Rift develops within Amnesty International over partnering with Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners.
Amnesty International has been accused of putting the human rights of Al-Qaeda terrorists above those of their victims, following the charity’s affiliation with a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, who has championed the rights of jailed Al-Qaeda members and hate preachers.
Gita Sahgal, head of the gender unit at Amnesty’s international secretariat, believes that collaborating with Moazzam Begg and his “jihadi” group, Cageprisoners, “fundamentally damages” the organisation’s reputation.
….Sahgal, who has researched religious fundamentalism for 20 years, has decided to go public because she feels Amnesty has ignored her warnings for the past two years about the involvement of Begg in the charity’s Counter Terror With Justice campaign.
“I believe the campaign fundamentally damages Amnesty International’s integrity and, more importantly, constitutes a threat to human rights,” Sahgal wrote in an email to the organisation’s leaders on January 30.
Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners have been on the outs around here for some time.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 9:56 am on February 8, 2010 Permalink |
Ms. Saghal was suspended by Amnesty International after the story ran.
And Mr. Begg is not “on the outs” with me.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 9:58 am on February 8, 2010 Permalink |
Nor is Cageprisoners.
Sameer 11:33 am on February 8, 2010 Permalink |
This is the response by Moazzem Beg and Cageprisoners. I agree with Abu Noor, more right wing
propaganda with little or no basis. A simple reading of Begg’s biography would suffice to end this nonsense. On p. 91 of his book ‘Enemy Combatant’ he tells of a Taliban group who saved some children from becoming sex slaves of a local warlord. But on p 95 he says ‘”I soon got quite disillusioned with the Taliban’” His only attempt at jihad, according to his book, was to try unsuccessfully to join the Chechen struggle against the Russians.
Further, if one believes the allegations of Saghal then using the same logic one can make an allegation that Amnesty International by way of its support of Majid Nawaz is in support of neo-conservatism, since the British govt. funded Quilliam Foundation includes people such as:
Michael Gove (“Iraq War is the Triumph of Freedom over Evil)
Martin Bright (Neo-Conservatism: Why We Need It)
Ed Husain (“the Joy of American soldiers invading Iraq“)
Do only loose words and associations count when it comes to Muslims and not warmongering Neo-Cons?
thabet 11:37 am on February 8, 2010 Permalink |
Douglas Murray, not Martin Bright, is the author of NeoConservatism: Why We Need It.
Also, AI supported Nawaaz as a prisoner of conscience when he was locked up in Egypt due to his being a member of HT. There is no link, afaik, between AI and Quilliam.
The question here is about Awlaki’s purported views and Cageprisoners ‘relationship’ with him. I believe they had this response too in the wake of the ‘underpants bomb plot’.
Sameer 11:51 am on February 8, 2010 Permalink |
My apologies about the mix-up of Douglas Murray. However the full list of neo-con advisors of Quilliam was taken down from Quilliam’s site after it got out. Bright made statements did make statements in support of it.
No link? What about this then:
Maajid Nawaz speaks at Amnesty Student Conference
Ed Husain Speaks at Amnesty International
further the post by someone at Amnesty in support of Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation over at Huffington Post
Again I am simply asking that the same criteria used to convict Begg for his ideas and associations be applied to Quilliam and Amnesty as well.
thabet 12:15 pm on February 8, 2010 Permalink |
I don’t like Martin Bright, but he isn’t a neocon.
I guess the point is this:
Fred Husain and chums (at least on the face of it) claim to support HR, the very theory/practice/idea/whatever AI campaign for.
Do Cageprisoners’ and their associates? I think people can make up their own minds by reading various statements released for/against Cageprisoners.
Here’s a statement by Sahgal (from Bright’s Spectator blog as it happens).
Sameer 1:04 pm on February 8, 2010 Permalink
Just because one is a neo-con does not necessarily mean that one is a racist. Many simply subscribe to neo-conservatism for opportunist reasons or because they have fantasies of empire building (as opposed to nation building). Similarly if one is not a neo-con per se that does not mean they don’t harbor sentiments and advocate policies, ideas, and actions that are explicitly anti-Muslim in nature.
Martin Bright, is first and foremost a supporter of Israel. His antipathy and hatred of all things Islam and Muslim doesn’t necessarily have to do with Muslims but with Islam itself. Like Wilders his hatred is not necessarily with Muslims but with Islam itself. He claims that the Quran is a forged lie, a con-trick , according to Islamophobia Watch he is a self-confessed Islamophobe (“There is a LOT in Islam to be afraid of”) he has won praise from the BNP and other right wing racists for his documentaries on Muslims/Islam in Britian, he has also advocated that govt. aid to Muslim groups and schools be conditioned on their support for the state of Israel. In short, what the BNP, EDL cannot say publicly he can and does to win praise.
