©http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/. Unauthorized duplication of this blog's material is prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full credit and link is given to Otters and Science News Blogspot. Link to this post: http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/2015/04/amnesty-international-votes-against.html - Thank you for visiting my blog.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL?
OR
Amnesty International's home page says:
"We campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all"
This appears to be false advertising.
What is missing is a disclaimer clarifying: "ALL EXCEPT THE JEWS."
Amnesty International (AI) describes itself as a “worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all.”
However:
(Read exposure of Amnesty International's true agenda further down this page.)
TRUE TO CHARACTER, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL VOTES AGAINST RESOLUTION CONDEMNING ANTI-SEMITISM
Amnesty International has rejected a motion to tackle the rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Britain at its annual conference.
The motion was table by Amnesty member Andrew Thorpe-Apps in March who said it was defeated at the International AGM on Sunday by 468 votes to 461.
Mr Trope Apps said: “It was the only resolution to be defeated during the whole conference.”Continue reading
In March the charity confirmed the resolution calling for the group to “campaign against anti-Semitism in the UK and lobby the government to tackle the rise in attacks” had been accepted for discussion at the conference.
A spokesperson for Amnesty said: “We can confirm this resolution has been tabled and will be debated at the AGM.”
Mr Thorpe-Apps said he put forward the motion because “I recently joined and I believe passionately about human rights.
“I was aware that the organisation has been outwardly pro-Palestine in the past but it hasn’t stood up for the Jewish population and I think it would be good if they did that.
“I’m not Jewish myself but I’ve been appalled by what I’ve seen in the press facing the Jewish community and an organisation like Amnesty should really add their voice to that as they do with other human rights issues.”
This AGM CALLS On AIUK to:
• Campaign against anti-Semitism in the UK.
• Lobby the UK Government to do more to tackle the rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Britain, whether physical or verbal, online or in person. The UK Government should monitor anti-Semitism closely and periodically review the security of Britain’s Jewish population.
Proposer background notes:
It has been 70 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. Yet, even in 2015, European Jews are facing intolerance and abuse from anti-Semites.
There are now Jewish schools in the UK where the children are prepared for a potential terrorist attack, and there are Downing Street-style car bomb barriers to shield school buildings.
This year witnessed the murder of four Jews following the appalling Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. In February a Jewish man was shot outside Copenhagen’s main synagogue following an attack at a free speech debate.
On 9th February, the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism report was launched at Lambeth Palace. The report found that there was a 221% increase in hate crimes directed at Jews during the 2014 conflict between Israel and Gaza, when compared with the same period in 2013.
The Community Security Trust, which monitors anti-Semitic abuse and attacks, recorded 314 incidents in July 2014, the highest ever monthly total and more than the preceding six months combined. A quarter of these incidents took place on social media, and one third used Holocaust-related language or imagery.
The All-Party Parliamentary report recommends that:
• An independent council of non-Jewish figures is established to highlight trends in anti-Semitism, and make suggestions to the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
• The UK Government fund more research into anti-Semitism, report the findings to Parliament at least once per session about its work combating hate crime, and work with the CPS, police, and social-media companies to make online anti-Semitic abuse easier to report and stop.
I assume that the voting was by secret ballot, which means that while Amnesty publicly says that it is against anti-Semitism, in reality most members actually have no problem with attacks against Jews.
Which indicates that Amnesty's bias against Israel isn't a result of Israeli actions, but a result of the Jew-hatred among Amnesty's membership, a hate that they hide behind the false mantra of human rights.
Even more troubling is the fact that there are so few Amnesty members condemning this. The only tweets from the conference itself about this issue seem to have all come from Matt Provost:
Which indicates that Amnesty's bias against Israel isn't a result of Israeli actions, but a result of the Jew-hatred among Amnesty's membership, a hate that they hide behind the false mantra of human rights.
