The human wrongs industry spits out one of its own

Dave Billings

Still no comment on the "witch-hunt" against Andrew Wakefield then?

Merlyn

We now have the spectacle of Islamic "Lawfare" as in the article, "The chilling effect on free speech of Islamic supremacist "lawfare" legislation"
www.jihadwatch.org/2010/02/the-chilling-effect-on-free-speech-of-islamic-supremacist-lawfare-legislation.html

Fabio P.Barbieri

The collapse of the once-meritorious AI into an Islamic front had been signposted for years by anti-Jihad groups, who had pointed out that ever since the sinister Irene Khan had become its CEO, this organization had become more and more clearly a tool for bashing Israel and the USA. Irene Khan is a Bangladeshi Muslim who, under a very thin veneer of westernization, is as keen a supporter of jihad as any Islamic Brotherhood or Khomeinist fanatic; she will say otherwise, but her actions prove it.

Khan, however, could not have turned this large and multi-faceted organization around without collaboration from below; she is more a symptom of a bigger problem than a problem herself. The problem is generational. AI was born in the Cold War, at a time when both sides made use of nasty tyrannies, and had originally been even-handed in its attacks on all violators of human rights, red, black, and green. But the collapse of the Soviet Union - following a few years in which the old monster had been increasingly seen as ineffective and powerless - corresponded with a generational change. The founding generation, which had coalesced in the sixties, were by now ready for retirement, and a new generation of activists and managers was moving in. Brought in directly from colleges and students' unions, with little idea of the world outside, these boys and girls (literally) had never known the reality of the fight against genuine, determined, brutal fascism and communism of the kind that, a generation earlier, held half of Europe and all of South America in terror of midnight knocks at the door and sudden, mysterious disappearances. They just took their student resentment against the capitalist West of their fathers to their new posts in AI, untransmuted, unrefined, unawakened, unmatured - grateful for the opportunity to remain student's union activists all their lives at the expense of donors and (occasionally) taxpayers.

Of course, they were and remain anti-American with a vengeance. And this is particularly wrong because, for a generation now, the old and ugly collaboration between the USA and the repulsive little tyrannies of Africa and East Asia has largely been broken. It is rare to associate Carter with Reagan, but the truth is that both presidents took active part in this sea-change in American policy. It is no coincidence that, under Reagan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philipines and most of Latin America passed from tyranny to established democracies; Reagan, with all his faults - I am no fan - was a genuine believer in democracy, welcomed it among his allies, and occasionally twisted a few appropriate arms when one or another of America's old, murderous military clients - like for instance Pinochet - failed to understand that the wind had changed. This tendency was slowed by Bush I, an old-fashioned apparatus Republican who had been the head of the CIA in Nixon's time, but became again central with both Clinton and Bush II, showing that it was a genuinely generational change.

But just as democracy had become a central feature of American and Western foreign policy, so those people learned to regard it as no more than a feature of American and Western imperialism - "cultural" imperialism, when they could not ascribe a brutally direct reason for it to the power they hated. Remember, they are people frozen in the attitudes of late adolescence, in a permanent revolt against the adult world. Such people would find democracy, with its underlying demand for individual responsibility, hard to handle in any case; but in the modern world, they have even more cause - if not reason - to hate it. And so unholy alliances are born.

Tancred

The same has been found by the BNP. They are being targeted by Trevor Phillips Equal Opps. body, on behalf of a Labour Party that is running scared of losing white working class votes.

They say that NO Human Rights lawyers will take on their case.

Whatever you may think of the BNP it is interesting to note that in Britain today you can only get experienced legal support if you sit on the "multiculturalist" side of the debate.

These examples starkly highlight just how far from being a free and democratic country we are.

Roy

You deserve a medal as big as a frying pan Melanie for even following some these goings-on. To a lot of us the mere mention of 'human rights' signifies something fishy and personally would have nothing to do with any of it. After all, when 'truth' and 'democracy' is thrown out the window, how do they interpret 'human rights'?

YA

From AI website:

"..Gilad Shalit was seized by Palestinian armed groups from an Israeli military base..
His continuing incommunicado detention brings into relief the plight of detainees used by both sides of the Israel/Gaza conflict as bargaining chips in political negotiations.."