All the more interesting that he is one of the cheerleaders of Gita Sahgal in this affair.
Martin Bright 10:17 am on February 18, 2010 Permalink |
Just a few clarifications.
1. I am not first and foremost a supporter of Israel. I support its right to exist and not to be threatened by its neighbours or a victim of terrorism. I have been critical of Israel on a number of occasions, including on the front page this week’s Jewish Chronicle, which I commend to readers of this blog.
2. I do not claim the Quran is a forged lie or a con-trick. This was a headline put on a piece which said nothing of the sort. I am not a Muslim (indeed I have no faith) but I recognise the importance of the Quran as a remarkable holy book.
3. Islamophobia Watch is wrong on this matter (and just about everything else). I specifically said during the discussion to which Bob Pitt (not a known authority on Islam) refers that I was not Islamophobic although I understood that people were afraid of Islam. Indeed I am an Islamophile, who spent three years studying the history of Islam at SOAS.
4. I did not say that government aid should be contingent on support for the state of Israel. I said that the Muslim Council of Britain should not expect to have a role advising government while it boycotted Holocaust Memorial Day.
So… get your facts right before posting ill-founded untruths
Sameer 1:48 pm on February 18, 2010 Permalink |
Since its quite fun to obfusicate and parse words, lets get a shovel and start digging up some “truths”:
1. a) the Jewish Chronicle is the leading supporter of Israel in the UK, which puts even the Daily Telegraph to shame, so shilling your own zionist soapbox (of which you are an editor) doesn’t really prove anything.
b) your lock-step support for Israel during the Gaza bombardment notwithstanding, this quote from your piece is telling:
Valid question could be asked as to whether you (as a zionist) place Israeli interests above those of Europe or the UK?
2. the article about the “Quran is a forged trick” WAS written by you. It cited among others the works of Gerald Hawting, Patricia Crone, and Michael Cooke to question the authenticity of the Quran. ALL 3 took exception to your skewed and deliberate interpretation of their work. Your former teacher and SOAS professor Hawting wrote in response to it:
source: http://www.newstatesman.com/200112170032
b. Since your recognition of the Quran as a “remarkable book” it is rather odd and curious to see how you wanted to sue for libel the Muslim Council of Britain when they didn’t agree with your zionist agenda:
c. This was then followed up with libeling Mehdi Hasan when he quoted an ayah of the Quran which you didn’t like. Something which must have eluded your “deep study” of Islam and the Quran for 3 years at SOAS?
3. Is Islamophobia Watch misquoting you when you said this at a FOSIS August 2005 conference:
“There is a LOT in Islam to be afraid of..”
1 word answer YES or NO? And please save your bullshit and linguistic acrobatics/gymnastics for the circus.
and if your one of your own former instructors at SOAS calls you a sorry excuse for a student in twisting and skewing interpretations for political ends, that should indicate clearly for what purpose you allegedly “studied” Islam at SOAS for for 3 years.
4. Using the Holocaust (along with reflexively shouting “anti-semitism”) as a political weapon to silence any and all criticism and dissent against the state of Israel or Zio-nazis and their policies is a time honored trick. One that Norman Finkelstein has done an excellent job in dissecting:
the Holocaust Industry
My last question is a simple one: Why do you maintain the farce of not being militantly not being racist against Muslims? Why go through the motions and just come all the way out of the closet and grow a spine, backbone, testicles, or any degree of manhood and proudly proclaim that you hate and despise Muslims/Islam? Wilders has done it. Nick Griffin and the BNP have done it?
Why not come out of the closet? Why spam and troll Muslim blogs/sites trying to howl and bark about something in your heart that you know that you are?
Bob Pitt 5:37 am on February 27, 2010 Permalink |
I’ve only just stumbled upon this thread. But for the record I should reply to Martin Bright’s claim:
“I specifically said during the discussion to which Bob Pitt (not a known authority on Islam) refers that I was not Islamophobic although I understood that people were afraid of Islam. Indeed I am an Islamophile,”
When Bright spoke at the FOSIS conference at City Hall in August 2005 he quite clearly did say that he had no problems being described as an Islamophobe – because, he said, there was a lot in Islam to be afraid of. He got booed, as you might imagine, given the audience he was addressing.
True, in reply to the discussion Bright did say that he shouldn’t have made that remark. But the fact is that he did. I was there. I heard him. As did a hundred or so other people.