6 ms·

Amnesty International seems to morphing from a well respected NGO into a partisan political movement https://www.politico.eu/article/amnesty-ukraine-report-wron

Amnesty International seems to morphing from a well respected NGO into a partisan political movement https://www.politico.eu/article/amnesty-ukraine-report-wrong/ https://www.politico.eu/article/amnesty-ukraine-report-wrong...

easytiger 3y ago
That ship sailed decades ago, as is the case with thousands of British charities
- jack_riminton 3y ago
  Interested to hear your thoughts on who else makes the list
  - croisillon 3y ago
    not British but Greenpeace and Amnesty were both charities I reverred growing up, before getting to know them from the inside
  - easytiger 3y ago
    There are unknowable numbers of fake charities amongst the 381723 currently registered, including highly exploitative charities, activists groups masquerading as charities, personal enrichment scams and so on. I can think of many examples. A recent fun one was Ngozi Fulani's (of false allegations of racism) charity Sistah Space. Exposed using only publicly available information as a total grifting sham. Remember Camila Batmanghelidjh? There are god knows how many more like those two. Hope Not Hate - a labour party activist controlled disinformation & propaganda generation entity run as a Ltd funded entirely by a special purpose charity entity bankrolled by people like Sigrid Rowsing. You will note their "work" receives almost not interaction on social media - which is the majority of their raison d'être There are quite literally hundreds of "local" charities in places like Tower Hamlets that don't come close to meeting an normal persons definition of charity. They simply funnel money, often from local councils, to themselves. I've also attempted to report a charity before here in the UK. The CC refused to accept my anonymous info and if my information didn't lead to a prosecution (and had to sign a document to this effect) that i would be prosecuted myself. That was some years ago, so the process may be different. A great many charities raise money in a charity entity, then funnel all that money to a small Ltd controlled by a small number of people. The oversight, and legislation are appalling. There are a number of "charities" in the UK alone claiming to be tackling "long covid". Who knows how many evangelical church scams there are enriching some classic conman preacher.
    - jack_riminton 3y ago
      Yes I remember Batmanghelidjh, there's been a tendency within the public sector especially of being afraid of offending anyone to the point of tacitly allowing massive grifting and fraud. I remember once being on a video call with a quasi-VC but for social enterprises and I asked what I thought to be an entirely banal question: "how do you measure the effectiveness of the organisations you fund and ensure that they're not misappropriating funds?" I may as well have spat in their tea, the video call ended soon afterwards!
      - easytiger 3y ago
        That anecdote rings a lot of bells for me even in business and investing. Alas a vaguely cynical person can be proven right in an era of pseudo babble. Some very very modest achievements i might have had came in a room of people where I politely, professionally, pointed out amidst a silence that the offer they were about to buy was based on quicksand. If i had done so rudely they would have spent the money and fired me
fafzv 3y ago
[flagged]
version_five 3y ago
I don't think that's remotely new. They were always a bit out there, and now hyperpartisans have taken oven even places like ACLU. That said, I don't think this changes anything. Someone was a bit lazy or arguably over-dramatic. I don't see it as some egregious violation of public trust. Even with real pictures, they would have been cherry picked for effect.
- jack_riminton 3y ago
  Disagree on your second point. There's a very clear distinction between reporting the facts on the ground and literally making photos up.
  - version_five 3y ago
    Aren't we talking about some graphics in a promotional campaign? I didn't interpret this as "reporting".
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      That's not what this report claims... posting images generated by artificial intelligence in order to promote their reports on social media If they wanted to use AI-images, they could have used any number of filters/effects to reduce the phot0-realism and make it clear the images were illustrations (vs "photos").
  - XorNot 3y ago
    Well that would be relevant if they'd demonstrated any interest in actually reporting facts on the ground correctly.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  I think hyperpartisans overstates the case with the ACLU. Partisans might be fairer. The ACLU has historically defended everybody, including literal Nazis. They decided to exercise judgement in deciding who to support because someone died who might not have if not for their action[1]. [1]: The chain of causation is that Charlottesville wants to unconstitutionally limit the Unite the Right protest, ACLU threatens litigation, protest goes ahead, protest supporter kills protest opponent. Obviously the ACLU isn't the main one responsible, but I don't think it was crazy for this to prompt reevaluation.
johngladtj 3y ago
Always was that from it's very founding myth
DuckFeathers 3y ago
The article you link seems to be criticizing it for their criticism of Ukraine for human rights abuses. It has been documenting what has been happening in Ukraine for a long time, in the Donbas and Luhansk regions. It has significantly reduced it in the past few years. It's a faux agency used for corrupt western influence in the guise of "human rights". India banned it for good reasons.
- justrealist 3y ago
  AI didn't criticize actual human rights abuses by Ukraine. They criticized Ukraine using abandoned civilian infrastructure as military bases near the frontlines (empty schools, malls etc). The best possible interpretation is that it was hopelessly naive ("why don't they just camp in a empty field so Russia can kill them more precisely?") but more likely they tried to both-sides a war which simply does not have two valid sides.
- yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
  > It has been documenting what has been happening in Ukraine for a long time, in the Donbas and Luhansk regions. Just so we're all clear — what has been happening in Ukraine for a long time is russian soldiers have been using force to try to annex Ukrainian territory. The kremlin denied this for the better part of a decade, but have recently admitted that those little green men were actually russian soldiers. Amnesty International don't get even half the criticism they deserve.
pjc50 3y ago
It's always been a campaigning organisation. Supporting human rights has always been an immensely controversial position in many countries. Even the campaign to free Nelson Mandela wasn't universally popular at the time.
- jrochkind1 3y ago
  And in fact at one point Amnesty International withdrew support for Mandela, because he wouldn't renounce violence. Which is also of course controversial -- at this point it looks not to their credit to most people? There is no "non-political" choice, no "non-political" way to oppose violation of human rights by states.
Workaccount2 3y ago
I don't remember the exact quote and the origin, but it's along the lines of "I wish had I known that the people fighting the power were actually just fighting for the power."
jrochkind1 3y ago
The thing is that, there's no way to defend human rights without it being "political" and seen as partisan. There are always powerful political forces not wanting to recognize human rights violations as human rights violations, or they wouldn't need organized opposition in the first place. I'm pretty sure Amnesty International has been accused of being a partisan political movement for as long as it's existed, by those who don't like what it's critisizing.
- Spivak 3y ago
  It's similar to the people who have come out of the woodwork against the ACLU now that more than just the vague governmental powers that be oppose the liberties they're fighting for. If you ever thought they weren't political it's because you weren't part of the groups they were fighting.
- jack_riminton 3y ago
  Read the link I posted and tell me whose human rights they were standing up for in their dodgy report
  - jrochkind1 3y ago
    Amnesty International operates consistently using a framework of international laws of war and human rights standards, applying them equally to all countries. Or at least that's their goal, certainly sometimes they have failed, because of biases. Is this one of those times? The article you posted says that Amnesty says international laws and standards of war say you should not put military bases in residential areas. Have they been consistent at calling this out for all countries? I think so? Are these in fact standards under international human rights laws? I think so? So this is not a departure for how Amnesty usually operates. People often think that such laws and standards ought not to apply to the side "in the right"; or that they ought not to apply when the side in the right needs to violate them in order to win. Or that a given standard is wrong and should not be considered part of international law and human rights standard. Or you can think that the framework of international law is unrealistic and pointless and isn't even the right framework. In general, or in this case. Some of these may be reasonable positions. But Amnesty has always operated from that framework, and has consistently critisized any side that puts military equipment in residential areas. So, it's possible they made a mistake here in some way, but it's in a way that is pretty consistent with how they have behaved for decades and how they do things. So I don't see any reason to say they have "morphed", and that they are now "partisan" in a way they weren't before. Their theory is that they *avoid* being partisan by critiquing both sides of a military conflict to the same standard, you can disagree with this stance, but I don't see any reason to think they acted from "partisan" motivation rather than from trying to stick to their usual way of doing things. The complaint seems to be that some people wanted them to be partisan on the part of Ukraine (which may be reasonable), while they tried to apply same standards to Ukraine and Russia. There is no "morphing", this is what they do. You can think what they do is the totally wrong approach, for any number of reasons -- but it's not new.

