Check out the findings of a 2021 inquiry into Amnesty International UK: "Racist, white privilege, colonialist....".
This for an organization that has not ceased to suggest that the Lebanese people are "racist" because they can no longer bear the burden of 2 million Syrian refugees in a country of 4 million people. While the English SOBs are selling their human migrants and refugees to Rwanda, they have the gall to demand that Lebanon "absorb" and settle 2 million Syrians, half of whom are not even refugees, but are illegal thugs and criminals who cross the Syrian-Lebanese border and smuggle all kinds of goods. How can you be a refugee if you can commute daily between your host country and your home country?
The pricks of Amnesty International are salon human-rights-defenders, bourgeois leftwingers, bigoted Anglican atheists, ... who have never experienced hardship, yet who claim to be holier than thou in matters of the human condition, just like pedophile Catholic priests who counsel couples on marriage issues. High-brow British snobs whose own society is steeped in racism, class discrimnation, forced integration of other peoples (Welsh, Scots, Irish) into a so-called union, colonial oppression of nations which they leave divided and mutilated (India, Palestine...). Oh yeah, and that idiot Charles is being crowned as "King by Divine Right". Of course! By none else than the Big Zombie in the Sky himself.
Just like that asshole Robert Fisk, of the cretin concentration camp and toilet paper called The Independent, who spent a lifetime as a modern-day "orientalist" in a Lebanon under the Assad regime's vulgar occupation, kicking the agonizing country and calling it artificial and torn out by the French from a fallacious Syrian entity. Imagine the depth of hypocrisy of the English who plundered the earth for several centuries and who still find fault with French colonialism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amnesty
International UK is “institutionally racist”, “colonialist” and faces bullying
problems within its own ranks, a damning inquiry has concluded.
Initial findings of
Global HPO’s independent inquiry into the charity were published in April [2021] but
now the scale of the organisation’s issues with race have been laid bare in
their final report.
Released to Amnesty
staff members on Thursday, the 106-page document explains that equality,
inclusion and anti-racism are “not embedded into the DNA” of the organisation.
“White saviour”,
“colonialist”, “middle class” and “privileged” were among the words most used
during the testimony and focus groups to discuss Amnesty.
Diversity was also
found to be a major problem within the charity itself, with white applicants
more likely to be appointed to roles within the charity than all other groups –
and black people least likely to be given a job.
Examples of racist
incidents that left black and Asian staff uncomfortable include:
- Being regularly mistaken for
other colleagues with similar skin tone
- Negative comments about fasting
during Ramadan
- Treating black skin, hair and
appearance as matters of fascination and touching hair without consent
- Rude comments about minority
celebrities, politicians or events
“Our view is that
‘white saviour, middle class and privileged’ is a perception that forms an
important part of the AIUK narrative about its history and legacy,” the inquiry
found.
“A perception that
has not been addressed and as such manifests in the negative cultural paradigm
of exclusion and racism at AIUK. There is a need for the impact of this legacy
to be acknowledged and addressed as part of the transition to becoming
anti-racist.”
Recommendations for
improvement include refraining from collating diversity data into one
homogeneous black, Asian and minority ethnic (Bame) group and providing
training to improve equality monitoring.
“Dysfunctional
internal activism” – in which staff view anti-racism and fair treatment as
“unwinnable” endeavours – also needs to be addressed, the report adds.
Particular attention
should paid to the employment and retention of black African and black
Caribbean staff at AIUK , the inquiry ruled, as these groups fare the worst
within the charity.
Sacha Deshmukh,
Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “It is critical in the change
that we need to make at Amnesty UK that we acknowledge that this report makes
abundantly clear the scale of the transformation we must make to change lots
about Amnesty UK as a place to work.
“GHPO have helped us
to identify where we must make changes and we will not shy away from this work,
especially as it is clear it is long overdue.
“I am glad that the
inquiry team have recognised that some improvements have started here in the
last year, but that doesn’t in any way diminish the seriousness of the findings
nor should it make us at all complacent about the task ahead of us.
“But I do believe
that with a transformation we can make Amnesty UK an example of a cause-driven
organisation with an excellent working environment and culture for all
colleagues.
“That should be our
goal, and it is our duty not just to our colleagues but to our hundreds of
thousands of supporters that we deliver it.”
The independent
inquiry conducted by Global HPO was commissioned by a joint group drawn from
different parts of Amnesty UK, including the Section Board, Amnesty activists,
the staff trade union shop, management and former staff, in October 2021.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amnesty International has culture of white privilege, report finds
This article is from 2021
Amnesty International has a culture of white privilege with
incidents of overt racism including senior staff using the N-word and
micro-aggressive behaviour such as the touching of black colleagues’ hair,
according to an internal review into its secretariat.
It came as eight current and former employees of Amnesty
International UK (AIUK) described their own experiences of racial
discrimination and issued a statement calling on senior figures to stand down.
One
of the whistleblowers, Katherine Odukoya, said: “We joined Amnesty hoping to
campaign against human rights abuses but were instead let down through
realising that the organisation actually helped perpetuate them.”
