Amnesty International has been hijacked by a bunch of people who want to justify their extortionate CEO salaries by bringing in things that are detrimental to people. They work very much like the people who run the European Union, in that if their members vote against their ridiculous proposals, they bring them in anyway.
The first case of them doing this was when they put it to their members a question in regard to the organisation’s position on abortion. The members voted for Amnesty’s stance on abortion to remain neutral. So in response, the leadership launched a campaign calling on the Irish government to legalize abortion, claiming that abortion is a human right. Abortion is not a human right and there is no recognised human rights document that says it is. But Amnesty International has been hijacked by people who have an agenda that goes beyond human rights and they don’t give a stuff about the sensible opinions of their members.
The next case of Amnesty International running roughshod over their members and supporting something detrimental is the leaderships support of legalising prostitution. They claim that prostitution is compatible with the principle of gender equality and nondiscrimination, as if it were a job like any other.
Here in the Guardian lawyer Jessica Neuwirth who served as a policy advisor to Amnesty International USA in the 1980s. says
“By definition,” Amnesty’s proposal states, “sex work means that sex workers who are engaging in commercial sex have consented to do so.” This definition fails to take into account the dire economic need, the childhood sexual abuse, the brutal coercion employed by pimps, and the vast power differences of sex and race that drive the commercial sex industry.
Perhaps Amnesty should look to the 1949 UN Convention on trafficking, which characterizes prostitution and sex trafficking as “incompatible with the dignity and worth of the human person and endanger[ing] the welfare of the individual, the family and the community”. If the organization endorses prostitution as a human right, it won’t be supporting the women who might have no choice but to have sex for money, but rather the pimps and buyers of sex who have all the choice in the world.
Amnesty is urging its membership to separate prostitution and sex trafficking as entirely unrelated. Yet common sense and the economics of supply and demand dictate that demand for prostitution fuels sex trafficking to supply it:
As a human rights activist I can not support an organisation that supports sex trafficking as Amnesty International now does. I understand that a number of anti slavery organisations feel the same.