That sounds to me, kinda, rather encouraging.

Then, AI proposes to Syria and Gaza "Palestinian groups" headquarters, a letter that contains among other things, the following:

"..I am a member of Amnesty International, which has been active in campaigning for the rights of.. Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli Jails for many years. On this occasion however.."

Kind of, I am your man and that's all about rights of Palestinians and bargaining chips, listen..

Now let us go to the AI's "Guantanamo Action Centre", where one can find the following incredibly rich material:

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=11118

Content of this website is, frankly, hair-raising. There is also special lesson plan named "Justice for Dad":

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=11118

Briefly - British children are coerced, by deception, and for taxpayers' expense, to contribute to the protection of jihadis.

There is absolutely no doubt re what kind of fruit is this AI.

un-PC social worker

Whilst I feel sorry for Gita Saghal, I do think she has been naive, and it's a pity it took her so long to understand the evils of the multicultural industry which Melanie so accurately describes. Freedom of speech, and the security of our country, are being sacrificed on the altar of human rights and political correctness.

david elder

Dave Billings, from my current knowledge I tend to favour Wakefield. But I am unclear what this has got to do with Amnesty and the questionable behaviour of this and other NGOs. I am also puzzled by the level of acid in your post on a matter which should be open to a civil exchange of views. Readers can be forgiven for asking if Wakefield is the real issue or a pretext for grinding some axe here.

Andy Gill

Amnesty are digging themselves into a big hole.

They have become a travesty of their former selves, and no-one should trust what they say any more. All organizations that are not held to account eventually become corrupt, and Amnesty is no exception.

A J Scott

Is there any way one can contribute to Mme Sahgal's cause?

Truthtriumphs

Melanie,
You could ask the Jewish Chronicle, that nasty rag to which you contribute (very good) articles, why it is that they recently gave space in their letters page, TWICE, for one Dr.Derek Summerfield to vilify a distinguished British Jewish consultant for his defence of the Israel Medical Association in its repudiation of allegations of torture by its members of Palestinians.
And guess which organisation's "evidence" he cites to "prove" that his allegations are true, well, what do you know, it's our old friend, Amnesty Inernational.

Shame on the JC for printing these lies, for whatever reason.

Sergey

"Human rights" movement was fishy from the beginning, since it implies universal law and universal jurisdiction. But such things simply do not exist, and the whole framework of international law, based on concept of national sovereignity, precludes emergence of such things. So the conflict between ambitions of "human rights" groups and the existent law was inavoidable. Naturally, various Marxist ideologists and their jihadi allies hijacked the movement for their purposes to undermine civilized world order.

Derek Pasquill

Liberal democracy is not safe in the hands of the left or any of its fellow travellers. Shame on them.

The whole left liberal establishment (including, incidentally, Cameron's Tories) is on the wrong side of the fence in this particular struggle, and therefore should be treated with suspicion.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Human Rights, and the whole ethos connected with the word "liberal" has become an oxymoron. This is seen in the Nat Lib's manifesto, it's hypocrisy and the selection of many of its candidates.
Rather than a modern forwarding looking party, enlightened and fair-minded, it is back to the dark and ignorant past. . The old horrors of Jews being blamed for poisoning the wells, drinking children's blood, etc. are all appearing in no less sophistication, despite their hi-tech aura and substituting "Jews" for "Israelis".. The accusation, by Tonge, that Israeli medical staff were only in Haiti to harvest body parts is obscene even for the fioul-mouthed Ton ge. Clegg has made a gesture in removing Evil To(u)nge from her position, but in an Election Year it is very much a nominal gesture. The NatLibs are hardly friends of Zion, and have their own agenda in garnering votes. This woman lost a daughter several years ago. An electrical accident in the home, and the builder was never named. All information on the event said "an unnamed builder/plumber" did the installation in the daughter's home. Probably he was unnamed since no receipts could name him because he was a cheapskate "illegal". After this family tragedy, Tonge said she would give up her locsl MP position to care for her young grandchildren, who were now motherless, My question is this: Is a woman who is so unbalanced that she can make statements such as she has about body parts being harvested, and then later apologise, be allowed to be the guardian of vulnerable children. Shouldn't Social Services look into the sanity and moral character of this person? I believe that if an ordinary citizen went around making such weird statements, she would be watched carefully and even be considered if not for prosecution, then at least sectioned as mentally incapable. But then of course, it wads only Israelis, Jews, who were accused of these horrible crimes. If Palestinians or some other people had been accused in this way, laws against racism etc would have been brought down to indict this evil and vile woman.

