[coolestuk]

There are far bigger reasons to question Amnesty International's integrity. Search their website for the OIC's "Cairo Declaration" on Human Rights under Islam, and you'll find that Amnesty has completely ignored it. The Cairo Declaration subordinates all human rights to sharia law, and almost every islamic country in the world has signed the Cairo Declaration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Righ...

At the most extreme interpretation, slavery is legal under islamic law - see Sultanhussein Tabandeh, "A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights". And the Cairo Declaration says that there is no crime except that proscribed by sharia. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen had slaves well into the 20th century (a 1951 UN report estimated that 5% of the population of those countries were slaves), and they only "outlawed" slavery under duress from the west. There is still slave-taking and trading in Mauritania and Sudan.

There are now plenty of serious works on the 1300 years of the islamic slave trade, e.g. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Islams-Black-Slaves-History-Diaspora... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christian-Slaves-Muslim-Masters-Medi...

It beggars belief that Amnesty can simply ignore it when the islamic world rejects universal human rights. But as long as Amnesty ignores it, the OIC's Cairo Declaration can fly under the radar, and be ignored by mainstream media and governments.

My understanding of the Cairo Declaration might be wrong. But until it starts to be discussed by organisations like Amnesty, it is not going to be subjected to extensive critical examination.

[toyg]

Let's be clear, I'm not saying that Amnesty have always been perfect before today.

What I find shocking is that they spend most of their time supporting this or that journalist in this or that country, and when something so egregious happens in the UK, in London, they stay mum because it's happening to somebody they don't like. They are failing spectacularly, in their own backyard, without any risk of repercussions whatsoever (this government is not friendly to them, they're not friendly to anyone really, so there's nothing to lose by criticising them).

I fail to see why I should support the rights of Russian rock bands to criticize Putin, but I should ignore the Metropolitan Police, down the road, banging on the door of foreign embassies to get hold of Assange. One day they might be looking for me on some trumped-up charge or other, and will Amnesty then stay silent if I'm not their pal?

That's just not how it works, and that's why Amnesty won't get any more money from me.

[slurgfest]

Your sole complaint about Amnesty is that somehow, they are too soft on Muslims. But their site is full of criticism about Muslim countries, e.g. http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/saudi-arabia - no indication that they are holding back at all with respect to actual reported human rights violations.

So what I can conclude from your post is that you are disappointed that Amnesty does not go beyond specific human rights criticisms to some kind of blanket condemnation of all Muslims, which would serve absolutely no constructive purpose except to satisfy bigotry.

[vixen99]

He specifically says 'The Cairo Declaration subordinates all human rights to sharia law, and almost every islamic country in the world has signed the Cairo Declaration. ....It beggars belief that Amnesty can simply ignore it when the islamic world rejects universal human rights.".

'Islamic world' does not equate to 'all Muslims'. The 'Catholic Church' does not equate to all those who are Catholic Christians etc.,

[kragen]

Perhaps the Cairo Declaration's signatories believe that sharia law protects universal human rights adequately, and that the UN's version of universal human rights is an attempt to lump together rights that are truly universal with some "rights" that are culturally specific, dubious, and in some cases downright wrongheaded, in order to stuff them down the throats of other countries?

It makes as much sense to say that the Cairo Declaration "subordinates all human rights to sharia law" as to say that the UNDHR "subordinates all human rights to the will of the UN General Assembly". And characterizing the signing of the Cairo Declaration as "rejecting universal human rights" is exactly opposite of the truth: the Cairo Declaration is an affirmation of universal human rights.

[lobster_johnson]

The Cairo declaration was published in 1990. It's more productive for Amnesty to criticize specific abuses than to attack a 22-year old declaration (which, to my knowledge, has not been made law by all the countries who signed).