.
Not very impressive is it?Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 07:13 PM