Even more troubling is the fact that there are so few Amnesty members condemning this. The only tweets from the conference itself about this issue seem to have all come from Matt Provost:
One would think that at least some of the 461 "human rights activists" who voted in favor would be publicly upset at Amnesty's obvious double standards, or how it has been taken over by Jew-haters. (Really, how else would you characterize people who vote against condemning Jew-hatred except that they support it?) If Amnesty really cared about human rights, this event would evince some soul-searching among its leadership.
Yet we are hearing practically nothing, even though the conference ended two days ago.
Amnesty claims to be for universal human rights - but Jews who are being attacked are apparently not human enough for these self-righteous hypocrites.
Amnesty International has zero credibility as a human rights group.
Yet we are hearing practically nothing, even though the conference ended two days ago.
Amnesty claims to be for universal human rights - but Jews who are being attacked are apparently not human enough for these self-righteous hypocrites.
Amnesty International has zero credibility as a human rights group.
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2015/04/amnesty-international-votes-against.html#.VTZAIMpFCM8
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RELATED
No charity for Israel from Amnesty International
Amnesty International's bias against Israel is so blatant it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Prof. Michael Curtis deals the killing blow against this organisation and its litany of misdeeds.
We all thought Oxfam was the most bigoted international charity organization but along has come Amnesty International to displace it from the pinnacle of shame.
What is it about these supposedly good will international organizations that makes them so disproportionately obsessed with and so biased against the State of Israel and its citizens?
What makes them so little aware, in any consistent way, of issues in the other 192 countries in the world?
Over the last twenty years, activities of AI have shown a persistent attitude of criticism and even hostility towards Israel. Its official statements have referred to the “ethnic cleansing” in Israeli society, to the racial supremacy of Israel, to the expulsion and dispossession of Palestinians, and to the “current structure” of Israel as an apartheid state. It has no genuine title to neutrality.
AI has supported the movement to boycott Israel. In a manner familiar from the diatribes of antisemites, it has criticized Israel for exploiting the memory of the Holocaust in order to oppress the Palestinian people. It defended the anti-Israeli, and implicitly antisemitic, remarks of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he was President of Iran.
Some of the pronouncements of AI have been over the top. It declared that the Israeli blockade of Gaza prevented “thousands of Palestinian students” in Gaza from pursuing higher education in the West Bank. AI seemed totally unaware of the considerable number of Palestinians who attend universities in Israel as well as in Palestinian areas.
Read full article here
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4778/no_charity_for_israel_from_amnesty_international
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NGO MONITOR EXPOSES THE TRUTH ABOUT
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Website: www.amnesty.org
Source
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_international
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amnesty International: Failed Methodology, Corruption, and Anti-Israel Bias
This research project is in progress (Latest update February 23, 2015). Additional sections will be added in the upcoming weeks.
Amnesty International is perhaps the most prestigious international non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to furthering human rights. Amnesty’s campaigns and publications are quoted by political leaders, journalists, diplomats, and academics.
Yet, despite Amnesty’s influence, critical analysis of the organization and its activities has been limited.
The “halo effect,” which protects groups claiming to promote universal moral agendas and human rights from scrutiny because of its perceived impartiality, has insulated Amnesty from systematic critical assessment and reform, to its own detriment.
This monograph details Amnesty’s financial mismanagement; repeated examples of “lawfare”; systematic flaws in the reporting of human rights abuses; limited understanding of armed conflict leading to erroneous claims and incorrect analysis; and violation of the universality of human rights, including a consistent institutionalized bias against Israel through double-standards.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| Amnesty International: Founding Structure and Altered Vision |
Corruption at Amnesty's Core: Women's Rights, Workers Rights and Troubling Partnerships
|
| Experts or Ideologues? |
| Disproportionate Focus on Israel |
Case Study: Israel
November 2012 Gaza Conflict
2014 Gaza War
|
Amnesty's False Accusations and Inaccurate Claims
|
Further Reading
Findings, But Few Facts, Anne Herzberg, The Jerusalem Post, November 29, 2014
Media Impact: Amnesty International's 'Trigger Happy' Report, March 5, 2014
Amnesty's Credibility Problem, Gidon Shaviv, Ynet, June 6, 2012
Amnesty International is Losing Its Way, Gerald Steinberg and Jason Edelstein, The Jerusalem Post, June 14, 2011
The Dark Side of Amnesty International, NGO Monitor Analysis, April 6, 2010
Amnesty Secretary-General Ignites Row, Abe Selig, The Jerusalem Post, April 7, 2010
Scrutinize Amnesty International, Gerald Steinberg, The NY Sun, May 24, 2007
Amnesty's "Human Rights Meltdown", Sarah Mandel, December 20, 2007
|
Executive Summary
Amnesty International is perhaps the most prestigious international non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to furthering human rights. Amnesty’s campaigns and publications are quoted by political leaders, journalists, diplomats, and academics.
Amnesty has helped set agendas and influenced governments, as well as other international bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
Founded in 1961 as a small, volunteer initiative by Peter Benenson, the London-based organization has evolved dramatically, today operating around the globe, with thousands of employees and a multi-million dollar budget.
Despite Amnesty’s influence, critical analysis of the organization and its activities has been limited. The “halo effect,” which shields groups claiming to promote universal moral agendas and human rights from scrutiny because of a perceived impartiality, has insulated Amnesty from systematic critical assessment and reform, to its own detriment.
In 2014, Amnesty finds itself in the midst of unprecedented crisis. In late 2012, working conditions led to strikes in its London office and UK section. Internal reports acknowledged that in some regions, particularly in the US, the organization has lost influence along with a significant number of members.
As NGO Monitor’s research has shown, the crisis is rooted in a number of structural problems, including consistent post-colonial ideological bias, a pronounced lack of credibility in research reports, moral inconsistency, financial instability and corruption, failure to act with transparency in critical organizational aspects, and friction between the London office and key national sections (particularly the U.S.).
The purpose of the detailed research is to contribute to a much needed independent assessment of Amnesty’s structure and activities. We present a brief overview of Amnesty’s founding, evolution, and current structure.
On this foundation, we examine financial issues, including decreased funding (in part due to a significant drop in membership) and the myth of Amnesty’s rejection of government funds.
Additional sections deal with ideological and political biases and with the lack of professional methodology and credibility in Amnesty’s publications, which have further limited the effectiveness of the organization. In particular, these failures are illustrated in Amnesty’s relationship with Israel and its treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In the course of our research, NGO Monitor has found:
- Financial mismanagement among Amnesty’s corporate officers, most notably in the redundancy packages of former Secretary General Irene Khan and her deputy Kate Gilmore.
- A professional staff who believe that Amnesty is undermining human rights through its own policies and practices. In the words of Gita Sahgal, former head of the Gender Unit, Amnesty’s relationship with a pro-Taliban group “fundamentally damages Amnesty International’s integrity and, more importantly, constitutes a threat to human rights.”1
- Repeated examples of “lawfare,” the tendentious misapplications of legal terms and statutes to create the false impression of guilt.
- Likewise, systematic flaws in the reporting of human rights abuses, including the repetition of false libels and comparison of Israel to terror groups such as Hamas.
- An inadequate understanding of armed conflict leading to erroneous claims and incorrect analysis.
- Violation of the universality of human rights, including a consistent institutionalized bias against Israel through double standards.
- The employment of individuals in key research and leadership positions whose backgrounds, skills, and activities demonstrate the absence of professional human rights experience, exacerbated by deep ideological and political bias. This trend is incompatible with the requirements for credible and universal human rights reporting and analysis.
1 Richard Kerbaj, “Amnesty International is 'damaged' by Taliban link: An official at the human rights charity deplores its work with a ‘jihadist’,” Times of London, February 7, 2010.
Source
*************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for visiting my blog. Your comments are always appreciated, but please do not include links.