Talk:Prisoner of conscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.


Would anyone like to start a page that maintains a list of the AI adopted prisoners of conscience by region/country?

I couldn't find such a list on the web --Malbear 16:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we should refrain from listing particular countries here, unless we're prepared to list all of them. --Dcfleck 21:58, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Didn't AI consider Nelson Mandela a 'prisoner of conscience'? Say what you will about him, but he exercised violence against the South African government.

Actually AI did not name Nelson Mandela as a "POC" precisely because he used violence at that time. --Slp 19:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mandela was named a POC in 1962. The definition is still correct, perhaps he was an exception. Either way, I am removing him as the example from the entry. Binerman 17:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just found more info in Mandela. He was origionally adopted as POC in 1962, then his violent turn in 1964 raised concerns that resulted in the original decision to not include prisoners who advocated violence in the def of POC. Yet they continued to advocate on his behalf as a comprimise because his trial was unfair and his prison conditions severe. (info from Amnesty International: The Human Rights Story by Powers, 1981) Binerman 17:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Added some information, I hope its not too much for one go. Personally I feel that the metion of individual "Prisoners of Conscience" should be removed as they are covered in the political prisoner page. They could still be included, but perhaps by saying "some famous prisoners of conscience Amnesty International have adopted..." This would also provide a framework to talk about Nelson Mandela and how after polling the membership the origonal definition was upheld, but symbolic acts like defacing posters or tearing down flags would not exclude someone from POC status need to get a name

[edit] International Brigade Association

To IP holder 154.20.137.51

I am concerned over the inclusion of your edit, "because of its obvious links to the communist International Brigade Association" into the article as the reason why Amnesty International was refused charity status. The Claudio Veliz article you’ve provided as a source does not explicitly state this at any point. From my reading, the article interprets that Peter Benenson had used Alec Digge’s idea about an ‘Amnesty’ organisation for Spanish communists as the basis for Amnesty International.

There are several problems with this idea. Firstly, Veliz, based upon his meetings between Digges and Benenson during the mid-fifties, assumes that this was the point where Amnesty International was conceived: "...and all things evidently having been considered, Peter Benenson accepted Alec’s suggestion and took the helm of Amnesty International". However, Veliz was only visiting London in the early 1960s and by his own admission is drawing this conclusion from external appearances, meaning this view is somewhat superficial.

However, current historiography also contradicts Veliz. Linda Rabben (http://www.bu.edu/agni/essays-reviews/print/2001/54-rabben.html) and Tom Buchanan (cited in the main article) point to an array of organisations and campaigns that Benenson had been involved with or knew of as inspiration for his own organization. No doubt the supporters of the International Brigade Association was one source of inspiration, but not the only one.

Secondly, the organisation most likely to be inspired by the events in Veliz's article was the Appeal for Amnesty in Spain campaign, which was a strong supporter of the Spanish communists, and which Benenson's Appeal for Amnesty went to great lengths to distance itself from. (Buchanan, The Truth Will Set You Free, p. 580) Veliz appears to be suggesting that Amnesty International was a pro-communist front, designed to "overcome resistance to the communist onslaught". However no archival evidence has ever been published to back up the frequent accusations that Amnesty International was the stooge of some foreign power or shadowy organisation, either left or right. Veliz's evidence appears to hinge upon the circumstantial presence of Benenson with Digges. Benenson had been participating in Spanish trials since 1947, quite openly on behalf of The British Trade Union Congress which is the most probable cause of his contact with the International Brigade Association, rather than deep pro-communist sympathies. (Winner, D. People Who have Helped the World: Peter Benenson (Wisconsin: Gareth Stevens, 1991) p. 10 and Buchanan, The Truth Will Set You Free p. 578)

Thirdly, The British Government was supportive of Benenson's Amnesty International, a relationship that continued until 1966. The British government felt that, left to its own devices, Amnesty International would naturally lean towards an anti-communist organisation due to more political prisoners being held in the East than in the West. This view is incompatible with the idea of the government refusing charitable status because they feared the Amnesty International being a communist front. Kirsten Sellers provides a useful quote: 'Business began in 1963, when the Foreign Office gave the campaign its formal blessing as a body that 'provided humanitarians with an organisation free from Communist exploitation'. (Sellers, K. The Rise and Rise of Human Rights (Gloucester: Sutton Publishing, 2002) p. 98)

The most probable reason for the British Government's refusal to award Amnesty International with charitable status was an inability to comprehend a 'Prisoner of Conscience' as a purely humanitarian mission since the organisation apparently worked to change foreign political opinions to end political imprisonment so making it fall afoul of standard charity laws. This is why the 'Prisoner of Conscience Fund' was approved charitable status because it simply provided aid to prisoners and their families rather than attempting to involve itself in political/judicial affairs. To quote Steven Hopgood: 'In managing the funding, especially the absence of a reliable source of regular income, Amnesty was confronted by British charity laws that classified it, despite legal challenges and its strongly held self-image, as a political organisation'. (Hopgood, S. Keepers of the Flame: The Understanding Amnesty International (New York: Cornell University Press, 2006) p. 70)

Therefore, I am respectfully removing your edit because it is neither explicitly supported by Veliz or by the rest of the historiography and replacing it with a citation from Steven Hopgood. 82.46.179.19 12:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)