Extremists Have Taken Control of the Asylum

Amnesty International--a Bad Actor

Amnesty International has been taken over by its "staff", many of whom use the organization to promote their own ideologies and hatred.

David Collier has researched and written a report on the organization.  The Executive Summary reads as follows:

Key findings:

• The research found extreme bias in the output of many Amnesty employees.

• Amnesty has employed people with open pro-terrorist sympathies, crucially relying
on them to provide information upstream that shapes opinion. One Amnesty
consultant was found tweeting support for a terrorist group and sharing advice
about hiding the truth to protect the ‘resistance’. Another was found giving advice to
‘factions’ asking not to publicly identify ‘martyrs’ as belonging to terrorist groups.

• When the existence of this research became public knowledge, some Amnesty staff
deleted public social media accounts in what appears to have been an attempt to
hide evidence.

• Amnesty International has recruited ‘one-cause’ activists despite their obvious
unsuitability for any organisation seeking to demonstrate impartiality.

• ‘Silence’ and ‘noise’ define Amnesty activity. There is silence in some areas and
obsessive noise in others. Amnesty employees choose on whom they wish to focus
on and whom they don’t.



• In areas of sectarian violence, by dressing up hostile activists as ‘human rights
defenders’, Amnesty International endangers the lives of genuine human rights
activists.

• Israel is not the only issue negatively affected by bias. India is another target of
unnatural Amnesty hostility.

• Persecuted Christians across the globe do not receive the coverage that their
suffering warrants.

• Amnesty are a large NGO with a global reach. In order to grow, Amnesty
International lowered their guard to issues of bias and this has destroyed parts of the
organisation from within.

• As Amnesty grew, politicised employees became more able to use it for their own
causes.

• Amnesty International’s energy rests largely on the bias and motivations of its
employees.

• Some of Amnesty’s staff have little interest in human rights beyond their hatred of
Israel. It is logical to assume the same level of bias could be directed at other targets
by staff with different obsessions.

• Amnesty’s enthusiasm level surges on anti-Israel campaigns. There are more of
them, they are visibly better funded, and they are more widely spread.

• Amnesty’s arsenal is turned towards Israel. All of its departments appear to allocate
disproportionate resources to attack Israel. The cumulative effect results in what can
only be termed as a never-ending obsession.

• Amnesty pursues a policy that aligns with full BDS (Boycott, Divestment & Sanction),
producing material in such a coordinated manner that one inevitably concludes that
the strategy is deliberate.

• As Amnesty displays a symbiotic relationship with BDS, it is fair to conclude that
elements within Amnesty International actively seek to promote the destruction of
the Jewish state.

• Because there is a religious aspect to some of Amnesty’s obsession, we conclude
that the cumulative effect of the organisation’s unnatural hostility towards Israel is
antisemitic.

• Amnesty International allows the obsessions of its employees to drive its activity at
the cost of the lives of people caught up in more worthwhile causes, which are left
unpublicised and under-supported.

• Amnesty International is political in nature, distributes some toxic ideology and
displays unnatural, blatant hostility towards certain nationalities. There are places,
such as schools, that currently grant it access. The logic behind granting these
permissions should be revisited.

• Amnesty should commission an external and completely independent investigation
into the issues highlighted by this research.

• Until these internal issues are addressed, Amnesty should roll-back campaigns that
have been launched in areas where its objectivity has been clearly compromised.

• Amnesty should consider rotating staff and volunteers who work on areas of
sectarian conflict and set about searching for an effective replacement to the ‘Work
On Own Country’ rule. Its current processes are clearly flawed.