Thaksin Banned Two Pheu Thai MPs, Party Source Says

[phiphidon]

...do you not find it somewhat strange that some representatives of AI are blocking freedom of speech? He was invited by the Malaysian AI to speak on human rights violation in Thailand.

They *aren't* blocking freedom of speech. Robert Amsterdam can say and do as he likes.

Amnesty International distanced themselves from the event to preserve their reputation as a neutral body, which was the only credible thing they could do. The real issue is why was Robert Amsterdam ever invited to speak in the first place? That was completely inappropriate.

If I had to guess, I'd say that in pursuing the Abhisit government over the 2010 riot deaths, someone forgot that Amnesty was also pursuing the Thaksin government over the massacre of muslims at Tak Bai and the "war on drugs". Oops...

So you're saying that it was OK for Amnesty ,then, to pursue the Thaksin government over the Tak Bai and "Drug Wars" incidents but its not OK ,now, to be "involved" in pursuing Abhisit over alleged human rights abuses in 2010? Amnesty International themselves may have a "neutral" stance (though I cannot see how you can be neutral once you pursue governments for human rights abuses) but the AI Bangkok/Thailand appear to be somewhat other than neutral - witness their relative silence on LM cases in Thailand in recent times.

[jdinasia]

...do you not find it somewhat strange that some representatives of AI are blocking freedom of speech? He was invited by the Malaysian AI to speak on human rights violation in Thailand.

They *aren't* blocking freedom of speech. Robert Amsterdam can say and do as he likes.

Amnesty International distanced themselves from the event to preserve their reputation as a neutral body, which was the only credible thing they could do. The real issue is why was Robert Amsterdam ever invited to speak in the first place? That was completely inappropriate.

If I had to guess, I'd say that in pursuing the Abhisit government over the 2010 riot deaths, someone forgot that Amnesty was also pursuing the Thaksin government over the massacre of muslims at Tak Bai and the "war on drugs". Oops...

So you're saying that it was OK for Amnesty ,then, to pursue the Thaksin government over the Tak Bai and "Drug Wars" incidents but its not OK ,now, to be "involved" in pursuing Abhisit over alleged human rights abuses in 2010? Amnesty International themselves may have a "neutral" stance (though I cannot see how you can be neutral once you pursue governments for human rights abuses) but the AI Bangkok/Thailand appear to be somewhat other than neutral - witness their relative silence on LM cases in Thailand in recent times.

Nope that isn't what (to me) he appears to be saying at all. What he appears to be saying, is that allowing a Thaksin mouthpiece to be the presenter is not maintaining a "politically neutral stance".

[Crushdepth]

So you're saying that it was OK for Amnesty ,then, to pursue the Thaksin government over the Tak Bai and "Drug Wars" incidents but its not OK ,now, to be "involved" in pursuing Abhisit over alleged human rights abuses in 2010?

They *are* pursuing the Abhisit government over the 2010 deaths. Neutrally and independently.

[phiphidon]

...do you not find it somewhat strange that some representatives of AI are blocking freedom of speech? He was invited by the Malaysian AI to speak on human rights violation in Thailand.

They *aren't* blocking freedom of speech. Robert Amsterdam can say and do as he likes.

Amnesty International distanced themselves from the event to preserve their reputation as a neutral body, which was the only credible thing they could do. The real issue is why was Robert Amsterdam ever invited to speak in the first place? That was completely inappropriate.

If I had to guess, I'd say that in pursuing the Abhisit government over the 2010 riot deaths, someone forgot that Amnesty was also pursuing the Thaksin government over the massacre of muslims at Tak Bai and the "war on drugs". Oops...

So you're saying that it was OK for Amnesty ,then, to pursue the Thaksin government over the Tak Bai and "Drug Wars" incidents but its not OK ,now, to be "involved" in pursuing Abhisit over alleged human rights abuses in 2010? Amnesty International themselves may have a "neutral" stance (though I cannot see how you can be neutral once you pursue governments for human rights abuses) but the AI Bangkok/Thailand appear to be somewhat other than neutral - witness their relative silence on LM cases in Thailand in recent times.

