Friday, August 24, 2007

More crap from Amnesty.

To say that Amnesty International has played a very dirty game in pushing through its abortion policy would be an understatement.
As pointed out in an earlier post, it blatantly censored Pro-Life members in the US and ignored the results of its consultation with members in the UK. Now further details have emerged about the deceptive practices of its US section.
Elsewhere, Jen R, an Atheist Seamless Garmenter who blogs at
"The general membership in the US was never consulted. The policy was discussed at regional meetings in the US late last year, but: a) most members don’t attend those meetings; and b) pro-life Amnesty members who tried to present the case for continued neutrality on abortion were told that the new policy was not being debated, and that the discussion would only be about how best to implement it. Callers to Amnesty’s US national office in May 2006 were even told that Amnesty wasn’t considering a change in policy on abortion at all, and that that was just a rumor!"
Given such low ethical standards then, its hardly surprising that Amnesty should appeal to vulgar anti-Catholicism in spinning its new policy. The egregious Kate Gilmore, Amnesty's deputy general secretary, who has busily been granting interviews hither and yon opined:
"The Catholic Church, through a misrepresented account of our position on selective aspects of abortion, is placing in peril work on human rights."
Ms Gilmore seems to imagine the Catholic Church has a duty to offer uncritical support to her organisation. She believes that Amnesty has a right not to be contradicted. She also assumes that Amnesty is the only avenue through which human rights work can be carried out, a self-evidently risible notion. Of course she doesn't explain precisely how the Catholic Church is giving a misrepresentative account of its position. That's because the Church is not misrepresenting a damn thing. The scope of Amnesty's position on abortion extends far beyond abortion for rape victims. An organisation that uses questionable methods to push through a policy change is in no position to take the moral high ground.
Gilmore continues:
"We live alongside people's life experiences. We don't run a theocracy. We have to deal with the rape survivor in Darfur who, because she is left with a pregnancy as a result of the enemy, is further ostracised by her community," adding for effect "We have the dirt under the nail and the blood and pain of the people that we are responding to."
Au contraire, Ms Gilmore. The people's life experiences you live alongside are those of a pampered coterie of spoiled westerners. You don't own the experiences of Darfuri rape victims and neither have they granted you any mandate to speak on their behalf.
Using Darfuri rape victims as an emotive cover for its abortion policy is as shameless, as cynical is it gets.


Blogger voltaires said...

Change of subject cher, but the post you wanted is now on Shiraz. And you're wrong about the right to choose btw, but that's a whooole other ball game.

8/26/2007 1:20 PM  
Blogger Gabriel said...

I often wonder about what motivates all those comedians and luvvies who like to appear at the AI's 'Secret Policeman's Ball' doesnt AI have that air of non-political and essentially harmless radical chic still??
I would love it if you linked my blog

to yours sine I will be linking yours to mine..Gabriel

8/26/2007 3:46 PM  
Blogger voltaires said...

Apparently AI are now pariahs in the eyes of all the religious "decent folk with whom we should be working" (SWP-esque there), due to their stance that an individual woman rather than a priest or a church hierarchy, should have the right to decide what happens to her own body. Which might just be enough to persuade me to join up!

8/27/2007 2:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home