In 1961, British Lawyer Peter Benenson found himself appalled at reading about two Portuguese students being detained for raising a glass and toasting freedom. After starting a letter writing campaign, and submitting an article entitled "The Forgotten Prisoners", it took him less then one year to have formed or forming branches of Amnesty in over a dozen countries.
In it's early years, Amnesty focused on sections 18 and 19 of the UN Human Rights declaration, over time broadening their focus to encompass all manner of human rights abuses, both physical and mental.
In those heady early years, even I was a proponent of AI. In time I would come to hold nothing more then contempt for this group. Their bias is legendary, even seen by those in its highest positions, such as Professor Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois. Who left AI over it's bias and in the coverage of the Arab Israeli conflict. So contentious was this parting of ways, that he threatened to sue AI, a lawsuit that was avoided in an out of court settlement.
Other learned critics include...
Prof. Michael Mandel, Prof of International Law at York University, Toronto Canada. Who challenges AI's reports on the war in the Balkans.
Prof. Nabeel Abraham, Prof of Anthropology at Henry Ford University, Michigan USA. Who has written a comparative study of ten leading human rights organizations.
Prof Clare Brandabur, Prof of Comparative English Literature at Dogus University Turkey.
Prof Agustine Velloso, UNED Dept, Comparative Educationa Systems, Madrid Spain.
And finally Paul de Rooij, who has written three illuminating articles, highlighting and discussing AI's bias's.
I can fully grasp ones need to believe in something. The necessity of groups that over see, and monitor the abuses of the world is not something to be balked at. There is a true need, but even the founder of Human Rights Watch, has slammed HRW. What does that tell you?
But when these groups and their leadership, trip merrily away from their originating mandates and begin to attempt to force their ideology upon the masses or their leaders. They have over stepped their mandate, become the very thing they were created to overcome.
By focusing their ideology on single entities, and hiding that bias behind the claim of "It's easier to disclose the abuses of more open societies". The mutated mandate is clear. No longer are they the vanguards of rights and freedoms, they are the tools of the societies, countries and criminals that they ignore. Their bias, their lies of ommission are used to bolster the troops as it were.
It confuses fact for emotion and ideological motivations. Those with the limited skills of critical thought, deductive reasoning, look to groups such as AI, HRW and the UN for leadership, guidence and information. They blindly follow, and believe what they read, see and are told, because these groups preach peace and equality.
And that's true, on the sufface. But behind the reports, the releases and the misinformation, lies a sinister plot of mediocrity, laziness and bias. All of which combine to be nothing more then a waste of a valiant premise.
I'm sure I will be chastised for a lack of supporting proof of my assertions here, but I ask, in my defense, would it change your mind? If I put forth the effort of colating all the pertenant clips, do all the leg work in comparative documentation, would those that support the virtues of AI, HRW and in certain instances, the UN, believe a word of it? It is possible, the truth is out there. If only open, critical and deductive reasoning is used, more people would see the bias, the lies and the shear idiocy of some of these groups.
They are biased, their bias is not only troubling, it's dangerous.
In it's early years, Amnesty focused on sections 18 and 19 of the UN Human Rights declaration, over time broadening their focus to encompass all manner of human rights abuses, both physical and mental.
In those heady early years, even I was a proponent of AI. In time I would come to hold nothing more then contempt for this group. Their bias is legendary, even seen by those in its highest positions, such as Professor Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois. Who left AI over it's bias and in the coverage of the Arab Israeli conflict. So contentious was this parting of ways, that he threatened to sue AI, a lawsuit that was avoided in an out of court settlement.
Francis Boyle said:
Other learned critics include...
Prof. Michael Mandel, Prof of International Law at York University, Toronto Canada. Who challenges AI's reports on the war in the Balkans.
Prof. Nabeel Abraham, Prof of Anthropology at Henry Ford University, Michigan USA. Who has written a comparative study of ten leading human rights organizations.
Prof Clare Brandabur, Prof of Comparative English Literature at Dogus University Turkey.
Prof Agustine Velloso, UNED Dept, Comparative Educationa Systems, Madrid Spain.
And finally Paul de Rooij, who has written three illuminating articles, highlighting and discussing AI's bias's.
I can fully grasp ones need to believe in something. The necessity of groups that over see, and monitor the abuses of the world is not something to be balked at. There is a true need, but even the founder of Human Rights Watch, has slammed HRW. What does that tell you?
But when these groups and their leadership, trip merrily away from their originating mandates and begin to attempt to force their ideology upon the masses or their leaders. They have over stepped their mandate, become the very thing they were created to overcome.
By focusing their ideology on single entities, and hiding that bias behind the claim of "It's easier to disclose the abuses of more open societies". The mutated mandate is clear. No longer are they the vanguards of rights and freedoms, they are the tools of the societies, countries and criminals that they ignore. Their bias, their lies of ommission are used to bolster the troops as it were.
It confuses fact for emotion and ideological motivations. Those with the limited skills of critical thought, deductive reasoning, look to groups such as AI, HRW and the UN for leadership, guidence and information. They blindly follow, and believe what they read, see and are told, because these groups preach peace and equality.
And that's true, on the sufface. But behind the reports, the releases and the misinformation, lies a sinister plot of mediocrity, laziness and bias. All of which combine to be nothing more then a waste of a valiant premise.
I'm sure I will be chastised for a lack of supporting proof of my assertions here, but I ask, in my defense, would it change your mind? If I put forth the effort of colating all the pertenant clips, do all the leg work in comparative documentation, would those that support the virtues of AI, HRW and in certain instances, the UN, believe a word of it? It is possible, the truth is out there. If only open, critical and deductive reasoning is used, more people would see the bias, the lies and the shear idiocy of some of these groups.
They are biased, their bias is not only troubling, it's dangerous.
Last edited:
