A common accusation levelled at Amnesty Int over the Moazzam Begg saga has been that even if they weren’t choosing to endorse all this views – Amnesty is somehow complicit anyway because it does this only for Islamists.
That “white liberal guilt” card is played by Nick Cohen et al so many times that it’s a wonder no one has coded a Nick Cohen column generator program yet.
Anyway, let’s take a little trip down memory lane shall we?
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher angrily criticized Amnesty International yesterday for requesting details of what it called a possible “extrajudicial execution” by the military of three unarmed Irish Republican Army members last month.
She called the human-rights organization’s request “utterly disgraceful” and added, “I hope Amnesty has as much concern for the more than 2,000 persons murdered by the IRA since 1969.”
What do you mean that sounds suspiciously like the arguments those trying to undermine Amnesty are making now? These people are lefties don’t you know? They may occasionally be ok with torture but they stand for universal human rights!
And then there’s this from 2001 highlighted by Kevin Blowe:
Timothy McVeigh is scheduled to become the first federal prisoner to be executed in the United States of America since 1963. Amnesty International urges you to prevent this retrograde step by announcing an immediate moratorium on all federal executions.
Such suffering deserves compassion, respect and justice. As an organization that works with and on behalf of victims of human violence on a daily basis, Amnesty International has the utmost sympathy for the families and friends of those killed in the Oklahoma City bombing. Nevertheless, the organization unreservedly opposes the planned killing of Timothy McVeigh, as it does all executions, in the belief that such a policy represents no more than a continuation of the cycle of violence it purports to confront. By imitating what it seeks to condemn – the deliberate taking of human life – society will once again have allowed violence and vengeance to gain the upper hand. Justice will not have been served.
What, Amnesty standing for the rights of a terrorist? A white terrorist? And I was told those guilty white liberals only cared for the rights of Islamists.
The obvious point in that over the course of its history Amnesty has always been accused of pandering towards nasties that certain commentators would rather pretend were just not given any attention to. Far better to let them languish in prison right? It’s far more convenient for these people to forget history and pretend that Amnesty just didn’t exist before the advent of Islamist terrorism.
|Post to del.icio.us|
Filed in: Civil liberties,Terrorism