Jo

'Still no comment on the "witch-hunt" against Andrew Wakefield then?'

Heaps of it in the archive, Dave. None of it retracted.

BritZek

Fabio writes - "Remember, they are people frozen in the attitudes of late adolescence, in a permanent revolt against the adult world. Such people would find democracy, with its underlying demand for individual responsibility, hard to handle in any case; but in the modern world, they have even more cause - if not reason - to hate it. And so unholy alliances are born." Never in years of reading the 'right' critique of modernity have I seen it better put. I feel I have lived this.

I met a liberal friend yesterday who in the course of a chat about education mentioned that in a job interview someone quoted Lenin about the importance of film in the 20th Century - inwardly I thought, 'You've just quoted a machievelian murderer and tyrant about art with apporoval.' Would anyone quote Goebels in the same way? Same with Che 'executioner' Guevara. It must come down to lack of real experience of tyrany and fear. Life may of course correct this.

Enoch_Root

I love it. Eat the luxury politicos.

AAE

We owe such a debt to Melanie. Thank you for this.
As an aside, and this has been touched by others, could journalists on his magazine and elsewhere please please puncture the self-righteous and wholly deceitful terms by which the left present themselves as "good" people? Substitute Marxist for Progressive, Socialist for Liberal, Left-Wing for Human Rights (aren't all lawyers human Rights lawyers?) and so on. They, who sub-divide us by their wealth of labels, would hate to be so described, and it just might have the benefit of breaking-up the pathetic charade of our election campaign and encourage the much more fundamental argument about freedom and tyranny, which has been won before, but needs to fought for with ever greater need.

Lynne T

Tancred:

Why does the BNP need to outsource legal representation when they have Lee J Barnes as its legal director?

DDGG

Thanks for this, Melanie. I am not trying to undermine the work of human rights groups in countries where gross abuse of liberties go on. But I have also long thought that there is a paradox about such organisations. One the one hand they fight for freedom, equality and opportunity. On the other hand, this is fine as long as nobody questions their definitions, assumptions set of ideas or agenda.
Sadly this lady has 'biten the hand the feeds' so to speak-despite the fact that she should be allowed to call to question the issue she wished to raise.
Typical liberal contradiction. If it is not 'do as I say and not as I do' then it is 'I am right and you are wrong' (the more blunt and patronising, the more effective they seem to be).

Sam Armstrong

An excellent article and some very excellent comments, scary to read but worth it... thanks!

Sam Armstrong

Freedom is inseparable from personal responsibility. That is why so many mean fear it.

Noa Zrk

"..a secular, atheist, Asian British woman..".

I find it revealing that being British comes after just about anything else, or am I just being hyper-sensitive?

Henry Sidgwick

"...the extraordinary sympathy by white ‘liberals’, committed to ‘human rights’, for Islamic jihadists -- who are committed to the extinction of human rights..."

What distinction is intended by the use of "" - "human rights" and human rights?

And why are "white" liberals picked out for particular opprobrium?

Ian

Schadenfreude!!

hippiepooter

Superb analysis Signor Barbieri.

YA

Henry Sidgwick:

(that was certainly expected)

Melanie mentions "white liberals" absolutely consciously and properly.

Hijacking human rights movement and putting it on service to global jihad - isn't trivial task. It needs "multicultural legitimacy", and here jihadis use infiltration/coercion tactics, targetig all kinds of white public that aren't especially principled or bright or courageous, so many just quietly start working out on new narratives - still they think they retain significance and power, whereas in reality they are used as cover.

That is why Melanie writes "human rights" in quotation - after falling under jihadi supervision, they become farce.

Other institutions are also infiltrated in similar way - MSM, education, heritage, police, justice, etc.
Altogether, it creates in the society the sense of Orwellian nightmare - and not only in the UK. Geert Wilders' trial is worth mentioning. These are all parts of the same conspiracy - to replace European civilization by Chaliphate.

