comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
What are the Ukrainians supposed to do? 🙄
Leave the urban areas and walk out onto fields and open areas to be bombed into oblivion? I have my suspicions you’re of the opinion that Ukraine should just surrender which of course is your opinion to have but at least say that’s why you’re not enraged at this stupid Russian apologist piece.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s completely disingenuous, Robb. You’ve been on myriad threads with me over the last few months on which I’ve expressed my opinions that Russia’s invasion is completely indefensible and represents a brutal and disgusting crime against humanity; and that Ukraine must be supported politically and economically by its neighbours and allies to resist the invasion.
It isn’t for me to decide, but I believe strongly that Ukraine shouldn’t accept the annexation of even an inch of its territory, and that to do so wouldn’t be in the interests of Ukraine as a sovereign entity, the Ukrainian people, the other former Soviet states, other territories bordering Russia, or global security.
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
What are the Ukrainians supposed to do? 🙄
Leave the urban areas and walk out onto fields and open areas to be bombed into oblivion? I have my suspicions you’re of the opinion that Ukraine should just surrender which of course is your opinion to have but at least say that’s why you’re not enraged at this stupid Russian apologist piece.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s completely disingenuous, Robb. You’ve been on myriad threads with me over the last few months on which I’ve expressed my opinions that Russia’s invasion is completely indefensible and represents a brutal and disgusting crime against humanity; and that Ukraine must be supported politically and economically by its neighbours and allies to resist the invasion.
It isn’t for me to decide, but I believe strongly that Ukraine shouldn’t accept the annexation of even an inch of its territory, and that to do so wouldn’t be in the interests of Ukraine as a sovereign entity, the Ukrainian people, the other former Soviet states, other territories bordering Russia, or global security.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine and I appreciate you taking the time to re-state that but surely you can’t be so naive (again, not trying to annoy you) to not think that Amnesty as Red Russian has said above may not exactly be on the same page?
I’m sure the work you’ve done with them over the years has been great and I’m sure as an organisation they’ve got more than enough credit in the bank to be above my over emotional claims in the OP. But that doesn’t mean they can’t get it wrong.
RR
Regarding Navalny,
1. That decision was reversed
2. Amnesty continues to actively campaign for his release
3. I doubt there is any international organisation on the planet - bar none - that has done more to raise awareness about Navalny’s case, or worked harder and dedicated greater resources to securing his release, than Amnesty.
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
What are the Ukrainians supposed to do? 🙄
Leave the urban areas and walk out onto fields and open areas to be bombed into oblivion? I have my suspicions you’re of the opinion that Ukraine should just surrender which of course is your opinion to have but at least say that’s why you’re not enraged at this stupid Russian apologist piece.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s completely disingenuous, Robb. You’ve been on myriad threads with me over the last few months on which I’ve expressed my opinions that Russia’s invasion is completely indefensible and represents a brutal and disgusting crime against humanity; and that Ukraine must be supported politically and economically by its neighbours and allies to resist the invasion.
It isn’t for me to decide, but I believe strongly that Ukraine shouldn’t accept the annexation of even an inch of its territory, and that to do so wouldn’t be in the interests of Ukraine as a sovereign entity, the Ukrainian people, the other former Soviet states, other territories bordering Russia, or global security.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine and I appreciate you taking the time to re-state that but surely you can’t be so naive (again, not trying to annoy you) to not think that Amnesty as Red Russian has said above may not exactly be on the same page?
I’m sure the work you’ve done with them over the years has been great and I’m sure as an organisation they’ve got more than enough credit in the bank to be above my over emotional claims in the OP. But that doesn’t mean they can’t get it wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course Amnesty aren’t on the same page; because being on the same page would require them to take a political position.
It isn’t in their remit - in fact, it’s very clearly excluded from their remit - to make value judgments about geopolitical strategies.
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 3 minutes ago
Already Amnesty International are being called ‘useful idiots’. Guess it’s better than my claim of being infiltrated by Russia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigate - carefully and thoroughly - and report findings.
Where there are failures to protect human rights or human rights abuses, call them out.
That’s it. That’s what they do. That’s why they exist. They cannot and will not take sides.
