I have concerns about the status of human rights in any political project. I don’t assume a religiously inspired political project is necessarily inconsistent with human rights – in fact I find some inspiration in the political projects of, for example, Martin Luther King Jnr, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Abdul Khan Ghaffar Khan.

I also respect some secular political projects, while others I find very problematic.

In all projects, I will probably find things to worry me – even human rights discourse can be hijacked or be applied unfairly with prioritisation of some rights over others (a common argument within Amnesty International). But it is still a very valuable political project for me, and I see it as compatible with many others – just as Amnesty International argues for human rights improvements in all States regardless of their political orientations.

In this case, Gita Sahgal is concerned about Amnesty’s internal procedures, which is a legitimate concern. Has there been due diligence in working with another organisation? It raises the importance of having such a process, so that it can be applied equally to all organisations Amnesty works with (as targeting only one or other group would appear to me to be prejudiced).

The questions at the moment are if AI has such processes, and if it has followed them. Maybe a process could be developed as a simple process of asking some clear questions of the organisation based on the core principles of Amnesty – however it is not straightforward: some groups may take no position on the death penalty, so should Amnesty never share a campaign for women’s rights with them? Should Amnesty refuse to work with any group led by individuals have a past association with any State which abused human rights?

I’m glad for Gita Sahgal to start such a discussion, and hope she can suggest what she would like to see as the process.

Currently, I would like Amnesty to be clear to both Gita Sahgal and Moazzam Begg that Amnesty International will refuse to be drawn into any pro- or anti-Taliban political agenda. Its agenda is human rights for all.

What matters is consistent support for human rights.

Agreed.

So, how do you say this?

I think whether or not he supports a caliphate or some other form of Government shouldn’t come into consideration for Amnesty International.

True, as far as his release is concerned. Beyond that, not so much.

A caliphate is a deliberately unequal, religiously based form of government with a godhead. You expect unbelievers like me to find that acceptable? Remember, I never gave up paying whilst we got him out of that hell-hole. And I never expected him to become a regular human being either. But that certainly doesn’t excuse him, nor you.

You want to cut my head off?

I think whether or not he supports a caliphate or some other form of Government shouldn’t come into consideration for Amnesty International. What matters is consistent support for human rights.

I have no evidence that he was or was not building a girl’s school and never said he did so or did not do so.

I don’t see how this is relevant to whether he supports human rights abuses or systematic discrimination.

No.

On two grounds.

Firstly that you cannot expect respect on the basis that you have survived torture and, thus, your ideas for a caliphate, which incorporates murder as a means of state, as justified. That probably has a Latin phrase attached to it, but it boils down to my enemies enemy is not my friend.

You have to be at least honest about your past. I am not, so far, convinced that he did build a girls school in Afghanistan. Have you evidence to the contrary?

This is what I take to be her reasoning for believing associating with Moazzam Begg undermines Amnesty International’s credibility.

If she could spell out what form of discrimination she believes Moazzam Begg to advocate, and where he has done so, this would help me make a judgment.

Moazzam Begg for his part seems very clear what his support for the Taliban consists of – which is support for dialogue with the Taliban, coupled with opposition to the human rights abuses they perpetrate. For me this seems a reasonable position for someone associated with AI to take.

I would, quite like Moazzam Begg to answer the case made by ‘jiasa’ on Comment is Free:

It is impossible to tell how many times, in response to the thirteen articles that Moazzem Begg has written for CiF, he has been asked for a truthful account of why he was in Afghanistan at the time he was picked up by US security personnel.
However in his letter posted on cageprisoners.com, he makes the claim:
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.
Well Ms Sahgal certainly wouldn’t have found that out by researching The Guardian articles written by Mr Begg. What she would have found however on 22 February 2009 in his article ”Guantánamo: the forgotten prisoner” is the statement about Shaker Aamer:
“Since the early 90s, Shaker Aamer had resided in the UK, where he worked as a translator at a legal firm and later met his wife. In the summer of 2001, Aamer made the decision to live and work in Pakistan and Afghanistan, along with his wife and children, to undertake projects to support a girls’ school and build wells.”
How strange that Mr Begg seems to have retrieved his memory and can now remember that he was also setting up a girls school in Taliban infested Afghanistan.
So was this the same girls school or a different one?
And what was it that prevented Mr Begg from informing all those who asked from the time of his first article in February 2006 to his last one in January 2010, that he was in Afghanistan setting this girls school. Could we have some more details and know whether it still exists? Perhaps a new article above the line?
Mr Begg states at the end of his letter to The Times:
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.
Well let’s hope the matter comes to court so that it and the Press Complaints Commission get the answers from him that CiF posters have been denied for four years.

I’d be interested in an answer rather than a legal threat, but, there you go.

http://tinyurl.com/yld949w

So it has fearlessly shot the messenger.

Well said.

Unless AI reconsideres this outrageous decision, they will crash and burn, and will be left with only a rump of far left and islamist supporters. They’re finished in my books.

I do think Sunny has a point. There is nothing wrong with readers, flagging up stories, in fact we encourage it, but the ‘why aren’t you talking about it’ can get a bit tiresome. I have a full-time job and so only have so much time to devote to PP. Since Sunny and I are the two main writers we can only cover so much.

No win no fee requires pretty good prospects of success.

Sunny write about this, sunny write about that! Why haven’t you written about that, you’re obviously a hiding something!! Sad, fucking people.

AI is a very cautious, slow moving machine. There is a large amount of process, consultation and internal dialogue involved in any decision taken – under the guise of maintaining AI’s reputation.

So listening to Gita on Radio 4 this morning, it seems she is questioning how Cagedprisioners came to be associated with AI (in any capacity), without any documentation of the decision process. At least in theory we were supposed to follow vetting policy on anyone we worked with, down to, say, event caterers.

Beyond this, there is another issue that may be indecipherable outside the IS. Whilst AI defends human rights victims, it also has a concept of Human Rights Defenders, HRDs, (who may or may not of also been victims of human rights abuses). http://www.amnesty.org/en/human-rights-defenders

HRDs are meant to have impeccable backgrounds, and as such, there is a sort of an honour conveyed in being considered one by AI. The notion and distinction of being called an HRD may be lost on those outside of AI, (especially when AI bandies about opaque acronyms such as HRD!)

If Gita thinks that AI is, either tacitly or overtly, implying that Cagedprisoners or Moazzam Beg are HRDs, I can see why this is causing a stir. Implying that they are HRDs is controversial in light of some of their associations or past statements. If the decision was taken internally to do so, it should have been decided through vigorous internal procedure, which would include definitively proof there were no connections between this group/individual and say the Taliban or other human rights violators. (These links may or may not exist). If the decision was not made consciously, but somehow AI has drifted into this type of association without due diligence, it is appropriate to ask how it happened from a governance perspective. If AI does not consider them to be HRDs, but is inadvertently seeming to, it should clarify its position.

I am definitely with Gita on asking these questions and do believe that she should be reinstated. However, from a very pragmatic perspective I can also see why she was suspended for going to the media – that is also normal procedure.

(*just to note, I haven’t spoken to anyone within AI about this issue – so this is entirely my interpretation alone).

I can only assume that it is based on this:

…..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

See here: http://tinyurl.com/yhbze7l

Scroll down to the end.