Nope that isn't what (to me) he appears to be saying at all. What he appears to be saying, is that allowing a Thaksin mouthpiece to be the presenter is not maintaining a "politically neutral stance".

AI can still be politically neutral when they are pursuing or discussing human rights abuses allegedly made by any government. It doesn't matter what party/colour/allegiance the speaker holds (or is alleged to hold) if they are speaking about human rights abuse allegations - The AI is supposed to be a forum for pursuing these matters. As I pointed out if AI were happy to pursue Thaksin then (and presumably held similar meetings to discuss/produce evidence of said abuses) what is different now? Just because Amsterdam represents the UDD it doesn't automatically follow that AI is now politically aligned with the UDD for allowing him to speak in a forum on human rights abuses in Thailand. In fact, not allowing him to speak reinforces accusations of political interference in the AI by those opposed to the UDD.

[whybother]

AI can still be politically neutral when they are pursuing or discussing human rights abuses allegedly made by any government. It doesn't matter what party/colour/allegiance the speaker holds (or is alleged to hold) if they are speaking about human rights abuse allegations - The AI is supposed to be a forum for pursuing these matters. As I pointed out if AI were happy to pursue Thaksin then (and presumably held similar meetings to discuss/produce evidence of said abuses) what is different now? Just because Amsterdam represents the UDD it doesn't automatically follow that AI is now politically aligned with the UDD for allowing him to speak in a forum on human rights abuses in Thailand. In fact, not allowing him to speak reinforces accusations of political interference in the AI by those opposed to the UDD.

When did AI NOT allow Amsterdam to speak?

[Crushdepth]

Why should Amnesty lend public support to people it has accused of mass human rights abuses?

Edited April 30, 2011 by Crushdepth

[Buchholz]

It appears that Mr Zawacki has raised the ire of several members of the AI Asia-Pacific team as this open letter demonstrates;

Open Letter:

Calling for Investigation into the Intervention of the work of Amnesty International (AI) Malaysia by Members of the AI Asia-Pacific team

29 April 2011

Mr. Salil Shetty

Dear Mr. Shetty, We, the members of Amnesty International (AI), human rights activists, and individuals, are writing to you to raise our serious concerns regarding the intervention by International Secretariat specifically by Mr. Benjamin Zawacki, AI Southeast Asia Researcher and Ms. Donna Guest, the Asia-Pacific Deputy Director to block the dialogue that was planned to be held by AI Malaysia on the issue of human rights violations and the case in the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Thailand.............

more at http://asiapacific.a...al-in-thailand/

Mr Zawacki's political "impartiality" has been raised before.

More of a case of embarrassment to the AI team in Thailand, I suspect, than to Amsterdam.

1. Please cite previous questions regarding Mr. Zawacki's impartiality.

2. In the exact same open letter you referenced, the specific cancellation is stated as,

AI Malaysia received strong instructions from the International Secretariat demanding them to cancel dialogue session.

Mr. Zawacki is NOT on the International Secretariat.

The International Secretariat of Amnesty International is led by a team of Senior Directors headed by the Secretary General. The Senior Directors work closely with the directors and deputy directors of the IS' programmes (departments) and together they provide strategic direction, operational management and direct support to the secretariat’s staff and volunteers. They also work closely with the directors of Amnesty International’s local chapters.

The Senior Directors are:

Claudio Cordone

Colm Ó Cuanacháin

George Macfarlane

Marcia Poole

Widney Brown

http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/our-people/international-secretariat-directors

Amsterdam has plenty of other actions to be embarrassed about to make up for any shortfall in this circumstance.

.

[Buchholz]

Can you imagine the uproar if Amnesty *had* entertained a talk by the PR guy of someone they have accused of mass human rights abuse? It's amazing that anyone with common sense would criticise Amnesty for dropping the talk. I mean who has the credibility problem here - Amnesty International or Robert Amsterdam?

It's classic New Mandala to try and use it as pro-red propaganda though. You should see the 'research' some of these guys publish, its hysterical

The simple fact that Amsterdam had his "speech of one" anyways certainly shows that his freedom of expression was in no way trampled on What he wasn't given was a platform of a supposedly non-political organization to use to present a totally politically biased propaganda campaign.