That’s a large part of the reason why they’ve achieved so facking much over the decades for individuals and nations of people alike. Arguably as much in the defence of and strengthening of human rights as any single organisation on the planet since they came into existence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, you’re very naive. You seem to think they’re above reproach. I look forward to the investigation demanded by Amnesty Ukraine and for all the findings to be made public and the paper trail made available to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That will happen, if it hasn’t already. And I look forward to reading Amnesty Ukraine’s assessment of *the findings of the report*.
I am not really interested in whether they *like* the findings, or *like* the fact that the report was published. If there are inaccuracies, they can and should be highlighted, absolutely.
But I am yet to see a single criticism or contestation of a single *finding of the report* by anyone.
Agnes has doubled down and made things worse. Read the room lady.
https://twitter.com/horobchykk/status/1555295626916761836?s=21&t=j7jpw9WRcWl8-xaLTn_RDA
This person took the time to break down the report and show how manipulative it is.
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 7 seconds ago
https://twitter.com/horobchykk/status/1555295626916761836?s=21&t=j7jpw9WRcWl8-xaLTn_RDA
This person took the time to break down the report and show how manipulative it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 7 seconds ago
https://twitter.com/horobchykk/status/1555295626916761836?s=21&t=j7jpw9WRcWl8-xaLTn_RDA
This person took the time to break down the report and show how manipulative it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all means dispute it.
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 7 seconds ago
https://twitter.com/horobchykk/status/1555295626916761836?s=21&t=j7jpw9WRcWl8-xaLTn_RDA
This person took the time to break down the report and show how manipulative it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all means dispute it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t the time or energy to point-by-point, and have to go do some work now, but the whole thing is just (biased) opinion. Again, there’s no disputation of the findings.
But, for example, second point, and then I must check out:
“The article starts with the accusation of Ukraine without giving the context of unjustified Russian invasion…”
*Directly above* where that arrow is pointing to, the article says:
“Such violations in no way justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks, which have killed and injured countless civilians.”
It’s lazy and partisan.
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 36 seconds ago
Anyway, go to bed Robb!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s 8pm 😑
Plenty of Amnesty bashing to go 😉
They’re getting pelters so will be interesting to see what Amnesty Ukraine do next.
Robb having a go at amnesty and at the same time bullying good posters like Rosso off the site
For shame
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 58 seconds ago
Robb having a go at amnesty and at the same time bullying good posters like Rosso off the site
For shame
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂 Rosso and I are tighter than Arsenals defence of 1991. This is just one disagreement. Though I hear he doesn’t like She’s Electric so that might make it two…
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 58 seconds ago
Robb having a go at amnesty and at the same time bullying good posters like Rosso off the site
For shame
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂 Rosso and I are tighter than Arsenals defence of 1991. This is just one disagreement. Though I hear he doesn’t like She’s Electric so that might make it two…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know I just like to stir
Rosso spitting facts, Robb just going with feelings and emotions.
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 44 seconds ago
Rosso spitting facts, Robb just going with feelings and emotions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that Amnesty International didn’t consult with Amnesty Ukraine before publishing the claims and now AU is kicking off massively. They feel they didn’t get the chance to corroborate the claims and this is a huge boost to the Russian propaganda machine as they can do what they’re doing and point to this report and claim they are the good guys.
Not accusing you of this Robb, but I think the reaction to the Amnesty International report is driven by the radicalised centre here in the UK - these are the people who post-Brexit desperately clung to 'people's vote' and you still see them now, the FBPE types, pointing out the damage it has caused and then swiftly arguing Brexit can and still should be reversed.
This no-compromise attitude to politics is now also applied to Ukraine where anything even remotely critical of Ukraine is seen as appeasement, or pro-Putin etc. We saw it last week with Corbyn's pretty asinine interview where he does what he always does - says he wants a peace process involving dialogue, but that was quickly spun as him saying we must end arms shipments.
We talk about polarised left and right but the same has happened in the centre too
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 22 minutes ago
RR
Regarding Navalny,
1. That decision was reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't this reinforce my point? The point *not* being that Amnesty is fundamentally compromised, but that it is not infallible and naturally susceptible to making some bad decisions, potentially under unconscious influence from pressure coming from malign actors.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 22 minutes ago
RR
Regarding Navalny,
1. That decision was reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't this reinforce my point? The point *not* being that Amnesty is fundamentally compromised, but that it is not infallible and naturally susceptible to making some bad decisions, potentially under unconscious influence from pressure coming from malign actors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It might potentially offer some evidence supporting your point; but to deconstruct your second sentence if I may, you have a perfectly reasonable (and yes, actually very strong) proposition, then qualified by what is until evidenced, speculation.
So first up, no; of course Amnesty is not infallible, and of course it is naturally susceptible to making some bad decisions.
To re-run what happened, Amnesty's decision (arguably *requirement*) to stop applying the “Prisoner of Conscience” term to Navalny was an internal one, which I understood was made very consciously and very carefully, was deliberated over time, and was based on a re-assessment of Navalny's categorisation against Amnesty's *existing* internal policy of the designation of a Prisoner of Conscience (which required that such a person could not ever have "used violence or advocated violence or hatred" ).
To re-designate Navalny as a Prisoner of Conscience, Amnesty actually had to *revise its own definition* of such to allow those who have, like Navalny, advocated hatred in the past (and let's not pretend we don't now know that the guy hadn't made some absolutely disgusting comments early in his political career) to be considered a Prisoner of Conscience.
Fwiw, Amnesty categorically denied at the time, and has since, that the decision to de-categorise Navalny was influenced in any way by the Russian state’s smear campaign against him. Amnesty has also pointed out that none of the evidence it used when taking the decision to de-categorise Navalny has been called into question - it remains there, in the public record (and, for me, again, fwiw pretty plainly shows that Navalny was in conflict with what were Amnesty's rules at the time of de-categorisation).
Last point: even when Navalny *was* de-categorised, it didn't prevent Amnesty and Amnesty's supporters from continuing to condemn the Russian authorities for his arrest, protest his incarceration, and campaign for his immediate release. That never stopped.
This from Amnesty's initial statement after the re-classification was made public:
'...The controversy around Amnesty’s use of the term POC has been weaponized by the Kremlin, against us and against those who are expressing critical views against the Russian government.
There should be no confusion: nothing Navalny has said in the past justifies his current detention, which is purely politically motivated. Navalny has been arbitrarily detained for exercising his right to freedom of expression, and for this reason we continue to campaign for his immediate release...'
Very last point : in retrospect, what I guess Amnesty might have done is, when reviewing the evidence of Navalny's prior 'crimes', decided that its own definition of a Prisoner of Conscience was flawed. There was an opportunity at that point to revise the definition, allowing Navalny's privileged status to remain.
Might that then have potentially looked like they were re-writing policy solely to allow them to advocate for Navalny (and against Putin) most effectively? There would be great potential for Russia (and others) to weaponise that too, I would think.
TL;DR, RR
I agree with the first part of your proposition (Amnesty is not infallible), but can't the second (undue influence) without counterevidence I haven't seen.
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
TL;DR, RR
I agree with the first part of your proposition (Amnesty is not infallible), but can't the second (undue influence) without counterevidence I haven't seen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad to see you both discussing this Navalny matter, I remember the concern when his earlier comments and actions started coming out recently and this makes an interesting read
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 3 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 44 seconds ago
Rosso spitting facts, Robb just going with feelings and emotions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that Amnesty International didn’t consult with Amnesty Ukraine before publishing the claims and now AU is kicking off massively. They feel they didn’t get the chance to corroborate the claims and this is a huge boost to the Russian propaganda machine as they can do what they’re doing and point to this report and claim they are the good guys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And how is AU not compromised itself? Have they disputed anything said by AI? Why should AI push only what is acceptable to Western audience like you or what Ukrainians feel when they should be independent of both?
All seems very emotive in reaction. The only thing that needs to be seen is whether this is true or not. That's it.
comment by The Duality of Van (Dijk) (U21747)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
Not accusing you of this Robb, but I think the reaction to the Amnesty International report is driven by the radicalised centre here in the UK - these are the people who post-Brexit desperately clung to 'people's vote' and you still see them now, the FBPE types, pointing out the damage it has caused and then swiftly arguing Brexit can and still should be reversed.
