Curious about the apparent inconsistency between Amnesty International’s views on torture and those of its proud member Philip Ruddock, I fired off an email to Amnesty asking if they were as troubled as I was. The reply is quite interesting:

I am replying to your email concerning Commonwealth Attorney General, Philip Ruddock’s membership and public association with Amnesty International. This issue has been one of deep concern for many Amnesty International Australia members and supporters. There is no doubt that numerous statements made by Mr Ruddock as a member of the Australian Government and policy positions taken by the Australian government, particularly with respect to refugees and human rights and security, are in direct opposition to Amnesty International policies.

For a number of years, the Board of Amnesty International Australia has made formal and informal representations to Mr Ruddock. We have requested him to refrain from wearing the Amnesty International badge or identifying himself as an Amnesty International member while engaged in his official duties. Our requests in this regard have not been successful.

The issue was debated at quite some length at the 2002 National Annual General Meeting and it was decided that:

“Amnesty International Australia should direct its energies towards campaigning on human rights issues rather than on the Amnesty International Australia membership of Philip Ruddock.”

Accordingly, since that decision, our focus has been on our human rights work. In those areas where there is a difference in the policy being espoused by Mr Ruddock on behalf of the Australian government and the policy held by Amnesty International Australia, we have been fearless in our criticism of Australia’s human rights policy and practices. Our strict financial independence from government has enabled us to strenuously fight for human rights protection.

Earlier this year, the Board of Amnesty International Australia reviewed Amnesty’s position concerning Mr Ruddock’s membership and reaffirmed the decision of the 2002 National Annual General Meeting. Accordingly, we will continue to direct our energies and resources to campaigning on human rights issues rather than on Mr Ruddock’s membership of Amnesty International.

We hope that this will not lessen your support of Amnesty International, which has a critical role to play in Australia and the world at large, and which needs your support. Working together, we can continue to make a difference – we can save lives and protect the rights and needs of people suffering or in danger of suffering abuses – irrespective of the policies which Mr Ruddock espouses.

Mr Ruddock is fully aware of Amnesty International’s principled approach to human rights issues. His membership of Amnesty International and his wearing of the badge are ultimately matters for his own conscience. Quite simply, it is up to him to live up to the values which are enshrined in the Amnesty lapel badge which he wears.

So it’s clear that Ruddock is a member of Amnesty International for nothing more than political purposes. Amnesty have made it clear that they’d rather he disassociate himself with their organisation while espousing policy which is counter to their ideals, yet he keeps wearing the badge in order to leach off their good name.

All power to Amnesty International. They keep accepting Philip Ruddock’s $55 annual membership fee, putting his money to good use fighting the filth he espouses.