Almost two years ago, I called here for the closure of Amnesty International, once a beacon of the international fight for human rights. And I was not the only one.

The occasion was the organisation’s infamous August 2022 report on Ukraine, which accused the Ukrainian state and military of putting their own citizens at risk from Russian bombs by positioning military near civilian objects.

I demanded the shutdown, self-termination, cessation of funding, and closure of the doors for this 1977 Nobel Peace Prize winner. A group of independent international experts corroborated what I and others who advocated similar activities proposed. They came to the conclusion a few months later that Amnesty International presented incorrect views and did not provide evidence that Ukraine violated international law.

This was also a source of satisfaction for Mr Par Wästberg, one of AI’s co-founders, who left the organisation after 60 years because of the embarrassment of the Ukraine report. The Telegraph commentator Stephen Pollard, who described AI as “a worthless, morally bankrupt sham that gives succour to terrorist states” because of the allegations against Ukraine, was probably satisfied, as was Oksana Pokalchuk, the head of AI’s Ukrainian office, who left the organisation after the publication of the disgraceful report.

However, AI personnel continue to portray themselves as individuals who shed light on all human rights violations and protect victims from violence and dictators. One should be devoid of any moral inhibitions to continue to assert such a claim despite the outrageous accusations made against Ukraine, a country defending itself against a brutal aggression that Europe has not witnessed since the Second World War.

Since Amnesty has resisted criticism, i.e., well-intentioned appeals to close its doors and preserve as much as possible of the former glory of the global fighter against oppression, this cannot bring Amnesty anything new other than continuing to disgrace its name and its mission. Even worse, Amnesty persistently upholds the interests of those against whose arbitrariness and cruelty it was founded in 1961. Once again, Russia.

Finland and its law, which allows border guards to prevent migrants and asylum seekers from crossing their border with Russia, are Amnesty’s new targets. The border crossings on this 1,300-kilometre-long border were closed at the end of last year because Russia has systematically and forcibly directed migrants and asylum seekers there to retaliate for Finland’s accession to NATO with their massive influx.

What happens when you ignore appeals to stop working and the arrogance of ossified human rights bureaucrats, like the untouchable AI Secretary General Agnes Callamard, gets the upper hand? You inevitably embark on new shameful adventures, causing irreparable damage to the global movement protecting victims of violence while doing the dirty work for tyrants like Vladimir Putin.

This is how Amnesty came to accuse the champion of humanity, one of the few countries with the highest level of human rights protection, of violating European and global documents on the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. Amnesty deliberately ignores the reasons why Finland has decided to hermetically seal its border with Russia—only this border, excluding those with its other neighbours, Norway and Sweden.

Amnesty has not registered the Kremlin’s terribly inhumane practice of weaponizing the tragedy of migrants wandering through its vast territory, sending them intentionally to the borders of its “enemies.” Initially, these were Poland and the Baltic states, but since last year, they have also included Finland as a new NATO member. Amnesty should have addressed Moscow’s brutal practices, but instead, they chose to remain silent and concentrate on Finland’s alleged violations of refugee rights.

Even in the statement accusing Finland, Amnesty shows that it is well aware of the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in Russia and that they will be at risk of “penalisation, detention, and refoulement” there. How come you don’t address the issue at its source, in Russia, but blame neighbouring Finland?

Since the start of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, this organisation has largely ignored Russia as a problem, a situation that could hardly be considered a coincidence. Amnesty has never renounced the scandalous report on Ukraine from two years ago. In the meantime, it has remained silent on numerous war crimes committed by the Russian army in Ukraine, such as systematically bombing energy sources. These days, Amnesty remains silent about the Russian arrest warrant against Yulia Navalnaya, designating her a terrorist, as she seeks punishment for the murder of her husband, Alexei, in a Siberian prison where he endured the torture Amnesty is fighting against.

Amnesty last spoke about Vladimir Kara-Murza, another candidate for political murder of the Russian state, 15 months ago, when he was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Hey Amnesty, it’s been at least a week since he was transferred to the hospital and neither his family nor his lawyers have heard anything about this fighter for democracy and human rights in Russia! Unfortunately, Kara-Murza is following in the footsteps of the late Navalny and many others before him, but for Amnesty, the Finnish border closure law poses a much bigger problem.

Though it may be futile, I would like to repeat my appeal to all those who still believe that Amnesty is fighting for human rights, urging them to cease placing their trust in them. Above all, stop handing them substantial sums of money. Last year, Amnesty raised $370 million from donors, and most of that, more than 70%, came from small individual donations, averaging about $13 each.

Withhold the donations to Amnesty International and divert them to the Ukrainian people, who have been suffering from victimisation and torture unprecedented since World War II. By directly aiding the victims of torture, you would avoid the embarrassment of aiding the source of that torture. Amnesty International has demonstrated a resistance to change, a refusal to rectify its serious errors, and a reluctance to acknowledge the failure to fulfil its founding mission. Amnesty International’s continued work represents ignoring the suffering of victims of violence and indirectly protecting those who commit violence. You do not want to be a part of that.