Talk:Amnesty International Ireland

"Controversy"

Barumba, Amnesty applied for a grant, received it, and declares it in its returns and publishes it in its accounts and on its website: "Amnesty International Ireland applied for and received funding from the Open Society Foundation to part fund our campaign on sexual and reproductive rights. In line with our commitment to high standards of transparency, and as with all areas of our funding, this is publicly reported upon, both to our membership and on our website when we publish our audited accounts." So where does the controversy arise? Amnesty is also registered with SIPO. Similar organisations opposing the right to choose are also funded from abroad yet don't even publish accounts! PLC, Youth Defence, Iona Institute/Lolek Ltd.? That is controversial.

If the consensus is to retain this "controversy" section, then we will be changing your selective quote "for the specific purpose of overturning Ireland's 8th Amendment which '... acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother ...' to reflect "In July the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) criticized Ireland’s 'highly restrictive legislation on abortion and its strict interpretation thereof', and its 'criminalization of abortion, including in the cases of rape and incest and of risk to the health of a pregnant woman'. It recommended that Ireland take all necessary steps, including a referendum on abortion, to revise its legislation on abortion. Concerns were raised at the impact on women and girls of the law on access to and information about abortion, and how the constitutional protection afforded to the foetus also impacted on maternity care. Abortion is constitutionally permitted only when a woman’s or girl’s life is at 'real and substantial risk', and carries a possible 14-year prison sentence in all other circumstances."

It should also be noted that on the PLC article you stated that the Irish Times is a biased source, yet here you're using the "Catholic News Agency" as a source, and you don't see any conflict between those two positions... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The revelation through leaked documentation is relevant and is a story. It was not common knowledge outside Amnesty Ireland that they were receiving such large sums of money from outside the state and for political purposes. It only came to light through a major leak that was part of an international news story. It was revealed, as you well know, that the foundation that granted the money did so with a particular agenda. Calling into question the source is fine but other sources were cited so you really don't have a case. If you don't think it's a controversy then remove that particular word but there is no need to remove the entire section because it certainly is relevant. Oh, and if you want to discuss a differnt article then it's best to discuss it on that page. The grant, according to the leaked documentation which can be found online was to overturn teh 8th amendment and the quote from the 8th Amendment itself seems to be of concern to you though you do not make it clear why this the case. You'll have to do a better job of making your case before you remove entire sections like that. Barumba (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't revealed through a leaked document though!! DCLeaks dates from June 2016 at the earliest. As the Annual report & conference papers 2016 for the annual conference which was in April 2016, they state: "Open Society Foundation funding of €79,200 is also budgeted". AII were talking about funding from Open Society months before DCLeaks. ___Ebelular (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

They were taking money for domestic political campaigning from a controversial foreign and this only came to be reported when the documents were leaked. Whatever way you spin it that's the timeline. Barumba (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"this only came to be reported when the documents were leaked"' no, it came to light before the "leak". ____Ebelular (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

As PLC also receives donations from abroad, either that stays in, or the whole thing comes out. WP does not rely on primary sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

