From Pickled Politics
When I started writing first about the Amnesty / Gita Sahgal / Moazzam Begg controversy I said that many of those taking up Gita Sahgal’s cause were people who actually had an agenda against Amnesty International. As yet she hasn’t even distanced herself from these fruitloops.
To which I can reply, when I started reading about the Amnesty / Gita Sahgal / Moazzam Begg controversy I felt extremely pissed off that those of us who are members of Amnesty International and disturbed by what Sahgal had said about Amnesty’s activities with Begg and Cageprisoners, were told that we were either neocon dupes or really wanted the likes of Begg to be disappeared and tortured.
As a Catholic pays nuns to say masses for a soul in purgatory so do liberals pay a subscription to Amnesty International to get bodies out of hellish prisons. If you haven’t got the energy or will or stomach to read up about torture victims and do something about them through publicity and/or petitioning the offending governments, Amnesty International will do it for you. As well as aiding prisoners of conscience they succour your conscience, and good for them. However, as the devout Catholic would be uneasy at hearing of scandal in the convent, so do Amnesty International supporters want their organisation not to compromise itself in its dealings with the followers of ideologies that are as anti human rights as you can get.
I hadn’t heard of Gita Saghal before this controversy but I have been prejudiced on her side since she is a secular feminist, a long term activist and people who know about that kind of thing speak very highly of her. Also she is clear and eloquent about her objections to Begg (no, she doesn’t want to shove him back into Guantanamo) while Amnesty’s statements on the affair have been shifty and have not met the points she has raised:-
Interestingly, the US and other governments that have violated human rights standards in the name of countering terrorism justify those violations by saying that our security can only be protected by violating the rights of others. Mr Begg is one of the people that the US government defined as “other.”
But there is no place for the “other” in human rights because to argue that some people are more ‘deserving’ than others of having their rights protected is to argue that some beings are less than human.
Widney Brown, Senior Director for International Law and Policy, Amnesty International – International Secretariat.
Gita Saghal had not argued nor had anyone except the foamy-mouthed bigots that you get in any comments thread argued that Begg should not have his human rights protected. And that "other" card is of low value these days.
Anyway, here’s an interview with Gita Saghal, though of course her answers may have been dictated by Dick Cheney:-
Moazzem Begg was released from Guantanamo Bay, without being charged with any terrorist-related offence. So what’s wrong with Amnesty involving him in its campaign against human rights violations in prison?
Amnesty International could have involved him in meetings to describe his experiences at Guantanamo, without whitewashing his views. For instance, it is clear that he was an admirer of the Taliban, had attended jihadi training camps and had sold books and videos promoting global jihad and terrorist attacks, such as Abdullah Azzam’s book. [Azzam, who preached jihad, was a mentor of Osama bin Laden and persuaded him to come to Afghanistan.] These things could have been stated in his introduction to make it clear that he held abhorrent views, but nevertheless his rights should be defended. Instead, he appears as someone simply doing charitable work in Taliban Afghanistan.
….
Amnesty has said that Moazzem Begg never used a platform he shared with Amnesty to speak against the rights of others. What’s wrong if they get him to share his experiences as a detainee in a campaign against torture?
It seems that no one in Amnesty International has any idea what Begg’s views are, so they would have no idea whether he was using an Amnesty platform to promote his views or not. Secondly, this is a disingenuous statement for two reasons:
One, either Begg has views that should not be promoted from an Amnesty platform, so Amnesty is acknowledging he keeps his detainee experiences separate from his ‘views’. However, Claudio Cordone [senior director of Amnesty International] has also said there is nothing wrong with his views. So which does Amnesty believe?
Two, Amnesty International is a highly reputable organisation. Anyone receiving such extensive coverage is legitimised as a human rights advocate. This is undoubtedly true of Begg. It is not honest for Amnesty International to pretend that giving someone such huge coverage globally was not exceptionally important for Begg. It also helped to legitimise Cageprisoners as an organisation. . .
There’s a view that sometimes the people whose rights you defend may not share your views — but that does not mean you don’t defend their rights or involve them in the fight for rights. How would you see this in the context of Moazzem Begg?
If Begg were a white fascist, Amnesty International would understand the distinction between protecting his right to be free from torture and arbitrary detention, and treating him as a hero and an advocate to close Guantanamo when he came back.
How can organisations like Amnesty ensure that while they continue to champion the rights of terrorism suspects to be free from torture, they are not seen to be implicitly endorsing the views of these suspects?
Many of the most reputable lawyers and activists who work with those arrested in relation to terrorism cases, are appalled by the status given to Cageprisoners. I have received a lot of support from anti-racists and former Islamists who know just how dangerous the ideology of Cageprisoners is. They can see the distinction between supporting people’s human rights and giving them a platform. However, the leadership of Amnesty International cannot see this and appears to have wilfully ignored all evidence to the contrary. They are supported by a large number of largely white, liberal lawyers who apparently have no capacity to analyse Begg or Cageprisoners.