courtesy of bangladeshihindu.com

It’s amazing how some brand names can be so popular that it becomes the first name to come to mind when you need to purchase a certain type of product. Sure there are other brands selling the same product, but this particular brand had done a stellar job for you in the past and it would be such a big risk trying other brands anyway. Hansaplast and Arnotts are notable examples for such brands. Such brand names earn their reputation through the quality of their products and the way they reinvent themselves so that they do not become obsolete in a society of changing tastes and trends. International organisations can also be classified under this category of “super brand” names – brand names that are credible, trustworthy and encapsulate the gist of what is good about the “product”. Greenpeace International comes to mind when discussing the topic of environmental conservation; UNICEF has come to represent the effort for humanitarian aid for children in war-torn, third world countries. Similarly, in the world of Human Rights campaigning and advocacy, Amnesty International can claim the title of “super brand”.

It beggars belief how some people can perceive the efforts of Amnesty International so negatively. Some of the criticisms I’ve heard levelled at them include, “over-zealous”, “unrealistic” and the worst of all, “trouble-makers”. Yet their presence in Australia remains strong and their visibility is growing. We have all seen Amnesty representatives standing on the streets, asking people to support their causes, either through donations or just to add a signature in the petitions. Many of them are volunteers, or earns a pittance standing on the streets and getting ignored by passer-bys. It is a thankless job, and perhaps a futile one. Nonetheless, their efforts have contributed to a growing awareness that Human Rights activists are here to stay and that they are going to have a greater say in the way Australia is run.

So how does Human Rights efforts concern Australia? Surely Australia, as a developed nation, has no major violations of Human Rights? Surely Australia has legal mechanisms in place so as to prosecute anyone for serious breaches of fundamental rights? Dead wrong. The sad reality is that these breaches do happen in Australia, and we are the only democracy in the world without a Bill of Rights – a legislative instrument that codifies Human Rights and outlaw breaches of Human Rights. Such a statistic is damning evidence that the government has been slow in coming to terms with developments around the world. It has led to undesirable outcomes such as the judgement in Al-Kateb v Godwin, where it was justified that failed asylum seekers can be detained indefinitely. In addition, examples like the extended detention of Dr Haneef for suspicion of terrorism and the capture and subsequent torture of Jack Thomas – Jihad Jack, can serve to remind Australians that they are not immune to atrocities against Human Rights. Retired High Court judge Justice McHugh, in his address to Sydney University law students, reflected that the High Court of Australia was unable to prevent an unjust outcome in cases due to a lack of parliamentary direction. However, there has been a movement to address this need and the Australian government is actively seeking opinions from Australians for this purpose. At the forefront of this movement is Amnesty Australia, encouraging citizens to put forth their views, so that the voices of common Australians can be heard.

Amnesty Australia also encourages Australians to take an interest in events around the world. Many of the campaigns run by Amnesty focuses on breaches of Human Rights around the world. Why should we be advocating for people in other countries? Almost all of the people who are the subject of these campaigns live in countries that may not have press freedom or even a functional government. Their plight would be ignored and forgotten if not for the efforts of Amnesty. An example is the heart-wrenching story of Ma Khin Khin Leh, a schoolteacher and mother who was sentenced to life imprisonment in Burma after authorities could not find her political activist husband. She suffered from poor health due to bad conditions in prison and it was feared that she might not be able to survive much longer. Amnesty campaigned for her release since her arrest almost ten years ago and when she was finally released on 24^th February 2009, it was treated as a success story. Such small victories are indicative of their relevance in the world today, and provide impetus for them to continue their work.

Perhaps the biggest impediment to the success of Amnesty is apathy. The day Australians cease to take an interest in world affairs will be the day democracy and freedom fails. Youths today grew up in relatively peaceful times. They were not exposed to the terrors of war and hardship, instead, they were thrusted into an environment of competition and capitalism. Hence it may cultivate a culture of complacency and an attitude of watching out only for themselves. While it is not their fault if this becomes the prevalent attitude, it would be disastrous for the next generation of leaders to propose legislative changes if they cannot engage with an apathetic electorate. The famous poem by Martin Niemoller warns of the dangers of political apathy, and perhaps it would be a fitting to conclude with it.

“They came first for the Communists,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Catholic.

Then they came for me,

and by that time no one was left to speak up.”