Schools out for AI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Comments from around the web

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

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.

Time for Amnesty to come clean over secret abortion policy

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

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?

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

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

AI warned it risks abandoning principles to abuse human rights

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

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.

International Women's Day

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

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.

AIUK's AGM scheduling

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

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

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

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

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/