Category Archives: Human Rights

Well Gita Sahgal is out of Amnesty. Now that Amnesty has confessed that their support of jihadis is based on their advocacy of ‘defensive jihad’ as a human right, this was inevitable. But it is still shocking to see the collapse of a once principled human rights movement. The campaign is over but the struggle continues.

This is a cross-post by Meredith Tax.

****

Gita Sahgal and Amnesty International have reached an agreement and Gita has issued the following press release, which makes it clear that this fight is not over but will now move to the next level. The questions she has raised are too important to silence and affect a far wider community than Amnesty alone.

Press release April 11, 2010

From the exchange of letters between Amnesty’s senior lawyer Claudio Cordone and the human rights lawyers Sara Hossain, Amrita Chhachhi and Sunila Abeysekera:

Claudio Cordone says of Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners:

Moazzam Begg is one of the first detainees to have been released from Guantánamo and to disclose information when much of what was going on in the camp was shrouded in secrecy. He speaks powerfully from personal experience about the abuses there. He advocates effectively detainees’ rights to due process, and does so within the same framework of universal human rights standards that we are promoting. All good reasons, we think, to be on the same platform when speaking about Guantánamo. Now, Moazzam Begg and others in his group Cageprisoners also hold other views which they have clearly stated, for example on whether one should talk to the Taleban or on the role of jihad in self-defence. Are such views antithetical to human rights? Our answer is no, even if we may disagree with them – and indeed those of us working to close Guantánamo have a range of beliefs about religion, secularism, armed struggle, peace and negotiations. I am afraid that the rest of what we have heard against Moazzam Begg include many distortions, innuendos, and “guilt by association” to which he has responded for himself.

This is an excerpt from the response to Amnesty drafted by Amrita Chhachhi, Sara Hossain and Sunila Abeysekera:

We believe that the question you raise in your letter as to whether the concept of ‘defensive jihad’ is antithetical to human rights, and your categorical statement that the response of Amnesty International to this question is ‘NO’, raises very serious concerns.

We are dismayed by this statement. Our considered opinion is that this is a highly contentious issue and not one which can be answered as firmly as you have done. The call for ‘defensive jihad’ is a thread running through many fundamentalist and specifically ‘salafi-jihadi’ texts. It is mentioned by Abdullah Azzam, mentor of Osama bin Laden, and founder of Lashkar e Tayyaba.

Last month, the Nation published an article by Guttenplan and Margaronis which sought to examine the Gita Sahgal-Amnesty-Moazzam Begg controversy. The problem with the article was that it was little more than a puff piece on Begg which is bad enough. But worse, it glibly skipped over any mention of Amnesty, excluding the organisation at the heart of this issue from its analysis completely.

The Nation has now published letters in response to the article. I urge you to read them all, but one in particular pinpoints the fetish which afflicts many well-meaning liberals; of making Islamists out to be the primary heroic victims, while ignoring their crimes and the human rights of their (often, muslim) victims:

This is a guest post by Rina Sherman, a writer, ethnographer and filmmaker.

****

In response to “Who Speaks for Human Rights?“, an article by D.D. Guttenplan & Maria Margaronis published in The Nation on March 18, 2010, with regards to the recent Amnesty International controversy opposing the ONG and their employee, Gita Sahgal, head of Amnesty’s gender unit, over the organization’s high profile public association with Moazzam Begg (Cage Prisoners), two things can be said:

First of all, Amnesty International seems to continue having difficulties in positioning itself in relation to the global problematic of political manipulation and terror in the name of religion.

Secondly, Amnesty International’s endemic hesitation to deal with criticism is questionable for an organization of its stature and reputation. Amnesty International’s attitude on both scores is comparable to that of other international Human Rights Organizations, such as the Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), in France.

This is the NDTV interview with Gita Sahgal. It is the most comprehensive account she has provided of her side of the Amnesty-Moazzam Begg-Cageprisoners controversy since it started more than a month ago.

Amnesty International have not distanced themselves from their position of partnering and giving platform to the ‘violent jihad’ doctrine advocated by Begg and Cageprisoners. If anything, they have climbed deeper into bed with Begg and have tightened their embrace of the jihadi “human rights” group.

Gita mentions briefly how Amnesty have changed their position from denying outright the accusation they endorse Begg’s political views and have turned 180 degrees. It is possible that Amnesty are now at the cusp of releasing a statement in which they justify the use of “defensive jihad” and do not consider it antithetical to human rights. If that is the case, this will be the unravelling of Amnesty.