Biased Amnesty does itself no favours
I had occasion to read the 2006 Amnesty International Report and was disturbed by what I read.
The world has benefited significantly from Amnesty International and we should all be thankful for the vision of its late founder, Peter Benenson. I wonder, however, if the organisation's increasing bias might ultimately be its undoing.
Two things bother me about its latest report. One is the very restricted application of responsibility, and the other is a narrow prescription as to what does and does not constitute abuses of human rights.
The report lists - country by country - the alleged transgressions of governments in the area of human rights. In Canada, this included ongoing sexual abuse of native women, with blame placed squarely on the national government; in Iraq there are lists of deaths caused by multinational forces.
Why is it always governments that are blamed? It is implied that governments are guilty of human rights violations simply because they do not prevent them. In Iraq, more deaths are caused by misguided and politically motivated Muslim fundamentalists than foreign or government troops. Furthermore, deaths of innocents caused by multinational forces tend to be by mistake rather than design. Killings by fundamentalists are, in contrast, deliberate. Amnesty reports on unlawful detentions by government, but what about unlawful kidnappings and killings by fundamentalists? No mention is made.
As to Hong Kong, Amnesty reported, with apparent concern, that a particular group with views which were not of the requisite liberal kind had too much influence on the education of school teachers. The group is a Christian one whose views are considered anti-gay. I'm confused how this could be considered a prospective human-rights violation. I don't think teachers here provide any views or teachings on homosexuality.