Representatives of both arms of the UK-based human rights
organisation apologised and pledged to make changes, with the director of AIUK
citing “the uncomfortable fact that we have not been good enough”.
The internal review at Amnesty’s international
secretariat, commissioned following the Black Lives Matter movement,
recorded multiple examples of workers reporting alleged racism including:
Senior staff using the N-word and P-word, with colleagues
labelled over-sensitive if they complained.
Systemic bias including the capability of black staff being
questioned consistently and without justification, and minority ethnic staff
feeling disempowered and sidelined on projects.
A lack of awareness or sensitivity to religious practices
resulting in problematic comments and behaviour.
Aggressive and dismissive behaviour, particularly over
email and often directed towards staff in offices in the global south.
In June last year the international board of Amnesty
International sent an email to staff addressing the Black Lives Matter movement
and racism. Citing the killing of George Floyd, it said racism was encoded into
the “very organisational model” of the human rights body, which had been shaped
by the “colonial power dynamics and borders” that were “fresh” at the time of
its founding in 1961.
It continued: “Despite some notable and hard-won changes in
recent years, control and influence over our resources, decision-making … has
remained overwhelmingly in the hands of … people from the white majority Global
North.”
It said there had been bias and insensitivity in the way
some people were treated at the international secretariat – the arm of the
organisation which sets policy and hires researchers from hubs across the
world, with headquarters in London.
The board went on to inform staff that an independent
review would take place. Over the next few months, workplace experts from the
consultancy Howlett Brown conducted a “temperature check”. They were given
access to staff surveys and carried out six focus groups made up of 51 staff
including two exclusively attended by black staff.
Published in October 2020 but not press released, the
46-page internal report by Howlett Brown, focused on Amnesty’s international
secretariat, summarised: “Remarks (in the focus groups) were consistently
shared that the external face of Amnesty (International Secretariat) is very
different to its internal face.” The experts recommended that to resolve issues
there would need to be a recognition of the “systemic privileges that exist”.
A statement released alongside the report by the Amnesty
International coalition leadership team said it was “sobered” by the findings,
adding: “It is a timely reminder that discrimination, racism and anti-Black
racism exist in our organisation. It has highlighted both the extent and
systematic nature of racism and indicates we must address white privilege
wherever it exists.”
Separately, staff at AIUK, which is also based in London
but has a separate employment structure from the international secretariat,
made claims of racial discrimination, telling the Guardian there were
similarities between their experiences and the culture at the international
secretariat.
They described feeling “dehumanised” over their race and
ethnicity over a number of years, with some reporting official grievances.
In a joint statement, two current and six former employees
of AIUK called for the director, senior management team and board to resign,
claiming the leadership “knowingly upheld racism and actively harmed staff from
ethnic minority backgrounds”.
Odukoya, who worked within the campaigns and community
organising teams at AIUK, said that as a black woman she was constantly
mentally exhausted navigating an environment that was “hostile to blackness”. “There’s
a hegemonic white middle-class culture that seemed to be protected and
reproduced. White privilege was pervasive,” she said.
Odukoya described colleagues at AIUK commenting on her hair
and requesting to touch it, making negative references to her “urban” accent
and referring to her as the “black girl”.
In 2019 she raised a grievance concerning racial and gender
discrimination, alleging that she had been manipulated into working above her
pay grade without the correct remuneration. AIUK did not uphold the claim but
reached a settlement with Odukoya in May last year.
Aldred, 31, claimed that minority ethnic staff were
overlooked for promotions, with pay reviews consistently favouring high-earning
white senior leaders. He said the leadership had exonerated themselves of
wrongdoing.
“Working for AIUK destroyed my self-confidence, my belief
in my capabilities. I didn’t think I was skilled enough to do my job, that any
organisation would ever hire me, let alone promote me, and I suffered from
ongoing depression and anxiety,” said Aldred.
Kate Allen, the director of AIUK, apologised, saying these
were serious and challenging concerns and, although she could not discuss
individual cases, the allegations of discrimination would be taken seriously
and investigated. “We know that institutional racism exists in the UK and, like
any other organisation, we aren’t immune to this very real problem,” she said.
“We recognise that we have not done enough to ensure that
our organisation is a truly inclusive one where everyone receives the same
level of respect and opportunity, is valued equally and is able to be heard. We
are reckoning with the uncomfortable fact that we have not been good enough and
from this, we understand that we must change to become better.”
In response to the Howlett Brown report, Allen said the
international secretariat had also taken significant measures to act on its
findings. While the report did not look at AIUK, Allen recognised that it must
also adapt, and had undertaken a review of its structure and governance in
relation to racism.
Amnesty International said it wholeheartedly apologised to
any staff who experienced discrimination. It said the accounts detailed in the
Howlett Brown report were “unacceptable” and it acknowledged that across many
levels there was not full equality. It said that allegations of racist language
had been dealt with in line with its human resources policies and following the
report it had committed to actively tackling the root causes of the issues
identified.
In February 2019, it was revealed that Amnesty International had a “toxic” working
environment. A review into workplace culture, commissioned
after two staff members killed themselves in 2018, found widespread bullying.