Amnesty International 2010 Report

[earth_as_one]

Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human rights. Their vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. They are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations.

IMO, AI is objective and balanced. Their reports identify human rights problems and root causes. I trust their judgment on human rights issues. They criticize nearly every country. I use their annual reports as a guide regarding where it is safe to travel and learn more about human rights problems internationally and here in Canada

This year's annual report details a year in which accountability and effective justice seemed a remote ideal for many, as people’s lives continued to be torn apart by repression, violence, discrimination, power plays and political stalemates. But the report also celebrates real progress. It reveals how it is harder now for perpetrators of the worst crimes to feel confident that they will escape justice.

The 2010 Report at a glance:
Report at a glance | Amnesty International Report 2010

The Main Web Page with links and overviews:
http://thereport.amnesty.org/enhttp://thereport.amnesty.org/en

The Complete Report in PDF
http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf

Countries of interest:

RE: Canada
http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=43

RE: Afghanistan
http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=2

RE: USA
http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=290

RE: Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories:
http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=129

 

[In Between Man]

IMO, AI is objective and balanced.

Yet they gave up their NEUTRALITY on ABORTION to favor one side! (source)

That is NOT objective and balanced, IMO.

 

[earth_as_one]

AI promotes the right of women and men to make informed choices about sex and reproduction free from coercion, discrimination and violence. AI opposes coercive population control measures such as forced sterilization and forced abortion. AI's policy on selected aspects of abortion, which is consistent with these other policy positions, is rooted in an analysis of state obligations as defined under international human rights law. I suggest you read their policy regarding sexual and reproductive rights:

May 2007
Amnesty International Canada's consultations regarding sexual and reproductive rights | June 2006

 

[In Between Man]

AI promotes the right of women and men to make informed choices about sex and reproduction free from coercion, discrimination and violence. AI opposes coercive population control measures such as forced sterilization and forced abortion. AI's policy on selected aspects of abortion, which is consistent with these other policy positions, is rooted in an analysis of state obligations as defined under international human rights law. I suggest you read their policy regarding sexual and reproductive rights:

May 2007
Amnesty International Canada's consultations regarding sexual and reproductive rights | June 2006

It doesn't matter what their policy says and how it "lines up" with international "human rights" law. AI can pick and choose how they support abortion, but the fact remains that are still supporting it, and all aspects of abortion are wrong, coerced or consented.

 

[mentalfloss]

Yet they gave up their NEUTRALITY on ABORTION to favor one side! (source)

That is NOT objective and balanced, IMO.

Of course they would. Supporting abortion (as an option) is a humanitarian choice because it avoids forcing someone to live a possibly ****ty life.

Unless you ascribe to the 'Every sperm is sacred' delusion.

 

[In Between Man]

Of course they would. Supporting abortion (as an option) is a humanitarian choice because it avoids forcing someone to live a possibly ****ty life.

Unless you ascribe to the 'Every sperm is sacred' delusion.

So, you have a crystal ball that sees into the future? You can tell whether or not someone will have crappy life? You didn't say you are omniscient.

And sperm is not sacred because it hasn't fertilized the egg yet. One the sperm fertilizes the egg that where life starts, at conception.

 

[mentalfloss]

So, you have a crystal ball that sees into the future? You can tell whether or not someone will have crappy life? You didn't say you are omniscient.

That's why it's a choice.

You can also choose not to abort. You don't have to be omniscient to know if someone would have an obviously crappy life.

And sperm is not sacred because it hasn't fertilized the egg yet. One the sperm fertilizes the egg that where life starts, at conception.

Who cares? The little piece of flesh barely develops any sensation for pain or suffering before 18 weeks.

If you're that committed to sacred life then don't be speciesist and make sure everything lives a full life - even things that don't feel pain, like plants.

 

[earth_as_one]

It doesn't matter what their policy says and how it "lines up" with international "human rights" law. AI can pick and choose how they support abortion, but the fact remains that are still supporting it, and all aspects of abortion are wrong, coerced or consented.

In the opinion of someone who chose a handgun for an avatar. I'm guessing, but I suspect you also support capital punishment and the right to use lethal force to defend your property.

 

[In Between Man]

Who cares? The little piece of flesh barely develops any sensation for pain or suffering before 18 weeks.

If you're that committed to sacred life then don't be speciesist and make sure everything lives a full life - even things that don't feel pain, like plants.

Who cares?

God, who created life, and people who understand that life is precious, that's who cares.

"Little piece of flesh". Notice how you have to dehumanize the unborn in order to justify the viewpoint that it's okay to take their life? It's called cognitive dissonance.

