Since when did Amnesty NZ become a socialist organisation?
Amnesty New Zealand is criticising the Government becuase 1/6th of New Zealand Children live below 'the poverty line', and that it needs to do more (i.e. spend more) to help children. Amnesty is risking it's broadbased support.
When I was at school, we were given a presentation of Amnesty. I was told that Amnesty was an organisation that worked to help free 'prisoners of conscience' and opposed Government's who harassed their citizens to subdue their rights through torture, oppression and illegal imprisonment. I was told that it was an organisation that was not aligned to any political beliefs - it just opposed the 'bad guys' in power, and that it's supporters came from every part of the political spectrum.
So, in making a statement that is clearly well removed from illegal imprisonment and torture and overtly socialist, Amnesty makes a clear statement that it is no longer working only for prisoners of conscience, but as a left-leaning organisation that also highlights illegal detention elsewhere in the world.
And if it carrys on down this track, it will find itself as marginalised and unlistened to as any other non-parliamentary political movement is in New Zealand. Written off as just another pressure group.
And that would be a real tragedy, as it does do some great work opposing tyrants throughout the world.
When I was at school, we were given a presentation of Amnesty. I was told that Amnesty was an organisation that worked to help free 'prisoners of conscience' and opposed Government's who harassed their citizens to subdue their rights through torture, oppression and illegal imprisonment. I was told that it was an organisation that was not aligned to any political beliefs - it just opposed the 'bad guys' in power, and that it's supporters came from every part of the political spectrum.
So, in making a statement that is clearly well removed from illegal imprisonment and torture and overtly socialist, Amnesty makes a clear statement that it is no longer working only for prisoners of conscience, but as a left-leaning organisation that also highlights illegal detention elsewhere in the world.
And if it carrys on down this track, it will find itself as marginalised and unlistened to as any other non-parliamentary political movement is in New Zealand. Written off as just another pressure group.
And that would be a real tragedy, as it does do some great work opposing tyrants throughout the world.
posted by Michael at
9:48 PM
9 Comments:
While Amnesty does indeed work to help free 'prisoners of conscience' and so on, that's not their only raison d'etre.
Amnesty is concerned with human rights in general, and seeing as children are pretty much defenceless human beings they are a group that needs advocates.
Whether that means that Amnesty needs to get involved in this case is up for debate, but it is natural for such organisations to attract liberals, so it's really not a surprise.
For the record, I am a member.
PS. I have a new blog: the link on your page points to the old one.
By
Richard, at 9:22 AM
Indeed, and to see the degeneration of AI as a serious human rights organisation we only need to go back to their excrable statement that Guantanamo bay was the 'gulag of our times' - as if a detention camp with 500 inmates could compare with the Soviet system that killed close to 10 million.
By
123, at 3:04 PM
I don't think the Gitmo/Gulag comment is out of character of the organisation - Amnesty truly believes in no imprisonment without trial. And the support for Sue Bradford's S59 repeal is based on opposition to physical punishment in all forms. You can respect an organisation that fights against dodgy detention and torture.
What I'm concerned about is Amnesty isolating conservatives, free-market disciples, and even moderates from it's message about redistributing wealth, abortion, etc. that stray from the mission of Amnesty as I know it to be.
It would be a shame if they moved to an extreme left organisation as they have so much power at present for fighting real injustices throughout the world.
By
Michael, at 9:09 PM
What I'm concerned about is Amnesty isolating conservatives, free-market disciples, and even moderates from it's message about redistributing wealth, abortion, etc.
I'm interested to know where you've heard AI opining on this. There's never any such material in their newsletters and emails.
By
Richard, at 9:39 AM
Try http://www.google.co.nz/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-42,GGLG:en&q=Amnesty+International+abortion for numerous references to Amnesty moving from a neutral position on abortion to one where it seeks to make it a right.
And I linked to an article where Amensty in New Zealand called for more wealth to be distributed to those below 'the poverty line'.
But I think you're missing the point - I lean towards liberterian political values and I respect Amnesty because they fight for the wrongly imprisoned, tortured and those harassed by their Government or Bureaucrats. If Amnesty dabbles in other areas, it's message to me gets muddled.
And I see that muddled message has put David Farrer of Kiwiblog fame off getting re-involved with Amnesty - any volunteer organisation would love to have someone with his connections and skills.
By
Michael, at 7:21 PM
Don't get me wrong man, I was just curious as to where you'd heard or read these things, as none of the literature I receive as a member mentions these things. Indeed, it always focuses very much on those causes which you quite rightly consider to be Amnesty's raison d'etre.
WRT the links you provided: the one in your initial post really doesn't come across to me like you're making it sound. The Amnesty rep was indeed critical of the government's efforts, but there was no call for a "redistribution of wealth" in that article - indeed the reference to the poverty line is the journalist's, not Amnesty's.
I also used the search terms you suggested, and I also can't see why Amnesty shouldn't consider access to abortion a human right. They are merely saying that a woman should have sovereignty over her own body.
By
Richard, at 9:42 AM
Amnesty Intl are like any number of organisations doing some good practical work but awful advocacy work. Like Barnardos, Every Child Counts, CPAG, Christian Women's Concil, UNICEF, etc etc who lobby govt hard for more redistribution as the solution to all problems.
By
Lindsay, at 10:48 AM
After following politics for so long I can decipher most spin. "Government needs to do more" is always means "Government needs to spend more".
I don't believe that's a long-term solution to child poverty - for more discussion on this visit Lindsay Mitchell's excellent blog.
By
Michael, at 5:24 PM
I was a member of an Amnesty Group. A couple of years ago, there was a change that came down from the top. Instead of receiving individual 'action files' dealing with individual cases of unjust imprisonment, we were being given action files that dealt with big issues.
There was a definite strategic change of direction that came from the International Secretariat.
My group increasingly came to be dominated by left-wing political activists.
AI also changed its previously neutral stance on the pro-choice/pro-life debate.
I was in AI as an expression of my Catholic faith. I believe in the fundamental, intrinsic dignity of all human beings. I believe that we must be consistent in how we apply our ethical principles. How can we, on the one hand, uphold the rights of those unjustly imprisoned but, on the other hand, uphold the freedom of a woman to choose to destroy a human life?
For the record, I am also a pacifist, against the death penalty, and against euthanasia.
By
Rob, at 11:30 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home