That's precisely what the piece in the other paper today centered on. That AI is focused on human rights issues and without a political slant on it. To host such an impartial paid advocate of one side of the fence would teter the careful balance that AI maintains astride the middle of the fence.

That the senior folks that make up Amnesty International Secretariat recognized this is a testament to their staying abreast of who's who in the multitude of issues they monitor around the world.

Good catch by them.

.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Buchholz

[jdinasia]

They *aren't* blocking freedom of speech. Robert Amsterdam can say and do as he likes.

Amnesty International distanced themselves from the event to preserve their reputation as a neutral body, which was the only credible thing they could do. The real issue is why was Robert Amsterdam ever invited to speak in the first place? That was completely inappropriate.

If I had to guess, I'd say that in pursuing the Abhisit government over the 2010 riot deaths, someone forgot that Amnesty was also pursuing the Thaksin government over the massacre of muslims at Tak Bai and the "war on drugs". Oops...

So you're saying that it was OK for Amnesty ,then, to pursue the Thaksin government over the Tak Bai and "Drug Wars" incidents but its not OK ,now, to be "involved" in pursuing Abhisit over alleged human rights abuses in 2010? Amnesty International themselves may have a "neutral" stance (though I cannot see how you can be neutral once you pursue governments for human rights abuses) but the AI Bangkok/Thailand appear to be somewhat other than neutral - witness their relative silence on LM cases in Thailand in recent times.

Nope that isn't what (to me) he appears to be saying at all. What he appears to be saying, is that allowing a Thaksin mouthpiece to be the presenter is not maintaining a "politically neutral stance".

AI can still be politically neutral when they are pursuing or discussing human rights abuses allegedly made by any government. It doesn't matter what party/colour/allegiance the speaker holds (or is alleged to hold) if they are speaking about human rights abuse allegations - The AI is supposed to be a forum for pursuing these matters. As I pointed out if AI were happy to pursue Thaksin then (and presumably held similar meetings to discuss/produce evidence of said abuses) what is different now? Just because Amsterdam represents the UDD it doesn't automatically follow that AI is now politically aligned with the UDD for allowing him to speak in a forum on human rights abuses in Thailand. In fact, not allowing him to speak reinforces accusations of political interference in the AI by those opposed to the UDD.

AI would not appear "politically neutral" when letting the mouthpiece of Thaksin (on AI's list for Human Rights abuses on a much larger scale than that of the current government) present slanted opinion about alleged human rights abuses by the current government for a political purpose. Amsterdam was hired by Thaksin first. He has no credible neutrality to work from.

If the UDD were to distance themselves from politics AND hire someone other than the de facto leader's (Thaksin) mouthpiece THEN there would be no appearance of not being politically neutral. The other side of the coin is the Thaksin/PTP/UDD link that certainly cannot be broken at this point; meaning that to appear neutral AI would have to "invite" someone from the "other side", which would certainly not be productive at all.

What you appear to desire is to have a supposedly "non-political" NGO welcome a politically aligned speaker to present his arguments unopposed.

[Buchholz]

They were also saying that over Amsterdams obvious objections that would have been raising Thaksins Human Right VIolations as a quid pro quo to raising his against the Dems. And obviously Amstertdamned would sputter and bloviate endlessly and loudly if that were to happen. Better to just prevent the "paid mouthpiece" from trying to use AI for his own partisan purposes.

Regardless of whether you agree or not with Amsterdams views, do you not find it somewhat strange that some representatives of AI are blocking freedom of speech?

"some representatives" doesn't adequately describe the very top echelon of the Secretariat.

He was invited by the Malaysian AI to speak on human rights violation in Thailand.

But his presence would nullify Amnesty International's fundamental goal of neutrality. His attempt to score political points by deception isn't on their agenda.

Still, in the end, they didn't squash his freedom of speech, only their hosting of it.

He continued on with his own self-dialogue :jerk:

reported on earlier in the thread.

.