easytiger 3y ago

That ship sailed decades ago, as is the case with thousands of British charities

jack_riminton 3y ago
Interested to hear your thoughts on who else makes the list
- croisillon 3y ago
  not British but Greenpeace and Amnesty were both charities I reverred growing up, before getting to know them from the inside
- easytiger 3y ago
  There are unknowable numbers of fake charities amongst the 381723 currently registered, including highly exploitative charities, activists groups masquerading as charities, personal enrichment scams and so on. I can think of many examples. A recent fun one was Ngozi Fulani's (of false allegations of racism) charity Sistah Space. Exposed using only publicly available information as a total grifting sham. Remember Camila Batmanghelidjh? There are god knows how many more like those two. Hope Not Hate - a labour party activist controlled disinformation & propaganda generation entity run as a Ltd funded entirely by a special purpose charity entity bankrolled by people like Sigrid Rowsing. You will note their "work" receives almost not interaction on social media - which is the majority of their raison d'être There are quite literally hundreds of "local" charities in places like Tower Hamlets that don't come close to meeting an normal persons definition of charity. They simply funnel money, often from local councils, to themselves. I've also attempted to report a charity before here in the UK. The CC refused to accept my anonymous info and if my information didn't lead to a prosecution (and had to sign a document to this effect) that i would be prosecuted myself. That was some years ago, so the process may be different. A great many charities raise money in a charity entity, then funnel all that money to a small Ltd controlled by a small number of people. The oversight, and legislation are appalling. There are a number of "charities" in the UK alone claiming to be tackling "long covid". Who knows how many evangelical church scams there are enriching some classic conman preacher.
  - jack_riminton 3y ago
    Yes I remember Batmanghelidjh, there's been a tendency within the public sector especially of being afraid of offending anyone to the point of tacitly allowing massive grifting and fraud. I remember once being on a video call with a quasi-VC but for social enterprises and I asked what I thought to be an entirely banal question: "how do you measure the effectiveness of the organisations you fund and ensure that they're not misappropriating funds?" I may as well have spat in their tea, the video call ended soon afterwards!
    - easytiger 3y ago
      That anecdote rings a lot of bells for me even in business and investing. Alas a vaguely cynical person can be proven right in an era of pseudo babble. Some very very modest achievements i might have had came in a room of people where I politely, professionally, pointed out amidst a silence that the offer they were about to buy was based on quicksand. If i had done so rudely they would have spent the money and fired me

fafzv 3y ago

[flagged]

version_five 3y ago

I don't think that's remotely new. They were always a bit out there, and now hyperpartisans have taken oven even places like ACLU. That said, I don't think this changes anything. Someone was a bit lazy or arguably over-dramatic. I don't see it as some egregious violation of public trust. Even with real pictures, they would have been cherry picked for effect.

jack_riminton 3y ago
Disagree on your second point. There's a very clear distinction between reporting the facts on the ground and literally making photos up.
- version_five 3y ago
  Aren't we talking about some graphics in a promotional campaign? I didn't interpret this as "reporting".
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    That's not what this report claims... posting images generated by artificial intelligence in order to promote their reports on social media If they wanted to use AI-images, they could have used any number of filters/effects to reduce the phot0-realism and make it clear the images were illustrations (vs "photos").
- XorNot 3y ago
  Well that would be relevant if they'd demonstrated any interest in actually reporting facts on the ground correctly.
iudqnolq 3y ago
I think hyperpartisans overstates the case with the ACLU. Partisans might be fairer. The ACLU has historically defended everybody, including literal Nazis. They decided to exercise judgement in deciding who to support because someone died who might not have if not for their action[1]. [1]: The chain of causation is that Charlottesville wants to unconstitutionally limit the Unite the Right protest, ACLU threatens litigation, protest goes ahead, protest supporter kills protest opponent. Obviously the ACLU isn't the main one responsible, but I don't think it was crazy for this to prompt reevaluation.

johngladtj 3y ago

Always was that from it's very founding myth

DuckFeathers 3y ago

The article you link seems to be criticizing it for their criticism of Ukraine for human rights abuses. It has been documenting what has been happening in Ukraine for a long time, in the Donbas and Luhansk regions. It has significantly reduced it in the past few years. It's a faux agency used for corrupt western influence in the guise of "human rights". India banned it for good reasons.

justrealist 3y ago
AI didn't criticize actual human rights abuses by Ukraine. They criticized Ukraine using abandoned civilian infrastructure as military bases near the frontlines (empty schools, malls etc). The best possible interpretation is that it was hopelessly naive ("why don't they just camp in a empty field so Russia can kill them more precisely?") but more likely they tried to both-sides a war which simply does not have two valid sides.
yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
> It has been documenting what has been happening in Ukraine for a long time, in the Donbas and Luhansk regions. Just so we're all clear — what has been happening in Ukraine for a long time is russian soldiers have been using force to try to annex Ukrainian territory. The kremlin denied this for the better part of a decade, but have recently admitted that those little green men were actually russian soldiers. Amnesty International don't get even half the criticism they deserve.

pjc50 3y ago

It's always been a campaigning organisation. Supporting human rights has always been an immensely controversial position in many countries. Even the campaign to free Nelson Mandela wasn't universally popular at the time.

jrochkind1 3y ago
And in fact at one point Amnesty International withdrew support for Mandela, because he wouldn't renounce violence. Which is also of course controversial -- at this point it looks not to their credit to most people? There is no "non-political" choice, no "non-political" way to oppose violation of human rights by states.

Workaccount2 3y ago

I don't remember the exact quote and the origin, but it's along the lines of "I wish had I known that the people fighting the power were actually just fighting for the power."

jrochkind1 3y ago

The thing is that, there's no way to defend human rights without it being "political" and seen as partisan. There are always powerful political forces not wanting to recognize human rights violations as human rights violations, or they wouldn't need organized opposition in the first place. I'm pretty sure Amnesty International has been accused of being a partisan political movement for as long as it's existed, by those who don't like what it's critisizing.

Spivak 3y ago
It's similar to the people who have come out of the woodwork against the ACLU now that more than just the vague governmental powers that be oppose the liberties they're fighting for. If you ever thought they weren't political it's because you weren't part of the groups they were fighting.
jack_riminton 3y ago
Read the link I posted and tell me whose human rights they were standing up for in their dodgy report
- jrochkind1 3y ago
  Amnesty International operates consistently using a framework of international laws of war and human rights standards, applying them equally to all countries. Or at least that's their goal, certainly sometimes they have failed, because of biases. Is this one of those times? The article you posted says that Amnesty says international laws and standards of war say you should not put military bases in residential areas. Have they been consistent at calling this out for all countries? I think so? Are these in fact standards under international human rights laws? I think so? So this is not a departure for how Amnesty usually operates. People often think that such laws and standards ought not to apply to the side "in the right"; or that they ought not to apply when the side in the right needs to violate them in order to win. Or that a given standard is wrong and should not be considered part of international law and human rights standard. Or you can think that the framework of international law is unrealistic and pointless and isn't even the right framework. In general, or in this case. Some of these may be reasonable positions. But Amnesty has always operated from that framework, and has consistently critisized any side that puts military equipment in residential areas. So, it's possible they made a mistake here in some way, but it's in a way that is pretty consistent with how they have behaved for decades and how they do things. So I don't see any reason to say they have "morphed", and that they are now "partisan" in a way they weren't before. Their theory is that they *avoid* being partisan by critiquing both sides of a military conflict to the same standard, you can disagree with this stance, but I don't see any reason to think they acted from "partisan" motivation rather than from trying to stick to their usual way of doing things. The complaint seems to be that some people wanted them to be partisan on the part of Ukraine (which may be reasonable), while they tried to apply same standards to Ukraine and Russia. There is no "morphing", this is what they do. You can think what they do is the totally wrong approach, for any number of reasons -- but it's not new.