Interesting parallels in Germany – part fifteen

10 05 2010

Continuing with our Parallels in Germany series, here’s a piece of correspondence from Amnesty International to my ‘informant’ in reply to a letter of his:

Dear Mr ********

I am writing in response too your letter dated 7 April 2006 and I sincerely thank you for contacting the Amnesty International’s International Secretariat. We have carefully evaluated the information you have provided us with in order to establish how we can best assist you. We understand the reasons for which you contacted us, but unfortunately we are not able to help you.

As you may be aware, Amnesty Intemational’s mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote human rights

Having carefully considered your letter, I regret to inform you that Amnesty International cannot be of assistance to you due to our policy constraints and available resources at this time. I am deeply sorry we are not able to help you further and I hope you will understand that we have to make very difficult choices about how we use our limited resources. We hope you will find a prompt solution to your Problem.

My ‘informant’ responds, in an email forwarded on to me:

Hi Nick,

Amnesty International is into anything but Human Rights. In reality it is a puppet of Western Regimes. I put my case to them, which clearly involves the use of Nazi legislation in Germany to FIX verdicts, when the government is the defendant, to make sure the plaintiff cannot win. This was all backed by documentary evidence, to prove without doubt my case.

The reply I received from them is attached and, it clearly states they understand why I contacted them but they have such limited resources they cannot do anything to help me.

Please note, it appears to be signed by an Andes Dahlbeck, who could possibly be a German lawyer on their staff because they would hand it to a lawyer from the Nation being complained about within the EU. As a German lawyer, he would never be allowed to take action, because the very Nazi law I quoted is the one that requires him to have a PERMIT, to work as a solicitor. If he furthered my case, he would most cetainly have had his PERMIT withdrawn. This suggests they work within article 53 of both the ECofHR & newer ECofFR which throws the victim back to the National system that had abused them in the first place.

You would have thought that using Nazi law to suppress peoples rights, (it had been used in other cases I am aware of) was more important to defending Human Rights & Democracy, because governments using such reprehensible methods are more important to expose, than those banning a gay rights march.

And another:
Hi Nick,

If you read the above link Anders Dahlbeck (Amnesty International) was involved in the campaign for gay rights in Lithuania but had NO INTEREST to investigate Nazi legislation being used to control the legal system in Germany.

This proves their interest is only towards the defence of Human Rights that does not affect regimes in Europe. It is of no consequence to a regime if a gay rights march goes ahead or not in reality.

More to come…




Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: