Amnesty International continues to hector Candian government
Full disclosure: I write this post as a member of the University of Alberta chapter of Amnesty International, of which I have been a member since 2008.
Having failed to influence the outcome of the 2011 federal election, it seems that Amnesty International is settling for trying to invoke a feeling of buyer's remorse in the Canadian electorate.
Salil Shetty, Secretary General of Amnesty International, has accused Canada of not being a strong enough guiding force in terms of human rights advocacy.
Oddly enough, Shetty's complaints largely seem to deal with things that have little, if anything, to do with Canada.
"The human rights revolution now stands on the threshold of historic change," Shetty announced. "But there is a serious fight-back from the forces of repression. The international community must seize the opportunity for change and ensure that 2011 is not a false dawn for human rights."
"A critical battle is underway for control of access to information, means of communication and networking technology as social media networks fuel a new activism that governments are struggling to control," he continued. "As seen in Tunisia and Egypt, government attempts to block Internet access or cut mobile phone networks can backfire — but governments are scrambling to regain the initiative or to use this technology against activists."
"In 2010 progress (in Canada) on key concerns was disappointing," Amnesty International Canada Secretary General Alex Neve said. "The year was marked by failing leadership by Canada on human rights issues."
Salil goes on to note Wikileaks revelations -- if one could call them that -- that the regimes of countries such as Tunisia tortured political detainees.
"Some of the documents made clear that countries around the world were aware of both the political repression and the lack of economic opportunity, but for the most part were not taking action to urge change," Shetty declared. "One leaked cable showed that the then-Canadian envoy, the US ambassador and the UK ambassador all acknowledged that the Tunisian security forces torture detainees; that diplomatic assurances that the government will not torture detainees sent back to Tunisia are 'of value' but unreliable; and that the ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] does not have access to detention facilities run by the Ministry of Interior."
Of course, this seems to beg an important question: what does this have to do with Canada? The answer seems to be "not very much".
Canada has not been deeply involved with Tunisia. It has not transferred detainees to Tunisian prisons, nor to Libyan prisons.
In fact, when Libyan President Muammar al-Ghadafi resorted to strafing peaceful protesters with fighter jets, Canada rushed to respond by helping implement a no-fly zone with its fellow NATO partners. Nor has Canada acted blindly within this mission, aborting CF-18 airstrikes that posed unacceptable risks to civilians.
Frankly, Amnesty has too big a plank in its own eye to be complaining about the speck in Canada's. Their relationship with Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners -- who recently mocked up assassination photos of US President Barack Obama.
To be fair, Salil Shetty has likley considered very little of his comments very deeply. More likely, it's the work of Neve, who was a guest of then-Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff at his Canada 150 conference.
Neve also committed Amnesty Canada as a signatory to the Voices/Voix petition, which complains about the government's cuts to various activist groups.
Apparently, Amnesty Canada has adopted the position that funding advocacy groups on an ideologically-preferential basis is some sort of human right. Which is, of course, complete and utter rubbish.
Perhaps Shetty and Neve are just confused about what their role should be in an increasingly complex, increasingly polarized political environment. Fortunately, your not-so-humble scribe can explain to them how Amnesty International should be budgeting their time:
Time spent promoting human rights -- actual human rights: 100%. Time spent engaging in partisan politics: 0%. Simple. Salil Shetty and Alex Neve had better figure this out for themselves very quickly, or they had better do something else altogether:
Resign.
Showing posts with label Amnesty International. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amnesty International. Show all posts
Friday, May 13, 2011
Friday, April 01, 2011
Amnesty International Needs to Butt Out
Amnesty becoming more interested in ideological politics than in human rights
Full disclosure: I write this post as a member of the University of Alberta chapter of Amnesty International, of which I have been a member since 2008.
Amnesty Internation used to be a wonderful organization, and a crucial voice for human rights. It once was, but is no longer necessarily so.
There has clearly been an ideological drift within Amnesty, as every group that believes they can link their specific agenda to human rights -- regardless of how peripherally -- have moved to colonize and capture the organization.
These ideological twists and turns are inevitably followed by partisan twists and turns, as seems to be the case with Amnesty's foray into the 2011 election campaign.
