Save Amnesty

Scottish schools join Amnesty International exodus

2007-09-22T18:51:00.000-04:00

IT SEEMS THAT every day another country announces the closure of Amnesty International groups in schools as a result of the organisation's pro-abortion policy.

Catholic schools in Scotland are the latest to join the exodus from AI. According to the Scottish Catholic Observer, one of these schools, Glasgow's Holyrood Secondary, is the largest high school in Europe and has had an active AI group for more than 20 years.

The newspaper quotes a Holyrood teacher explaining his school's decision to disband its AI group: “I felt we had to withdraw not just because of the policy, but because of the way it’s presented, which was one-sided and unwilling to account for the pro-life viewpoint," he said.

The director of the Scottish Catholic Education Service Michael McGrath said he did not expect any Catholic schools to continue their support of AI and encouraged schools to campaign for human rights and justice and peace through other organisations. “While many Catholic schools have been generally supportive of Amnesty International in the past,” he said, “rather than having hard ties to the groups I think that support will now go down.”

Mr McGrath also said that schools would also be encouraged to question AI on why it had adopted the new abortion stance.A spokesman for AI in Scotland said that he would welcome an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Catholic authorities directly. Unfortunately, the point is that AI has not listened to its members in the past - many people have emailed this blog suggesting that AI did not respond to their letters. The decisions of the school boards should not be of any surprise to AI as they had been cautioned of the consequences of their decision.

The consultation process that AI conducted in the run-up to the adoption of the policy has been widely discredited and AI has yet to explain why Amnesty International UK continued to tell members the consultation was ongoing long after a decision had been reached.

del.icio.us :: blinklist :: Furl :: Digg it :: ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: Simply :: Seed the Vine :: Reddit :: TailRank

328 Australian schools ditch AI over abortion policy

2007-09-20T16:28:00.000-04:00

THE TIDAL WAVE of schools dropping Amnesty International following the organisation's decision to adopt a pro-abortion policy continues unabated with the news that 328 Australian Catholic schools will quit AI.

The director of the Catholic Education Office in the Archdiocese of Melbourne, Stephen Elder, said his office had made repeated attempts to contact Amnesty over the issue to raise its "serious concerns about the policy". However, he said efforts to discuss the stance had proved fruitless. This is unsurprising as Amnesty International refused to respond to many members' queries on the issue over the last couple of years, and some sectors went as far as misleading their members (see previous posts). Now all of the archdiocese's schools will cut their links with AI in favor of other human rights groups.

Maria Kirkwood, assistant director of religious education and pastoral care in the Melbourne archdiocese, added that a significant number of schools had supported Amnesty programs over many years.

"It's an organisation we would encourage schools to support, which is why this is so disappointing," she told the Age newspaper in Australia. "But this particular issue [abortion] is a very significant one for the Catholic Church and it is impossible for the Catholic Church to continue to support Amnesty with a policy of this nature in place."

A spokesperson for Amnesty International Australia confirmed to the newspaper that a number of schools had already written to the organisation to withdraw membership. As mentioned in a posting yesterday, the organisation faces a potential long-term crisis in supporters; many adult members became involved with Amnesty through their school or church - the establishments that AI's policy has now rejected.

del.icio.us :: blinklist :: Furl :: Digg it :: ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: Simply :: Seed the Vine :: Reddit :: TailRank

Schools out for AI

2007-09-19T13:38:00.000-04:00

CATHOLIC SCHOOLS in Northern Ireland are breaking their ties with Amnesty International following the organization's decision to advocate abortion as a human right.

Next month the Irish bishops will meet to discuss whether or not any of the Church's schools should maintain links with AI, but moves by some schools in Belfast would indicate that it is a foregone conclusion that the policy throughout the country will be to drop AI in favour of other human rights groups. The auxiliary bishop of Down and Connor, Donal McKeown said that his diocese had already taken the view that it would be inappropriate for Catholic schools to continue supporting Amnesty.

"Amnesty's espousal in recent months of campaigning for abortion access in limited circumstances will leave many people in a difficult situation, " he said. "All we are saying here is that it seemed inappropriate in those circumstances for Catholic schools to be promoting the organisation."

The deepening rift between many current members and AI over its pro-abortion stance will have longer-lasting implications for the organization: since its formation by the Catholic Peter Benenson in 1961, it has become common for Catholic schools to establish an AI group of their own, or to at least support the organization's campaigns and many former pupils have gone on to support the organization after they left school. With its decision to divide its membership base, AI is likely to lose the prospect of longer term supporters.

In Canada, the Catholic Bishops Conference is also expected to make a strong statement condmening Amnesty's aborion move when it meets in October. Last week St Basil's Secondary School in Ontario, Canada announced that it would no longer have ties with its local AI group.

In Australia the Bishops have already called for AI to reverse its policy and in August St Aloysius College in Sydney, Australia announced that it would disband its Amnesty International group and instead establish a Benenson Society at the school to campaign for human rights.

del.icio.us :: blinklist :: Furl :: Digg it :: ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: Simply :: Seed the Vine :: Reddit :: TailRank

Arrivederci Amnesty

2007-09-17T20:54:00.002-04:00

ITALY'S Conference of Catholic Bishops has called Amnesty International's decision to campaign for abortion as a human right "astounding."

Criticizing the organization's recent decision to promote abortion, the President of the conference Monsignor Angelo Bagnasco said: "These are departures that warn us further of the dangerous erosion afflicting human conscience."

With the customary response to the mounting criticism leveled at the organization, an Amnesty International spokesman said that AI was not trying to argue that abortion is a human right, but as has been discussed in previous posts, this argument is based on semantics. The organization has stated that it believes abortion to be a woman's right and that as a "human rights" (unfortunately, we must now use quotation marks when appending this phrase to AI) organization, it should champion that right. Many AI supporters of the new policy are happy enough to accept that AI is now advocating abortion as a human right, as are the opponents of the new policy; however it is AI's press officers and leaders that have a problem with the term, believing it will generate bad publicity among supporters and potential members. The organization has yet to reveal the details of their two-year consultation process.

Last week the Australia's Bishops condemned Amnesty's move; the US and Canadian bishops have also criticized the organization and several prominent members of the British Catholic clergy have resigned their membership of the organization, urging Catholic members to reconsider whether or not they can continue to support a pro-abortion AI.

Aussie Church calls on AI to rethink abortion stance

2007-09-12T05:21:00.000-04:00

THE CATHOLIC Church in Australia has become the latest group to call for Amnesty International to reverse its policy on abortion.

In a statement one of Australia's most senior Catholic clerics Archbishop Philip Wilson said that AI's pro-abortion stance was "deeply regrettable" and said that AI had "moved to a concept of human rights founded not upon the good of the human person, but simply upon the autonomy of the individual."

“Catholic people have had a long association with Amnesty International, going right back to its inception and the two bodies have been closely aligned in their commitment to social justice,” he said.

“However, Amnesty International has now adopted a position, under the misleading term of ‘sexual and reproductive rights’ which is at odds with the Catholic understanding of the dignity of the human person and sexuality.

“This decision has led some people, including some Catholic school groups, to withdraw from membership of Amnesty International and to seek other ways in which to pursue the same aims of fighting injustice, ending human rights abuses and standing in solidarity with the imprisoned and the oppressed.”

Archbishop Wilson said that he had written two letters on behalf of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference during the past year, urging Amnesty International to abandon the policy change.

“Unfortunately, despite similar entreaties from people the world over, Amnesty International decided to proceed with the new policy,” he said.

“We will now consider the situation carefully, in consultation with the Catholic education sector and the many other arms of the Catholic Church in Australia which have had association with Amnesty International.

“It is not too late for Amnesty International to take stock of the damage being caused by this change of policy and to return to its former neutral stance on abortion. I would urge them to do so.”

Photograph: Archbishop Philip Wilson, from www.acbc.catholic.org.au

Amnesty defends pro-abortion stance on Al Jazeera

2007-09-11T17:29:00.000-04:00

EVEN AL JAZEERA has covered Amnesty International's new decision to support abortion. The clip here shows an interview between AI's Widney Brown and Helen Alvare of the Catholic University of America.

Widney Brown has been one of the people zealously pushing the policy onto the organisation with a dogmatic belief that abortion is a human right. In fact in her fervour, Ms Brown apparently has not bothered to find out about what Catholic teaching is in relation to the matter, preferring instead to use crude (and completely erroneous) stereotypes of what she believes to be Catholic teaching. This is another demonstration that the organisation has been forced into this by a leadership not fully comprehending what it was doing but just clinging on to the belief that it was right. To be fair, in the middle of the interview poor Ms Brown lets it slip that it wasn't just Catholic beliefs she didn't fully grasp, apparently she didn't quite realise what Amnesty US has done in relation to its interpretation of women's health and its stance on supporting the availability of partial birth abortions.

Now other AI spokespeople have been a little circumspect about the numbers leaving AI - see, for example, Phillippe Hensmans's view who almost complained it wasn't fair that the Catholic Church was asking its members to think twice before supporting AI. Not so Ms Brown, who says that there has not been an exodus of people leaving the organisation as was predicted when the policy was announced in April (actually other reports contradict her, and she hasn't produced her statistics)....but, hold your horses Widney: surely, the policy wasn't announced in April - well, at least that's what Amnesty International would have us believe. In fact Amnesty went out of its way to try to cover up the policy with confidential internal documents and attempts to mislead members into thinking that the consultation it claims was so democratic was continuing right up until August.

What happened was when the top secret documents got into the public domain thanks to Consistent Life, the hapless Widney gave an interview to Reuters about the policy....red faces all round as Amnesty's leadership realised it had been well and truly caught out.

Pope's veiled attack on Amnesty's pro abortion stance

2007-09-08T15:50:00.000-04:00

THE POPE said he spoke for unborn children when he warned that abortion was not a human right and pleaded for countries not to allow their abortion legislation to treat children as illnesses.

Although Pope Benedict XVI did not directly refer to Amnesty International's decision to campaign for abortion in the statement he made in Austria on Friday, his remarks are a thinly-veiled criticism of the human rights organisation which has recently equated abortion with a human right. The Pope also called for countries to retain laws restricting abortions; a position that is also contrary to AI's newly adopted abortion policy. AI was founded by Peter Benenson after he converted to Catholicism and its new policy has been widely criticised by the Catholic Church (see previous posts) and high-ranking Vatican officials.

The Pope said:

"It was in Europe that the notion of human rights was first formulated. The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself. This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right – it is the very opposite. It is “a deep wound in society”, as the late Cardinal Franz König never tired of repeating.

"In stating this, I am not expressing a specifically ecclesial concern. Rather, I wish to act as an advocate for a profoundly human need, speaking out on behalf of those unborn children who have no voice. In doing so, I do not close my eyes to the difficulties and the conflicts which many women are experiencing, and I realize that the credibility of what we say also depends on what the Church herself is doing to help women in trouble.

"In this context, then, I appeal to political leaders not to allow children to be considered as a form of illness, nor to abolish in practice your legal system’s acknowledgment that abortion is wrong. I say this out of a concern for humanity."

AI's strange definition of human rights not shared by many members

2007-08-31T01:53:00.000-04:00

WE MENTIONED the other day that there were two pieces in this week’s Tablet magazine about Amnesty International’s decision to adopt a pro-abortion policy. The other article is predominantly about the decision of the English Bishop of East Anglia Michael Evans to resign after 30-odd years with the organisation, but it also touches on a couple of other issues; one of which is a brief comment attributed to Amnesty International member and veteran campaigner Bruce Kent (pictured below), which, if correct, I find a little odd coming from a campaigner of his pedigree.

According to the Tablet, Mr Kent is optimistic that a way forward can be found to allow Amnesty International members opposed to abortion to remain members if their contributions and efforts were not used to support the pro abortion policy (I do not believe this to be in any way feasible, but the logistics of that is not my concern here).