Henry Sidgwick, I hope I've answered your questions.

Daibhidh MacAdhaimh

Mr Sidgwick
Because it's the insatiable tendency of white liberals immersed in self-guilt and loathing and also struggling to suppress a swelling superiority complex to take offence on behalf of inferior mortals they unilaterally designate as helpless victims - ethnic minorities, women, gays, the disabled and any other perceived helpless group upon which to freely and without warrant indulge their self-agrandising superiority in all things moral and intellectual.

Mr. Mabutoh Afunfa

One big problem with the white liberals is the way they see things they think all religions are the same all cultures are the same, no, no, no they are not the same

Elise

To Dave Billings: It's not a witch hunt. It is a long overdue comuppence for all the terrible harm, wasted billions of dollars and the deaths from lack of vaccinations that that charlatan created. 12 children do not make a study, especially when you are paid for an expected outcome before you do it. Deal with the reality, genetics passed to their offspring caused autism. It is not some insidious plot by Big Pharma, gov't or some unknown cabal. Instead of spending money actually trying to solve this issue, provide support for those with autims, and find the real reason behind the epidemic gov'ts have had to spend billions to refute the stupidy and lack of science in the Wakefield report. It is time the anti-vaccine organizations dealth with the reality that vaccines have saed untold millions of lives, rid the world of dreaded small pox and coudl rid the world of other dreaded diseases if not for the hysteria created by illegitmate scientists and hollywood nabobs.

Michael White

I wonder what the politicians of the previous generation would have done - if anything - had they knew then what we know now.

Henry Sidgwick

YA,
"Henry Sidgwick, I hope I've answered your questions."

You have certainly given me a glimpse of what lies behind this particular conspiracy theory.

Could you clarify for me: the distinction between human rights and "human rights" implies, does it not, that there is such a thing as human rights?

And are you saying that "all kinds of white public that aren't especially principled or bright or courageous" are unprincipled enough or stupid enough to fall for a conspiracy by un"white" public to take over the world?

Are "brown", "black", "yellow", "red" (magenta, turquoise...) liberals immune to this fiendish cunning?

I found your answer difficult to follow, so I may have read too much into what you attempted to say.

DougS

Like most (almost all) organisations, the powerful elite at the top cannot accept even the mildest of criticisms. 'Off with their heads' is their immediate response, 'how dare these revolting peasants express a view that is not approved by us?'

Philo

I have a question about climate change which I am not sure will come up in a more appropriate place, so I will ask here (with apologies), on the off-chance that some of those who know about such things are reading this thread.

The cold snap in Britain was adduced as further evidence that man-made climate change is nonsense. Does the weather at the winter olympics similarly provide evidence on this matter? The World Glacier Monitoring Service reported further shrinkage of glaciers around the world. Why is its evidence less important than the idiotic mistake made by the IPCC about the Himalayas? One of the authors of the IPCC's report on glaciers has complained that the idiotic mistake received huge publicity, but the rest of the report, which he and his colleagues stand by, was ignored. IF the intention is to avoid the mistake made over the MMR scare, should there not be more balanced reporting here of the evidence and the arguments?

(I apologise again for inserting these questions here, but I am interested in what others think about them.)

John.

I wonder whether "human rights", "animal rights" and so on actually exist? No such things are part of anything to which any existent entity is automatically entitled. There are contracts between governments and the governed that some things will be permitted and others won't and that's about as far as it goes. No rights come included as an integral part of the universe into which entities are born/arise and die/pass away.

YA

Henry Sidgwick

One can toss "conspiracy theory" phrases ad infinitum, but there are well established facts about this order and ideology, namely that it is

destructive
ignorant
barbaric
supremacist
and
totalitarian.

No matter what colour, "brown", "black", "yellow", "red", magenta, turquoise or tortoise, - orks remain orks.

Human rights are for humans.

Henry Sidgwick

YA,
"Human rights are for humans"

So, it would appear that human rights do exist, but not for anyone you classify as an ork (orc? oik?). I take it you do not consider "jihadis" (self-confessed or so designated by "us"?) as human beings, so they have no rights and "we" have no duties towards them. But do you also consider those unprincipled and stupid liberals, particularly the white variety, to be "orks" as well? Do they have no rights? So who does have rights, and who draws the line that separates those who are human and have rights from those who are not human and have no rights?