A "speciesist"? You can't hold plants and humans with same regard. That's ridiculous.

In the opinion of someone who chose a handgun for an avatar. I'm guessing, but I suspect you also support capital punishment and the right to use lethal force to defend your property.

I don't favor capital punishment apart from murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein, and I do support "castle doctrine" but keep in mind that Saddam Hussein or someone trying to steal your property are not innocent. An unborn person is innocent.

 

[mentalfloss]

Who cares?

God, who created life, and people who understand that life is precious, that's who cares.

"Little piece of flesh". Notice how you have to dehumanize the unborn in order to justify the viewpoint that it's okay to take their life? It's called cognitive dissonance.

I don't have to dehumanize them at all. The little piece of flesh is a human little piece of flesh. It doesn't hurt that little human to kill it before 18 weeks, just as it doesn't hurt most plants after we chop them up.

A "speciesist"? You can't hold plants and humans with same regard. That's ridiculous.

I'm not holding plants and humans with the same regard. You're the one that said "life is precious."

Humans are alive. Plants are alive. Animals are alive. If a precious life is one that lives from beginning to end without our intervention, then we shouldn't be chopping trees or slaughtering cows.

The latter, by the way, is much more cruel than ending the life of that fetus.

 

[Colpy]

In the opinion of someone who chose a handgun for an avatar. I'm guessing, but I suspect you also support capital punishment and the right to use lethal force to defend your property.

There is no right to use lethal force to defend property.....there is, however, a right to prevent criminal destruction of your property and, if necessary to use lethal force to defend yourself. That is not law, but my own philosophy on the matter.

Something wrong with handguns?????

AI promotes the right of women and men to make informed choices about sex and reproduction free from coercion, discrimination and violence. AI opposes coercive population control measures such as forced sterilization and forced abortion. AI's policy on selected aspects of abortion, which is consistent with these other policy positions, is rooted in an analysis of state obligations as defined under international human rights law. I suggest you read their policy regarding sexual and reproductive rights:

May 2007
Amnesty International Canada's consultations regarding sexual and reproductive rights | June 2006

Ann Coulter doesn’t “really like to think of it as a murder,” discussing the killing of Kansas abortion provider George Tiller with Bill O’Reilly on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor Monday. “I like to think of it as terminating someone in the 203rd trimester,” the conservative personality says.

Even O’Reilly — charged by abortion advocates with fomenting violence against Tiller with years worth of references to “Tiller the Baby Killer” — affects a dismayed reaction to Coulter’s words. “You can’t diminish what that killer did, or you have anarchy,” O’Reilly says a moment after the screen shows a picture of Scott Roeder, the 51-year-old man authorities say gunned down Tiller May 31 while the doctor ushered at a Wichita church.
“I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists,” Coulter says, “but I don’t want to impose my moral values on others.” Over some cross-talk from O’Reilly, she looks at the camera and adds, “Their logic is, if you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have an abortion. If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, then don’t shoot an abortionist

Ann really is brilliant, using the rationalization of the pro-abortionists against them.....

I LMAO when I saw this clip (which I can't find anymore)

 

[mentalfloss]

Ann Coulter = MILF

 

[In Between Man]

Ann Coulter = MILF

I didn't realize that! Yowzers!

I don't have to dehumanize them at all. The little piece of flesh is a human little piece of flesh. It doesn't hurt that little human to kill it before 18 weeks, just as it doesn't hurt most plants after we chop them up.

You admit that it's a human, but you deny that humans God given right to live. Again, that's called cognitive dissonance. And even if they felt no pain, it wouldn't change the fact that your snuffing out life of an innocent human, which is emphatically wrong.

I'm not holding plants and humans with the same regard. You're the one that said "life is precious."

Humans are alive. Plants are alive. Animals are alive. If a precious life is one that lives from beginning to end without our intervention, then we shouldn't be chopping trees or slaughtering cows.

The latter, by the way, is much more cruel than ending the life of that fetus.

Animal, plants, and humans are all alive - but humans are the only ones who are spiritual creatures. That makes a human being far more important (from God's view) than animals or plants. Plus, God gave us dominion over the plants and animals so we can use them for sustenance.

Something wrong with handguns?????

Nothing at all!

Ann really is brilliant, using the rationalization of the pro-abortionists against them.....

I LMAO when I saw this clip (which I can't find anymore)

And yet they still don't get it!

 

[gerryh]

I will get into this one when I get home from work.

 

[mentalfloss]

You admit that it's a human, but you deny that humans God given right to live. Again, that's called cognitive dissonance. And even if they felt no pain, it wouldn't change the fact that your snuffing out life of an innocent human, which is emphatically wrong.

I don't think snuffing out the life of an innocent human is emphatically wrong under this circumstance. There's no cognitive dissonance at all. It's A-OK to kill a person less than 18 weeks of age.

Animal, plants, and humans are all alive - but humans are the only ones who are spiritual creatures. That makes a human being far more important (from God's view) than animals or plants. Plus, God gave us dominion over the plants and animals so we can use them for sustenance.

Yes, that dominion worked out quite well for the humans on Easter Island, lol

 

[Colpy]

I don't think snuffing out the life of an innocent human is emphatically wrong under this circumstance. There's no cognitive dissonance at all. It's A-OK to kill a person less than 18 weeks of age.

I think you had best clarify that statement.........

 

[gerryh]

Who cares? The little piece of flesh barely develops any sensation for pain or suffering before 18 weeks.

priceless, simply priceless.

If you're that committed to sacred life then don't be speciesist and make sure everything lives a full life - even things that don't feel pain, like plants.

So what are you doing? Comparing a human life, a baby, with a plant?

I don't favor capital punishment apart from murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein, and I do support "castle doctrine" but keep in mind that Saddam Hussein or someone trying to steal your property are not innocent. An unborn person is innocent.

Ahhhhhhh, so you feel that man should be judging his fellow man AND deciding who can live and who can die. 6th comandment says: "Thou shalt not kill". Pretty clear to me.

I don't think snuffing out the life of an innocent human is emphatically wrong under this circumstance. There's no cognitive dissonance at all. It's A-OK to kill a person less than 18 weeks of age.

once again, priceless. You are definitely one sick fu ck.


As for AI supporting the murder of innocent children, just shows how they are so much useless skin.

 

[CDNBear]

Of course they would. Supporting abortion (as an option) is a humanitarian choice because it avoids forcing someone to live a possibly ****ty life.

What if it forces a man to live a sh!tty life of servitude?

If you're that committed to sacred life then don't be speciesist and make sure everything lives a full life - even things that don't feel pain, like plants.

What a weak responce.

Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human rights. Their vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. They are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations.

IMO, AI is objective and balanced. Their reports identify human rights problems and root causes. I trust their judgment on human rights issues. They criticize nearly every country. I use their annual reports as a guide regarding where it is safe to travel and learn more about human rights problems internationally and here in Canada

This year's annual report details a year in which accountability and effective justice seemed a remote ideal for many, as people’s lives continued to be torn apart by repression, violence, discrimination, power plays and political stalemates. But the report also celebrates real progress. It reveals how it is harder now for perpetrators of the worst crimes to feel confident that they will escape justice.

The 2010 Report at a glance:
Report at a glance | Amnesty International Report 2010

The Main Web Page with links and overviews:
http://thereport.amnesty.org/enhttp://thereport.amnesty.org/en

The Complete Report in PDF
http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf

Countries of interest:

RE: Canada
http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=43

RE: Afghanistan
http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=2

RE: USA
http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=290

RE: Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories:
http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=129

I know you believe wikiality, so how do you explain this away?

Claims of alignment with US/UK foreign policy interests and AI funding

[12] University of Illinois professor of international law Francis Boyle, who was a member of the board of Amnesty International USA at the end of the 1980s/early 1990s, claims that Amnesty International USA acted in ways closely related to United States and United Kingdom foreign policy interests. He stated that Amnesty, along with other human rights organisations in the US, failed to criticise sufficiently the Sabra and Shatila Massacre in Lebanon.[1] Boyle stated his suspicion that the International Secretariat of Amnesty International, based geographically in London, UK, was also subject to this bias. He attributes the alleged links between Amnesty International and US and UK foreign policy interests to the relatively large financial contribution of Amnesty International USA to AI's international budget, which he estimated at 20%.[1]

How about this...

Alan Dershowitz: Amnesty International's Biased Definition of War Crimes: Whatever Israel Does to Defend Its Citizens

Amnesty International Report Biased Against Israel and Ignores Tactics And Terrorism Of Hamas

"´Amnesty International biased´ NGO watchdog says Amnesty released more documents on Israel than Sudan in 2006"

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/digest_info.php?id=1876#FOCUS

I can literally post case by case evidence that simply would prove beyond any reasonable doubt, in a court of law, that AI is biased and in so being, unscrupulous, in it's bias.

Anyone capable of objective research, can only come to that conclusion. Anyone one with a single mindset and an agenda, could ignore the mountain of evidence prove AI's faults.