Bruce Kent is a man of peace and I am sure that his suggestion - if it is his - comes from his innate conciliatory desire. But the suggestion necessitates Amnesty International becoming a very broad church to accommodate the vastly different views of human rights, and it makes the argument from a relativist viewpoint: where everyone’s view is right and truth is only a matter of perspective.

Basing a human rights organisation on the premise that all truths are equally valid is both dangerous and self-destructive. At first, it might seem attractive: we'd get a warm and fuzzy feeling getting along just fine, interpreting laws, conventions and charters in the loosest possible way so that we can even get round that irritating "right to life" phrase that once seemed quite simple. But if a human rights organisation cannot itself agree on the basic truth about the nature of human rights and, by extension, it sanctions the position that all interpretations of human rights are equal and truthful, then the organisation has made itself obsolete: it has accepted there can never be any actual abuse of human rights as those rights themselves can never be objectively defined. This, in part, is what makes Amnesty's abortion move so irrational and illogical.

Twenty years ago the then Catholic priest Monsignor Kent was a leading light in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (he is still Vice President of CND), but he also wished to stand for the UK parliament. Canon Law prevents priests from standing for political office and Kent was forced to choose between his political ambitions and his active ministry: he chose the former and was laicised. He has championed Amnesty International and human rights in the past and has demonstrated the courage of his convictions on many occasions. I do not share his views on nuclear disarmament, but I recognise him as a man of principle, and admire him for that.

I would doubt, therefore, that Mr Kent would be willing to continue to support CND if it adopted a policy that campaigned for some countries to have nuclear arms in "certain circumstances" (a phrase du jour of the AI leadership). I would guess that the main opposition to the policy would not be about whether monetary contributions were spent on a pro-weapons campaign - although this would be a factor, but rather the fact that the policy betrayed the underlying principle of the organisation.

For many people that is exactly what has happened to Amnesty International: many of us believe that the fundamental human right is the right to life and abortion denies the unborn humans that right. For those of us who believe that abortion is an anathema to human rights, it is with a heavy heart that we have to accept we can no longer support Amnesty International as it now stands. We must look for other organisations to support while we campaign and hope that Amnesty International eventually sees sense and reverses its pro-abortion policy. We cannot remain with the organisation as Mr Kent is said to have suggested.

More comments on AI's pro abortion policy

2007-08-30T07:40:00.000-04:00

A few more comments about Amnesty International's decision to adopt a pro-abortion stance. More to come...

“People who support so-called ‘abortion rights’ are probably very pleased and feel they’ve scored another ‘coup'. But I think it is going to leave Amnesty International with a very questionable reputation from now on.” Rev Thomas King, SJ, Professor of Theology, Georgetown University, United States

"AS ABORTION brings about the death of a child before birth, it clearly violates the right of a child to life. What then of the mother and any rights she might claim? The position in relation to children's rights versus adult rights should be clear and is arguably covered by the paramountcy principle which states that: "the welfare of the child is paramount" and this is enshrined in International, European and UK legislative frameworks, hence the Children Act 1989" - Dr Rosemary Keenan, National Board of Catholic Women, England & Wales

"I DO not see how anyone who is committed to equal respect for all human life, whether on religious or philosophical grounds, can remain a member of Amnesty International." Ray Campbell, director of the Queensland Bioethics Centre, Australia

"Advocacy on behalf of both [mother and child] would take action when a policy of genocidal rape is being followed. It would provide help and support to the pregnant women, and community building to help their children find acceptance. In short, true compassion tries to provide healing following the violence, rather than extending the violence to the death of another human being." - Edith OSB,Monastic Musings blog, United States

“ Abortion provides no relief from the realities they [rape vctims] face. It does nothing to alleviate injustice...God is bigger than Amnesty International and his plan for justice will not be thwarted." Deirdre A. McQuade, Director of planning and information for the USCCB Pro-Life Activities Secretariat

“It strikes against the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which states that every child “needs special safeguards and care, including legal protection, before as well as after birth. This is surely a crossing of the Rubicon..." Fr Chris Middleton SJ, principal of St Aloysius’ College, Milsons Point, Australia

Here you can read Fr Middleton's full statement on the decision to stop supporting Amnesty International at his school and instead form a new society to work on human rights: the Benenson Society, named after the late founder of Amnesty International.

Scottish cardinal quits Amnesty over abortion policy

2007-08-28T18:38:00.000-04:00

SCOTLAND'S most senior Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien of Edinburgh says he will leave Amnesty International following the organisation's decision to adopt a pro abortion policy.

The cardinal, who has been a member of AI for 40 years, said he was leaving the organisation as a "matter of conscience". He commented: "That basic and most fundamental of all human rights, the right to life is recognised by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the document upon which Amnesty International was founded. Sadly now Amnesty International seems to be placing itself at the forefront of a campaign for a universal ‘right' to abortion in contravention to that basic right to human life." In contrast to many other countries, the Scottish Catholic hierarchy has been quiet on the issue until now and this is a welcome, though belated, message from the Scottish Catholic church. The full text of Cardinal O'Brien's comments are given below.

"The recent decision by the International Council of Amnesty International to “Support the decriminalisation of abortion and to defend women’s access to abortion” has forced me to reconsider my membership of this noble organisation.

As a matter of conscience and with great sadness I have decided to resign from Amnesty International having first joined as a student and supported it over many decades.

Throughout my priestly ministry and more recently as Archbishop and Cardinal I have shown my desire along with my Church to defend life in all its aspects. Along with the Bishops of Scotland in 2001 in guidance ahead of the Scottish elections we stressed the commitment of the Catholic Church to life but we wanted to be clear what that meant. It was not something narrow but something wide and all encompassing. And we said then that: “We believe in a consistent ethic of life. We are pro-life in the fullest sense of that term”.

In recent years I have spoken out strongly on pro life issues including our necessity to ensure life for the poorest of the poor people of the world and have shown my care and concern by visiting some of those poorest countries especially in Africa and Asia and including also my visit to Darfur. I have also shown my high regard for life in consistently speaking out with members of other Churches here in Scotland against the renewal of the Trident Nuclear Weapon system which is based in Scotland.

Even more recently I have spoken out strongly against abortion when I marked the 40th anniversary of the passing of the Abortion Act in the Westminster in 1967. With regard to abortion I have now had to examine my own conscience, realising that Amnesty International was approving proposals in support of abortion.

I have listened to the teachings of my own Church in recent weeks in the form of a statement from Cardinal Renato Martino the President of the Pontifical Council for Justice & Peace said with regard to Amnesty International that it had “betrayed its mission” by abandoning its traditional neutral policy on abortion. Only a week ago Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone the Secretary of State of Pope Benedict XVI said on Vatican Radio that: “Men and women of the Church throughout the world have already made their stark opposition to this decision clear violence cannot be answered by further violence, murder with murder, for even if the child is unborn it is still a human person. It has a right to dignity as a human being”.

I also realise the anguish suffered by Bishop Michael Evans of East Anglia who has been an active member of Amnesty for 31 years and who has also recently announced his decision to resign. He indicated that the recent decision made it very difficult for Catholics to remain members of Amnesty or to give it any financial support saying: “This regrettable decision will almost certainly divide Amnesty’s membership and thereby undermine its vital work” adding “among all human rights, the right to life is fundamental”.

I am also aware that Amnesty International has previously criticised the Vatican for its stance against abortion and in 2005 described the refusal by America to pay for abortions overseas as “an attempt to stifle the evolution of the human rights framework”.

I hope I act in a manner which is ‘pro-life’ following what I believe is the teaching of Jesus Christ and the teaching of my Church. That basic and most fundamental of all human rights, the right to life is recognised by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the document upon which Amnesty International was founded. Sadly now Amnesty International seems to be placing itself at the forefront of a campaign for a universal ‘right’ to abortion in contravention to that basic right to human life.

For me it is a matter of conscience that I have decided to resign from Amnesty International.

Others must follow their own consciences. But I would suggest that any who do and who resign from Amnesty International, would put their previous contributions to Amnesty International to agencies which do indeed support the right to life of each and every human being wherever conceived and in whatsoever part of the world, and to help women who have suffered violence at the hands of others, particularly those who have endured rape.

We are all members of the one human family and we must defend unborn children in our family however conceived, they may be seen as unwanted or inconvenient, but they have from moment of conception, been given the gift of life by Almighty God."

Picture: Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Einburgh, from http://www.archdiocese-edinburgh.com/

Amnesty loses friends over abortion policy

2007-08-27T13:32:00.000-04:00

The issue as covered by the UK's Tablet magazine. The Tablet is a Catholic magazine read widely around the English speaking world and unfortunately its coverage of the issue to date has been disappointing. Nevertheless, two pieces appear in this week's edition: the one that follows and an article about Bishop Michael Evans resigning from AI.

Amnesty loses friends over abortion policy

THE VATICAN this week intensified its call to Catholics to stop supporting Amnesty International following the pressure group's decision to back the legalisation of abortion.

AI affirmed a revised abortion policy at the conclusion of its leadership council meeting in Mexico last week, making official a departure from its longtime neutrality on the issue despite protests from many Catholic leaders.

"With the prevention of violence against women as its major campaigning focus AI's leaders committed themselves anew to work for universal respect for sexual and reproductive rights," the organisation said in a statement released after the meeting.

Under the new policy, the group said, AI would support the decriminalisation of abortion, push for access to health care for women suffering from complications of abortion procedures, and "defend women's access to abortio, within reasonable gestational limits, when their health or human rights are in danger".

In all, the group said, the revisions to its policy aim to emphasise that "women and men must exercise their sexual and reproductive rights free from coercion, discrimination and violence."

The announcement was followed by strongly worded criticism by the Vatican. "One cannot eliminate life as such, even if it is the fruit of violence," said the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone SDB.

Analysts feared the move would weaken joint efforts between church groups and AI on several other justice issues, including disarmament and the abolition of capital punishment.

Italy's leading Catholic newspaper said the decision to back legalised abortion, even in the case of rape, was a "disturbing precedent" in a "glorious organisation" that had worked so effectively for human rights.

by Timothy Lavin and Robert Mickens, The Tablet 25 August 2007.

Amnesty duped pro-life celebrities

2007-08-26T12:26:00.000-04:00

The UK's Sunday Times today reports that Amnesty International has been accused of duping pro life pop stars - including Christina Aguilera (pictured) and Avril Lavigne - by persuading them to record tracks for a CD to raise funds. The article quotes representative from the Rock for Life organisation. The full article appears below. (Note: the headline as it appeared in print is given below, the internet version of the story was headlined "Pro-life rockers clash with Amnesty" on the Times' website.)

Amnesty "duped" pro-life pop stars

By Maurice Chittenden and Dipesh Gadher

Amnesty International risks alienating some of its high-profile rock star backers in the row over its decision to support women’s access to abortion.

The group has been accused of “duping” the singers Christina Aguilera and Avril Lavigne, who have both made statements against abortion and are among

contributors to an Amnesty CD released to raise money for survivors of the atrocities in Darfur.

Two weeks ago, just two months after the album’s release, Amnesty adopted a worldwide policy to back the right of women to abortion in carefully defined circumstances — for example, when their health or life are in danger or when they have been victims of rape in areas of conflict such as Darfur.

The album, which has already sold more than 400,000 copies, features cover versions of hits by John Lennon such as Imagine, and Give Peace a Chance. It was made possible by Lennon’s widow Yoko Ono, who gave the rights to all his solo works to Amnesty in 2003.

The policy on abortion has brought Amnesty into conflict with the Roman Catholic Church, and has shown how new divides have displaced the old left-right geopolitics that gave rise to Amnesty. The group was founded in Britain in 1961 by Peter Benenson, a radical socialist lawyer and a Catholic convert, to campaign for the release of prisoners of conscience.

Now Rock for Life, a collaboration of musicians linked to the antiabortion movement, has accused Amnesty of using the album to promote abortion without making its intentions clear to the singers.

Erik Whittington, director of Rock for Life, said: “The human suffering going on right now in Darfur is horrific. To add insult to injury, however, using this tragic abuse of human rights to raise money for a pro-abortion organisation is hypocritical and beyond belief.

“The manipulation of musicians to fund this hypocrisy is maddening.” He added: “We are writing to all the artists to ask for their views.”

Amnesty, which claims 260,000 members in Britain, more than the Labour party, has been surprised by the ferocity of the reaction to its new policy.

The position has been condemned as support for a “right to kill” never envisaged in the United Nations 1948 declaration of human rights that formed the original bedrock of Amnesty’s focus. The Vatican has called on Catholics to withhold donations and Amnesty’s Irish section has said it will effectively opt out of the policy and not participate in abortion-related campaigns.

Last week Michael Evans, the Catholic bishop of East Anglia, resigned from Amnesty after 31 years as an activist saying it had been “deeply compromised”. Many Christians among Amnesty’s 2m members worldwide are said to be considering following suit, although Amnesty officials in London insisted only “a handful” had done so.

The views of singers who have contributed to the album - who also include George Harrison’s son Dhani - on Amnesty’s change of heart are not yet clear.

But Aguilera, 26, is a devout American Catholic. She is reportedly expecting her first child and has taken part in a television show in which she interviewed a teenager who had kept her baby rather than have an abortion.

Lavigne, 22, [pictured left] is a French-Canadian from a tight-knit Christian family. Her song Keep Holding On is the backing track to a pro-life video on YouTube that declares “abortion is murder”.

Aguilera and Lavigne were unavailable for comment. An aide to Lavigne said: “I don’t think she would want to comment on this. But what has abortion to do with Amnesty? It’s for a lot of different things such as prisoners of conscience and human rights.”

Rock for Life has drawn up a list of 700 acts, including Bryan Ferry and the rapper MC Hammer, who it says are opposed to abortion.

An Amnesty spokesman said: “We don’t know the personal opinion of the artists on abortion but the CD has been launched to raise awareness of the situation in Darfur.”

Widney Brown, Amnesty’s director of policy, said there had been “overwhelming support” for the policy change at the meeting in Mexico City. Since 2005 72 branches of Amnesty around the world have passed similar motions.

Amnesty’s position now is not for abortion to be a universal right but for it to be decriminalised and for access to abortion to be permitted within its defined circumstances.

US Catholic Bishops accuse Amnesty of false compassion for women's rights

2007-08-25T07:29:00.000-04:00

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has responded to Amnesty International's recently-adopted abortion policy by warning AI that the Bishops would be looking to work with other human rights groups. The Conference also calls for AI to reverse the policy.

The President of the Conference, Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane said in a statement:

"This basic policy change undermines Amnesty's longstanding moral credibility and unnecessarily diverts its mission. In promoting abortion, Amnesty divides its own members (many of whom are Catholics and others who defend the rights of unborn children) and jeopardizes its support by people in many nations, cultures and religions.."

He continues: "To some, the action of Amnesty International may appear to be a compassionate response to women in difficult situations of pregnancy, but this is a false compassion. True commitment to women's rights puts us in solidarity with women and their unborn children. It does not pit one gainst the other but calls us to advocate on behalf of both."

The full text of the Bishops' Statement follows below.

A Statement of the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Bishop William S. Skylstad, Bishop of Spokane August 23, 2007

After nearly a year of dialogue with leaders of Amnesty International AI), the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops strongly protests the recent action of AI's International Council to promote worldwide access to abortion. This basic policy change undermines Amnesty's longstanding moral credibility and unnecessarily diverts its mission. In promoting abortion, Amnesty divides its own members (many of whom are Catholics and thers who defend the rights of unborn children) and jeopardizes its support by people in many nations, cultures and religions who share a consistent commitment to all human rights.

Amnesty International's action will lead many people of conscience to seek alternative means to end grave human rights abuses, fight injustice, and promote freedom of conscience and expression. The essential work of protecting human life and promoting human dignity must carry on. We must continue to oppose the use of the death penalty and the crushing effects of dehumanizing poverty. We must continue to stand with prisoners of conscience, refugees and migrants, and other oppressed peoples. But we will seek to do so in authentic ways, working most closely with organizations who do not oppose the fundamental right to life from conception to natural death.

To some, the action of Amnesty International may appear to be a compassionate response to women in difficult situations of pregnancy, but this is a false compassion. True commitment to women's rights puts us in solidarity with women and their unborn children. It does not pit one against the other but calls us to advocate on behalf of both. As our Conference has argued, a far more compassionate response is to provide support and services for pregnant women, advance their educational and economic standing in society, and resist all forms of violence and stigmatization against women. The Catholic Church provides these services to many women around the world and will continue to do so.

We call upon Amnesty International once again to act in accord with its noblest principles, reconsider its error, and reverse its policy on abortion.

Picture: The photograph is of Bishop William Skylstad from www.dioceseofspokane.org

Comments from around the web

2007-08-24T11:16:00.000-04:00

Below are some of the views being posted around the web on Amnesty International's decision on abortion. More will follow. Also see Consistent Life's page for more links.

“Violence cannot be answered with further violence; murder with murder; for even if the child is unborn, it is still a human person. It has a right to dignity as a human being.” Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone as reported by Spero News

"If Amnesty International becomes an organisation which affirms the right to abortion, even under certain circumstances, it is free democratically to do so. But it cannot expect those of us who are just as passionate about the human rights of the unborn child to feel at ease being part of such an organisation." - Rt Rev Michael Evans as reported in the Times of London

"By its actions Amnesty International has shown that in today’s world what determines a “human right” is based on ideology rather than human dignity." - John Mallon, Human Right International

"It is a tragedy that AI has adopted abortion as a human right. It has now placed in jeopardy the wonderful work that it has performed."- Right to Life, New Zealand

"I think it sad that Amnesty should get involved with something that simply isn't in its remit; it will inevitably compromise the good work it does." - Nova et Vetera blog

"To claim the right to abortion and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom." - Paul Kokoski,
Caribbean Net News

Amnesty International, the world's largest human rights organization, definitively threw away its last chance to rescind its recent abortion advocacy policy at the International Council meeting in Mexico City last weekend. - Elizabeth O'Brien, Lifesite

"Don't let the media fool you - opposition and outrage to AI's sharp break with its history on this issue is not limited to the "Church" or "Christians"" - Marjorie Campbell, Deal W. Hudson blog

"Amnesty offers no comment on the murder of innocent pre-born babies in light of their right to continue living. I’m not overlooking the terrible act of rape which does sometimes result in pregnancy. I’m recognizing the inescapable fact that abortion is the murder of an innocent to punish the sin of someone else entirely or to try and escape the natural consequence of one’s own sin." - Marklaroi, Pieces of a Whole blog

"I support the work you do, but I can not support you if you support abortion, a betrayal of human rights, as a human right." - John-Paul C. Deddens, Students for Life of Illinois

"The Jesuit headmaster of Sydney's St Aloysius' College has confirmed that his school will sever its ties with Amnesty International." - CathNews

"We can work with groups and people with whom we do not agree with on every issue on common interests," Mr. [Stephen] Colecchi [director of the Office of International Peace and Justice at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops] said. "But it's a different moral issue for people of conscience to contribute directly to an organization whose work now will include the decriminalization of abortion." - The Washington Times

"Amnesty International was founded to protect human rights, yet it now treads upon the most fundamental human right, the right to life." - Fr Frank Pavone, Priests for Life

"Amnesty has ignored the views of its own membership and the very aims for which it was constituted. It has treated the views of church-goes (its best supporters) with contempt. Pro-lifers will now be looking very seriously at initiating an immediate and complete boycott of Amnesty." - LifeLeague

"It’s not only Catholics therefore, but those of all faiths and none, who are in favour of the human rights of all, especially the most vulnerable in our society, who will now boycott this organisation and divert their time, money and resources to other causes. "
- Damian Rhodes, South Wales Echo

"..it seems like another example of an organisation succumbing to "mission creep", involving itself in matters which have nothing to do with the reason it was set up.." - Indigo Jo blog

"The point I am making is about Amnesty International, an organization that uses its credibility to intervene in political processes and discussions. That credibility has long ago been squandered." - Helen Szamuely, Eureferendum blog

"AI’s position on abortion appears inconsistent with its larger purpose of securing the rights and dignity of all people — unless the humanity of unborn babies is denied. This change takes the organization another step away from its original charter, and weakens its alliances with other groups..." - cehwiedel, Blogger News Network

Independent looks at the issue at last

2007-08-13T17:30:00.000-04:00

The UK newspaper the Independent has covered the issue in today's paper; hardly in the most impartial way, as it attempts to suggest that the Catholic Church's opposition to this issue is an attack on the victims of rape - of course it is not. Nevertheless, today's front page splash highlights the issue more than any other mainstream paper has done so far.

The opposition to AI's policy is well rehearsed in this blog and on other sites. AI is now feeling a little worried about the backlash of the decision that they tried so hard to cover up.

AIUK still misleading members over secret abortion policy

2007-05-18T11:03:00.000-04:00

If you were an interested Amnesty International UK members looking for some information or comment over the recent decision to advocate abortion as a human right, one of the first places you might turn would be the organization's members' magazine, Amnesty Magazine (especially as the organization's own staff appear to be either unable or unwilling to provide correct information).

AIUK members receiving their copy of the May/June issue this week would have to flick over quite a few pages - to page 37 of the 40 page issue- before hitting upon a small, pink box which mentioned the issue (it's been blown up on this blog for easier reading).

Hawk-eyed members would be rewarded with the information that following the resolutions put to the AGM in March:

"...AIUK's Board now has the task of analysing the decisions and determining the UK section's approach to future international discussion on the subject."

Couple of things:

1. What future discussions? The decision was apparently taken on 16 April - more than a month ago. The magazine manages to report on other stories that occurred several weeks after that date, so obviously production deadlines were not an issue in failing to report quite an important piece of information.

Did the AIUK Board forget to tell the editor that a decision had already been made or was this just a deliberate attempt to mislead AIUK members into thinking that there was still some doubt about what decision AI would come to ? Of course, this suggestion would have been unthinkable in the past, but that was before the shocking behavior of the AI Board on this matter and its attempts at a cover up had been revealed.

2. What happened to the democratic process that AI makes so much about in its secret documents? It appears that the AIUK Board is now quite clear: they'll take the decision on what the membership really thought. Now could it be that they would side with the resolution to form a policy on adoption proposed by...err... the AIUK Board?

I'm sure that there will be a few dictators and aspiring dictators who are all in favor of this type of democracy.

Time for Amnesty to come clean over secret abortion policy

2007-05-11T18:46:00.000-04:00

When forced to address the abortion issue, AI representatives have often attempted to package their decision to advocate having an abortion as a "human right" with issues around protecting women from violence (AI has never quite explained just how abortion does this - isn't killing an unborn child a pretty violent act?). Anyway, by taking this approach they have thus far succeeded in avoiding all the difficult questions that adopting this policy and their subsequent attempts to cover it up raise.

Now that Amnesty International's leaders have apparently been successful in imposing their wishes on the organization, it is beholden on them to come clean about:

the real consultation process and why it was so biased;
why they failed to inform staff about the adoption of the policy;
why they were apparently quite happy to mislead AI members about the adoption of the policy;
why the policy was adopted before the slated date and why AI continued to say that a consultation was still ongoing, when the final decision had already been taken;
and, most importantly, provide a proper explanation as to why a human rights organization feels it can morally and logically adopt this policy.

On the last point, if AI is to justify its new position on abortion with any ounce of credibility it must provide the evidence of where and when life begins, for if it really believes in human rights, it must identify at what point a person exists to claim those rights. I suspect that this will be pretty problematic for the organization as, until now, no-one has been able to prove at what point a person exists (once we get 100% proof of this, then the abortion debate is over).

Given this lack of evidence, logically there are two positions that can be adopted: you either understand that you cannot determine the exact point of time at which a human inherits personhood and so accept that they should have rights (including the right to life) from the earliest possible moment that individual could potentially become a person; or you take a view that an individual becomes a person at some indeterminable point and set an arbitrary point at which human rights should be bestowed, knowing that by doing so there is a significant risk that many individuals may be denied their human rights.

