Sunday, October 15, 2006

Amnesty Still Telling Lies



This is part of something that fell out of my copy of the Observer today. Amnesty International's latest campaign is against the trafficking of women for prostitution. If you have read my recent posts, such as Traffic Noise and Legalise Prostitution, you will know that:

  • The current moral panic over the 'traffic in female sex-slaves' is the latest incarnation of the Victorian moral panic over the supposed 'white slave trade'. Historians have debunked this myth already.
  • Most prostitutes are not trafficked.
  • Most people who are trafficked are not prostitutes. Most of them are in fact men.
  • Traffickees are trafficked voluntarily, and pay for the privilege. Abductions are rare.
  • Most prostitutes who are trafficked fully intend to work as prostitutes, but they are often lied to about their working conditions.
  • The only way to significantly improve conditions for prostitutes - and to eliminate coercion - is to legalise the industry.

Amnesty is clearly jumping on the latest moral bandwagon in an attempt, either dishonest or naive, to attract funding from middle-class feminists, the kind of people who read the Observer.
I will start supporting Amnesty when:-

  • They start admitting that most political prisoners are men.
  • They start admitting that most torture victims are men.
  • They start admitting that most executed prisoners are men.
  • They concern themselves with male military conscription, especially that of boys.
  • They concern themselves with male genital mutilation as well as female.
  • They concern themselves with male industrial deaths.
  • They concern themselves with the neglect of male health problems by governments.

Better still, they should not concern themselves with 'gender issues' at all, and instead stick to their original, very noble, agenda, of ending torture and execution.

I am not saying they should ignore human rights abuses against women, but they should tell the truth. Their current feminist-dominated agenda is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I advocate that you should not support Amnesty International as long as it continues to act as a gender-feminist mouthpiece.

5 comments:

Paul Parmenter said...

Too right. Amnesty International is yet another example that proves that when the feminist agenda gets adopted by any organisation, common sense and fairness fly out of the window.

John said...

This may sound pro feminist but it isnt, please bear with me...

If amnesty international in supported primarily through donations, will they not be forced to follow the trends to raise money?

This and many other MRA blogs have pointed out that women tend to be the spenders in a household, so any organization that relies on that spending is going to be forced to create advertising that appeals to women.

I would be hesitant to judge an organization based on its advertising ( which in all likelyhood was contracted out) and stick with its actions. That way I can completely loathe organizations like N.O.W. and S.O.W. and be open minded to Amnestly international. Did they not raise quite a stink over Abu Garab (sp) even when no women prisoners were involved?

Feel Free to pile shit on me if you must, but I dont think Id be quick to condemn anyone based on what was printed in a "newspaper" ( see Durham rape case )

jw said...

I have VERY mixed feelings about AI. They do some good work for men, not because they are men true! Only because AI stand against some forms of violence.

Yet, AI also clearly support violence against men by demanding matriarchist lies be treated as truth. AI also refuse categorically to take a stand against women's right to be violent to males here in the first world.

The whole thing is so mixed ... I do not know which way to lean. I've stopped supporting them, yet feel that I should still support them yet know I cannot due to the violence of their anti-male activity.

CONFUSED!

Anonymous said...

Why not write to AI with your concerns and ask for their thoughts on the issues that have been raised in the post.
If the answers are unsatisfactory, you can make your decision on whether to support them or not with a balanced view.
I have returned flyers for the NSPCC stating that i will not subscribe unless i hear something about support for the family and support for non-resident-parents, fathers in particular.
I have had no response so i choose not to donate. I have told them in flyers asking for money since then that i continue to not donate on the above reasons. I always send it back in the envelope that they provide. Seems reasonable.

Heretic said...

Dear Anonymous,
I have written to AI a couple of times (see my post End of the Amnesty). I did have one vague reply saying 'We are concerned about men as well, honest', but nothing in its choice of campaigns or its advertising makes me think that this is anything other than lip-service. When they even mention human rights abuses against men - not boys, not gays, men - in one of their high-profile campaigns, I will be pleasantly surprised. As long as they crap on endlessly about the problems of third-world women, as if that's the only thing in the world, I will not support them. If I want to help there, I will give money to Oxfam instead.