Amnesty International: Reform 2004

Candidates' Forum - Questions and Answers - Page 4

This page last updated: January 29, 2005

Question
While the Reform Slate claims not to be opposed to ESCR (economic, social and cultural rights) work, I find this to be a misleading statement. Upon reading the 2005 Reform Platform, I see that the Reform Slate is in favor of postponing the decision to go “full-spectrum” until 2007, a proposal which was soundly defeated at every AIUSA regional meeting. Doesn't that imply that the Reform Slate is opposed to ESCR work?

Answer:
I have said from the beginning when I decided to run as a petition candidate for the board last year, I did so for three reasons: One: I care deeply about the heart and soul of this organization, which for me is our work on behalf of the individual prisoner, whatever the human rights issue for which they were detained. If I had my way, we'd be sticking to the old mandate. For that I have my reasons... mainly because I think it worked. But am I "entrenched" in opposing Full Spectrum Mission (FS)? Absolutely not. Am I in favor of postponement? Yes. Will I go along with AIUSA's possibly not taking that position on the ICM delegation. Yes. If that is the will of the membership, so be it. Regarding the "so-called" Reform statement: This relates to the second reason I decided to run for the board. I believed at the time I ran, and still do, that this organization needs reform. It has worked in many ways, not all, but many, with no transparency. Board standing committee meetings were no longer held face-to-face as they were from 1995-2001 when I was previously on the board. So, yes, the word "reform" fits. Do we, the leadership of AIUSA both staff and board still need reforming? Yes, we have more work to do to reinstill a sense of trust among each other, especially after the Bocek debacle and it will take time. Third reason: Accountability. We, as an organization, need to continue to reform ourselves in that area, again related to the Bocek mess, but not only.

But back to the FS/ESCR discussion. I would have no part of any constituency that used POCs as a "red herring" in any debate. And I agree with you that FS debate and CAPs/GIGs (Country Action Programs / Global Impact Goals) issues are distinct. Nevertheless, to say we, the Reformers, are using this in the way you state is incorrect. You cannot know that, you do not know me.

I care deeply about ESCR work. I am a social worker by training, and a psychotherapist working in community mental health in one of the most economically depressed urban areas in the US. It is the community which gave birth to Kensington Welfare Rights Union, which still operates out of a storefront a few blocks from my clinic. Of course, I see the homeless, the mentally ill, the economically, socially and culturally repressed individuals as precisely that. But you couldn't know that, because you prejudged. The community in which I work has been so economically and socially repressed that on the average Kensington High School graduates only 9% of its freshman class. Edison High School, the other neighborhood high school lost more former students in Vietnam than any other high school in the United States. On a daily basis I work with the second generation posttraumatic stress disorder patients who are the children of the Vietnam vets who returned to the community with no jobs, little resources for adequate mental health and substance abuse treatment. I could go on and on.

Given what I just wrote in the latter paragraph, why would I prefer the old mandate? It is not because of my ignorance of international human rights law, it is not because I don't care about my own clients. I am fearful that this organization is moving too fast. I prefer the grave abuse "filter" because I believe it will help steer us not block us, from making sure we address the most severe abuses first.

The Reform slate believes that the International Secretariat has dimished our "historic commitment to individuals". Well if we close one action file, or don't open one, because we don't have the resources, or the individual comes from a non-CAP country and the GIGs don't include language regarding Prisoners of Conscience, then that statement is true. If we leave one straight, caucasian, non-human rights defender, from a non-cap country behind to become a "forgotten" prisoner, we will have lost our soul.

I have worked for over two decades as an active leader in this organization, working side by side with Amnesty members who supported and still support the death penalty. I will not disrespect them, nor will I disrespect you. I won't prejudge them, nor will I prejudge you. I look forward to "joining" with you in our work to protect the human rights of all individuals. Please let's keep this discussion healthy, open, respectful and non-judgmental. And remember the people on whose behalf we work.