So the problem for AI is to explain why it has taken the latter approach and adopted a position it knows very well could deny human rights to millions of individuals. Why the approach may be logically consistent for an organization with no interest in human rights (we'll leave the moral question out of this at the moment), AI has to convince us how this approach that is likely to deny human rights to many is consistent with its human rights work?

This is difficult question for a human rights organization to answer with any credibility, which is why it has been avoided. But it is no longer acceptable for AI bosses to hide behind the specious and illogical excuse for introducing this policy of stopping violence against women.

Come on, Amnesty Come Clean!

AI on abortion policy - we "sort of felt like" addressing it

2007-05-10T07:48:00.000-04:00

Sometimes it is in the throw-away lines that you can learn much more about what's really going on without the spin. So it is with Widney Brown's interview as reported by the Reuters press agency.

To be honest, Amnesty International has not been very good about putting a spin on its decision to adopt a policy on abortion and subsequently to hush up the decision: all attempts up until now make the organization's leaders look disingenuous and have damaged the reputation and integrity of a great organization.

Nevertheless, the Senior Director of International Law, Policy and Campaigns at AI’s International Secretariat made an interesting remark: "We sort of felt like if we're going to work on stopping violence against women we have to address (abortion),"

We sort of felt like it! Who is "we" Ms Brown? It was not the members.

AI says it takes no view on whether abortion is good or bad or when life begins . But Ms Brown's casual comment shows that this is not the case: AI must have taken a view on where life begins or else its abortion policy is deliberately campaigning against the rights of unborn humans; surely that can't be fitting for such a venerable human rights organization? Why has Ms Brown decided this is not an issue that AI should be concerned with?

Amnesty International: no cover up, we just didn't need to tell

2007-05-09T22:45:00.000-04:00

It would appear there was no press officer sitting in on the conversation between a Reuters' interviewer and Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law, Policy and Campaigns at Amnesty International’s International Secretariat. For surely, if there had been, Ms Brown would not have made some of her absurd claims.

According to Reuters she told the agency that Amnesty was not deliberately trying to suppress the fact that the decision to support abortion had been made (even although allowing your staff to state that the policy had not been made and marking documents "for internal distribution only" looks pretty like such an attempt in my eyes). Instead Ms Brown told Reuters: "There's simply no reason for us to 'publicize' policy issues."

Now Ms Brown has only recently joined AI from Human Rights Watch, and to be charitable maybe someone has not told her yet that AI is a campaigning organization and should be doing all it can to publicize policy issues.

In her interview Ms Brown labored the point that AI had gone through a consultation process among its members (although she forgot to mention that the UK membership actually opposed the move and that we await the result of the AIUSA membership vote to be made public)...so, a reasonable person might ask why she assumed that AI members (and indeed AI staff) might not be interested in finding out that a policy had been adopted.

Amnesty cover-up: did AI mislead staff as well as members?

2007-05-09T22:42:00.000-04:00

If the scandal of Amnesty International ignoring the most basic rights to unborn children wasn't bad enough, the powers that be at AI have caused further outrage by attempting to cover up their decision - even trying to keep it from their staff.

As late as Tuesday afternoon, workers at Amnesty International UK's headquarters claimed that they believed a decision on the abortion policy had not been taken and would not be taken until later this summer, and indeed were reassuring members of this, apparently blissfully unaware that Amnesty was in fact trying to cover up the fact that it had already made its decision.

So their gas was put at the proverbial peep when it was pointed out to the benighted AIUK employees that documents on Amnesty International USA's site, uncovered by Consistent Life, completely contradicted what they were saying (see previous post) and these documents made them look, at the very best, sadly uninformed.

So the AIUK staff went off to find out more. At the time of writing this, they still had not managed to give a response to the member in question - that's almost 48 hours later, but we can assume that there has been some frantic activity, in fact there have been quite a few hits on this blog and its mirror sites from Amnesty International IP addresses over the last 24 hours (perhaps AIUK staff are trying to find out what their bosses have apparently been keeping from them).

Of course, AI didn't want to tell its members the unpalatable news until it had worked out how it was going to spin it to members who had vigorously opposed the proposals so it was quite useful to keep their staff in the dark so that they could answer in all honesty that the matter was still to be decided if they had to deal with troublesome member or press enquiries. And, as Jen R points out , this would not be the first time that such a tactic has been employed.

At the same time AIUK were preparing their response to this embarrassing incident, Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law, Policy and Campaigns at Amnesty International's International Secretariat - and a former advocate on the women's rights program of Human Rights Watch (which also happens to have adopted a policy on abortion) - was forced into giving an interview to Reuters press agency, apparently confirming the decision that Amnesty was supporting abortions.

Reuters reports that she told its interviewer "that Amnesty also viewed abortion as a right for women whose health was threatened by a pregnancy and that the group would call for the procedure to be decriminalized globally. She said the board of the London-based group agreed the policy last month after two-years of consultations -- with experts and the group's more than 2.2 million members -- that has spurred much discussion on anti-abortion blogs."

Amnesty International USA or UK - who's right?

2007-05-08T19:30:00.001-04:00

One of the contributors to the blog has just contacted Amnesty International UK to ask them about their position on the abortion question. The contributor was asking as a private AI member, so was not speaking to a press officer or spokesperson. Anyway the AIUK rep was quite clear about the situation: AIUK had passed two “conflicting” resolutions at its AGM in March; one to develop a policy and one to remain neutral. (I have my doubts about this). Absolutely no decision had yet been made, she said, and AIUK could not adopt policy by itself, but would take its recommendations to the International meeting later this summer. She said there was a statement prepared and she would send it over (we’ll publish it here when we get it). But what about the documents in the members only section of the AIUSA website, dated April 2007 and declaring that a policy had been adopted? The AIUK representative was puzzled (no wonder: the documents completely contradict what she had been saying). So puzzled was she, that our contributor offered to email her over a copy of the documents and she could respond once she had a chance to see them. He did this earlier this afternoon and awaits the result. No doubt there will be some frantic conversation between Amnesty International press officers before he gets a response. If a decision has already been made, there is another question for AI bosses: is Amnesty putting its front line staff in the unenviable position of misleading members, by not giving their own staff the full facts to respond to queries correctly? We’ll have to wait and see.

AI's "secret" policy betrays human rights values

2007-05-07T13:23:00.000-04:00

Amnesty International's recently adopted policy to advocate the right to an abortion as a human right has been condemned as a betrayal of the organization's values.

Talking of the decision Amnesty International is currently trying to keep under wraps, the US National Director of Priests for Life, Fr Frank Pavone, said, "Amnesty International purports to be an advocate for human rights, yet it apparently now thinks that it's acceptable for governments to trample on the most important, fundamental right, the right to life."

Fr Pavone continued: "When will we extend amnesty to unborn children?"

Catholic Action UK: Amnesty International: secret abortion policy?

2007-05-06T14:01:00.000-04:00

Catholic Action UK: Amnesty International: secret abortion policy?

Today's World Press Freedom Day - so here's something AI isn't publishing yet

2007-05-03T15:42:00.000-04:00

On UN World Freedom of the Press day, here's Amnesty International USA's response to some anticipated bad press (with a couple of comments)

Media Response Letter on Amnesty International’s Policy on Sexual and Reproductive Rights April, 2007

Note: This letter is only to be sent to newspapers as a response to articles, editorials or letters to the editor that are critical of the new sexual and reproductive rights policy; it is not to be sent proactively. (oops!!)

To The Editor: Violence against women is pervasive worldwide. (Yes, this is dreadful, but this is not the issue here) In conflict zones from Bosnia to Sudan to Guatemala, rape has been used as a weapon of war. (And how many Amnesty International members and good thinking people do not abhor this? Again, this is clouding the issue.) The World Health Organization estimates that one woman in five will be the victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime. (Again, absolutely dreadful, but not the point here. This tactic of trying to make out that those people who oppose abortion do not care for protecting women is low - and wrong) Women who are raped suffer additional abuse and isolation. In some countries abortion is a crime with severe penalties. Recently in Nigeria, a woman who miscarried was accused of aborting and threatened with the death penalty. (Of course this was awful for the woman involved; many of us campaigned on her behalf and she was released. AI campaigns vigorously against capital punishment anyway, so why use this as an example to excuse the change in the abortion stance ?) . In many countries, women suffer terrible consequences when access to medical treatment is blocked. (Everyone should have access to medical treatment, that is not an issue. But not all medical procedures are conducive to human rights) Every year, 70,000 women died from unsafe abortions and another five million suffer often debilitating complications. (This is tragic, but there is a 100% mortality rate for the unborn child as a result of every abortion - why is a human rights organization not addressing this issue).
As a human rights organization, Amnesty International cannot remain silent in the face of this suffering. (So why does the human rights organization feel it can remain silent in the face of the suffering of the unborn, defenseless child?) The severe violence and dire circumstances women face inspired Amnesty International to initiate a global campaign to Stop Violence against Women through which we advocate for every woman’s right to be free from inhuman treatment, cruelty, coercion, discrimination or violence. (This should be a right for everyone - man, woman, child, born and unborn. Why has AI chosen to limit these rights to a particular group with this policy?) This campaign has led us to defend a woman’s right to be free from any form of coercion, discrimination or violence as she makes and puts into effect informed decisions concerning reproduction, including decisions in relation to the continuation or termination of pregnancy(The campaign has not seen AI protecting the right of a female or male child's right to life or protecting them from the violence of abortion). In particular, we call for protection of women who seek an abortion as a consequence of rape or incest or who are facing grave risk to their health or loss of life. (How can this be a logical stance for a human rights organization to take? If you argue that abortion is a right, then why would you limit it to particular circumstances? Of course this might make it slightly more palatable for your membership if you planned to widen the policy at a later date and was introducing this policy as a mere stepping stone.) We support the right of women to receive medical treatment for complications arising from abortion, (but ignore the "complication" of abortion to the unborn child; the removal of that most basic of their human rights: the right to life) and we oppose sending women and their health care providers to jail for abortion.

Amnesty International takes no position on whether a woman should have an abortion under any of these circumstances but instead seeks to assure that abortion services are safe and accessible to prevent grave human rights violations that can result if women are denied this option. (Abortion is a grave human rights violation. Would AI really accept an argument that it should drop its campaign against the death penalty and instead campaign for a "humane" method of execution; one that does not result in complications which would cause the victim too much suffering, such as the complications that have been associated with the electric chair or gas chamber? I doubt it, yet this is the argument it tries to present here.)

Name Amnesty International USA

What Amnesty International doesn't want you to know

2007-05-03T09:11:00.000-04:00

It would appear that Amnesty International has already taken the tragic decision to advocate abortion as a “human right”, but is so concerned about the fuss that will be made that it does not want to officially say anything. So, in line with Amnesty’s own campaign to prevent censorship of the web, here is a letter posted on the AIUSA members’ website (their emphasis):

Dear Volunteer Leaders, Amnesty International’s International Executive Committee (IEC) has adopted a new position on Sexual and Reproductive Rights that includes support for abortion in very particular circumstances, in the context of our work to stop grave human rights abuses against women and girls. This new policy, which grew out of our campaigning to stop violence against women and the tragic circumstances in which women all too often find themselves, will enable the organization to: Support women who seek a safe, early medical termination of pregnancy in cases of rape, incest or when a woman’s life or health is at grave risk. Urge governments to make medical care available to women who suffer complications from unsafe abortions; Oppose imprisonment and other criminal penalties for abortion against women and their providers. It is very important to be aware of the following: This policy will not be made public at this time. As the IEC has written to all sections, “There is to be no proactive external publication of the policy position or of the fact of its adoption issued. This means no section or structure is to issue a press release or public statement or external communication of any kind on the policy decision.” A central reason for this is that there will be no campaigning on these issues until at least later this year, and we will await further guidance on this matter from the IS and IEC. Because we recognize that word about this decision may enter the public domain, the SRR Working Group has prepared some guidance and materials for you to respond to inquiries and to potential criticism in your communities. The documents include: • Letter from the Executive Director: This can be sent to those who express concern about our new policy. This is, therefore, an external document that can be used for-response to inquiries. • Two-page overview: This explains the context for this decision and the consultation process. This is an external document that can be used for-response to inquiries. • Letter to the Editor: This is an external document, but one that should be used only to respond to critical editorials or letters to the editor in local newspapers. • FAQ: This is an internal document that can be used to respond to inquiries, but not distributed to the public. A word about press inquiries: Please do not respond to any inquiries from the news media. Any press inquiries should be sent to Gwen Fitzgerald (fitzgerald@aiusa.org) or Suzanne Trimel (strimel@aiusa.org) in the Communications Department’s media office. We are also establishing an email burst for inquiries from members and the public: srrinfo@aiusa.org. Any questions should be directed there or to your regional office. Thank you. Best, Karen Schneider Chair, SRR Working Group

Consistent Life has put together a great page on the issue, http://consistent-life.com/ai.html with some links on other organizations to join.