YA

John

Human rights do exist. But they exist in a certain context, not hang in the air.

This context is the moral code of modern enlightened humans.
Rights imply duties/responsibilities. Overall, that is somewhere around 7 commandments. Briefly.

not endanger lives of others
don't steal
don't lie, don't obscure truth
learn, try to be better informed
have mercy for the weak
help others,

and so on - there might be some disagreements, but there can't be any disagreement on the interpretation of human rights as rights of Taliban Inc. to suppress rights of others.

After likes of Moazzam Begg touch human rights, they become human wrongs, as Melanie corectly notices.

Sergey

"who draws the line that separates those who are human and have rights from those who are not human and have no rights?"
Terrorists themselves trespassed this line when commited to indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians. Mass murderers in no moral calculation can be called "human".

Snowman

Sergey gets it right. One forfeits one’s human rights if one behaves inhumanly.

YA

Henry Sidgwick

".."jihadis" (self-confessed or so designated by "us"?).."

There are still cases of cannibalism in modern society.
To me, it doesn't matter if self-confessed or designated by "us".

un-PC social worker

Sergey is right. last night there was a R4 programme about treason. Anjem Choudhary was interviewed. He said he regards his British passport as nothing other than a travel document. When asked why he does not move to live in a country where the things he so desires, such as Sharia Law, are universally in place, his reply was that such countries have no respect for their citizens and do not protect human rights. The irony! So, there is the perverse and dangerous logic: he and his ilk want to live here and take advantage of our very liberal laws, whilst not just challenging (as he put it) but undermining and seeking to overthrow our laws and replace them with a totalitarian state. In my book that's treason, but of course the notion of being a traitor does not have any credibility for people like Amnesty and the far-Left.

Henry Sidgwick

Human rights are universal or they are nothing, as I think Linda Smith argued a while back in correctly criticising efforts by Islamic states to produce their own version that curtailed the rights of some.

To drop an exotic array of munitions on civilians is to act "inhumanly". I do not think it deprives the perpetrators of their human rights. It is a crime to be dealt with under law. To say that we can decide who has the protection of law and who doesn't is to make a nonsense of law. It is barbarism.

To talk of "white" people gulled by "non-white" people is simple racism however "conscious" and "proper".

Sergey

"Human rights are universal or they are nothing"
If so, I prefer to think they are nothing. That is, they do not have objective existense as material things or mathematical truths, but only exist as a convention adopted in framework of a certain culture. So let us define them (if we need them at all) so that they ensure survival of OUR civilization. No constitution, no moral code is a suicide pact. In the context of a Manichean war between Western civilization and barbarians it means apply them only to those who are on our side of the battle and to our possible allies. Any enemy is a fair game, like it was in firebombing of Dresden, Humburg or Hirosima. Just win, baby, or your human rights would be defined by your enemy. And we all know how they define rights of infidels. Just look at dead children of Beslan.

YA

Henry Sidgwick

"..simple racism however "conscious" and "proper".."

As I said, jihadis go in all colours, sizes and genders. They bring violent disorder to the world. I consider all of them repugnant, I'm not a racist.

John.

I would just like to say that human rights are not guaranteed on birth as a given in the universe. They are a convention which only has force ao long as people wish to honour it. The may have the force of law, but if enough people wish to ignore such law then they obviously become inoperative. There is nothing integral, inevitable or ineluctable about human rights.

roberta perla

dear Melanie
I heard you speak last night in Sydney...you are a brave and courageous woman. I wish I could say I was as brave as you but as a jewish woman and a mother I applaud your work and your honesty....by the way...did you get a chance to appear on the TV here or weren't they interested in hearing the truth?

Henry Sidgwick

Sergey,
Look also at the dead children of Chechnya, of Iraq and Afghanistan, of Central America, of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam...The perpetrators are the people you wish to give the authority to decide without reference to any law who deserves to be treated as human beings. You must hope that nobody you cherish ever finds their decision going against them.

Henry Sidgwick

YA,
I acknowledge that what you say is perfectly consistent. It does return us to the question of why the distinction was made, which you found fit and proper, about "whites".

Henry Sidgwick

John,
It seems to me that the fact that human rights are a social reality (almost by definition), perhaps in the same way that money is) does not lead to the conclusion that if enough people flout them they cease to be valid - they are not conventional in the sense of what side of the road we drive on.

Sergey

Henry, Laos, Camboja and Vietnam were bombed not in order to kill children, but because Viet Kong military bases were placed here. If some children perished, they never were targeted: it was collateral damage, inevitable in every major war. By contrast, in Beslan and Maalot children were the target. So this old canard of moral equivalence of deliberate targeting innocent civilians and a necessary war of self-defence do not impress me. Who you call "perpetuators"? Generals? Who else should make military decisions? Human rights lawyers? Good luck with such approach to warfare.

John.

Henry Sidgwick: Humans rights are not part of the deal as a birthright. Where they exist, they are enshrined in the law of the country. Only then are they a social reality. They are a human invention that is not paramount everywhere, nor are they ubiquitous.

Henry Sidgwick

Sergey,
I tried to reply, but my reply got lost.

"Collateral damage" is such a useful fiction, as is a "war of self-defence" used by every state to justify its aggression.

You seem unaware of how the US Army operates. I can recommend a recent book "War without Fronts". Evidence of how the Russians fight eg in Chechnya is available to those who wish to look. State terror is still terror, however you wrap it up in self-exculpatory fictions. It is a risky precedent to allow the powers that be a free hand to engage in such terror.

Henry Sidgwick

John,
To repeat, if we agree that human rights are a human construct, this in no way justifies your further inference that they are local only. If there are human rights, then they are universal rights ie those who believe they exist, if they are to be consistent, cannot apply them selectively.

Sergey

""Collateral damage" is such a useful fiction, as is a "war of self-defence" used by every state to justify its aggression."
That collateral damage is not a fiction, but a grim reality of every war, is a fact known to every military specialist. If Israel would not fight back, there would be no Israel now. Yes, state terror is a terror, too, but it is necessary to fight religious fanatics, and right of self-defence is absolute and unconditional for every state. Alternative is genocide.

Fritz Teich

AI has allways been just a branch of the foreign office. But human rights are more. People have a right to resist to unjust situations whereever they are.

Henry Sidgwick

Sergey,
The damage is not a fiction and is certainly grim. The hypocrisy is in the regretful sigh of "collateral". There is nothing collateral about carpet bombing, or about dropping millions of cluster bombs in civilian areas at the end of a conflict, or of using depleted uranium, or flechettes, DIME bombs or phosphorus in cities.

The claim of "self defence" is the first refuge of the aggressor. The US and UK were not under attack from Iraq. The US was not under attack from Vietnam. Israel had a ceasefire with Hamas and the offer of negotiations on an extension. Goodness only knows what Russia thought it was doing in Chechnya or Afghanistan.

So, yes, there is indeed a right to self defence, and collateral damage is a tragedy. But neither have anything to do with the current discussion, and offer aggressors like the US and UK, and Israel, no justification for their criminal behaviour.

Sergey

Civilization can survive only if fights against its sworn enemies. The very existing of such regimes as Iraq under Saddam or Taliban-controlled Afganistan is a clear danger to free world, which can be removed only by military intervention. Killing terrorists wherever we can find them is a necessary self-defence, too. Russia knew quite well what she was doing in Chechnya. May be, you do not know that Chechnya is a part of Russian sovereign territory, and police it is not only right, but obligation? And that defending allies against aggression by military means is a duty? In Vietnam USA defended South Vietnam against North Vietnam, and the only fault in USA behavior was that their ally was betrayed by politicians after the war was won by military. That really was the crime.

Henry Sidgwick

Sergey,
To repeat the self-serving stories of aggressors (especially when they are so thoroughly discredited even by the little of the historical record that we have been allowed to see) is to be expected from those the aggression makes feel more secure in their relative affluence (ie us) - but self-respect surely requires a more honest study of what is going on here.

Dan

I suppose Melanie Phillips can't be bothered to find out the facts? Either about Sahgal's accusations and history, the fact that she had just been disestablished from her post, and was being made redundant, and the fact that Sam Zarifi has publicly said that he does not support Gita or her criticism of Amnesty's relationship with Begg? But that would make the story less interesting, I guess...