There is a view that the articles enunciated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been and are being honoured "more in the breach than the observance" in many parts of the world.
So "hats off" to Amnesty International for being often considered a beacon of hope and a voice for the voiceless in its attempts to focus the world's attention on political victims of repressive regimes everywhere-ostensibly to the strains of Bob Marley's "Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights!"
Many governments continue to deny their citizens fundamental rights and treat demands for them as being subversive.
According to a document once released by Amnesty International, a few years ago, "In at least half the countries of the world, people are locked away for simply speaking their minds, often after trials that are no more than "shams." However, of late, given what's taking place in the Middle, Far East and elsewhere, it looks as though we might eventually be left with, beside the kings and queens of England, only the kings and queens holding the forte in a deck of cards. What's surprising is that most-if not all-the hotshot political analysts and soothsayers throughout, as far as I could discern, have been caught completely flat-footed and dumbfounded and they can only best diagnose, in retrospect, the recent global conundrum as simply "a spontaneous social combustion."
To return to my main theme, there's probably little reason to believe that the international situation has improved to the extent as to make the function of an organisation like Amnesty International redundant.
Amnesty International has been the premier and original organisation of its kind, a sort of trailblazer which has spawned a large number of cousins and "associates" whose bona fides (good faith) and credibility do not always stand up to scrutiny. For example, and that's no joke, a supposedly national "human rights" group in the US was protesting a stipulation that convicted sex offenders should not be nearer than a certain distance from a "children's swimming pool" on the (would you believe?) ground that it was supposedly in violation of the sex offenders' "constitutional rights." There are other equally absurd instances. But that need not detain us.
However, it becomes necessary to remind oneself of the origins, objectives and modus operandi (method of operation) of Amnesty International so that we can better understand what it is all about and the inherent limitations and dangers "that it is heir to." Amnesty International was founded by British lawyer Peter Benenson in the 1950s. Benenson attended political trials both as observer and defence counsel and the catalyst which triggered the formation of Amnesty International was the authoritarian government of Antonio Salazar sentencing two Portuguese students to seven years' imprisonment for simply raising their glasses in a toast to freedom. It should be pointed out that no group has worked more visibly or assiduously to end "human rights" abuses wherever they occur.
In fact, Amnesty International collected many kudos, including a Nobel Prize, along the way. Its Magna Carta (charter of liberties) is the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose basic tenet is:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Undoubtedly, "human rights" and "natural justice" are laudable concepts "devoutly to be wished," and even attained, but they have regrettably been trivialised by the tomfoolery of some activists with their own agenda or whose conviction and enthusiasm appear to have exceeded their own best judgment. In which case, some are suckered into espousing phoney causes, thereby resulting in an erosion of credibility that is bound to adversely affect participation in genuine cases.
A case that comes to mind is that of one Michael De Freitas who went by the names Michael X and Abdul Malik. The noise emanating from the external "human rights" posses suggested that he was "a political prisoner," when the fact of the matter was that this so-called Black Power leader was generally perceived here as a super-duper conman, arch-criminal and self-confessed pimp and slum lord's enforcer in England, from which he was unceremoniously extradited. His further claim to notoriety was that he was tried and convicted in Trinidad for grisly and brutal murders in his own backyard. Both victims were buried alive and one was made to dig his own grave.
One was a young barber and the other was a young British woman of aristocratic connection who also was a member of what was considered "his commune." Other members who witnessed or participated in the criminal activities became virtual prisoners thereafter. There was some speculation that Michael might have planted more bodies in his backyard garden, under the lettuce patch. Abdul Malik was tried, convicted and hanged. However, the authorities were so conscious of the frenetic efforts being made by some "human rights" group or other to prevent Abdul Malik from keeping his appointment with his executioner, that the hanging took place earlier than the traditional "following Tuesday." At least that was then the perception on the ground.
The cold-blooded killer received his just reward and provided VS Naipaul with a text or pretext for his Guerrilla novel. Ironically, the murdered English girl's twin brother was reportedly killed in an accident on the day that either Malik or his associated killer Cabot was hanged.