AIUSA: pot, kettle and black springs to mind

2007-05-01T16:14:00.000-04:00

"These are extraordinary times and we need you now more than ever." So starts the blurb on Amnesty International USA's member recruitment website. And I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, times are indeed extraordinary when an organization that purports to be an advocate and defender of human rights proposes to actively remove the rights of unborn children.

I am still an active member of Amnesty International and I will continue to be one unless and until the organization adopts the policy that will advocate abortion as a human right. There are many people in the same situation which is why AI sectors worldwide are preparing for an exodus of members, hence more intensified recruitment drives. AIUSA is already seeing the need to attract more members and in an online recruitment campaign tagged "Believe. And be counted."(sic) the organization says it wants to attract 75 new members every day in April.

AIUSA's recruitment literature continues: "We can't restore the basic American rights that have been so seriously eroded over the past six years without you. You can play an important role in Amnesty International's work to reverse the disastrous course of human rights pursued by the Bush Administration. Renew your membership or join Amnesty for the first time and declare your commitment to the America you believe in."

(I have serious misgivings about this type of attack as a way to recruit members: AI's members come from a wide political spectrum...however this is not a point that I'm going to go into here). I am no particular fan of the Bush Administration, and have voiced my condemnation of many of the things it has done. However when I read AIUSA's recruitment blurb and consider Amnesty International's own proposals to advocate abortion as a human right the words "pot", "kettle" and "black" spring to mind. Should it be implemented, AI's proposals would be no less disastrous for the course of human rights than anything the Bush Administration has done; and as far as I am aware even the Bush Administration has not been as hypocritical to call itself a human rights organization.

I would respectfully suggest to Amnesty International USA that if it genuinely wants to restore human rights it first does so by campaigning to stop all attempts by AI sectors to deny the most basic of human rights - the right of life - to unborn children. Once it does so it may find that it is able to retain the membership of many of its long-term supporters.

Pat Oliphant's famous cartoon.

Women urge AI not to set genocide precedent

2007-04-27T08:43:00.000-04:00

Women for Life International has become the latest group to oppose Amnesty International's proposals to advocate abortion as a human right and warned that, if passed, the proposals would set a precedent for unfettered "fetal genocide" and exploit women worldwide.

Molly White, co-founder of the North American based group, said: "The proposed policy is not only in direct conflict with the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights … but adoption of such a policy would set a precedent for worldwide, unfettered fetal genocide; worldwide exploitation of pregnant women, especially poor women; and a worldwide epidemic of violence against women and the girl child.”

Women for Life International said it was "looking to AI to protect all women and children, born and pre-born, from the violence and exploitation of legal abortion." Many nations are now facing a substantial gender imbalance due to forced abortion and gender-selected abortion, the group added.

"Where is amnesty for these women and their pre-born children? This proposed policy will be seen as an endorsement of the inhumane treatment of pregnant women who are forced to abort their children," added Denise Mountenay, co-founder of Women for Life International and founder of Canada Silent No More. The group said it was also concerned with the potential backlash on women, particularly in China. Recently, The China Aid Association reported that a total of 61 women and their unborn children became victims of a recent campaign of forced abortion in Guangxi province.

“If AI supports legal abortion in certain circumstances it undermines opposition in other circumstances,” the pro-life group said.

AI warned it risks abandoning principles to abuse human rights

2007-04-02T11:15:00.000-04:00

Amnesty International risks becoming complicit in one of civilization's greatest human rights abuses and taking the side of some of history's tyrants, according to the world's largest pro-life movement.

Speaking just days after Amnesty International UK's vote to support advocating abortion as a human right, Human Life International's president Father Thomas Euteneuer warned the organization that if it dropped its neutral stance on abortion it would become its "own enemy, and become complicit in one of the greatest human rights abuses of all time: abortion on demand."

He continued: “It was bad enough they were neutral on the crime of abortion in the first place, but if they drop even that they switch sides to stand on the side of tyrants and genocide.

"The failure to see the plight of the unborn for the injustice that it is represents a grave moral blindness, not a sensitivity to the oppressed.”

Fr Euteneuer believes the international pro-abortion lobby has been attempting to have abortion declared a human right by manipulating United Nations' conferences and international treaty instruments, but the attempts have so far been unsuccessful. “If AI caves to this pressure, it would represent not principle, but abandonment of principle to ugly, bald-faced ideology," he said. "It would render every unborn child—especially in the developing world—a political prisoner in the womb.”

Photograph: Human Life International (www.hli.org)

Amnesty UK votes abortion a human right

2007-03-27T19:31:00.000-04:00

As expected, the Amnesty International UK section has endorsed the AIUK Board's shameful proposals to advocate abortion as a human right.

Despite the fact that the majority of members who responded to a consultation voted against a change in the policy on abortion (at present the organisation has a neutral stance), the AIUK Board managed to get their resolution passed even though far more members responded to the consultation than were able to attend an early morning Sunday meeting in Edinburgh at last weekend's AGM.

Some members accused the Board of AIUK of gerrymandering in order to get the results they desired. The Board has been widely condemned for the biased manner in which it has conducted the debate and consultation period, and has been accused of riding roughshod over members' wishes.

Christine Usher, AIUK's vice chair who proposed the pro-abortion resolutions and who is currently standing for re-election to the AIUK board, told the UK Amnesty International meeting that there was sufficient support among the 72 national sections for a policy to be implemented soon.

There is still a chance that Amnesty International's governing body will come to realise that this decision does not have widespread support among its membership base.

AIUK consultation results

2007-03-19T15:31:00.000-04:00

Amnesty International UK has released the results of the consultation conducted over the last few months on the issue of whether or not to change the abortion policy. The results for whether this should happen are almost evenly split, despite the less-than-level playing field the organization gave to the consultation process. There were c1,800 responses; AIUK's report emphasises that as this is less than 1% of the membership, most members have not expressed a view (would this point have been made so strongly if the vote against the moves had not been so high?). Here are the results as presented by AIUK:

Question 1 Do you agree that Amnesty International should develop policy to enable research and action to achieve the following: - decriminalisation of abortion - access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortions - access to abortion in cases of rape, sexual assault, incest, and risk to a woman’s life Yes: 45.4% No: 45.7% Undecided: 8.0% No answer: 0.8%

Question 2 Are there any further circumstances under which AI should develop policy on abortion? eg risk to mother’s health, severe foetal development, sex-selective abortions, unwanted pregnancy in forced or early marriages etc Yes: 31.1% No: 42.6% Undecided: 8.0% No answer: 18.4%

Question 3 Should Amnesty International take the view that a woman’s right to physical and mental integrity (her safety and health) includes her right to terminate her pregnancy within reasonable limitations, if she chooses to do so? So abortion should be legal, safe and accessible for all women? Yes: 35.3% No: 52.8% Undecided: 9.6% No answer: 2.3%

Respondents’ views In favour of rejecting the policy - opposition to abortion under any circumstances, on the basis of religious belief or other ethical considerations; - concern that the rights of the unborn child should also be considered in any discussion on the issue of abortion; - concern over the expanding scope of Amnesty International’s work especially when other organisations already exist and are better placed to work on the issue; - concern that the adoption of policy on abortion could damage Amnesty International’s international reputation and cause members to leave. In favour of adopting policy - conviction that Amnesty International should support a woman’s right to abortion without interference or opposition from the state or religious organisations; - belief that the work of Amnesty International on the Stop Violence Against Women campaign created a need to develop policy on sexual and reproductive rights; - perception that a gap in Amnesty International policy needs to be plugged in order for Amnesty International to be able to engage in debate on women’s rights and retain its credibility as an international organisation; - concern about the health and legal implications for women resorting to illegal and therefore possibly unsafe abortion. "

The results will be used to debate resolutions put to the AGM next weekend.

Use your vote to stop abortion AIUK members told

2007-03-17T15:29:00.000-04:00

The following is taken from this week's Universe, a Catholic newspaper in the UK.

Amnesty International votes on abortion stance 16 March 2007. Catholic members of Amnesty International are being urged to make sure they do not miss out on a vote on the abortion issue at the organisation’s AGM. Delegates at the three-day conference, which takes place at Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh from Friday March 23 will be discussing whether Amnesty International should adopt a pro-choice stance. Two motions supporting the argument will be put forward, with an alternative E3 motion proposing the group remains neutral on the subject also being discussed. Catholic members are being urged to vote for this. Dan Baird, the secretary of the Newman Society in Glasgow and a member of AI said a vote for a pro-choice stance could lead to conflict with many countries throughout the world, which forbid or restrict access to abortion. He said: “The way Amnesty International have conducted the process of consultation from regional meetings down to the grass roots has seen very little voice given to the pro-life argument. “There needs to be more time to discuss this, which a vote for motion E3 would provide.” Delegates who cannot attend the AGM, can vote by proxy. All proxy votes have to be in by 5pm on March 21. US senator Chris Smith also recently urged AI members to reject any changes that could alter the organisation’s stance on abortion.

Sad news from a college campus

2007-03-14T19:28:00.000-04:00

I came across this blog post today, which highlights the importance of the need to continue lobbying AI and all members on the issue. The writer attended a university meeting of Amnesty International and sadly the vote seemed to be overwhelmingly in favor of advocating abortion in certain circumstances; I suspect that this scenario will be reflected around other campuses. He describes how a "Women's Lib" society representative was there; it is just a pity that so many people from women's organizations do not realize that anti-abortion campaigners want equal, fundamental human rights for both sexes: the right to life. I think that this was at a UK university, so with AIUK's AGM still 10 days or so away there is still time to campaign.

International law, human rights and the unborn

2007-03-10T12:17:00.000-05:00

With many sections holding their AGMs about now, it's probably useful to remind ourselves of an argument that will undoubtedly be trotted out by some of the members of the organization that are campaigning for the advocacy of abortion. An argument that, as Michael Johann pointed out in a comment to this blog, AI Secretary General Irene Khan is happy to make during the less-than-impartial consultation period. [In an interview with the Weltwoche from Switzerland Irene Khan said: There is no human right to life for a fetus. (Sixth Question/Answer)] Setting aside the question of whether or not it is proper for the Secretary General to make these arguments at all at this time, the argument that the unborn child has no rights under international law is not only biased interpretation of law, it is also quite wrong.

Those proposing advocating abortion will usually try and shout you down and rhyme off some legislation they claim supports their view. The fact is that the following documents provide strong commitments to protecting human rights of all without discrimination. This is one of the reasons that AI has stayed neutral on the position fo so long; the organization recognized the rights could be extended to the unborn and knew that this was specifically discussed at many of the draft stages of the documents.

the United Nations Charter,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948)
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966),
the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989),
the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)

Discriminating against the unborn because of their age, status, personhood, or disability is an infringement of their human rights. To retain their legitimacy human rights organizations, such as AI, cannot favor one person's human rights over another because of age. If you're interested in learning more about the question of the unborn child's human rights under international law a good place to start is Drs John Fleming and Michael Hains discussion here.