Phyllis Pautrat
Board Member

Acronyms explained:

IEC = International Executive Committee [in essence, the "International Board"]
UDHR = Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on Dec. 10, 1948 [forms the basis of our work]
CEDAW = Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
FSA = Full Spectrum Approach [to our human rights work]
ICM = International Council Meeting [held every 2 years to make decisions for our movement]
ISP = Integrated Strategic Plan
NGO = Non-Governmental Organization [not just an AI acronym]


	Candidate Question Time
	Candidates' Forum - Questions and Answers - Page 4 This page last updated: January 29, 2005 Question While the Reform Slate claims not to be opposed to ESCR (economic, social and cultural rights) work, I find this to be a misleading statement. Upon reading the 2005 Reform Platform, I see that the Reform Slate is in favor of postponing the decision to go “full-spectrum” until 2007, a proposal which was soundly defeated at every AIUSA regional meeting. Doesn't that imply that the Reform Slate is opposed to ESCR work? Answer: I have said from the beginning when I decided to run as a petition candidate for the board last year, I did so for three reasons: One: I care deeply about the heart and soul of this organization, which for me is our work on behalf of the individual prisoner, whatever the human rights issue for which they were detained. If I had my way, we'd be sticking to the old mandate. For that I have my reasons... mainly because I think it worked. But am I "entrenched" in opposing Full Spectrum Mission (FS)? Absolutely not. Am I in favor of postponement? Yes. Will I go along with AIUSA's possibly not taking that position on the ICM delegation. Yes. If that is the will of the membership, so be it. Regarding the "so-called" Reform statement: This relates to the second reason I decided to run for the board. I believed at the time I ran, and still do, that this organization needs reform. It has worked in many ways, not all, but many, with no transparency. Board standing committee meetings were no longer held face-to-face as they were from 1995-2001 when I was previously on the board. So, yes, the word "reform" fits. Do we, the leadership of AIUSA both staff and board still need reforming? Yes, we have more work to do to reinstill a sense of trust among each other, especially after the Bocek debacle and it will take time. Third reason: Accountability. We, as an organization, need to continue to reform ourselves in that area, again related to the Bocek mess, but not only. But back to the FS/ESCR discussion. I would have no part of any constituency that used POCs as a "red herring" in any debate. And I agree with you that FS debate and CAPs/GIGs (Country Action Programs / Global Impact Goals) issues are distinct. Nevertheless, to say we, the Reformers, are using this in the way you state is incorrect. You cannot know that, you do not know me. I care deeply about ESCR work. I am a social worker by training, and a psychotherapist working in community mental health in one of the most economically depressed urban areas in the US. It is the community which gave birth to Kensington Welfare Rights Union, which still operates out of a storefront a few blocks from my clinic. Of course, I see the homeless, the mentally ill, the economically, socially and culturally repressed individuals as precisely that. But you couldn't know that, because you prejudged. The community in which I work has been so economically and socially repressed that on the average Kensington High School graduates only 9% of its freshman class. Edison High School, the other neighborhood high school lost more former students in Vietnam than any other high school in the United States. On a daily basis I work with the second generation posttraumatic stress disorder patients who are the children of the Vietnam vets who returned to the community with no jobs, little resources for adequate mental health and substance abuse treatment. I could go on and on. Given what I just wrote in the latter paragraph, why would I prefer the old mandate? It is not because of my ignorance of international human rights law, it is not because I don't care about my own clients. I am fearful that this organization is moving too fast. I prefer the grave abuse "filter" because I believe it will help steer us not block us, from making sure we address the most severe abuses first. The Reform slate believes that the International Secretariat has dimished our "historic commitment to individuals". Well if we close one action file, or don't open one, because we don't have the resources, or the individual comes from a non-CAP country and the GIGs don't include language regarding Prisoners of Conscience, then that statement is true. If we leave one straight, caucasian, non-human rights defender, from a non-cap country behind to become a "forgotten" prisoner, we will have lost our soul. I have worked for over two decades as an active leader in this organization, working side by side with Amnesty members who supported and still support the death penalty. I will not disrespect them, nor will I disrespect you. I won't prejudge them, nor will I prejudge you. I look forward to "joining" with you in our work to protect the human rights of all individuals. Please let's keep this discussion healthy, open, respectful and non-judgmental. And remember the people on whose behalf we work. Phyllis Pautrat Board Member Acronyms explained: IEC = International Executive Committee [in essence, the "International Board"] UDHR = Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on Dec. 10, 1948 [forms the basis of our work] CEDAW = Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women FSA = Full Spectrum Approach [to our human rights work] ICM = International Council Meeting [held every 2 years to make decisions for our movement] ISP = Integrated Strategic Plan NGO = Non-Governmental Organization [not just an AI acronym]