This no-compromise attitude to politics is now also applied to Ukraine where anything even remotely critical of Ukraine is seen as appeasement, or pro-Putin etc. We saw it last week with Corbyn's pretty asinine interview where he does what he always does - says he wants a peace process involving dialogue, but that was quickly spun as him saying we must end arms shipments.
We talk about polarised left and right but the same has happened in the centre too
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Got to agree with this.
Rosso, have to acknowledge that your grasp of the detail much exceeds mine and perhaps I've been unfair. Where I have suspected AI being swayed by a political urge to emphasise their neutrality, perhaps in the light of your remarks the issue is instead a more technocratic inability to apply sensible context and political perspective, which is more forgivable. So, as you say, if scrupulously following the methodology leads them to delist as a political prisoner someone who is very obviously a political prisoner, and (for whatever his flaws) a benign character in comparison with his persecutor, then it makes sense to stop and ask whether the methodology is fit for purpose. (Which you point out they eventually did.)
Similarly, I would argue in this case, it's possible that criteria have been applied to the actions of the Ukrainian military which would be perfectly valid in most cases, but which don't really make sense in that of a war of existential defence against a force which is carrying out genocide in occupied territories and indiscriminately shelling heavily populated civilian areas throughout Ukraine. When it comes to a war of survival, and conscious of what has taken place in Bucha etc, I would guess that civilian population is much more likely to consent to the proximity of military infrastructure. Again, if this comes from technocratic tone deafness, I have more sympathy for the outcome than if it's for other reasons.
Sign in if you want to comment
Amnesty International
Page 2 of 3
posted on 5/8/22
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
What are the Ukrainians supposed to do? 🙄
Leave the urban areas and walk out onto fields and open areas to be bombed into oblivion? I have my suspicions you’re of the opinion that Ukraine should just surrender which of course is your opinion to have but at least say that’s why you’re not enraged at this stupid Russian apologist piece.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s completely disingenuous, Robb. You’ve been on myriad threads with me over the last few months on which I’ve expressed my opinions that Russia’s invasion is completely indefensible and represents a brutal and disgusting crime against humanity; and that Ukraine must be supported politically and economically by its neighbours and allies to resist the invasion.
It isn’t for me to decide, but I believe strongly that Ukraine shouldn’t accept the annexation of even an inch of its territory, and that to do so wouldn’t be in the interests of Ukraine as a sovereign entity, the Ukrainian people, the other former Soviet states, other territories bordering Russia, or global security.
posted on 5/8/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
What are the Ukrainians supposed to do? 🙄
Leave the urban areas and walk out onto fields and open areas to be bombed into oblivion? I have my suspicions you’re of the opinion that Ukraine should just surrender which of course is your opinion to have but at least say that’s why you’re not enraged at this stupid Russian apologist piece.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s completely disingenuous, Robb. You’ve been on myriad threads with me over the last few months on which I’ve expressed my opinions that Russia’s invasion is completely indefensible and represents a brutal and disgusting crime against humanity; and that Ukraine must be supported politically and economically by its neighbours and allies to resist the invasion.
It isn’t for me to decide, but I believe strongly that Ukraine shouldn’t accept the annexation of even an inch of its territory, and that to do so wouldn’t be in the interests of Ukraine as a sovereign entity, the Ukrainian people, the other former Soviet states, other territories bordering Russia, or global security.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine and I appreciate you taking the time to re-state that but surely you can’t be so naive (again, not trying to annoy you) to not think that Amnesty as Red Russian has said above may not exactly be on the same page?
