Talk:Amnesty International

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This entry states that all of Amnesty International's stated missions are Christian in nature or seem to be based on Christian principles. This, however, is not true. For example, Amnesty International works heavily on fighting discrimination against gays and the death penalty (the latter of which, those who believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible, support... "eye for an eye"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Facio (talk)

God Bless Amnesty International

It's good that there are non-partisan organizations such as Amnesty International out there, fighting tyranny of all political stripes whether communist or fascist. They don't cover up the crimes of dictators just because of their political ideology --FreedomandLiberty 11:50, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Image of summary of critical press releases

The article includes an image with the caption "A summary of all critical press releases put out by Amnesty over the period 1995–1998", the image being of a textual list. The image was copied from an external document, and is used under the "fair use" provisions, partly on the basis that "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". But being a simply textual list, this is simply not true, as it could easily be recreated as a table in the article. I propose deleting the image and replacing it with a table of the same information. Philip J. Rayment 00:22, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Free and Democratic Pakistan!?

Pakistan is not free and is certainly not democratic. While Musharaff is not as brutal as many other dictators in history, he still is a dictator. In addition, he doesn't control many parts of the country. Speaking poorly of Islam can turn you into a corpse in Pakistan because of the number of fundamentalists. It is a lie to call a country like that free --ChavezFan 16:46, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

The only reference to "Free and Democratic Pakistan" is in a table which refers to Amnesty press releases during the period 1995 to 1998. The article does NOT say that Pakistan is free and democratic today. Philip J. Rayment 21:19, 29 October 2007 (EDT)


I have to strongy defend the use of Anti-American as a headline. The most work AI does is on America. There are literally hundreds of documented cases biased. Anti-Israel, I have not a problem. But, to list somehow people thought AI was biased in favor of America, seems uncommon and has zero value in my op.--Jpatt 21:05, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, a large part of the "Anti-American" section is taken up with a quote about reports on Australia, which is incongruous with the original title. The only mention of America is your own comment that AI "exposes an anti-American standpoint increasingly common in liberal groups" by "disproportionately criticiz[ing] free democratic nations over authoritarian nations", & the logic of that is a little flawed since the USA isn't the only free democratic nation. Also, I think when assessing criticisms of AI, it is best to present both viewpoints. Obviously you do not like this organisation much, but please don't assume that all conservatives agree with you on this. Sideways 21:21, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
I can agree with most you have said. I will put an Anti-American header, just with new content. Presenting both viewpoint's is not my intentions. I will have to limit inclusion or others will have to give the other view. Besides the criticism section, which will expand, is the only dirt. The rest of the page is authentic encyclopedic, no blemishes or ill will. Just so we understand, I am all for human rights. These people have deviated so far left, the organization no longer has the clout, nor the accuracy nor the proper intentions and need to be called out. Their cause is valiant, their mission is a disgrace.--Jpatt 21:35, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
"Anti-American" is too specific. "Accusations of bias" is probably a bit too broad. What about something like Anti-democracy or Anti-west?
We must be fair, and that means not making them out to look worse than they are. So if there's evidence that they are at times pro-American, it's only fair to include that. That doesn't, by the way, prevent anyone from producing evidence that the apparent pro-American view was actually due to something else, or perhaps that they used to be pro-American but no longer are.
Philip J. Rayment 22:01, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
I can agree. They take the greedy road, legal courts of Democracies are where the money is. Closed nations, authoritarian nations are too much work, too much risk, no great finacial payoff if any. Anti-Democracy is well suited.--Jpatt 22:07, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Disagree. "Anti-democracy" implies they are opposed to the principle of democracy. Far from it. The reason many of their campaigns are focussed on democratic nations such as USA (as I believe they freely acknowledge) is that these countries have made positive statements in regard to human rights and have populations inclined to support human rights issues. AI believe they have some chances of success by raising public awareness of issues such as the death penalty & inhumane interrogation techniques, and creating pressure for these countries to make reforms. Closed totalitarian natons are much less likely to make these kind of reforms, and creating public awareness within those countries is problematic because of freedom of speech is not upheld. Obviously AI still has campaigns regarding these countries, raising international awareness & creating international pressure. If the title "Accusations of bias" is too broad, the specific name for this kind of bias (as used in Wikipedia article on AI for example) is "selection bias" - I.E. bias in terms of which countries they select for focus. Sideways 10:32, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Point taken that "anti-democracy" implies that they are opposed to democracy itself, but then you go on to in effect say that their bias is democracy-related! Yes, "selection bias" is probably correct, but I don't believe that it's self-explanatory. Just throwing out an idea to keep us thinking, how about "Bias against democratic countries"? Philip J. Rayment 10:41, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
The selection bias is related to democracy & freedom of speech because those countries are where AI suggests it can have the biggest impact, as I outlined above, but this is not a bias against democracy. Selection bias isn't a self-explanatory term, but it could be explained in the text. However, if you don't want to use it as a section title, I think your suggested title of "Bias against democratic countries" is satrisfactory, as this is what much of the the controversy/criticism boils down to, but please keep in place the last paragraph mentioning accusations of pro-American/British bias too. Sideways 11:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Biased against AI?

This article is heavily biased against AI. It makes the organization seem to be a mainly Anti-American leftist anti-Israel organization, which cannot be farther from the truth. It is one of the few organizations that are very vocal in its criticism against the current authoritarian and anti-American regime of China, and should be noted as such. AI has no agenda except to promote human rights everywhere in the world. Lansing 18:24, 11 January 2012 (EST)