First of all, Amnesty International seems to continue having difficulties in positioning itself in relation to the global problematic of political manipulation and terror in the name of religion.
Secondly, Amnesty International’s endemic hesitation to deal with criticism is questionable for an organization of its stature and reputation. Amnesty International’s attitude on both scores is comparable to that of other international Human Rights Organizations, such as the Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), in France.

In somewhat different ways related to cultural expression, and for reasons related to different historical situations and political choices, a fraction of the “Left Wing” or Liberal Cultures in several Western countries, such as France, the UK, the USA, have chosen, on occasion, and at times repeatedly, to whitewash crime executed in the name of religion. That all humans have the right to Human Rights is undisputable and human rights organizations have a mammoth task to bring any form of discrimination to the public’s attention. But that such organizations should align themselves or be associated in public with individuals, events and affiliated organizations that underwrite violence of any kind in the name of religion is unacceptable on all accounts, and also merits to be brought to public attention and especially to the attention of those that provide their funding.

In the case of Gita Sahgal, Amnesty International should immediately reinstate her in her position and suspend any association with Moazzam Begg, until such time as extensive dialogue and research over the matter has taken place, and then be made public to Amnesty International’s funders and the public at large.

A similar point in case, illustrates Amnesty International’s general approach and culture in matters regarding crime in the name of religion. In February 2004, Didier Contant, grand reporter, fell from a building in Paris whilst he was doing his third investigation into the kidnapping and the assassination of the Monks of Tibhirine in Algeria in 1996. He had just returned from a month long investigation in Medea and Blida. Upon his return to Paris, a fellow journalist, Jean-Baptiste Rivoire from Canal+ launched a slander campaign against him, accusing him, among others with the editor in chief of Figaro Magazine who was supposed to publish his article, of working for the French and Algerian secret services. Needless to say, based on Rivoire’s information, which they did not deem necessary to check, the Figaro Magazine and several other publications refused Didier Contant’s article.

In Rivoire’s slander campaign he repeatedly referred to an email from Amnesty International in London confirming his information. When contacted AI London first admitted to having had email exchanges with Rivoire regarding Contant, but then it was denied and turned into verbal conversations of which nobody could remember the content. It soon turned out that the main concern of Rivoire’s slander campaign was to prevent Contant from publishing information about the dubious activities in Algeria of a renegade officer from the Algerian Army, Abdelkader Tigha, in whose interests Amnesty International (and FIDH) acted after he was imprisoned in Taiwan when he was arrested for stealing from tourists. Tigha, in several versions of several statements blamed the Algerian Army for the death of the Monks of Tibhirine. He was an important witness for Canal+ reportages on the question. Contant returned with several hours of recordings of Blida and Medea residents describing his dubious identity. But for a few exceptions, the French press blacked out on the fate of Didier Contant. When contacted, journalists would say, “we need fresh news”, but even when the High Court of Paris condemned Rivoire for voluntary violence against Didier Contant in November 2009, not a single word appeared in the French press. As it turned out, as the storm died, neither Amnesty International nor FIDH continued to be associated with Abdelkader Tigha. For complete information about the death of grand reporter, Didier Contant, please visit: http://8e-mort-tibhirine.blogspot.com/

Will Amnesty International follow a similar strategy in the case of their association with Moazzam Begg? Time will tell. But it would indeed be a sad loss for the organization to lose someone like Gita Sahgal, who from all accounts, seems to be dedicated human rights defender.

Rina Sherman
Paris, 20 March 2010

Rina Sherman is a writer, ethnographer and filmmaker.
http://www.rinasherman.com/

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbuio9_islamophobic-rant-by-cleary-gottlie_news

If CagePrisoners “fights for rights for its particular community” it is a very specific community, which includes people who have undoubtedly committed exact and criminal acts and been convicted by due process of law; what are commonly known as criminals. I think, given the nature of the crimes they have been accused of and the hatred they provoke, these people need to be watched closely to ensure that their human rights are not violated.

Precisely which human rights abuses by the Taliban did Begg oppose? After all, he moved to Afghanistan when the Taliban were already committiing abuses of human rights, on the grounds that he “believed that the Taliban had made some modest progress – in social justice and upholding pure, old Islamic values forgotten in many Islamic countries.” and his disapproval was so muted it provoked no response from the Taliban while he was there. Onthe basis of that attitude to the Taliban I think that there is something hypocritical in Begg and CagePrisoners, who do not themselves recognise what many others think are universal human rights latching onto A.I. and that it was foolish of A.I. to associate with Begg and CagePrisoners.

They seem to me to claim they will support any detainees who have been held as part of the global war on terror to claim their human rights.

The statement from Moazzam Begg referring to the article in the Times includes reference to his opposition to human rights abuses by the Taliban which he has written about in his book. And that he advocates engagement and dialogue with both the Taliban and the US Government while opposing the human rights abuses both perpetrate. On the face of it this seems to me an honorable position.

Finally, they do not suggest any support for anyone convicted of terrorism, they want due and fair process to achieve such convictions, and refuse to treat any of the detainees as guilty until proven to be so. Again, I think this is honorable and the only realistic way they could undertake their human rights work effectively.

I agree that Moazzam Begg appears much more concerned about human rights since he had his taken away from him, but I do not think this means his concern is insincere.

I also agree he should be held to some kind of standard, as should all groups in partnerships with Amnesty, but it should be demonstrably equal to the standards other groups and individuals are held to. I am still waiting for anyone else to suggest what they think such standards (that can be consistently applied) should be.

“How is it ”evidence that their concern for human rights is more restricted than that of A.I. and rests on a different basis” ? They are hardly a major international organisation like Amnesty. One could argue the same for any other specialist group that fights for rights for its particular community (which is most of them). Doesnt negate the justice of their cause.”
Which cause? The right to decently treatment or the right to impose muslim rule? In the case of Cagedprisoners many of its senior representatives are advocates of both.

“Yes Im sure all those Muslim prisoners recieved far and free trials Roger. The kind Bruce Anderson would approve of.”
Well, as Cagedprisoners campaigns on behalf of people who were charged with and pleaded guilty to planning tomake and use enormous amounts of explosives in U.K. courts, their definition of “far and free trials” seems to coincide with yours.
Where has Anderson said anything about trials? The greatest enthusiasts for torture as punishment are the supprters of sharia. Begg himself went to afghanistan and supported the Taliban after they were regularly using torture as a punishment for supposed crimes.

You the man.

The quote about 55% of Saudi graduates being women was to disprove your lie that women in Saudi are “not to be educated.”

I never made that assertion. I was talking about the Taliban blowing schools up both in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So I never perpetuated that lie – and I believe you called me a liar without any reason whatsoever. That’s not nice.

**********

As to your second point about the school girls – unfortunately the role of the religious police was true.

Just because the Government of Saudi Arabia and media controlled by them said no does not make it untrue – and there were Saudi witnesses who said otherwise. And I choose to believe the others – and I am sure you would agree with me when you read the link again that you provided. But again this link makes it a bit more clear
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm

The link you provided gave the official Saudi version. Come on lets on go there. I think both of us have no love for the concept of religious police if I am not too mistaken. And none of us have much love for the Al-saud family or their religious henchmen.

*********

“Shamit you still havent answered whether you agree that Muslim women who wear hijab should be banned from education as in secular France and Turkey”

Thats a no brainer. I do not believe that Government has the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot wear. Otherwise, that would be Saudi Arabia.

However, I do believe that schools and educational establishments have the right to impose uniforms however religious beliefs should be accomodated to the extent where it does not cause disharmony or create inequity or impose upon others.

I have no problems with Sikh Turbans or crosses or hijabs but I do have a problem with the complete veil because I think it gets in the way of being part of a secular society and free exchange of views and aspirations.

I think in a liberal society any sensible judge would throw this idea of hijab banning out as an affront to human rights. France adheres to European Charter of Human Rights and if they bring in legislation it might just get thrown out by the European Justices.

Thats a long answer but the short answer is yes I do believe that women wearing hijab should have the right to an education in France and Turkey. Does that answer your question Sir?
************

Their criticism of Guantanamo is not based on the concept of universal human rights but on the supposed rights of muslims as servants of god. a completely different principle to that underlying A.I. and A.I. should have recognised as much.

Where is your evidence for this?

Cagedprisoners campaign exclusively for prisoners in Guantanamo and for other muslim prisoners, some of whom have been tried and convicted, which is evidence that their concern for human rights is more restricted than that of A.I. and rests on a different basis.

How is it ” evidence that their concern for human rights is more restricted than that of A.I. and rests on a different basis” ? They are hardly a major international organisation like Amnesty. One could argue the same for any other specialist group that fights for rights for its particular community (which is most of them). Doesnt negate the justice of their cause.

Yes Im sure all those Muslim prisoners recieved far and free trials Roger. The kind Bruce Anderson would approve of.

