Throughout the Amnesty-Sahgal-Cageprisoners row, Gita Sahgal has consistently kept to one fundamental point: that Amnesty International ought to maintain an objective distance from groups and ideas that are committed to systematic discrimination that fundamentally undermine the universality of human rights.
Rahila Gupta picks up the argument on whether the human rights position on torture and renditions trumps the human rights of women and sexual minorities.
This is no ordinary spat between two individuals and an organisation. It is an attempt to tease out the contradictions that bedevil the human rights debate in this country. In the campaign to achieve human rights, whose human rights get privileged? In the attempt to redress the balance, liberal-left thinking correctly identifies Muslims as the underdogs, especially those who have been terrorised by the state in its war on terror agenda. But beyond that, we need a more sophisticated response so that the human rights of even more powerless groups, such as women and sexual minorities, do not get trampled once again.
If the government could sever its links, albeit temporarily, with the Muslim Council of Britain because of the politics of its deputy general secretary, surely Amnesty can take a lead. It will take a long time for Amnesty to recover from this blow to its reputation. It has betrayed its own history and, by so doing, it has betrayed all of us who looked to it as a champion of human rights.
Also listen to the BBC radio 4 interview of Sahgal here.
Update: Removed Link to interview transcript on Earwigca.
21 Comments
Hi Sid, who is this earwicga? She’s been very active all over the blogosphere rubbishing Gita Sahgal.
Read one of your other threads. You and Abu Faris playing tag with some Abdullah character, was a bit cruel of you, no?
I am sorry about being somewhat snippy on the HP thread. I do think that you are doing very valuable work on this blog and really do wish you the best.
Mirax
Hi Mirax. I have no idea who earwicga is, but s/he was good enough to put together the transcript of the BBC interview – without any spin or commentary, so I linked to it. If they are anti-Sahgal, I will unlink to it.
No problem with your comments on HP. I remember we used to get into much worse wrangles on PP where, it must be said, your comments were the most thought-provoking , back in the day. Unfortunately that site has somewhat lost its way, turning itself into a champion of brown-people’s identity-politics. Oh well.
“Read one of your other threads. You and Abu Faris playing tag with some Abdullah character, was a bit cruel of you, no?”
I thought I was quite restrained.
Earwicga is the Old English for “earwig”. Of course, it also has the sense “to attempt to influence by persistent confidential argument or talk”.
Hi Faisal, thanks for linking to my transcript. I am not “anti Sahgal”, she has done a lot of great and much needed work. However, I do think she is wrong re Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners, so you may wish to unlink me.
Hi Abu Faris – I was not previously aware of that meaning.
Hi earwigca, I only have one question for supporters of Amnesty in the AI-Sahgal row. A question which AI themselves have studiously ignored answering in their statement on Sahgal:
We understand why Amnesty International takes a human rights position against illegal detention, torture and renditions. But in doing so, how does Amnesty International justify partnering with supporters of Jihadi terrorism?
To answer that question I have first to disagree with your position that Amnesty Internation does indeed partner with supporters of Jihadi terrorism. And I appreciate your distinction between Jihad and Jihadi violence. To understand Amnesty International’s position on supporting human rights you might want to listen to Widney Brown speaking on the Today programme this morning. And as it so happens, I have just finished transcribing it so in a few minutes you can read it as well
This is from Amnesty’s own statement:
http://amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18613
“Tomorrow, Moazzam Begg will speaking alongside Amnesty International, speaking specifically on behalf of those detainees in need of protection in a third country.”
So they themselves insist that they will continue to speak “alongside” CP. That reads like “partnering” to me. But if you like, I’ll rephrase the question:
We understand why Amnesty International takes a human rights position against illegal detention, torture and renditions. But in doing so, how does Amnesty International justify working “alongside” supporters of Jihadi terrorism?
Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners do not in any way fit with your statement:
” But in doing so, how does Amnesty International justify working “alongside” supporters of Jihadi terrorism?”
