Amnesty International has suspended the head of its gender unit following the publication of an article in yesterday’s Sunday Times in which the human rights body is criticised for giving a platform to a man whose views on the Taliban are best described as critically supportive.

Gita Sahgal’s comments to reporter Richard Kerbaj come after a two-year-long attempt to quietly persuade Amnesty bosses that collaborating with the former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg’s jihadist “Cageprisoners” group fundamentally damages the organisation’s reputation.

Without even naming Sahgal, Amnesty International has sought to defend itself against the charge, and its press release published online yesterday is remarkable mostly for what it doesn’t say. Even more remarkable is the fact that there is a blog comments box following the release. That is asking for trouble, even if Amnesty has no intention of publishing comments critical of the organisation.

Take, for example, the following comment from me, posted last night at 21:03 UTC, and which at the time of writing this blog post remains in the moderation queue. That despite there being published an anodyne comment, posted at 02:21 UTC this morning.

“In giving Moazzam Begg a platform, and not just working to defend his human rights, Amnesty International has failed to maintain an objective distance from the Taliban, and as a result is left morally compromised.

“I have never been active within Amnesty International, but I have over the years strongly supported the organisation and its work. In the light of the Begg affair, and Amnesty’s decision to suspend Gita Sahgal from her job immediately following the publication of her article in The Sunday Times, you leave me no option other than to reassess my personal position, and urge others to do likewise.”

The error in my comment is in referring to “her article”, when the piece is based on an interview with Sahgal. But that would not in itself justify Amnesty’s failure to publish the comment.

Being tied up as they are in practice with political ideology, campaigning for and defending human rights is always going to be a difficult business. Over the years Amnesty International has done some excellent work in this respect, so why throw it all away by aligning the organisation with individuals who would treat women like cattle? It doesn’t make sense.

This calls for an official complaint to the Charities Commission.

Update (8 February 2010 @ 12:30 UTC)

To its credit, Amnesty International has now published my comment, together with those of several others critical of the organisation’s position on Moazzam Begg and Gita Sahgal.