Part 1 of a post on Christopher's criticisms of Amnesty International
Reading Christopher's latest Slate piece, Suspension of Conscience — Amnesty International has lost sight of its original purpose, I found myself gently nodding in agreement with some of his sentiments. And with Hitch that's always dangerous, because he always has an ulterior motive. But his latest column is certainly an excellent piece of propaganda, finely crafted and well aimed — the aim being to get AI to stop collaborating with the folks protesting the gruesome goings on at US-run concentration camps and thereby deprive the latter of perceived legitimacy. The method is to shame AI into cutting its ties with a group called Cageprisoners by shaming AI's members into cutting their ties with AI. It's all fairly standard Decent guilt-by-association stuff, although that by itself would not be reason enough to condemn it.
The idea that Amnesty International has lost sight of its original purpose is rather old hat by now. I can speak from personal experience here, because in my younger and more enthusiastic days I was an AI member first in Britain and later in Japan. Like about a million other people I used to subscribe to the Monthly Newsletter, although after the first few years, like most of those people, I found it increasingly difficult to read through the tales of torture, oppression, injustice and sheer unmitigated suffering that pervaded its pages. All that notwithstanding, I used to religiously fill in the pre-printed postcards or write brief letters and mail them off to President Somosa, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Zia, Botha, Mbuto, orsome other Third-World luminary, saying something along the lines of:
"Messsrs the SLORC: Your Excellencies, I am writing on behalf of Mr. Sum Pore Fukk, who has been imprisoned for life on charges of sedition and drawing moustaches and glasses on posters of several of Your Excellencies' faces. It is my understanding that Mr. Fukk is being imprisoned solely as a consequence of the exercise of his right to freedom of expression, a fundamental right guaranteed under international law. I hereby, therefore, respectfully request that Sum Pore Fukk be released from confinement forthwith and be allowed to return to the loving arms of his dear white-haired old mother. Yours, etc., etc."
I'm sure you can imagine the effect such epistles had on the great leaders who received them. They must have generated hours of hilarious laughter and they may have even contributed to the amnestying of a few of those unfortunate caged prisoners too.
But times changed, and Amnesty International changed with the times. I had been working as a volunteer translator for the Japan Branch for several years when in 1996 or thereabouts I received a request to translate free-of-charge a rather massive amount of PR literature, itinerary schedules, etc., for a Hong Kong-based pop group who were coming over for a Japan tour. "Why," I asked the AI office, "should I be expected to devote several days of unpaid labor merely to support a commercial concert tour?" The answer that came back was that the group sang songs about peace and democracy, and AI wanted to give them publicity and support in the run-up to the handover of HK to the Chinese. This was, of course, something that went well beyond AI's remit as an organization that campaigned for the amnesty of people imprisoned on grounds of "conscience". So from time that I personally drifted away from the organization.
Looking back, I think this voyage of AI into new areas was plotted by people who had infiltrated the organization in order to blunt its effectiveness and eventually emasculate it as a political force for real change. Much the same thing happened to Greenpeace at much the same time, and the same fate is visited upon many organizations that start out radical and threaten the status quo.
A second major disappointment for me came in the present decade, when AI steadfastly refused to support the rights of people imprisoned in Europe under laws criminalizing the questioning of the Holocaust. The best-known example was Christopher's good friend and historian of fascism David Irving ("mad, bad and dangerous to know") who was jailed in Austria in 2005 for expressing certain proscribed opinions 17 years earlier, although dozens of lesser-known people have suffered a similar plight. AI remains deaf to the fact that most of these people are simply political prisoners who are sincere in their views and following the dictates of their consciences.
Aung San Suu Kyi and her fellow democrats who are being persecuted in Burma are considered worthy subjects for adoption by AI, even though they have gone beyond exercising freedom of expression and attempted to take power by threatening the Burmese regime with, horror of horrors, democratic action. Likewise, Nelson Mandela and his fellow ANC freedom fighters in South Africa were deemed prisoners of conscience by AI, even though many of them had been involved in acts of sabotage and violence. However, David Irving and his fellow "Holocaust denialists" fall outside of AI's remit because they are judged to have advocated hatred, as Marie-Anne Ventoura of AA UK has explained comprehensively:
"Amnesty International's position on the issue of 'Holocaust denial' is based on international human rights standards. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states, in Article 19, that everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, but that certain restrictions may be placed on that right if they are necessary for the respect of the rights of others; Article 20 states that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
In line with this and other international human rights standards, Amnesty International works for the right to free expression and adopts as prisoners of conscience people who are imprisoned for exercising their right to freedom of expression, however it will not adopt as prisoners of conscience people who are imprisoned for using hate speech to deliberately or recklessly incite acts of violence, discrimination, or hostility against another group.
The language used to advocate hatred is not always explicit or direct. Sometimes it uses euphemisms which, over the years, become well known, such as denying the occurrence of the Holocaust and thereby alleging that the extensive documentation of the Holocaust is fraudulent and that its victims are lying. Since Jews, Roma, gay persons, and disabled persons were the principal victims of the Holocaust and are still subject to discrimination, this can constitute advocacy of hatred and an incitement to discrimination and hostility against those groups.
In line with its normal practice, when applying the policy to individual cases, AI considers each case on its own merit. In cases where it determines that an individual who has been imprisoned for denying the Holocaust has, in effect, advocated hatred as described above, AI would not adopt them as prisoners of conscience. This is the reason why we will not adopt David Irving as a prisoner of conscience."
Evidently AI will now decide whether or not a prisoner of conscience deserves their porridge. And in Irving's case, they conclude that he did. Charming! But at least Christopher had the guts to stand up in public and say Irving should not have been imprisoned for his views. I admire him for that, even if there is an element of life insurance involved. Because if Christopher were ever imprisoned on account of his views, say by the North Koreans for calling them a nation of racist dwarfs, I wouldn't give a lot for his chances of getting adopted by AI as he has used a fair among of "language used to advocate hatred" in his time.
Having said all this, I still think that AI remains a force for good in the world, although in terms of its principles, it is a mere shadow of its original incarnation back in 1961, when its founders could unabashedly quote Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights rather than falling back on the mealy-mouthed subjunctive clauses of the ICCPR.
"The campaign, which opens to-day, is the result of an initiative by a group of lawyers, writers and published in London, who share the underlying conviction expressed by Voltaire: "I detest your views, but am prepared to die for your right to express them." We have set up an office in London to collect information about the names, numbers, and conditions of what we have decided to call "Prisoners of Conscience;" and we define them thus: "Any person who is physically restrained (by imprisonment or otherwise) from expressing (in any form of words or symbols) any opinion which he honestly holds and which does not advocate or condone personal violence." We also exclude those people who have conspired with a foreign government to overthrow their own. Our office will from time to time hold Press conferences to focus attention on Prisoners of Conscience selected impartially from different parts of the world. And it will provide factual information to any group, existing or new, in any part of the world, which decides to join in a special effort in favor of freedom of opinion or religion."
Hitchens has accused AI of losing sight of its original purpose, and to some extent I agree. But that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with him that AI should not be working with Cageprisoners. I see no obvious moral reason why AI should not be drawing attention to the concentration camp attrocities that have taken place at Guantanamo Bay and points east as a major plank of Hitchens's Glorious War, just because he has not seen fit to acknowedge them. As we've all come to know over the years, with the Hitch the fix is always in, and on this occasion, he is working in parallel with his son Alexander Melegarou Hitchens of the Centre for Social Cohesion (whatever that's supposed to mean), who seems intent on acting as an attack dog in pursuit of a political witchhunt against Moazzam Begg in Standpoint among other places. Not a very pleasant profession for a young man,I'll grant, but it must be extremely gratifying for Christopher to have his son following him into the business.
“The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant." • "If it is an offense to justice to hold people who may have been victims of mistaken identity or of vendettas by other factions, then it is also an offense to justice to release psychopathic killers who believe that they have divine permission to throw acid in the faces of girls who want to attend school." • "Don't be such a lesbian!
”