Widney Brown’s words are up for all to see. Her final statement (not specifically in relation to Moazzam Begg) was:
“We support the rights of every human being to be free from human rights violations. And we do not make that contingent on whether they can prove to us their guilt or innocence on any alleged charge. I mean, the whole idea that we would think it’s ok to torture someone if they’re guilty undermines the whole principle that’s there’s an absolute prohibition on torture and ill treatment.”
But that is the whole point. Amnesty are taking cover behind a false dichotomy. Amnesty can easily highlight abuses against human rights without cuddling up to people who are seeking to abuse human rights themselves.
Furthermore, what Widney Brown is saying is that the human rights position on torture trumps the human rights of women and sexual minorities. This goes against Amnesty’s own universalist human rights message.
And finally, as to your point that Moazzam Begg and CP do not fit with jihadist description – you’re just pleading ignorance and using denials – no real refutations.
Why are CP diligently showcasing the views of Anwar al-Awlaki in this interview of the Jihadist cleric by Moazzam Begg himself on their site:
http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=22926
Faisal, thank you for the conversation thus far. We disagree, and I am disappointed to read that because we disagree you think it is because I am ignorant. I have always chosen not to get into or continue conversations that contain ad hominems as a form of argument as nothing productive can ever come of them. I wish you well.
Sorry that you misunderstand what I meant by “ignorant”. But your only defence of AI seems to be this:
There are numerous articles on this blog which show Begg’s and CP’s support of jihadism. For you to say that my description does not “in any way fit” *without” furnishing some counter-arguments or refutations to prove otherwise shows that your arguments are based on ignorance OF BEGG’s JIHADISM specifically and not ignorance in general.
I’m sorry you have chosen to misunderstand my question. I also note that, like Amnesty and all its supporters thus far, you, like them, have failed to answer the one fundamental question.
But just to be sure, I will pose it again:
We understand why Amnesty International takes a human rights position against illegal detention, torture and renditions. But in doing so, how does Amnesty International justify working “alongside” supporters of Jihadi terrorism?
How does Spitoon’s editor Houriya Ahmed justify working alongside a Muslim hater like Douglas Murray (the man who said “”It is late in the day, but Europe still has time to turn around the demographic time-bomb which will soon see a number of our largest cities fall to Muslim majorities. It has to. All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop…. Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition.”) ?
Or other Spitoon editor Abu Faris justify quoting from Muslim hating magazines like Front Page? Or you justify collaborating with the Muslim haters at Harry’s Place? or allowing commentators with racist names like “Abu Wanabe Arab”
Utter silence !
Whatever criticism you may have of Douglas Murray he, at least, holds a universalist position on human rights. Which can’t be said of Moazzam Begg and now presently, Amnesty International.
Why is the name “Abu Wanabe Arab” racist?
Most 3rd generation inner-city South Asian Islamists in the UK wants to be Arab or sees Arabisation as a virtue. Are they racist too?
whooooooooosh!
What was that noise?
That’s the sound of this entire site going over abdullah’s head.
Abdullah
Do you have anything of substance to write about the content of the above-the-line article?
It is of some concern if leading activists inside Amnesty International have erected some sort of hierarchy of human rights violations, with torture being a more heinous crime against humanity than, for example, deprivation of rights on the basis of gender. This sort of “triage” approach to human rights is perfectly mistaken and very dangerous.
From the Southall Black Sisters‘ and Women against Fundamentalism‘s statement.
http://www.southallblacksisters.org.uk/
Quite.
Abdullah
I am not an editor of this site.
You may want to ask why Begg , if he was such a principled defender of human rights, felt so completely at home in Malaysia, which itself has locked up thousands of people without trial under its draconian Internal Security Act. Many of these detainees have been alleged islamist terrorists(Jemaa Islamiya branch). He had no problems fellating the odious Mahathir (should have won the Nobel Peace Prize instead of Obama, opined Begg). Hypocrite or what?