David Quinn
Then Amnesty International was founded in 1961 by Peter Benenson, a Catholic lawyer, it had a very specific and narrow purpose, and that was to identify and champion prisoners of conscience who were being kept behind bars for their political or other beliefs, almost always by authoritarian regimes. The danger was that these prisoners would be forgotten and therefore languish in prison forever. Amnesty intended to draw public attention to them – hence its symbol of a burning candle, and campaign for their release.
A classic modern example of a prisoner of conscience is Aung San Suu Kyi, who has for years been the leader of opposition to the military regime in Myanmar (Burma) and has been under house arrest since 2021. There are rumours she might even be dead.
In the 1970s, Amnesty International widened its remit to include victims of torture or miscarriages of justice.
In its early days, Amnesty took great care to be non-partisan, in the sense of not obviously aligning itself with say, the Labour party or the Conservative party in Britain. This allowed it to recruit a very broad range of members.
Partisan
Unfortunately, in the time since then, and especially as we come closer to the present day, Amnesty has become ever more partisan, and it keeps expanding its mission. Championing prisoners of conscience is no longer its overriding goal. Today, it champions abortion rights, transgender rights and even legalised prostitution.
In Ireland it campaigned strongly for same-sex marriage and for the repeal of the 8th amendment. Anyone who joined Amnesty International back when its main purpose was to champion prisoners of conscience needs to be aware that those days are long gone. If you are pro-life, or if you are simply a Catholic, then Amnesty International is now a very cold house for you.
Indeed, no-one who is pro-life could belong to Amnesty International in good conscience any longer. Perhaps all those members are already gone.
But it is not as though Amnesty is ‘merely’ pro-choice, it is now aggressively hostile towards those who are not. It has deemed them ‘anti-rights’.
Last week, a new Amnesty report was published in the UK, and then withdrawn amid controversy. It was called ‘A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK’. Amnesty withdrew it after claiming the report had not gone through the usual vetting process.
We are not seen as opponents with wrong-headed, but nonetheless respectable views that have a legitimate place in public debate. Instead, our views are totally delegitimised”
But it still gave us very interesting insights into the kind of thinking going on inside the organisation and how it views those of us who are opposed to abortion or have traditional views about marriage or human sexuality. We are not seen as opponents with wrong-headed, but nonetheless respectable views that have a legitimate place in public debate. Instead, our views are totally delegitimised. Where a pro-life or other organisation deemed to be ‘anti-rights’ by Amnesty has charitable status, that must be called into question.
Despite Amnesty withdrawing the report in its present form, it is based on another, very similar report it published last year.
The main difference between the report it has withdrawn for the time being, and the one from last year, is that the latest version greatly extends the list of organisations it considers to be ‘anti-rights’, and on the list is to be found the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales.
When the report is re-issued, the Bishops’ Conference might well be dropped from the list, but given Amnesty’s logic, it should be kept on it because from the Amnesty International’s point of view, the bishops are, indeed, “anti-rights” simply by virtue of the fact that they oppose abortion, oppose same-sex marriage and believe only biological men can be called men, and only biological women can be called women.
If Amnesty International here in Ireland produced a similar list, there is no doubt that organisations such as the Pro-Life Campaign, the Life Institute, all pro-life pregnancy counselling agencies, as well as the Iona Institute (which I run) would be on it. So might the Irish Bishops’ Conference.
Sinister
The report, like its UK counterpart, would estimate how much we all receive, and present this as somehow sinister, while at the same time ignoring the vastly greater sums received, including from overseas, by NGOs on the other side, which is to say those that promote abortion and trans rights and so on. These organisations also receive lavish State funding. Pro-life organisations receive none, and there would be uproar if they did. To say the playing pitch is uneven from a pro-life point of view is a vast understatement, but Amnesty sees our very existence as a problem.
Of course, those whom Amnesty attacks could easily reverse the accusation and accuse Amnesty, and all organisations that think like them, of being ‘anti-rights’.
We could say that Amnesty is against the right to life of the unborn, for example, which is obviously the case, and to that extent it is anti-human rights.
We could say it is opposed to the right of women to have women-only spaces where men who declare themselves to be women cannot enter. Think, for example, of domestic violence shelters, or of women’s changing rooms.
To think this used to be an organisation that championed dissent from received views. Today, it demonises those who dissent from such view”
We could accuse them of wanting to curb the right to protest, or to even simply hold silent vigils because they are against any kind of pro-life presence outside facilities that carry out abortions. And so, the list goes on.
The point is, two can play at this game. But we wouldn’t get away with it. If we tried to characterise our ideological opponents as ‘anti-rights’, called into question their charitable status, questioned their funding, and called for bodies to be set up to monitor their activities, we would at best be laughed off the stage. The danger is that Amnesty’s demands will be taken seriously.
To think this used to be an organisation that championed dissent from received views. Today, it demonises those who dissent from such views and wants to see them expelled from public life. It has become the opposite of what it once was.