The Amnesty Rule

Has anyone ever accused Amnesty International of being silent on (insert abuse here) and not been lying through their teeth? Seriously; I’ve had this argument so many times on the Internet since, ooh, 1996 or thereabouts. It always follows this pattern:

A: Amnesty International says that some government/movement/company/faceless mob B supports is doing something incredibly evil.
B: Amnesty International? Well, A, why doesn’t Amnesty do anything about government/movement/company/faceless mob, opposed to my cause, and their incredible evil?
C: Actually, Amnesty organised a entire campaign against it. It’s in their annual report for YEAR, which is online, at LINK.
B: Woof woof woof. *waves hands*

I don’t think I’ve ever seen this happen when B actually had a point – time after bleeding time, it followed this exact course. I therefore intended to declare this as a law, like Godwin’s Law. The Amnesty rule – anyone who asks “why doesn’t Amnesty speak out on X?” is lying.

  1. 1 Pickled Politics » Losing the plot

    […] I didn’t bother fisking Gita Sahgal’s article on openDemocracy, who should be ashamed for publishing such libellous rubbish, but someone else has. Alex points out the Amnesty rule. […]

  2. 2 The Amnesty rule | Wis[s]e Words

    […] off my own post yesterday, Alex proposes the Amnesty rule: I don’t think I’ve ever seen this happen when B actually had a point – […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: