Changes

==Criticism==

==Criticism==

===Anti-American===

===Accusations of bias===

[[Image:Amnesty international1.jpg|right|200px|thumb| A summary of all critical press releases

[[Image:Amnesty international1.jpg|right|200px|thumb| A summary of all critical press releases

put out by Amnesty over the period 1995–1998.<ref name="Phelps" />]]

put out by Amnesty over the period 1995–1998.<ref name="Phelps" />]]

Amnesty International has disproportionately criticized free democratic nations over authoritarian nations with grave human rights abuses, such as [[Cuba]], [[Vietnam]], and [[North Korea]]. This exposes a anti-american standpoint increasingly common in liberal groups. 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,  

Amnesty International has disproportionately criticized free democratic nations over authoritarian nations with grave human rights abuses, such as [[Cuba]], [[Vietnam]], and [[North Korea]]. This exposes an anti-American standpoint increasingly common in liberal groups. 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>

<blockquote>

<ref name="Phelps">Phelps, Peter, [http://www.ipa.org.au/files/review51-3.pdf Amnesty Infomercial], ''Review'', (Intitute of Public Affairs), September 1999, p.13.</ref></blockquote>

<ref name="Phelps">Phelps, Peter, [http://www.ipa.org.au/files/review51-3.pdf Amnesty Infomercial], ''Review'', (Intitute of Public Affairs), September 1999, p.13.</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 name="Phelps" />

One of the main reasons for the disproportionate criticism has been Amnesty International's 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 name="Phelps" />

 

Conversely, some critics have asserted that Amnesty International is biased in favour of the interests of America and other wealthy nations.  For example, Amnesty International did not condemn [[South Africa]]'s [[apartheid]] regime, widely regarded as an abuse of human rights.  This has been interpreted as being due to South Africa's political and economic links with the [[British]] and American governments of the time.<ref>[http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/credib/2003/1306interview.htm "Is Amnesty International Biased?"], 2002.</ref>

===Abortion===

===Abortion===

For many years, the [[Catholic Church]] and Amnesty Intl. had a working relationship. That relationship has been cancelled in its entirety due to Amnesty's decision promoting [[abortion]] rights. <ref>[http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/2904 No Amnesty For the Unborn] NCRegister, June 12, 2007</ref> Credible human rights organizations would never pick which humans are more deserving of life.

For many years, the [[Catholic Church]] and Amnesty Intl. had a working relationship. That relationship has been cancelled in its entirety due to Amnesty's decision promoting [[abortion]] rights. <ref>[http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/2904 No Amnesty For the Unborn] NCRegister, June 12, 2007</ref> Credible human rights organizations would never pick which humans are more deserving of life.

===Anti-Semitism===

===Anti-Israel stance===

Just about everything Israel does to defend itself is 'illegal' in the eyes of Amnesty International. During the [[Israel]] [[Lebanese]] conflict of 2006, Amnesty was accusing Israel of war crimes. According to the [[Jerusalem Post]]'s Alan Dershowitz, through restraint, Israel was able to minimize the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon, Amnesty criticizes. [[Hezbollah]]'s best efforts to embed itself in population centers and to use civilians as human shields, nothing from Amnesty. "Bigotry, pure and simple.", says Alan. <ref>[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525974885&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull Amnesty Int'l redefines 'war crimes'] The Jerusalem Post, Aug 30, 2006</ref>

Just about everything Israel does to defend itself is 'illegal' in the eyes of Amnesty International. During the [[Israel]] [[Lebanese]] conflict of 2006, Amnesty was accusing Israel of war crimes. According to the [[Jerusalem Post]]'s Alan Dershowitz, through restraint, Israel was able to minimize the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon, Amnesty criticizes. [[Hezbollah]]'s best efforts to embed itself in population centers and to use civilians as human shields, nothing from Amnesty. "Bigotry, pure and simple.", says Alan. <ref>[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525974885&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull Amnesty Int'l redefines 'war crimes'] The Jerusalem Post, Aug 30, 2006</ref>