The Sunday Times reports Salman Rushdie as saying that Amnesty International is suffering from moral bankruptcy. Having posted more than once criticizing Amnesty for its collaboration with Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners, this is a sentiment I might be expected to applaud. But I don't.
Everyone should be so morally bankrupt. An organization that has campaigned for human rights as long as Amnesty has, and that continues to do so, is far from having run out of moral capital. Amnesty has made a serious error, and it is a bad sign that so far it declines to acknowledge this error, choosing instead to meet the criticism by means of an obvious evasion. It repeats and repeats - as Kate Allen does again in the linked report - that Amnesty will 'continue to press for "universal respect" for human rights' when that is not the issue over which it has been criticized. Both the error and the evasion (also being dished out currently, with a bunch of other flannel, in response to telephonic expressions of concern) do damage the organization's reputation, as Rushdie says as well. But the condemnation of Amnesty for moral bankruptcy is manifestly hyperbolic, and it decreases the chance of Amnesty taking seriously the negative reaction to its mistake, and of others being persuaded that there are sound reasons for the concern felt by many of its supporters. (See also here, for Rushdie's full statement. Thanks: JD.)