6,061
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 26:
Line 26: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
added criticism section
<ref> [http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGPOL300122007 Amnesty International defends access to abortion for women at risk] ''Amnesty International'' 6/14/2007</ref>
<ref> [http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGPOL300122007 Amnesty International defends access to abortion for women at risk] ''Amnesty International'' 6/14/2007</ref>
==Criticism==
[[Image:Amnesty international1.jpg|right|200px|thumb| A summary of all critical press releases
put out by Amnesty over the period 1995–1998.<ref>"Amnesty Infomercial" Peter Phelps,The Institute for Public Affairs http://www.ipa.org.au/files/review51-3.pdf</ref>]]
Amnesty International has disproportionately criticized free democratic nations over authoritarian nations with grave human rights abuses, such as [[Cuba]], [[Vietnam]], and [[North Korea]]. Peter Phelps, a writer for [[Australia]]’s leading free market think tank; The Institute for Public Affairs, wrote that Amnesty International has deviated from its founding goals,
<blockquote>
“In the midst of the Cold War, Amnesty was a beacon to prisoners of conscience languishing in the Gulags of the Soviet empire and the work camps of Communist
China. It was an institution whose time had come. Today, its time has passed. Rather than attack real abuses of human rights, it has lost sight of its original objectives. It has become, like Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society and ACOSS, yet another self-perpetuating bureaucracy. More effort is directed into recruiting new members, whose subscription fees pay for this entrenched class of apparatchiks, than in exposing real violations of human rights.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The decline in standards has become especially apparent over the last five years.
The collapse of the Soviet empire has deprived Amnesty of most of its raison d’être.
In its place is an active campaign against free, democratic nations. For example, in Amnesty’s 1999 Annual Report on the Internet, 165 lines of text were devoted to criticism of Australia’s human rights. In contrast, the Communist dictatorship of North Korea had only 83 lines of critical text. Yet there is simply no comparison between the human rights records of Australia and North Korea.”
<ref>"Amnesty Infomercial" Peter Phelps,The Institute for Public Affairs http://www.ipa.org.au/files/review51-3.pdf</ref></blockquote>
One of the main reasons for the disproportionate criticism has been Amnesty Internationals flawed methodology which relies heavily on the press inside of nations. This leads to a nation that is free and open, but had minor infractions, receiving
much more criticism then a closed nation<ref>"Amnesty Infomercial" Peter Phelps,The Institute for Public Affairs http://www.ipa.org.au/files/review51-3.pdf</ref>.
==References==
==References==
<small><references/></small>
<small><references/></small>