Amnesty

It's no coincidence that two enlistees on the blogroll to your right should tackle the same topic for discussion at the same time, but the parallels in this instance run deeper. Both Christopher Hitchens and Nick Cohen have written about the current Amnesty International debacle, which sees secular feminist Gita Sahgal suspended from a senior position within the organization for airing her view that Amnesty's support for Moazzem Begg violates the central mandate of Amnesty's cause. Hitchens and Cohen write eloquently and explicitly on the details of the case so it would be needless for me to paraphrase. It presents a problem for the left, of course, as it sits pretty in the middle of their allegiances. On the one hand, Amnesty International have formerly been relied upon to deliver results for universal Human rights, and yet on the other hand, they appear to be harbouring the interests of a shady and suspicious individual. Not only that but, in doing so, Amnesty violates the constitutional principle that users or supporters of violence will not be defended. It fails to surprise me that this story has received next to no coverage as yet in The Guardian or in The Times; who wants to pin their colours to the mast and say that most liberals will side with Amnesty? What I do find interesting, however, are the pleas that both authors issue. Cohen concludes his piece with quite a realistic and practical cry for help:

If there are any principled human rights lawyers left in England, contact me and I will pass on your details.

Similarly, Hitchens calls for a "any member who takes the original charter seriously to withdraw funding until Begg is cut loose to run his own beautiful organization and until Sahgal has been reinstated." I fear that Hitchens' plea, even if read by thousands, will yield little result. After all, what's left of the left?