As this is an article about a completely different organisation it has no place here. If you really feel it belongs on Wikipedia then include it in the article about the PLC. Regarding the leaked documents and their reporting, this was was because it was not widely known and it represents an attempt by a foundation based outside the state to influence a political issue in Ireland. If you want to argue that this was widely known before the leaks then offer some proof. Barumba (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not up to me to argue. See WP:NPOV. See also WP:PRIMARY. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Can certain editors spare us the "british imperialist/ colonialist" clap-trap. Bolstered here by an "international liberal elite". Conspiracy theories and ideological politicking are childish and tiring. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Quite bizarre edits, indeed - well spotted. Someone's NPOV is showing... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I am well experienced in spotting these sorts of edits. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Amnesty International as an organisation is headquartered in London, England. Nothing bizarre about mentioning this fact "International" is far too vague. Is it a Chinese group? A Russian group? Since this organisation has chosen to open a branch in Ireland, with the explicit aim of changing Irish laws,the fact that it is a British-based group is relevant (especially given the history of British-Irish relations), just as we mention on the Irish Daily Mail article that it is a spinoff of the British newspaper for transparency. Just because you personally support the British/AI political position doesn't mean we hide where the group is from. Note that I only changed the dubious term "international" to "London-headquartered", not mentioning words such as liberal, imperialist, colonialist or conspiracy. Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Good jebus. It's an international organisation, with branches in over 60 countries. Get over the British imperialist thing, Claoimh, we've been an independent sovereign state for 95 years... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It is an organisation with tentacles in many different countries, yes, but where is the head of the Octopus? London. This is disputed by nobody. Amnesty International is a British-headquartered organsiation. Yes, Ireland is a sovereign state, so when a neighbouring state, which is quite infamous for its subversive activities across the world to this day (including lunatic schemes like trying to incite conflicts between world powers) works to change the Irish Constitution through its proxies like AI, then the least we can do it be transparent and mention that AI is a British group. Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"Works to change the Irish Constitution through its proxies like AI". Unless you can point to evidence this is happening then stop with the conspiracy theories. I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed, genuinely, one of the most amazing and bizarre statements I've seen in 12 years of WP participation. But no doubt CS will be equally diligent in inserting "Roman organisation" before each mention of the Iona Institute, Pro Life Campaign, Youth Defence, et al, throughout Wikipedia... no? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Spot on. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Strawman. None of those organisations are headquartered in Rome or are in any way controlled by the Vatican. The Catholic Church in Ireland article already mentions that it is in communion with the Papacy in the first paragraph of the introduction on its article, so lets mention Amnesty International Ireland's communion with HQ in London. The 8th Amendment of the Irish Constitution explicitly condemns abortion, an Amendment which this British-based group is openly attempting to subvert. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Should we also add that the Vatican controlled Irish politics during most of the twentieth century? Just for the avoidance of doubt. You need to grow up Claiomh Solais. Your shiny sword is looking decidedly rusty. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Good grief. It makes no sense to call Amnesty "British". It's an international org. The UN has headquarters in New York, so is it an American org?

Some people like to point out about the Brits interfering with Ireland. But there's another angle. George Soros is Jewish. "Where is the Ocotopus headquatered?" indeed. Given YD friendlyness with neo-nazi groups, I'm not surprised to see some pro-life campaigners complain about an international jewish conspiracy to blah blah. ____Ebelular (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

International is far too vague and convenient for those who support the British imperialist narrative, all organisations have a base and an origin. The television network Russia Today operates on an international basis, but, obviously, it is Russian. IKEA operates all over Europe, but it is Swedish. Just as Amnesty International operates out of London and all of the other "chapters" answer to the narrative set in England.

Our job is simply to report on things, so if the kill-the-babies and overthrow the Irish Constitution lobby decides to take money from George Soros and decides to get into bed with British organisations, then there is no reason to hide that here.

PS - as to the Jewishness of George Soros, which for some reason you want to highlight instead. The whole ideology of the Open Society is derived from Isaiah Berlin, a very British Jew, who was groomed into the British Imperialist Lockean ideology at the University of Oxford and even spied for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Hardly an Ellen Odette Bischoffsheim or a Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog. Britain has been sabotaging other countries for hundreds of years, all I am requesting is transparency; call a spade a spade, or rather a Brit a Brit. Claíomh Solais (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Loathe as I am to feed the trolls... Kill-the-babies?! Overthrow the Constitution?! Nobody is advocating either - unless you have evidence to the contrary? Last time I checked, abortion - which is legal in Ireland and provided for by an appallingly badly worded referendum in 1983 - only refers to zygotes and foetuses. And constitutional referendums are - believe it or not - provided for in the Constitution, and are democratic. Or to use your own warped analogy, was our constitution subverted in 1983 by a foreign Roman organisation acting through proxy agencies? Gasp! Someone should do something! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)