The Spectator – Amnesty could kill itself, by Simon Caldwell

It must be obvious to Amnesty’s leaders that the direction in which they want to go will cost them dearly in terms of membership, and it is no surprise that for all their enthusiasm to change their policy, they are, for now, somewhat reticent about their intentions, treating as confidential the outcome of their consultations. But the hour is drawing near when, through the courage of their convictions, they will proclaim, ‘Fiat justitia, ruat coelum’ (‘Let justice be done, though the heavens fall’) as they redefine human rights according to a strictly secularist doctrine which is a world away from that on which Amnesty was founded.

Curtsy to Rueful Red for the link in my comments, where I tried to describe an account of something I barely remembered, which I think has to be this:

The change of policy will bring to the boil tensions that have simmered since 2000, when Amnesty featured prominently among groups seeking to change the consensus of the United Nations Fourth World Conference for Women, agreed in Beijing in 1995, to include the right to legal abortion. It then accused the Vatican of entering into an ‘unholy alliance’ with Nicaragua, Iran, Algeria, Syria, Libya, Pakistan and Morocco by attempting to ‘hold to ransom women’s human rights’. In March 2005 Amnesty seemed ready to add the United States to its blacklist when it decried a refusal by Washington to pay for abortions overseas as an ‘attempt to stifle the evolution of the human rights framework’.

Oh and in another strange incident in which my birds are flocking together:

And this comes at a time when such scientific advances as the three-dimensional pre-natal scans are causing deep unease about abortion even among secular liberals.

Those very scans alluded to this morning by RC2.



CDR Salamander – Amnesty Intl: the rot of moral relativism

He has a photo, and translation, of the weirdest anti-guns-American-flag-speedo poster I’ve ever seen. From Amnesty International.

You know, maybe I’m reading this all wrong. Maybe I’m looking at it that they’re picking on us because it’s easy and they have a better chance of getting somewhere (protesting Starbucks again) when I should be looking at it that they’re doing this because actually they’ve managed to end cruelty and inequality around the world, and can concentrate on more trivial matters. Well in that case, this is fantastic!