Activism Change

MIM and its Banning: II

Question:

M.A.P.’s ban of MIM and Amnesty International by the Maoist Internationalist Movement Harel Barzilai et. al. banned us from ACTIV-L around January 9th and have referred to Amnesty International’s reports on the Shining Path as a reason why. There are a number of things that need to be raised about Amnesty International in this context. 1. Amnesty International does not claim to be "progressive," while MIM does, so perhaps Barzilai et. al. should rename their conferences to misc.activism.amnesty or misc.activism.human-rights or merge with a civil-liberties conference. Here’s what Amnesty International has to say about politics: "Amnesty International does not oppose or support any government or political system. Its members around the world include supporters of differing systems who agree on the defence of all people in all countries against imprisonment for their beliefs, and against torture and execution." (Political Killings by Governments, Amnesty International, 1983, p. 124) Hence, to attack MIM as not "progressive" based on what Amnesty International says is opportunism because Amnesty International itself would make no such determination on the word "progressive." 2. Amnesty I. attracts a middle-class clientele that already has its other "human-rights" taken care of–food, shelter clothing. Hence it can afford to focus on open political repression. Here is what it has to say about other issues: "Through its practical work for prisoners, Amnesty International participates in the wider promotion and protection of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights." (Ibid., p. 124) That’s as close as you will get to hearing some broader acknowledgement of human-rights from Amnesty International. Perhaps if Amnesty Int’l had counted "human-rights" with regard to food, clothing, shelter and health care, it would have a better sense of who the real "human-rights" violators are. 3. If the ban of MIM really had to do with Amnesty International then M.A.P. would ban just our articles on subjects that Amnesty International disagreed with. The fact that M.A.P. banned our whole operation over the word "progressive" demonstrates that Amnesty is not the center of the issue. Plain old political disagreement is. That disagreement amounts to the support of one agenda–that of the Socialist Workers Party, which also supports Castro. Barzilai et. al. cited the SWP articles and Castro as reasons why MIM should be banned from M.A.P. However, since Castro is in trouble with the human-rights groups as well, perhaps Barzilai et. al. should have banned themselves from posting Socialist Workers Party articles, since the SWP often publishes Castro’s speeches and otherwise cheerleads for him.

Response:

#Barzilai et. al. cited the SWP articles and Castro as #reasons why MIM should be banned from M.A.P. However, #since Castro is in trouble with the human-rights groups #as well, perhaps Barzilai et. al. should have banned #themselves from posting Socialist Workers Party articles, #since the SWP often publishes Castro’s speeches and #otherwise cheerleads for him. # Indeed.   How about it, MAP? Care to have a consistent line on human rights? (I just love Brehznevite vs. Maoist fights.  To everyone outside of Cuba, North Korea, and parts of Peru it has the air of a grandly irrelevant exercise; something like catapult building or mechanical mouse maze racing.) — Don McGregor             | "Adventure without risk is Disneyland."

Response:

Filed under: Activism

Related Posts

• Mexican citizen executed in U.S.
• TIGER ALERT : AUS STUDENTS : THE RIOTING TO COME
• U2 in Rolling Stone This month
• Fahrenheit 911 is Fair and Balanced
• ACTIVIST NEWSGROUP: misc.activism.progressive (v.1,Monthly auto-post
• NAFTA COULD COST 150,000 JOBS LABOR SECRETARY SAYS
• Response to curfew in Berkeley, CA
• mind voyeurs
• Doctors versus Lawyers (Joke)
• "Brooklyn" Pete's letter to Dick Eastman (The big picture in the simplest terms & the spiritual response))