International Women's Day

2007-03-07T12:14:00.000-05:00

The 8th March is the annual International Women's Day. This is an important day to celebrate a movement that has done an enormous amount of good work over the years to protect women and help women across the globe secure opportunities to achieve their full potential, without discrimination because of their sex.

There is, of course, still much work to be done, which is why many local Amnesty International groups will hold special events this week to celebrate IWD, and some will even link it to the ongoing campaign to stop violence against women. Now, no right thinking person would condone violence against anyone; woman, child or man. But on International Women's Day we should take a moment to think about the violence that is being inflicted on females in the womb.

The danger with some of the local campaigns is that the rights of women get confused; I have seen a local AI campaign (I stress this is at a local level, not a national level) that is already suggesting that a women should be allowed an abortion as a human right if they have become pregnant after a rape, an emotive and sensitive set of circumstances, but nonetheless AI currently remains neutral on this position and any decision taken by the membership and organization this year should certainly not be preempted.

All too often people who oppose abortions are accused of denying women their rights, in the case of rape anti-abortion campaigners are slated as being uncaring, brutal and accused of taking a choices away from women; it is even claimed that this stance is somehow complicit on the violence that is perpetrated on women. In fact, those against abortion want to ensure that all women receive all their rights, including the most important: that unborn baby girls (and, of course, boys) get their right to life; with that right comes a lifetime of choices: where and how to live, for example. The so-called pro-choice lobby, campaigns for only one choice for women - a choice of whether or not to end the life of another person - a position that is not logical or moral. It is ironic that on the very day pro-abortion campaigners celebrate equal opportunities for all on IWD, they also seek to deny the opportunity of life for thousands of children. Those opposing abortion, defend a women's right to live and make a lifetime of choices: what could be more "pro-choice"?

It is imperative that AI continues to campaign for human rights for all individuals, regardless of their sex and of their stage in life. Please continue to make representations to your local Amnesty section objecting to any moves that would change the organization's current position on abortion.

Opposition to AI's move could unite Muslims and Christians

2007-03-03T19:48:00.000-05:00

Conservative writer and former Reagan administration policy analyst Dinesh D'Souza is receiving criticism from both right and left for his new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. No surprise really as he blames a litany of organizations that he believes supports the liberal lefts (notably some members of Congress, Hollywood, the media and the universities) for 911. Strong stuff, indeed. And while I disagree with many of the sentiments, there is an interesting proposition from Mr D'Souza makes in one of his promotional interviews with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and that is that the opposition to moves to make abortion a human right as advocated by Human Right Watch (and what AI is attempting to do) could actually bring together Muslims and Christians. If successful a worthy double-whammy; imagine: stopping the illogical (and I believe immoral) prospect of a human rights organization advocating abortion AND bringing together the Muslim and Christian worlds.

I have said in previous posts that this is not just a Catholic issue, nor a Christian issue; nor even an Islamic issue; the issue of advocating abortion as a human right is one that people of all faiths and none should be concerned with. Even if you disagree with the morality-based arguments, no compelling argument has been put presented that counteracts the illogicality of the proposal.

USA Annual General Meeting - register now

2007-02-28T19:03:00.000-05:00

The tagline for this year's AIUSA AGM in Milwaukee, Wisconsin from March 23 - March 25 is "ordinary people extraordinary change" and I am hoping that any extraordinary changes made at the AGM are ones for the good of AI.

The closing date to book a room at the Annual General Meeting is today (Thursday 1 March). You can book through the website here. Don't worry if you miss the deadline, you can still attend, but you will have to find your own accommodation.

On the Saturday morning (the 24th from 9am-1045am) , one of the workshops/discussion panels is entitled " Getting a Handle on AI's Policy and Work on Sexual and Reproductive Rights". Working parties will be set up on the Saturday afternoon to phrase resolutions and votes will be taken the following morning.

AIUK's AGM scheduling

2007-02-26T18:05:00.000-05:00

I have my doubts about the probity of the AIUK membership consultation: who can blame me after all, given AIUK's previous attempts to organise an "even-handed" debate on the topic (one of which last year omitted the anti-abortion position at all). So. sadly I suspect that many of the organisation's leaders are doing what they can to sway the vote in favour of advocating abortion. The scheduling of the debates at the conference and AGM has not put my mind at rest. Following this apparent thorough and detailed consultative process AIUK has scheduled exactly 15 minutes to update members attending the AGM on Saturday 24 March about the consultation (yep, Tim Hancock the campaigns director will speak from 10.10 - 10.25 on the euphemistically entitled"Sexual and reproductive rights" consultation). The following day (that's from 9.15 on a Sunday morning for 1hr and 45mins) they'll debate resolutions relating to the issue. Now, with this such a divisive and important issue for AI on a global scale, you would think that they could devote a little more time to this during the course of the three-day event.

By the way, if you are going to go to AIUK's AGM, you have to register by this Friday (2 March). you can do this through the Amnesty UK website.

A reputation too important to lose

2007-02-01T13:37:00.000-05:00

AI Secretary General Irene Khan's blog from the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos made interesting reading. Just as you would expect she quite rightly urged world leaders to live up to the promise of human rights. She pondered whether this year's forum was "more cosmetic than substantive" and considered how NGOs like AI seemed to be being sidelined or at least reserved for worthy post-prandial speeches - a worrying observation at a time when the world faces enormous human rights challenges. But there was good news too: she noted how she was recognised in a juice bar by a leading politician and even managed to grab a cappuccino with the Pakistan PM without an apppointment and had a hard talk about human rights.

If, as she says, NGOs are being sidelined it looks as if AI still has some sway and that's because over the years the organisation Ms Khan heads has built up an enviable reputation for morality and championing human rights. If this reputation is ruined - as may well be the case if AI decides to advocate abortion, Ms Khan may find it becoming even more difficult to grab a coffee with world leaders.

One of the latest AI campaigns is Human Rights for All - NO EXCEPTIONS....a sentiment I think all AI supporters would endorse. Even before AI takes a decision about whether or not to promote abortion as a human right in Mexico in August, many find these campaigns a bitter irony. If it is adopted then there is surely an argument that AI is in fact prepared to make exceptions and if AI can do it, how can it object if other organisations, individuals or countries decide to make their own exceptions to who have human rights? It's credibility will have gone and Ms Khan may find herself sitting all alone in the coffee shop of next year's forum.

URGENT...time's running out

2007-01-30T13:41:00.000-05:00

AIt's been a while, but there is a deadline approaching at the end of this week for responding to an AIUK online feedback. Please take a couple of minutes now to send your thoughts to AIUK. Link is here

US legislators appeal to AI not to condone abortion

2006-11-27T12:38:00.000-05:00

Seventy-three US lawmakers have sent a letter to Amnesty International USA calling on the organization to reject any moves to advocate abortion.

Publishing the letter, U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Co-Chairman of the Bipartisan Congressional Pro Life Caucus, said:

“The killing of an unborn child by abortion can never be construed to be a human right. Therefore, taking a position that supports violence against children is antithetical to everything Amnesty International stands for. It is not possible for Amnesty to justify any position that condones abortion based on international human rights law while at the same time remain true to their principles.”

Read the full text of the letter below.

Mr. Larry Cox

Executive Director

Amnesty International USA 5 Penn Plaza New York, NY 10001 fax: (212) 627-1451

Dear Mr. Cox:

As lawmakers, we believe we have a compelling individual and collective duty to protect the weak, disenfranchised, unwanted and vulnerable from violence and abuse.

The principles long held by Amnesty International embody values supported by persons from a broad spectrum of ideological, political and religious beliefs. That’s why we are proud to have made common cause with Amnesty International in promoting key human rights such as the rule of just law, respect for religious liberty, an end to torture, enhanced efforts to combat human trafficking, the protection for freedom of association and of the press, and the release of political prisoners.

Since 1961, you have made a difference for the good in the lives of many and in building a more just society. We write today, however, with great concern and alarm that the mission and reputation of Amnesty International is at risk. We are deeply concerned that Amnesty International may soon embrace a mandate regarding abortion that is antithetical to your—our—shared duty to protect. We respectfully ask that at a minimum you remain neutral on the issue of abortion. Better, of course, would be for you to join us in defending unborn children who we believe deserve better than abortion. The most elemental human right of all—the right to life for all includes unborn babies.

To in any way condone or support abortion which many of your supporters believe is actually a human rights abuse, would significantly undermine Amnesty’s reputation and effectiveness.

The issue of abortion incites strong convictions and any explicit or implied position in favor of abortion will thrust the organization into the heated debate on this topic. As you know, abortion has long divided our country, and current attempts by certain Western groups to introduce abortion as a legal right in the developing world are giving rise to justifiable indignation and resentment by the majority of the populations who live there and value the life of the unborn.

Amnesty International’s vision is one of a “world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.” It is not possible for Amnesty to justify any position that condones abortion based on international human rights law while at the same time objectively adhering to legal instruments and processes. No United Nations human rights treaty or convention recognizes a so-called right to – or even addresses the issue of – abortion.

We believe that the killing of an unborn child by abortion can never be construed to be a human right. Every child—born or unborn—deserves protection and to have his or her human rights secured and protected.

In recent years, modern medicine and scientific breakthroughs have shattered the myth that unborn children are not human persons or alive. Today, as you know, ultrasound technologies and other diagnostic tools have helped doctors to diagnose illness and disability before birth. New and exciting breakthrough health care interventions for the unborn—from intrauterine blood transfusions to microsurgeries—are leading to an ever expanding array of successful treatments and cures of sick or disabled unborn babies in need of help, rather than being subjected to painful administration of deadly chemicals or dismemberment.

Abortion methods either rip, tear and dismember or chemically poison the fragile bodies of unborn children to death. There is nothing whatsoever benign, compassionate or just about an act that utterly destroys the life of a baby. Attempts to justify abortion when a child is “unwanted” turns that baby into an object. No one’s life should be contingent on wantedness. Surely, Amnesty International—more than most—understands and is sensitive to the fact that violence is often given sanction by either demonizing or redefining the victim as a throwaway.

Abortion is both violence against children and the exploitation of women. We strongly believe women deserve better than abortion. Nonviolent, humane solutions need to be found for mothers in crisis or sexual abuse victims. Abortion solves nothing for them—it only adds another victim.

Consider the deleterious effects on women’s psychological and emotional health from abortions. A study in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry just this year demonstrated once again the devastating effect of abortion on women. According to researchers, Fergusson, Horwood and Ridder, women who had an “abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders.”

Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., has joined the coalition of women who regret their abortions and are “Silent No More.” They are speaking out against abortion as a the terrible injustice to women as well as children. In her words, “How can the ‘Dream’ survive if we murder the children?” Abortion is truly not a human right, but rather a terrible injustice against the weakest individuals.

With deep respect we ask that you in no way embrace or enable the demise of even one child. Retain your neutrality or join us in defending the most discriminated class of human beings on earth—unborn babies.

Sincerely,

Online petition

2006-10-02T11:46:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Ed for pointing out there's a new online petition urging Amnesty International to retain a neutral stance on abortion. There are several petitions out there at the moment; this one is aimed mainly at members of the US section and also calls for AIUSA to reverse a decision taken at this year's AGM.

Among some well-made points, the wording notes that it is not just people who would describe themselves as anti-abortion who object to the proposed moves, but people who support abortion also object because of the damaging consequences to AI as an organisation. You can sign the petition below:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/amnestyabortionrights/

Dates for UK members

2006-09-19T13:48:00.000-04:00

AIUK has announced some details of its consultation period. A somewhat biased explanatory paper was sent out with the latest edition of the organisation's magazine; in an apparent attempt to appear impartial the paper gave details of links to a couple of anti-abortion websites, but that was pretty much the extent of any concession towards even-handedness. (Interestingly, the main picture on the cover of the magazine was for the current, and now quite ironic, "Save the Human" campaign.)

There will be a questionnaire for members to complete, but that will apparently not be ready until the end of this month. In the meantime, the following dates have been given for regional consultation meetings, you have to book and some of them charge £5 or so. But if at all possible, please do attend. Anyone with any information about the consultation process in other sections, let me know and I'll post them here.

30 September Northern Ireland Clanmil Housing, Northern Whig House, Waring Street, Belfast
21 October London The Human Rights Action Centre 17 - 25 New Inn Yard, London EC2A 3EA
28 October East Anglia, Sudbury Sudbury Scout Hall Quay Lane, Sudbury CO10 2AN
28 October South West England The University of Exeter The Queens Drive, Exeter EX4 4QJ
4 November North West England The Quaker Tapestry Friends Meeting House Stramongate Kendal Cumbria LA9 4BH
4 November Scotland Glasgow
11 November South England Highfield Church Centre Highfield Lane, Southampton
25 November West Midlands Millennium Point Curzon Street Birmingham B4 7XG
9 December North East England Leeds
27 January 2007 South East Trinity Methodist Centre Lingfield Road East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 2HA
27 January 07 South Midlands Aylesbury Vale Multicultural Centre, Friarscroft Way, Aylesbury, Bucks, HP20 2TE.

US bishops warn against tragic mistake

2006-09-18T13:51:00.000-04:00

CATHOLIC Bishops in the US have become the latest group of bishops to come out and condemn proposals to advocate abortion.

The bishops have written to AI warning the organisation against making a "tragic mistake" by advocating abortion.

In a letter that pulls few punches (see full text given below), Bishop William Skylstad, the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, writes:

"To abandon this long held position would be a tragic mistake, dividing human rights advocates and diverting Amnesty International from its central and urgent mission of defending human rights as outlined in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights."

The bishops point out that abortion is not considered a right under International Law and that if AI made any moves to advocate abortion the organisation "would risk diminishing its own well-deserved moral credibility." They also warn that by engaging in the debate, AI places in jeopardy the rights of many other people by diverting people's attention away from other issues. They go on to say that "it would be ironic for Amnesty International, as an advocate for human rights, to now deny what various international bodies have supported—namely two parties with rights when it comes to birth and abortion."

Last month the Bishops of England and Wales also urged AI against reconsidering the current neutral position on abortion and Canadian bishops have also voiced their concerns (see previous posts).

All have warned that if the proposals are approved many Catholics would find it difficult to support the organisation in future.

FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER:

September 12, 2006

Ms. Irene Khan Secretary General International Secretariat Amnesty International 1 Easton Street London WCIX ODW, United Kingdom

Dear Ms. Khan:

It is with a sense of great alarm that I write to you about the proposal by some within Amnesty International to abandon the organization’s traditional neutral stance on abortion, replacing it with an assertive policy of advocating abortion on demand as a “human right.” The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops believes a change in policy will erode the human rights of the most vulnerable members of the human family: unborn children. It will also jeopardize Amnesty International’s excellent record as a champion of human rights. To abandon this long held position would be a tragic mistake, dividing human rights advocates and diverting Amnesty International from its central and urgent mission of defending human rights as outlined in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.

For many years, the Catholic community here in the United States and elsewhere has admired and worked with Amnesty International in its efforts to advance the cause of universal human rights. Greater respect for human rights is one of the hard won achievements of humanity since World War II. Founded by a Catholic layman, Peter Benenson, Amnesty International has been a beacon of hope to thousands of prisoners of conscience, of abuse and torture and a source of inspiration to millions of supporters, including many Catholics who are Amnesty members. Much more urgent work remains, work which we believe will be harmed by this unprecedented and unnecessary involvement in the abortion debate.

We share Amnesty’s vision of a “world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.” Amnesty International and the Catholic Church have both been in the forefront of the struggle to promote the dignity of the human person and basic human rights. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has worked with Amnesty International over many years on a range of human rights concerns in our own nation, most recently in our common efforts to end the use of the death penalty in the United States. We have also taken up many issues of common concern internationally, ranging from anti-apartheid efforts in South Africa to opposition to the government-sanctioned death squads in Central America to more recent efforts to end the practice of torture by anyone under any circumstances in the struggle against terrorism.

Amnesty International should continue its tradition of focusing on often neglected human rights issues – issues that lack the visibility and advocacy which surround the abortion issue, but are widely acknowledged as legitimate human rights concerns among people of good will. As you know, abortion is not considered a human right in international law. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the recently adopted United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning uphold the principle of the dignity of the unborn child and the need for special protection for the unborn in the context of a concern for advancing human rights. It would be ironic for Amnesty International, as an advocate for human rights, to now deny what various international bodies have supported—namely two parties with rights when it comes to birth and abortion.

While the proposed action by Amnesty International may appear to some to support women’s freedom or provide a compassionate response to women who are in difficult situations of pregnancy, abortion injures the health and dignity of women at the same time that it ends the life of the unborn child. In the United States, our experience is that women oppose unrestricted abortion as strongly as men or more. These views are sometimes strongest of all among women who have undergone an abortion.

Violence to correct situations, even unjust ones, diminishes human dignity and the fabric of society. When the Second Vatican Council condemned violations of the dignity of the human person such as mutilation, torture and coercion of conscience, it began its list of human rights abuses with actions “opposed to life itself” such as abortion and euthanasia. The right to life itself is fundamental – it is “the right to have rights,” and its integrity depends on being

acknowledged in absolutely every member of the human family regardless of race, age or condition. This is no peculiarity of Catholic teaching, but an insight of the “natural law” tradition of human rights that has produced so many advances in upholding human dignity. Many of the great figures of our time in advancing human rights and compassion for the destitute – Susan B. Anthony, Mohandas Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Archbishop Oscar Romero, Dorothy Day, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Fannie Lou Hamer – also spoke out against abortion. Many will find it incomprehensible that these giants of human progress must now be seen as enemies of human rights.

A far more compassionate response is to provide support and services for pregnant women and to advance their educational and economic standing in society. The Catholic Church provides these services to many women around the world and commits itself to continuing to do so. The Catholic Church will also continue to advocate greater attention to these needs in all relevant international assemblies.

If Amnesty International were to advocate for abortion as a human right, it would risk diminishing its own well-deserved moral credibility. It certainly would most likely divide its own members, many of whom are Catholic, and others who defend the rights of unborn children. It could jeopardize Amnesty’s support by people in many nations, cultures and religions. The core values, commitments and leadership of Amnesty International for the protection of human rights are still greatly needed. We urge you to maintain the focus of Amnesty International’s work on behalf of human rights. Please do not dilute or divert its mission by adopting a position that many see as fundamentally incompatible with a full commitment to human rights and that will deeply divide those working to defend human rights.

Thank you for your attention to our perspective and concerns.

Sincerely yours,

Most Reverend William S. Skylstad Bishop of Spokane President

cc Rick Halperin, Chair, Board of Directors, AIUSA Larry Cox, Executive Director, AIUSA Curt Goering, Senior Deputy Executive Director, Policy and Programs, AIUSA Julie Hertzog, Senior Deputy Executive Director, Operations, AIUSA

Bishop blasts AI for "gross betrayal" and "height of stupidity"

2006-09-18T13:43:00.000-04:00

A CANADIAN BISHOP has said that plans for AI to advocate abortion is "an ill-conceived proposal and a gross betrayal of Amnesty's mission to campaign for human rights."

Writing in the Calgary Sun and posting on the Western Catholic Reporter's website, Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary also said that the argument being proposed that a pro-abortion stance would go some way to stopping violence against women is the "height of stupidity".

In his article Bishop Henry rehearses many of the arguments already outlined in previous posts, notably that the move would contravene Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that any move would severely damage the reputation and standing of AI.

In July the Canadian bishops condemned AI's proposals and warned that "it would be a step backwards for an organization that has done such outstanding work in defending human life and the rights of the most vulnerable."

Bishop Henry was one of the first bishops in Canada to speak out against AI's proposals.

AI's real thoughts?

2006-08-06T16:34:00.000-04:00

It doesn't take a great deal of political nouse or religious savvy to predict that many religious organisations that believe the right to life is the human right will oppose the current moves within AI, so the the statement issued this week by the Catholic Bishops' Conference in England and Wales, although welcome, is unsurprising. What is far more interesting is AI's response to the media reports of this statement.

Now AIUK has not been particularly forthcoming with its views in public; hiding behind the excuse that there is an ongoing consultation among members (the details of which haven't been revealed to the general membership yet), they have apparently refused to field spokesmen on the media and AI UK's comments to the press have been bland and uninformative. So any comments made by AI are read with interest, particularly the comments made to the Universe newspaper.

In response to the statement from the Bishops' Conference, a spokesman for AI said the human rights landscape had changed dramatically since it was founded:

“Back then it was more to do with civil and political rights but now there are other issues concerning economic, cultural and social rights,” [the spokesman] said.

“Our biggest campaign at the moment is about women’s rights and in particular stopping violence towards women.

“It would be difficult for us to have a campaign about women which did not also include sexual and reproductive rights as well.”

This is worrying because it could quite legitimately be inferred that this spokesman, whom we assume speaks for the organisation, has taken the stance that abortion plays some part in economic, cultural or social rights. Where is the logical argument to support this, let alone the moral argument?

We sincerely hope this is not the view currently held by AI or else the consultation process would be a sham. Sadly, AIUK's track record is very poor on this: it had to apologise for not allowing people who opposed abortion to speak at a members' meeting when all the speakers AI had lined up were in favour of changing the position on abortion.

Coming back to the spokesman's comments: no-one is suggesting that there should not be a campaign to stop violence against women; that campaign is to be applauded. No-one is suggesting that there should not be a campaign that included sexual and reproductive rights: rape is wrong: period.

What many people point out is the inconsistency that AI faces if it adopts a position that would advocate abortion and still pretend to be a human rights organisation. For example:

- Enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the right to life, not the right to have an abortion
- An abortion is violence towards both male and female unborn babies
- An abortion completely removes the choices of an aborted child

We will continue to work on the premise that the consultation amongst members will be real and urge members to contact their local AI branch by letter and email to protest about any change to the current AI position. AIUK members and members of the public can send their comments to National Director Kate Allen, either by post to Amnesty International UK, The Human Rights Action Centre, 17-25 New Inn Yard, London, EC2A 3EA, or by email to kate.allen@amnesty.org.uk.

Outside the UK contact your nearest AI branch - check here to find out

English & Welsh bishops warn AI

2006-08-04T15:32:00.000-04:00

Catholic bishops in England and Wales have issued a statement expressing its concern about any plans to change AI's stance and called for the organisation to retain a neutral position on abortion. The Bishop of East Anglia Michael Evans, a long time supporter of AI, has been leading the calls and spoken out in the media recently (see previous post). Bishop Evans (pictured) has warned AI that he belived that many Catholic supporters of the organisation could not remain members if AI was to change its stance.

In the statement the bishops say "The Catholic Church shares Amnesty’s concern for the most vulnerable, but does not believe that removing the rights of the unborn child is consistent with Amnesty’s core values. "

Don't divide your membership says English Bishop

2006-08-04T13:30:00.000-04:00

The Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales says Amnesty International risks compromising its values if it declares that abortion is a “human right”. The Bishop of East Anglia, Michael Evans, is a member of Amnesty International. In an interview with Vatican Radio the Bishop said the proposal would move the organisation further from its roots, and divide its membership. You can hear the clip here for a limited period of time (requires Real Audio player).

Opposition spreads beyond usual suspects

2006-08-03T13:24:00.000-04:00

When it was suggested that AI change its long-held stance of taking a neutral position on the issue of abortion, those who proposed the move assumed it would be the "usual suspects" that would oppose it - the Catholic Church, other Christian churches, and pro-life groups to name a few - and that the organisation could ride through any storms that these groups caused.

