On the basis that it’s wrong to cooperate with those who deny human rights, perhaps you could explain why AI is so tight with Cageprisoners? An organisation that repeatedly promotes the views of those who believe that homosexuality is punishable by death and women should be forced to cover themselves. Nevermind the fact that it thinks the killing OBL is equivalent to killing Obama and that it is wrong for Muslims to inform the authorities about terrorists.

I agree with your article but the hypocrisy is staggering

‘- at least 89 countries restricted freedom of expression’

I’d be honestly interested to see a list of counyries which don’t limit free speech because 89 seems rather a small number for those who do use such restrictions, especially as:

‘- 98 countries used torture and other ill-treatment’

More use torture than censorship? Seems unlikely.

And while Amnesty might once have been a progressive voice their attacks on the trade union movement – in particular the union Unite – while partnering with Cage Prisoners suggest your balls are seriously out of wack.

OP,

The PM rightly condemns torture in the Middle East and North Africa. But the UK continues to pursue “diplomatic assurances” with countries known to use torture, so we can deport people in defiance of the global ban on sending anyone to a country where they may face torture.

This doesn’t make sense. The point of a “diplomatic assurance” is that it helps to persuade the court that the person does not face a real risk of torture. Deporting a person with such an assurance is therefore not in defiance of bans on torture.

why AI is so tight with Cageprisoners

It isn’t. It has no official relationship with CagePrisoners at all, and that small, insignificant org has no impact on the work AI does across the world.

The willingness of trolls to keep bringing up false information about some insignificant organisation kinda says they don’t really care about human rights in the broader context that AI looks at – but only at taking potshots at AI.

While I hope Amnesty is actually making a difference in some places, I do wonder what really ever changes due to outside pressure from liberals in the West.
I watch ”Unreported World” on Channel 4 most weeks, and I just saw it again tonight about children in prison in Burundi. There’s not much hope there.
Or for Pakistan by the look of it. Or Mexico.

I’m not convinced by the argument that we should not deal with governments until they conform to certain standards. I suggest that engagement is a better route to reforming their behaviour than standing on the moral high ground unless it is possible to persuade everyone else to boycott them too.

Of course, the work of groups such as Amnesty to keep these issues in the public eye is hugely important in keeping the pressure up. Torturers and murderers are inhibited if they know the world is watching them. (Imagine what Gaddhafi would be doing now if he was not under the spotlight.)

I partly agree with Sunny Hundal, in that I think that some have overstated the significance or extent of the CP link – but it is still a concern, as are several other aspects of AI. I also agree that some critics seem more keen to attack Amnesty – however I’m a member, have been for many years, and think it seems to do a great deal of important work – and I’m not at all happy with some of its recent activities – or by the way it has responded to concerns.

Sarah AB writes:

“I partly agree with Sunny Hundal, in that I think that some have overstated the significance or extent of the CP link – but it is still a concern, as are several other aspects of AI. I also agree that some critics seem more keen to attack Amnesty – however I’m a member, have been for many years, and think it seems to do a great deal of important work – and I’m not at all happy with some of its recent activities – or by the way it has responded to concerns.”

Sarah, are you going to spend your entire life riding the fence? Flying Rodent summed up this whole issue better than I ever could:

“Let’s not forget that the whole aim of the sleep deprivation, beatings, deafening music and stress positions has been to drive inmates out of their minds to make them sign false confessions that will then justify and validate the practice of driving them out of their minds to sign false confessions. The torturers, murderers and jailors will never see justice, having been granted immunity, and the disappeared inmates – an unquantifiable number of persons both guilty and innocent – will never be accounted for.

“It’s a Kafkaesque nightmare, one that is a considerably larger scandal than it would be if Amnesty’s staff lined up to publicly blow Osama Bin Laden himself, and the fact that this whole Saghal campaign is being conducted with barely any reference to this international outrage substantially reduces its credibility, IMHO.”

“Powerful governments like ours can no longer turn a blind eye to torture and repression when it suits them politically, diplomatically or economically. They mustn’t go quiet on human rights once the protests fall from the headlines.”

Amnesty might want to be careful about what they wish for. This is what Western Governments not turning a blind eye to human rights abuses looks like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFVujbLpVt0

Mike Marqusee:

“Liberal interventionists treat great powers as neutral agents, disinterested entities that can be inserted into a situation for a limited purpose and time, like a surgeon’s knife. In reality, however, these powers have clear and compelling interests – in Libya as elsewhere – and their deployment of military force will be guided by those interests. In action, western troops are accountable not to the people they’re supposed to be protecting but to a chain of command that ends in Washington, London and Paris.

“The unleashing of the great military powers undermines the universalism the liberal interventionists claim to honour: outcomes are determined by concentrations of wealth and power remote from the scene of suffering. If we’re to build any kind of just, sustainable world order, then we must (at the least) restrain and restrict great powers, not license them to act where and when it’s convenient for them.”

http://www.mikemarqusee.com/?p=1156

Thanks for all the comments on Kate’s post. She’s not around today so I wanted to respond to some of the comments, sorry I couldn’t do this earlier.

Sunny Hundal is quite right in his response to Nick D. We currently only work with Cageprisoners as part of a coalition of organisations in relation to the UK Detainee Inquiry.

Shatterface – you’re right, there may well be more than 89 countries that restrict freedom of expression – we say “at least” as we’re just highlighting those we’ve documented. The point is that a lot of countries are still doing it and there’s still a lot of work for Amnesty and others to do, exposing those states that try to silence critics and campaigning for those who’ve been locked up just for expressing their opinions.

UK liberty – I have to disagree. The Convention Against Torture and the ECHR say, quite rightly, that governments shouldn’t return people to countries where they may face a risk of torture. Because they’re unenforceable and have no legal validity, ‘Diplomatic assurances’ don’t mitigate against this risk – and yet they’re used to justify returns to countries known to use torture, in some cases in defiance of their own written treaty obligations . Amnesty firmly believes that they should be abandoned.

Damon – I know what you mean. Change can be glacially slow and sometimes undetectable, but I know we have made a difference to thousands of cases over the last 50 years – stopping executions, getting people out of prison, successfully campaigning for the UN to adopt the Convention Against Torture. And raising awareness of what’s happening too – we helped set up that Unreported World piece on Burundi!

Tim Hancock
Campaigns Director, Amnesty International UK

Tim,

Because they’re unenforceable and have no legal validity, ‘Diplomatic assurances’ don’t mitigate against this risk…

Well, as the courts say, they have “to examine whether such assurances provided sufficient guarantee, and that the weight to be given to them depended on the circumstances obtaining at the material time.”

(circumstances such as, is the person detained incommunicado, is there independent monitoring, etc)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/306.html

In some cases the court finds the circumstances unpersuasive, e.g.

“Although we accept that the MOU and other assurances have been given in good faith by Libya, and that there is no probable risk of a breach of Article 3 ECHR were the Appellants to be returned, there remains a real risk that that could happen. That is because there is too much scope for changes to happen, for things to go wrong, and too little scope for a breach of Article 3 to be deterred or for acts which might lead to a breach of Article 3 to be remedied in time, essentially through effective monitoring. ”

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/SIAC/2007/42_2005.htm

In others, persuasive, e.g.

“whilst it is true that there are no specific sanctions for breaches, and the MOU is certainly not legally enforceable, there are sound reasons why Jordan would comply and seek to avoid breaches. The MOU would be an important factor in the way in which Jordan conducted itself. It would be one basis upon which the Government instructed the GID to ensure that it behaved properly and upon which it would avoid interference with the judiciary. … The failure of those who regard these arrangements as unenforceable, in some asserted but not altogether realistic comparison with international human rights agreements, is a failure to see them in their specific political and diplomatic context, a context which will vary from country to country.”

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/SIAC/2007/15_2005.html

‘The willingness of trolls to keep bringing up false information about some insignificant organisation kinda says they don’t really care about human rights in the broader context that AI looks at – but only at taking potshots at AI’

As I said, I agree with the article and I have the greatest respect and admiration for the work that AI does around the world. It is precisely because of that respect that I am so concerned about AI’s willingness to share platforms with Cageprisoners without making clear the opposition they have to the other views that the organisation promotes. AI gives Cageprisoners credibility – to their work with detainees AND to all their other activities and views.

The article argues that the British government should not work with repressive states until they embrace international human rights standards. All I’m saying is that AI should not work with Cageprisoners until it too promotes international human rights standards.