I’m sure the work you’ve done with them over the years has been great and I’m sure as an organisation they’ve got more than enough credit in the bank to be above my over emotional claims in the OP. But that doesn’t mean they can’t get it wrong.
posted on 5/8/22
RR
Regarding Navalny,
1. That decision was reversed
2. Amnesty continues to actively campaign for his release
3. I doubt there is any international organisation on the planet - bar none - that has done more to raise awareness about Navalny’s case, or worked harder and dedicated greater resources to securing his release, than Amnesty.
posted on 5/8/22
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
What are the Ukrainians supposed to do? 🙄
Leave the urban areas and walk out onto fields and open areas to be bombed into oblivion? I have my suspicions you’re of the opinion that Ukraine should just surrender which of course is your opinion to have but at least say that’s why you’re not enraged at this stupid Russian apologist piece.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s completely disingenuous, Robb. You’ve been on myriad threads with me over the last few months on which I’ve expressed my opinions that Russia’s invasion is completely indefensible and represents a brutal and disgusting crime against humanity; and that Ukraine must be supported politically and economically by its neighbours and allies to resist the invasion.
It isn’t for me to decide, but I believe strongly that Ukraine shouldn’t accept the annexation of even an inch of its territory, and that to do so wouldn’t be in the interests of Ukraine as a sovereign entity, the Ukrainian people, the other former Soviet states, other territories bordering Russia, or global security.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine and I appreciate you taking the time to re-state that but surely you can’t be so naive (again, not trying to annoy you) to not think that Amnesty as Red Russian has said above may not exactly be on the same page?
I’m sure the work you’ve done with them over the years has been great and I’m sure as an organisation they’ve got more than enough credit in the bank to be above my over emotional claims in the OP. But that doesn’t mean they can’t get it wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course Amnesty aren’t on the same page; because being on the same page would require them to take a political position.
It isn’t in their remit - in fact, it’s very clearly excluded from their remit - to make value judgments about geopolitical strategies.
posted on 5/8/22
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 3 minutes ago
Already Amnesty International are being called ‘useful idiots’. Guess it’s better than my claim of being infiltrated by Russia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigate - carefully and thoroughly - and report findings.
Where there are failures to protect human rights or human rights abuses, call them out.
That’s it. That’s what they do. That’s why they exist. They cannot and will not take sides.
That’s a large part of the reason why they’ve achieved so facking much over the decades for individuals and nations of people alike. Arguably as much in the defence of and strengthening of human rights as any single organisation on the planet since they came into existence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, you’re very naive. You seem to think they’re above reproach. I look forward to the investigation demanded by Amnesty Ukraine and for all the findings to be made public and the paper trail made available to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That will happen, if it hasn’t already. And I look forward to reading Amnesty Ukraine’s assessment of *the findings of the report*.
I am not really interested in whether they *like* the findings, or *like* the fact that the report was published. If there are inaccuracies, they can and should be highlighted, absolutely.
But I am yet to see a single criticism or contestation of a single *finding of the report* by anyone.
posted on 5/8/22
Agnes has doubled down and made things worse. Read the room lady.
posted on 5/8/22
https://twitter.com/horobchykk/status/1555295626916761836?s=21&t=j7jpw9WRcWl8-xaLTn_RDA
This person took the time to break down the report and show how manipulative it is.
posted on 5/8/22
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 7 seconds ago
https://twitter.com/horobchykk/status/1555295626916761836?s=21&t=j7jpw9WRcWl8-xaLTn_RDA
This person took the time to break down the report and show how manipulative it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 5/8/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 7 seconds ago
https://twitter.com/horobchykk/status/1555295626916761836?s=21&t=j7jpw9WRcWl8-xaLTn_RDA
This person took the time to break down the report and show how manipulative it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all means dispute it.
posted on 5/8/22
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 7 seconds ago
https://twitter.com/horobchykk/status/1555295626916761836?s=21&t=j7jpw9WRcWl8-xaLTn_RDA
This person took the time to break down the report and show how manipulative it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all means dispute it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t the time or energy to point-by-point, and have to go do some work now, but the whole thing is just (biased) opinion. Again, there’s no disputation of the findings.
But, for example, second point, and then I must check out:
“The article starts with the accusation of Ukraine without giving the context of unjustified Russian invasion…”
*Directly above* where that arrow is pointing to, the article says:
“Such violations in no way justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks, which have killed and injured countless civilians.”
It’s lazy and partisan.
posted on 5/8/22
Anyway, go to bed Robb!
posted on 5/8/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 36 seconds ago
Anyway, go to bed Robb!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s 8pm 😑
Plenty of Amnesty bashing to go 😉
They’re getting pelters so will be interesting to see what Amnesty Ukraine do next.
posted on 5/8/22
Robb having a go at amnesty and at the same time bullying good posters like Rosso off the site
For shame
posted on 5/8/22
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 58 seconds ago
Robb having a go at amnesty and at the same time bullying good posters like Rosso off the site
For shame
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂 Rosso and I are tighter than Arsenals defence of 1991. This is just one disagreement. Though I hear he doesn’t like She’s Electric so that might make it two…
posted on 5/8/22
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 58 seconds ago
Robb having a go at amnesty and at the same time bullying good posters like Rosso off the site
For shame
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂 Rosso and I are tighter than Arsenals defence of 1991. This is just one disagreement. Though I hear he doesn’t like She’s Electric so that might make it two…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know I just like to stir
posted on 5/8/22
Rosso spitting facts, Robb just going with feelings and emotions.
posted on 5/8/22
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 44 seconds ago
Rosso spitting facts, Robb just going with feelings and emotions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that Amnesty International didn’t consult with Amnesty Ukraine before publishing the claims and now AU is kicking off massively. They feel they didn’t get the chance to corroborate the claims and this is a huge boost to the Russian propaganda machine as they can do what they’re doing and point to this report and claim they are the good guys.
posted on 5/8/22
Not accusing you of this Robb, but I think the reaction to the Amnesty International report is driven by the radicalised centre here in the UK - these are the people who post-Brexit desperately clung to 'people's vote' and you still see them now, the FBPE types, pointing out the damage it has caused and then swiftly arguing Brexit can and still should be reversed.
This no-compromise attitude to politics is now also applied to Ukraine where anything even remotely critical of Ukraine is seen as appeasement, or pro-Putin etc. We saw it last week with Corbyn's pretty asinine interview where he does what he always does - says he wants a peace process involving dialogue, but that was quickly spun as him saying we must end arms shipments.
We talk about polarised left and right but the same has happened in the centre too
posted on 5/8/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 22 minutes ago
RR
Regarding Navalny,
1. That decision was reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't this reinforce my point? The point *not* being that Amnesty is fundamentally compromised, but that it is not infallible and naturally susceptible to making some bad decisions, potentially under unconscious influence from pressure coming from malign actors.
posted on 5/8/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 22 minutes ago
RR
Regarding Navalny,
1. That decision was reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't this reinforce my point? The point *not* being that Amnesty is fundamentally compromised, but that it is not infallible and naturally susceptible to making some bad decisions, potentially under unconscious influence from pressure coming from malign actors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It might potentially offer some evidence supporting your point; but to deconstruct your second sentence if I may, you have a perfectly reasonable (and yes, actually very strong) proposition, then qualified by what is until evidenced, speculation.
So first up, no; of course Amnesty is not infallible, and of course it is naturally susceptible to making some bad decisions.
To re-run what happened, Amnesty's decision (arguably *requirement*) to stop applying the “Prisoner of Conscience” term to Navalny was an internal one, which I understood was made very consciously and very carefully, was deliberated over time, and was based on a re-assessment of Navalny's categorisation against Amnesty's *existing* internal policy of the designation of a Prisoner of Conscience (which required that such a person could not ever have "used violence or advocated violence or hatred" ).
To re-designate Navalny as a Prisoner of Conscience, Amnesty actually had to *revise its own definition* of such to allow those who have, like Navalny, advocated hatred in the past (and let's not pretend we don't now know that the guy hadn't made some absolutely disgusting comments early in his political career) to be considered a Prisoner of Conscience.
Fwiw, Amnesty categorically denied at the time, and has since, that the decision to de-categorise Navalny was influenced in any way by the Russian state’s smear campaign against him. Amnesty has also pointed out that none of the evidence it used when taking the decision to de-categorise Navalny has been called into question - it remains there, in the public record (and, for me, again, fwiw pretty plainly shows that Navalny was in conflict with what were Amnesty's rules at the time of de-categorisation).
Last point: even when Navalny *was* de-categorised, it didn't prevent Amnesty and Amnesty's supporters from continuing to condemn the Russian authorities for his arrest, protest his incarceration, and campaign for his immediate release. That never stopped.
This from Amnesty's initial statement after the re-classification was made public:
'...The controversy around Amnesty’s use of the term POC has been weaponized by the Kremlin, against us and against those who are expressing critical views against the Russian government.
There should be no confusion: nothing Navalny has said in the past justifies his current detention, which is purely politically motivated. Navalny has been arbitrarily detained for exercising his right to freedom of expression, and for this reason we continue to campaign for his immediate release...'
Very last point : in retrospect, what I guess Amnesty might have done is, when reviewing the evidence of Navalny's prior 'crimes', decided that its own definition of a Prisoner of Conscience was flawed. There was an opportunity at that point to revise the definition, allowing Navalny's privileged status to remain.
Might that then have potentially looked like they were re-writing policy solely to allow them to advocate for Navalny (and against Putin) most effectively? There would be great potential for Russia (and others) to weaponise that too, I would think.
posted on 5/8/22
TL;DR, RR
I agree with the first part of your proposition (Amnesty is not infallible), but can't the second (undue influence) without counterevidence I haven't seen.
posted on 5/8/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
TL;DR, RR
I agree with the first part of your proposition (Amnesty is not infallible), but can't the second (undue influence) without counterevidence I haven't seen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad to see you both discussing this Navalny matter, I remember the concern when his earlier comments and actions started coming out recently and this makes an interesting read
posted on 5/8/22
comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 3 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 44 seconds ago
Rosso spitting facts, Robb just going with feelings and emotions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that Amnesty International didn’t consult with Amnesty Ukraine before publishing the claims and now AU is kicking off massively. They feel they didn’t get the chance to corroborate the claims and this is a huge boost to the Russian propaganda machine as they can do what they’re doing and point to this report and claim they are the good guys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And how is AU not compromised itself? Have they disputed anything said by AI? Why should AI push only what is acceptable to Western audience like you or what Ukrainians feel when they should be independent of both?
All seems very emotive in reaction. The only thing that needs to be seen is whether this is true or not. That's it.
posted on 5/8/22
comment by The Duality of Van (Dijk) (U21747)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
Not accusing you of this Robb, but I think the reaction to the Amnesty International report is driven by the radicalised centre here in the UK - these are the people who post-Brexit desperately clung to 'people's vote' and you still see them now, the FBPE types, pointing out the damage it has caused and then swiftly arguing Brexit can and still should be reversed.
This no-compromise attitude to politics is now also applied to Ukraine where anything even remotely critical of Ukraine is seen as appeasement, or pro-Putin etc. We saw it last week with Corbyn's pretty asinine interview where he does what he always does - says he wants a peace process involving dialogue, but that was quickly spun as him saying we must end arms shipments.
We talk about polarised left and right but the same has happened in the centre too
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Got to agree with this.
posted on 5/8/22
Rosso, have to acknowledge that your grasp of the detail much exceeds mine and perhaps I've been unfair. Where I have suspected AI being swayed by a political urge to emphasise their neutrality, perhaps in the light of your remarks the issue is instead a more technocratic inability to apply sensible context and political perspective, which is more forgivable. So, as you say, if scrupulously following the methodology leads them to delist as a political prisoner someone who is very obviously a political prisoner, and (for whatever his flaws) a benign character in comparison with his persecutor, then it makes sense to stop and ask whether the methodology is fit for purpose. (Which you point out they eventually did.)
Similarly, I would argue in this case, it's possible that criteria have been applied to the actions of the Ukrainian military which would be perfectly valid in most cases, but which don't really make sense in that of a war of existential defence against a force which is carrying out genocide in occupied territories and indiscriminately shelling heavily populated civilian areas throughout Ukraine. When it comes to a war of survival, and conscious of what has taken place in Bucha etc, I would guess that civilian population is much more likely to consent to the proximity of military infrastructure. Again, if this comes from technocratic tone deafness, I have more sympathy for the outcome than if it's for other reasons.
Page 2 of 3