There are two fundamental flaws with this way of thinking:

Firstly, AI relies heavily on those very groups to operate - many parishes have their own AI groups who support both the organisation's campaigns and bank balances. Riding rough-shod over these members is not something to be advised.

Secondly, as we've commented in this blog before, it is absolutely not just an issue for Catholics, other Christian churches, or any other religious community. Many people of no faith believe that abortion is fundamentally wrong and that the right to life is the fundamental human right.

Lifenews.com today reports that some US Liberal groups are also campaigning against the move - proof that this issue is much wider than some people give it credit for.

Online petition - please sign

2006-07-31T12:46:00.000-04:00

The following is from a comment left by a poster on this blog, I think it is worth highlighting. Thanks to Bill Samuel of Consistent Life for this.

The movement of Amnesty International in the direction of recognizing a “right” to kill an unborn child is a matter of great distress to its consistent-life constituency. All those who report on having called AI’s national office in the United States received curt responses stating that AI is maintaining neutrality, in contradiction to the form letters the same people receive after writing to AI. We have found no indication that the phone calls or the letters are being tallied in order to give decision-makers an accurate assessment of the widespread dismay their decisions can cause. The “policy consultation process” the form letter claims to be underway must be problematic when those who call are not having their names and addresses taken down, while being told emphatically that this process is nothing but a rumor. Accordingly, Consistent Life, an international network for peace, justice and life, is organizing a drive to allow this constituency to be registered and counted (see text below). All those who have ever supported AI are invited to sign it at: www.petitionspot.com/petitions/consistentlife

AOL poll

2006-07-31T07:36:00.000-04:00

AOL news used the piece from AP on the issue recently. There is a poll on their site (quite unofficial); far b eit from me to influence how you vote in it, but the link is here.

Associated Press article: Religious Groups Outraged by AI Proposal

2006-07-30T20:41:00.000-04:00

AP has recently covered the issue - the article has been copied in several blogs, so the link is just in case you haven't seen it yet. It is all great publicity for those people (especially AI members) who were unaware of this proposal. ...keep spreading the word folks.

US Pro-Life blog claims the campaign is hitting the headlines

2006-07-30T20:12:00.000-04:00

The US based Prolifeblogs.com is claiming that the campaign to stop AI changing its stance on abortion is beginning to hit the headlines. This is great news. In the UK the number of column inches and media reports have decreased since the AI UK Annual General Meeting. So it is important to keep the momentum going. If you have not written to AI yet, please contact them. If you have written to them I would be very grateful for a copy of their response....unfortunately I am not getting much out of them at the moment.

AI UK seems a little coy about all of this

2006-07-30T20:05:00.000-04:00

In May I first phoned the Amnesty International offices in London to find out the official position of AI on the issue of abortion. I registered a complaint that as a member I had not been informed of the motions being put to the AI and was told that I should have received information in February 2006: I did not receive that, and I know that other members did not receive their packs, but the Royal Mail has its faults. Anyway the guys at AI were apologetic and told me they would post a pack out to me immediately. I asked them to post to me any other information that they had, as they were most insistent that the press and media reports on AI UK's abortion policy were wrong. I waited...and waited...and waited...a letter and a couple of gentle reminders by phone have still not been fruitful. The wait continues.

New Campaign to give amnesty to the unborn

2006-07-07T11:08:00.000-04:00

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has launched an online Amnesty for Babies campaign. Patrick Buckley, a spokesman for SPUC, said preborn children are deserving of amnesty. "The word 'amnesty' comes from the Greek word 'amnestos' which means 'the forgotten ones,' " he said. "Who more than the unborn babies are nowadays the 'forgotten ones' -- particularly those which are aborted." Buckley is calling for people and legislators around the world to sign a petition that asks governments not to legalize abortion. Jeanne Head, the National Right to Life Committee's representative to the United Nations, said leaders need to hear from the people. "We need to get millions and millions of people signing on from all over the world," she said. "We need to have a positive campaign, because all of the treaty documents in the United Nations, up until this point, do provide protection for unborn children." Thomas Jacobson, Focus on the Family's representative to the U.N., pointed out the irony of preborn children needing protection from a group centered on amnesty. "We commend SPUC for this noble and essential campaign," he said, "to counter the terrible and misguided decision of some Amnesty International organizations to support abortion." FOR MORE INFORMATION:To learn more about the petition and to download copies, visit the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children website

Cardinal warns AI

2006-06-21T13:21:00.000-04:00

A senior Vatican official has claimed that Amnesty International will be discredited if it pushes for the decriminalization of abortion around the world.

Cardinal Renato Martino said, "I have great esteem for Amnesty but doing this, they cut off their hands. I hope they don't do this because if they do, they are disqualified as defenders of human rights."

Cardinal Martino stated that by defining abortion as a human right, that Amnesty International would lose support from Catholic activists.

Martino said, "When they say 'reproductive rights', they mean abortion. Do they defend the rights of everybody? No! Not of the unborn because the unborn will be killed."

Amnesty, which was founded in 1961 by Catholic lawyer Peter Benenson, has been consulting its members to see if they should drop their neutral stance on abortion and start pushing countries to drop laws that make abortion a crime.

Second Canadian Bishop Denounces Amnesty International for Move to Abortion Advocacy

2006-06-16T12:19:00.000-04:00

Archbishop Raymond Roussin, of the Roman Catholic diocese of Vancouver, spoke out against Amnesty International last week, condemning the organization's move to "endorse abortion as a so-called human right," reported CanWest News Service on Friday.

The message

2006-06-12T09:57:00.000-04:00

The message is finally getting out. I've seen a few blogs on this now and seen postings on Catholicforum.com; thecatholicherald.com and other sites. But this is not just an issue for Catholics or Christians - there are still lots of members of AI (with and without religious convictions) who would be outraged by this if they knew what AI is considering. Please pass the message on and contact AI.

Political move undermines Amnesty International

2006-06-12T08:59:00.000-04:00

AI has long been seen as the guardian of human rights; one of the reasons it won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977. Indeed the organisation AI took a deliberate decision that it would not accept government or state funding so that it would neither be beholden to any state nor could be accused of being partial to the interests of any government. The number of lives that the organisation has saved is countless and underpinning this success is the moral authority the organisation could demonstrate. Now some elements of the organisation want to substitute the moral authority that has stood it (and the countless people it has helped) in goodstead for fashionable political correctness. The right to an abortion is not enshrined in any declaration of human rights, indeed an abortion seems to contradict human rights. The decision to advcate abortion would be a political one - not a moral one; any such decision would finally turn AI into a political movement: contrary to the objectives of AI's founders and to the detriment of the organisation. amnesty internationa l abortion

More Canadian reaction

2006-06-09T08:32:00.000-04:00

According to the Catholic Register AI's plan to adopt abortion policy appalls Canadian pro-lifers, see link above. Apparently most delegates at the AI Canada's AGM on May 26-28 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, wanted to change AI’s current neutral position on abortion, Alex Neve, the Canadian section’s general secretary, told Catholic News Service ion May 31. There was “a diversity of views, but the majority of participants were in favor of moving in that direction.”. Neve said a Canadian delegation would present the section’s views at an International Executive Committee meeting in July in Portugal. The committee has been authorized by AI’s International Council Meeting to set policy by the end of 2006 on the questions of “decriminalization of abortion, access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion, and legal, safe and accessible abortion in the cases of rape, sexual assault, incest and risk to a woman’s life.” A decision on the further question of whether a woman’s “right to physical and mental integrity includes her right to terminate her pregnancy” will be made at the next International Council Meeting in August 2007 in Mexico.

Comment about Canadian decision

2006-06-05T09:31:00.000-04:00

USA section keeps quiet on its decision

2006-06-02T07:46:00.000-04:00

The US section of AI has still not made clear its position on the matter of abortions. The section held an AGM last month in Oregon.

According to the Catholic News Agency Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J.,said he had questioned the U.S. section about its intentions and was told that "no decision has been made" or would be made before 2007. "I would hope they reject it," Mr Smith said. "They [Amnesty International] would cease to be a human rights organization and morph into just another anti-child, pro-abortion organization."

amnesty internationa l abortion

United for Life's campaign

2006-05-30T09:47:00.000-04:00

I heard today that United for Life has been campaigning about this issue for a while (I've got to say that I hadn't heard about the campaign, sorry guys, but they have been very active by the looks of it). Apparently they have written to AI UK on several occasions, but have had no response. The link above takes you to a page which contains links to the letters they have sent.

Canada votes

2006-05-30T09:36:00.001-04:00

The Canadian section of Amnesty International voted at the weekend to support the "decriminalization" of abortion and advocate the right to abortion in curcumstances where the woman has been a victim of sexual violence or if the woman's life is threatened. The Canadian decision may not go as far as the UK or the NZ decisions taken recently, but it still goes too far.

Canadian reaction: Toronto Star

2006-05-30T09:34:00.000-04:00

Lifesite news article

2006-05-27T11:32:00.000-04:00

The Canadian branch of AI will debate this matter at its AGM this weekend

A Catholic Life: Amnesty International and Abortion

2006-05-25T11:44:00.000-04:00

A Catholic Life: Amnesty International and Abortion

How can Amensty International think abortion is a human right?

2006-05-25T11:41:00.000-04:00

What we can do

2006-05-25T11:32:00.000-04:00

Remember this issue will be debated by all Amnesty International country groups before an international meeting in Mexico in summer 2007. There is time - campaign against it - contact your local AI group.

UK Amnesty members and members of the public can send their comments to National Director Kate Allen, either by post to Amnesty International UK, The Human Rights Action Centre, 17-25 New Inn Yard, London, EC2A 3EA, or at kate.allen@amnesty.org.uk
Outside the UK contact your nearest AI branch - check here to find out

Write letters to your local newspaper to raise awareness about the current debate

BBC Radio interview

2006-05-25T10:45:00.000-04:00

The issue was debated on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour by Bruce Kent, peace activist and member of Amnesty International and Valerie de Fillipo, Director of External Affairs, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). This demonstrates the attempts by pro-abortionists to hijack the important organisation that AI is. Note: The BBC keeps some broadcasts online for a limited period of time. If the link does not work, email me. amnesty internationa l abortion

Right to life - that's a human right!

2006-05-25T09:51:00.000-04:00

It says it all.....Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 3 :Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person AI is committed to upholding the Declaration of Human Rights. How can proactively advocating abortions be pro-article 3? Right to Life does not recognise the killing of another human being as a human right. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states: "The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, deserves special care and safeguards, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth." This is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world.

New Zealand AI supports abortion advocacy

2006-05-25T09:44:00.000-04:00

AI New Zealand supports entering into abortion advocacy. This decision was made recently at Amnesty’s annual meeting in Wellington. A final decision will be made by the international body.

Amnesty’s current position on abortion is neutral, it now sees abortion as a human right that should be promoted and protected. It now proposes to actively fight to deny the human rights of unborn children and their inalienable right to life. In taking this step it is turning its back on human rights. Abortion entails the destruction of an innocent unborn child, the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family.

Protect the Human!!

2006-05-25T09:41:00.000-04:00

It's ironic....Amnesty International's latest campaign is Protect the Human - just as they debate whether or not to promote abortion as a human right!

Spectator Article

2006-05-25T08:27:00.000-04:00

Simon Caldwell, writing in the UK magazine the Spectator, outlines the issues in this week's edition. Check it out here. This is an excellent article and well worth the read. I am an AI member and to be honest this issue passed me by for quite a while - this article is a real eyeopener. amnesty internationa l abortion

Amnesty UK Magazine article

2006-05-25T08:17:00.000-04:00

The following is the brief report from Amnesty International UK's magazine for members (issue May/June 2006): "After serious debate the AGM 'recommends that AI-UK attend the next Chair's Forum and supports the developmnent of research and action within current and future strategic plans to achieve:

decriminalisation of abortion,
access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion
legal, safe and accessible abortion in cases of rape, sexual assault, incest and risk to a woman's life...'"

The article also mentions that a framework for consulting its UK members is being finalised. As soon as I find out more, I'll post it here.