I was planning on keeping out of the whole Amnesty international report debacle, mainly because there is enough infighting among the human rights sector as it is and that just allows those seeking to undermine those rights more opportunities. This tweet changes that. 1/
You would have to have particularly strong rose tinted spectacles to think that in any war either side is going to come out completely blameless and looking whiter than white, but there are degrees and there are nuances which need to be clearly made. 2/
Let's be brutally honest here, Russia is committing a genocide in Ukraine. "Genocide" is a word, like Nazi, which often gets thrown around so much it loses any meaning, so I say it with all due regard and caution. The Ukraine war is a genocide. 3/
In any war it is ideally the case that both sides should do their utmost to protect civilian life. What we are seeing in Ukraine though is the repeated shelling of civilian areas by Russian forces. 4/
That makes it pretty damn hard for Ukrainian forces not to be deployed to the areas which Russian forces are attacking, i.e civilian ones. Again, this isn't a war, it is an attempted genocide by Russia. 5/
Is Ukraine entirely above reproach, of course not. Conflicts are never black and white. Does Ukraine have the right to do everything it can from a foreign aggressor determined to wipe it off the face of the planet? Within the rules of international warfare, yes. 6/
Nothing stated in the report shows that Ukraine has engaged in war crimes, yet the framing of it without a more nuanced and closer look at international law presents it almost as if they are, particularly for bad faith actors looking to spin it. 7/
We are already seeing a growing movement, including some quite senior members in left wing politics, calling for countries to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine as a means to stop the war. The inevitable outcome of which is Ukraine loses. 8/
Should @amnesty provide a balanced view and call for civilians to be protected? I would argue yes. It's an important aspect of their work. Should they do it in such a provocative way which allows for arguments ultimately leading to Russia succeeding in a genocide? No. 9/
It is not "impartiality" to fail to cover all aspects of a situation and lead to the conclusion, deliberate or otherwise, that both sides are as bad as each other. The litany of Russian war crimes is extensive. 10/
If you are going to write a report like this you need to be very careful as to what you say and how you frame it. Failing to fully cover the nuances of international law of armed conflicts automatically undermines that. 11/
Amnesty had to know that this report would be weaponised by Russia. That should have been factored in and all steps taken to ensure that the framing and content could not be used for disinformation. No matter what else, they failed to do that spectacularly. 12/
And for a more detailed look at exactly how @amnesty got the law wrong in its report I would recommend this thread by @marcgarlasco 13/
Well this took off a little more than expected. Going to mute the thread now as my mentions are an absolute state and I can't keep track.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Daniel Sohege 🧡

Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @stand_for_all

Dec 13, 2022
Unveiling even harsher asylum policies, which seem to violate international law with blanket refusals, won't reduce channel crossings. That will only happen by recognising that people, including Albanians, need protection and not discrimination. #r4today
The thing is none of this is even new. The same tired old policies which have been tested, tried and failed every single time, through being illegal, inhumane, unworkable or all three. There is evidence that harsher policies make things worse though.
People aren't "gaming modern slavery laws". Trafficking is increasing globally. The rise in people being referred to the National Referral Mechanism isn't from more people lying about trafficked. It is because we are getting better at identifying victims.

Read 4 tweets
Dec 10, 2022
Thread: As yes the "liberal" defence of illegal and inhumane actions against people seeking safety. First off those "inconstestable" facts are indeed contested, by, uhm, the Home Office. Awkward. 1/
thetimes.co.uk/article/91c153… ImageImage
Rejecting human rights is unlikely to make a significant difference, unless that is you support removing people to countries where they face torture or inhumane treatment, in which case I would personally argue you cannot call yourself "liberal". 2/
Ah yes, the "liberal" argument of detaining people indefinitely. Keeping in mind you still cannot send them off to countries which you don't have a returns agreement with, at a cost of about £100 per day, so yeah, that works to save money Matt. 3/
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/brie…. ImageImage
Read 9 tweets
Dec 10, 2022
Thread: Once upon a time #humanrights were supported across political parties, across other ideologies. Now we have members of the House of Lords calling for the UK to leave not only human rights conventions, but the refugee convention. #HumanRightsDay2022, #r4today 1/
Attacking #HumanRights weakens them for everyone, not just people you don't like. More than that though, by weakening them here we risk also compounding a global undermining of human rights. There's nothing "democratic" or "taking back control" about forcing people to suffer. 3/
Certain people keep claiming that human rights laws are preventing the UK from deporting "dangerous criminals". Declines in enforced removals, which are now going up again, have nothing to do with any magic legal loophole used by "lefty lawyers". 4/
gov.uk/government/sta… ImageImage
Read 15 tweets
Dec 4, 2022
Thread: Okay, let's set some things straight here. We are in a cost of living crisis which is leaving millions destitute. If a relatively small number of people crossing the channel to seek safety is Sunak's biggest concern his priorities are broken. 1/

"Concern", arguably driven by the sheer weight of misleading information, is growing, but still not even close to "vast". It still ranks way below other key issues, again like the economy, so, again, bit worrying that this seems to be the priority. 2/
Deep sigh. First off, any report written by Nick Timothy can pretty much be discounted immediately, but this one in particular is glaringly flawed. Let's start with those "official resettlement routes" shall we? 3/
Read 15 tweets
Dec 3, 2022
THREAD: I always feel awkward about whether or not being #ActuallyAutistic is a disability. I know technically, I suppose, it is. I don't see it as an issue. I live in near constant pain, that is a disability. Being autistic is just who I am. #InternationalDayOfDisability 1/
Okay, I'd better explain in more depth here, before I dig a hole I really can't get out of, although, I could just be digging it deeper. Being autistic is a rollercoaster, to say the least. It has good and bad points, and, let's be honest, has held me back in certain ways. 2/
I wouldn't change being #ActuallyAutistic for the world though. It would be like saying I wanted to change whether I breathed oxygen or not. It is just me, part of me, not the whole of me, but very much part of being me. 3/
Read 14 tweets
Nov 29, 2022
I say this as someone who is Christian. If you blame immigration on the decline of people identifying as Christian you are de-facto saying people shouldn't have a choice about whether or not they are Christian. The majority of people say they aren't. That's not about migration 1/
"This is a Christian country". Well, yeah, it's basically a theocracy if you want to look at very practical issues such as Bishops in the House of Lords or the head of state being also the head of the church, but does it matter if it is or it isn't? In real terms?. 2/
I'd argue not. My faith is my faith, and it is fairly complicated as it is anyway. I'll believe in what I believe no matter if anyone else does or doesn't. So long as it isn't causing harm then why do you honestly care what someone else believes or does not believe in? 3/
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!