People have rights regardless of their opinions or which side they are supposedly on. In the case of Begg and A.I., though, it looks as if A.I. have supported Begg in gaining his own rights but have ignored his desire to deprive other people of theirs.

So,
What is contradictory about saying that Begg and other radical islamists in Cagedprisoners want to deprive other people of their rights but that that does not justify depriving Begg and his colleagues of their own human rights?

Cagedprisoners campaign exclusively for prisoners in Guantanamo and for other muslim prisoners, some of whom have been tried and convicted, which is evidence that their concern for human rights is more restricted than that of A.I. and rests on a different basis.

In the great Saudi Arabia, school girls were burnt alive because the religious police stopped them from coming out of the burning school because they were not properly dressed.

So no it does not screw up my theory.

When did I say Saudi Arabia was perfect? The quote about 55% of Saudi graduates being women was to disprove your lie that women in Saudi are “not to be educated.”

Re your second (irrelevant point). Bloody hell are people still using that old story about the religious police? Its been proven a fake.

“An inquiry into a fire at a girls’ school in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca has concluded that the education authority neglected safety measures that could have prevented the deaths of 15 girls.

The official in charge of Saudi girls’ schools, Muslim cleric Ali bin Murshid el-Murshid, was dismissed on Sunday and his department merged with the Education Ministry.

But the report – carried by most newspapers in the kingdom – absolved Saudi Arabia’s powerful religious police of blame for making the death toll worse.

….

But accusations that the religious police had prevented girls fleeing the school because they were not wearing head scarves were dismissed as “untrue”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1893349.stm

Shamit you still havent answered whether you agree that Muslim women who wear hijab should be banned from education as in secular France and Turkey

What is contradictory about saying that Begg and other radical islamists in Cagedprisoners want to deprive other people of their rights but that that does not justify depriving Begg and his colleagues of their own human rights?

Nothing but you didnt say that. You said “In the case of Begg and A.I., though, it looks as if A.I. have supported Begg in gaining his own rights but have ignored his desire to deprive other people of theirs.”

Their criticism of Guantanamo is not based on the concept of universal human rights but on the supposed rights of muslims as servants of god. a completely different principle to that underlying A.I. and A.I. should have recognised as much.

eh? where do you get the idea that Cagedprisoners opposition to Guantanomo was based on “the supposed rights of muslims as servants of god” ? Have any evidence for your claim? A quote or article for example? When did they say that? How was their opposition different from anyone else’s – namely that innocent people shouldnt be held and shackled without trial ?

I agree with a caveat – it was not only the US. I think we Brits started it a long time ago

Well, US has been very involved in Jordan too – that country turned out quite okay. So I guess how one governs makes a difference irrespective of external influences – wouldn’t you say?

And btw in Saudi the majority of university graduates (55%) are women, though they are still restricted in the labour market. Kind of fvcks up your theory , no?

Right to education without the right to express yourself or use that education in a meaningful manner without artificial constraints does not do people much good.

In the great Saudi Arabia, school girls were burnt alive because the religious police stopped them from coming out of the burning school because they were not properly dressed.

So no it does not screw up my theory.

If Saudi Arabia was a democracy may be 9/11 would not have happened – have you ever thought about that.

You have a point -if the US hadnt attacked so many countries as well as supported dictatorhips like Saudi Arabia in the Muslim (and non Muslim) world)

Or do you support people blowing up schools because somewhere in their screwed up mind some believe that girls are not to be educated.

eh? are you insane ? I explicitly quoted a saying of the Prophet (pbuh) that education is an obligation of every male AND female.

I also dont support women being banned from education simply because they choose to wear the hijab either as happens in “democratic” France and Turkey and Im sure you dont either Shamit, ahem.

And btw in Saudi the majority of university graduates (55%) are women, though they are still restricted in the labour market. Kind of fvcks up your theory , no?

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-middle_east_politics/saudi_women_3521.jsp

I think Sunny is spot on here.

People have rights regardless of their opinions or which side they are supposedly on. In the case of Begg and A.I., though, it looks as if A.I. have supported Begg in gaining his own rights but have ignored his desire to deprive other people of theirs.

Your second sentence is a direct contradiction of the first. Are you suggesting AI only campaign for the release of people who fully sign-up for a human-rights- for-all agenda ? That would exclude many of the people imprisoned those on the right champion.

People have rights regardless of their opinions or which side they are supposedly on. In the case of Begg and A.I., though, it looks as if A.I. have supported Begg in gaining his own rights but have ignored his desire to deprive other people of theirs.