Denouncing the government's support for Israel, and complaining about funding cuts to various groups, Amnesty only declined to mention Prime Minister Stephen Harper by name. Yet it's clear that Amnesty is denouncing the policies of the current government.
"No longer the champion, more and more Canada is perceived to be a country that is reticent to take a consistently strong stand for human rights. Sometimes Canada now is also seen as part of the problem, not the solution," declared Amnesty Secretary General Salil Shetty. "There has been erosion of Canada's past policies, including a principled and non-partisan reputation in the Middle East."
Of course, principled and non-partisan stands on the Middle East isn't what Amnesty International is known for, either. In fact, Amnesty seems to increasingly be blatantly expressing a preference for terrorist organizations more and more often.
This was most eggregiously the case when Amnesty denounced the arrest of Amir Markhoul, a man who had been arrested for spying for Hezbollah.
Amnesty declared that Israel had arrested Marhoul for his human rights advocacy, but the facts presented at his trial showed differently. In a plea bargain, Marhoul admitted that he met with Hezbollah operatives, installed a coding program on his computer, and sent coded dispatches to Hezbollah during the 2006 Israel/Hezbollah war.
In his defence, Marhoul noted that he was reluctant to help Hezbollah, hesitated before he did, and regretted it after the fact.
Does Amnesty really expect anyone to believe that passing information along to terrorists is "human rights advocacy?" How about if the only people who get hurt by it are Israelis? Don't they have human rights?
"Serious violations committed by the Israeli government have on occasion been described as 'a measured response'," Shetty complained.
"Traditionally Canada approached those debates in a careful and principled manner and garnered a reputation as non-partisan," he continued. "That reputation has, however, been completely eroded in recent years as Canada has now adopted a policy of consistently voting against resolutions at both the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly that criticize Israel's human rights record."
Of course, whether Shetty and Amnesty care to admit or not, the UN Human Rights Council has been a joke with no punchline for a long time. The Council -- which features China, Saudi Arabia and Libya -- has had no problem at all criticizing Israel's human rights record, which is actually the best of any Middle Eastern country.
It also produced a report praising Libyan President Muammar al-Gadhaffi for human rights advancements in Libya. That report was eventually withdrawn when Libyan civilians began to die in fire raining from Libyan fighter jets.
The government of Canada has been entirely right in opposing the UN Human Rights Council being used as a stalking horse for the world's worst human rights abusers.
The report also complains that groups such as KAIROS have had their funding cut, claiming that "Canada's human rights movement feels under siege."
Amnesty and Shetty need to wake up to the fact that the government of Canada is not obligated, under any circumstances, to fund groups that promote an extreme ideological agenda under the guise of "human rights". Canada's government is slowly getting out of the business of funding fringe agendas. Amnesty and Shetty will simply have to get used to that.
In the meantime, Amnesty International needs to go back to its roots, and do what it was intended to do: promoting human rights, not political agendas. More importantly, it needs to live up to the standards it sets of others.
Does Amnesty want Canada to act as an "honest broker" in the Middle East? Maybe it should try a little honest brokerage of its own, rather than simply adding its voice to the shrill cacophony of the anti-Israel movement.
Most importantly, it needs to get its nose out of Canadian electoral politics.
Amnesty International was once a great organization. It can be again. But before it can be, it needs to get its priorities right.
Full disclosure: I write this post as a member of the University of Alberta chapter of Amnesty International, of which I have been a member since 2008.
Amnesty Internation used to be a wonderful organization, and a crucial voice for human rights. It once was, but is no longer necessarily so.
There has clearly been an ideological drift within Amnesty, as every group that believes they can link their specific agenda to human rights -- regardless of how peripherally -- have moved to colonize and capture the organization.
These ideological twists and turns are inevitably followed by partisan twists and turns, as seems to be the case with Amnesty's foray into the 2011 election campaign.
Denouncing the government's support for Israel, and complaining about funding cuts to various groups, Amnesty only declined to mention Prime Minister Stephen Harper by name. Yet it's clear that Amnesty is denouncing the policies of the current government.
"No longer the champion, more and more Canada is perceived to be a country that is reticent to take a consistently strong stand for human rights. Sometimes Canada now is also seen as part of the problem, not the solution," declared Amnesty Secretary General Salil Shetty. "There has been erosion of Canada's past policies, including a principled and non-partisan reputation in the Middle East."
Of course, principled and non-partisan stands on the Middle East isn't what Amnesty International is known for, either. In fact, Amnesty seems to increasingly be blatantly expressing a preference for terrorist organizations more and more often.
This was most eggregiously the case when Amnesty denounced the arrest of Amir Markhoul, a man who had been arrested for spying for Hezbollah.
Amnesty declared that Israel had arrested Marhoul for his human rights advocacy, but the facts presented at his trial showed differently. In a plea bargain, Marhoul admitted that he met with Hezbollah operatives, installed a coding program on his computer, and sent coded dispatches to Hezbollah during the 2006 Israel/Hezbollah war.
In his defence, Marhoul noted that he was reluctant to help Hezbollah, hesitated before he did, and regretted it after the fact.
Does Amnesty really expect anyone to believe that passing information along to terrorists is "human rights advocacy?" How about if the only people who get hurt by it are Israelis? Don't they have human rights?
"Serious violations committed by the Israeli government have on occasion been described as 'a measured response'," Shetty complained.
"Traditionally Canada approached those debates in a careful and principled manner and garnered a reputation as non-partisan," he continued. "That reputation has, however, been completely eroded in recent years as Canada has now adopted a policy of consistently voting against resolutions at both the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly that criticize Israel's human rights record."
Of course, whether Shetty and Amnesty care to admit or not, the UN Human Rights Council has been a joke with no punchline for a long time. The Council -- which features China, Saudi Arabia and Libya -- has had no problem at all criticizing Israel's human rights record, which is actually the best of any Middle Eastern country.
It also produced a report praising Libyan President Muammar al-Gadhaffi for human rights advancements in Libya. That report was eventually withdrawn when Libyan civilians began to die in fire raining from Libyan fighter jets.
The government of Canada has been entirely right in opposing the UN Human Rights Council being used as a stalking horse for the world's worst human rights abusers.
The report also complains that groups such as KAIROS have had their funding cut, claiming that "Canada's human rights movement feels under siege."
Amnesty and Shetty need to wake up to the fact that the government of Canada is not obligated, under any circumstances, to fund groups that promote an extreme ideological agenda under the guise of "human rights". Canada's government is slowly getting out of the business of funding fringe agendas. Amnesty and Shetty will simply have to get used to that.
In the meantime, Amnesty International needs to go back to its roots, and do what it was intended to do: promoting human rights, not political agendas. More importantly, it needs to live up to the standards it sets of others.
Does Amnesty want Canada to act as an "honest broker" in the Middle East? Maybe it should try a little honest brokerage of its own, rather than simply adding its voice to the shrill cacophony of the anti-Israel movement.
Most importantly, it needs to get its nose out of Canadian electoral politics.
Amnesty International was once a great organization. It can be again. But before it can be, it needs to get its priorities right.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Finally, the Voice of Reason
Civil liberties lawyer to opposition: stop politicizing detainee abuse
For many Canadians, the ongoing controversy surrounding the treatment of Afghan detainees has been an irritating issue.
It shouldn't be said that there's no cause for any outrage. Proper-thinking Canadians of all political stripes recognize that torture is a barbarous act, and aren't prepared to tolerate it.
But by the same token, the issue -- alleging that Afghan detainees transferred to Afghan custody by Canadian soldiers were later tortured -- has, in many senses, proven to be utterly insipid.
Canada's opposition parties -- and various left-wing commentators and bloggers -- have attempted to use the issue to tar the Conservative government, and accuse them of being guilty of war crimes.
But to those Canadians who have seen this issue for what it really is, the matter at hand is utterly, crystal clear. This isn't really an issue about what Canadian soldiers have done, it's about what another country's soldiers have done.
It actually makes the drive to use the issue to portray Prime Minister Stephen Harper as George W Bush seem even more comical.
Bush was declared to be a war criminal because he had authorized the US military to use "coercive interrogation techniques" (torture) -- so, in point of fact, George W Bush is a war criminal.
But in the case of Stephen Harper, he's accused of war crimes because the soldiers of another country tortured detainees, after Canadian soldiers had transferred them under an agreement negotiated by his governmental predecessor.
In the rush to paint Stephen Harper as George W Bush, even as it pertains to torture, the best these people can do is to establish Harper as Bush-tres-lite.
But it's against the partisan abuse of the issue that Paul Champ, a lawyer for Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, has entered the fray. And he has a message for these people:
Stop politicizing the issue.
“My clients believe this is an issue that should be totally depoliticized,” Champ recently insisted, and noted that it's actually the lack of a standing military policy on detainee handling that is at the heart of this issue.
Champ notes that part of what led to this sorry state of affairs is a poor approach to the issue of detainee treatment in the first place, one that waited for proof as opposed to assessing risk.
“Basically [the politicians] are saying they want absolute proof in some way that someone has been tortured when it should be about what is the risk of torture,” Champ continued. “We think this has broader implications, not simply for the Afghan theatre but a judicial inquiry could provide guidance to the military for any future deployments that we’re engaged in.”
Champ will testify before a hastily-called meeting of Canada's special committee on the mission in Afghanistan, and plans to tell opposition MPs to stop trying to profit politically off the matter.
Paul Champ's stand on the matter is long overdue. So long as Canada's opposition parties continue to find any way to use this matter as a political club against the government, many of the answers will continue to be elusive.
Needless to say, there is no incentive for the government to help uncover facts that will unfairly be used to attack it. De-politicizing the issue will go a long way toward solving that problem.
For many Canadians, the ongoing controversy surrounding the treatment of Afghan detainees has been an irritating issue.
It shouldn't be said that there's no cause for any outrage. Proper-thinking Canadians of all political stripes recognize that torture is a barbarous act, and aren't prepared to tolerate it.
But by the same token, the issue -- alleging that Afghan detainees transferred to Afghan custody by Canadian soldiers were later tortured -- has, in many senses, proven to be utterly insipid.
Canada's opposition parties -- and various left-wing commentators and bloggers -- have attempted to use the issue to tar the Conservative government, and accuse them of being guilty of war crimes.
But to those Canadians who have seen this issue for what it really is, the matter at hand is utterly, crystal clear. This isn't really an issue about what Canadian soldiers have done, it's about what another country's soldiers have done.
It actually makes the drive to use the issue to portray Prime Minister Stephen Harper as George W Bush seem even more comical.
Bush was declared to be a war criminal because he had authorized the US military to use "coercive interrogation techniques" (torture) -- so, in point of fact, George W Bush is a war criminal.
But in the case of Stephen Harper, he's accused of war crimes because the soldiers of another country tortured detainees, after Canadian soldiers had transferred them under an agreement negotiated by his governmental predecessor.
In the rush to paint Stephen Harper as George W Bush, even as it pertains to torture, the best these people can do is to establish Harper as Bush-tres-lite.
But it's against the partisan abuse of the issue that Paul Champ, a lawyer for Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, has entered the fray. And he has a message for these people:
Stop politicizing the issue.
“My clients believe this is an issue that should be totally depoliticized,” Champ recently insisted, and noted that it's actually the lack of a standing military policy on detainee handling that is at the heart of this issue.
Champ notes that part of what led to this sorry state of affairs is a poor approach to the issue of detainee treatment in the first place, one that waited for proof as opposed to assessing risk.
“Basically [the politicians] are saying they want absolute proof in some way that someone has been tortured when it should be about what is the risk of torture,” Champ continued. “We think this has broader implications, not simply for the Afghan theatre but a judicial inquiry could provide guidance to the military for any future deployments that we’re engaged in.”
Champ will testify before a hastily-called meeting of Canada's special committee on the mission in Afghanistan, and plans to tell opposition MPs to stop trying to profit politically off the matter.
Paul Champ's stand on the matter is long overdue. So long as Canada's opposition parties continue to find any way to use this matter as a political club against the government, many of the answers will continue to be elusive.
Needless to say, there is no incentive for the government to help uncover facts that will unfairly be used to attack it. De-politicizing the issue will go a long way toward solving that problem.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)