I got exposed to posing ex-amnesty bloggers exposing

Here the author writes an intro which leads to the main topic, and then makes two lists.

On default I keep Adblocker on, and remove it when using sites that I like to support. This also includes Facebook. I don't hate commercials, and I understand the business model of having ads. Of course ads sometimes make me furious the same way that a two hour movie that you want to give another chance for every 15 minutes thinking that even if it's bad I'll be one experience richer. Ads are usually shorter but they are everywhere.

About the Bush, said George and went back to Facebook. What I meant to say to myself: "get to the topic, lad!" 

I was Scrolling down Facebook today when I got exposed (pun intended - you'll find the pun soon) to a weird commercial. It was an ad for Amnesty Ireland Exposed (backward pun indeed) - a blog from "former supporters of Amnesty International Ireland who recognise that AI has truly lost its way, is no longer independent and that donating to Amnesty  Ireland is really bad value for money." Actually the name of the blog is Amnesty International Ireland Exposed and the domain is just shortened to Amnesty Ireland Exposed. From a Copywriter's perspective, I think that the shorter one is better. The target is obvious, and it really doesn't matter are you against Amnesty International, or the Irish Branch. Their tagline is the classical clickbait "10 reasons why donating to Amnesty Ireland is bad value for money."

The anonymous blog is doing two things right. It has a clear message (don't support Amnesty), and it uses credible sources (Irish Times, Independent, established newspapers so to speak). I am person who likes clear agendas and visible targets. These kinds of one-purpose movements are at their best when they have a focus. This definitely has one. Also, at these times when there is an information overload on the web, credible sourcing is required. Also, very good use of Facebook marketing dollars. It is very cheap to reach out to people using that platform. 

It is said that in (marketing) communications you should put the bad news first, and the good news at the end because the final perceived message is the one that is the tone that is left for the audience. If you noticed, I did the good news on the previous paragraph. Those who know how certain texts are produced are already seeing the clouds darkening the sky.

Let's see what are those 10 reasons. They are:

- Amnesty promotes international sex industry (Amnesty International Promotion of the global sex industry)

- Amnesty doesn't care about prisoners of conscience nor the people on death row (Amnesty International Ireland has lost its way)

- Ireland pays salaries (65.79% of Amnesty Ireland Income was spent on salaries, PRSI and pensions in 2015. €443,846 was spent on fundraising in 2016)

- There are too many organisations and non-profit organisations are getting tax reliefs (Amnesty’s work is no longer unique – now it is only draining scarce resources)

- Amnesty international gives monetary support for Ireland's branch ( Amnesty International Ireland failure to properly fund international group)

- Amnesty pays their worker's salaries - mentioned again (Amnesty Chuggers – I am sorry but facts do matter!)

- Give shelter and clothing to refugees, and support Goal, Irish Red Cross, and Concern worldwide (If you want to help those in need, there are better orgnisations to donate to other than Amnesty Ireland)

- Amnesty is not a refugee aid (Amnesty International Ireland raises funds on the back of refugees but does little to help them)

- George Soros supports Amnesty (Amnesty International Ireland is no longer independent)

- Amnesty Ireland did only one tweet for Asia Bibi (The Persecution of Asia Bibi and the shameful silence of Amnesty International Ireland)

Before going to commenting individually those 10 (or as I count 11) reasons, I should mention that I have been a member of Amnesty Finland, and I have been paid by them for one (1) month's work. In my comments I will bring out justified claims. 

To the aforementioned blog writers: If my arguments work for the blog site, please feel free to use them. I must warn though, if your reading skills would be better you will not use me as a reference.

Comments in numerical order:

1. Sex industry is a controversial topic. Feminists are divided by the question. From liberal feminist's perspective it is on other hand empowering profession, and at the same it's about the freedom of profession. On the opposite human trafficking, slavery, and the grey-area of is-it-or-is-it-not-free-will is brought into questioning for good reasons. Blog has picked it's side, and it does very good by sourcing academical studies. My competency isn't good enough to disregard those. My own opinion is leaning to liberal feminism but I don't want to disregard the slavery part. 

2. That is kind of bullshit. Amnesty's annual report is - in my humble opinion - one of the greatest source works of human rights violations. Just because you don't agree on the reproductive rights of ladies doesn't mean that Amnesty's work on those other topics are off the table. The reason why Amnesty Ireland might be actually more efficient on the reproductive rights -field than death row- and the prisoners of conscience is because the latter two are fairly lower in Ireland. Also 8th amendment is very high on the list. Check this.

3. I really don't see why Amnesty shouldn't pay their workers. I do agree on personal level that the director gets a nice paycheck. On a sidenote, if you would copypaste the figures and not the figures that somebody made up, you would actually find out that the director makes a hundred euros more a year than you claim. You might want to update it. :D

4. This was completely a mystery text. How I gathered this text was that there are a lot of non-profit organisations that can be supported, and they are getting tax reliefs. Would it be better that there would be less, or that non-profit organisations wouldn't get tax reliefs, or am I just reading you incorrectly?

5. Amnesty supports Amnesty's own branch. Well, you are right. I give you this. Still it doesn't really answer why people shouldn't support Amnesty Ireland. 

6. This again. The url is nice and very seo-friendly if you look for -> "chuggers-chuggers-and-more-chuggers". They do have a nice link to three story piece which explains that their fundraising is effective. What? Why do you link to stuff that prove that you are wrong and the chugging is effective. I don't even. It's Iona institute all over again. 

7. This one is actually very spot on. Amnesty is a lobbing organisation, global think tank, global research facility, and a global propaganda organisation aiming at the equal respect and human rights and stuff. It is nice that you were once supporters of these things. Also very nice of you to offer shelter and clothing to the refugees. Very good advice on how to be a good person. This site is not complete shite.

8. Continuation on the previous point. Refugee council is also an admirable cause. This site is now officially only 5/8 shite. If I don't have anything bad to say about the last two -- this site will be only half shite (5/10). Let's go genderless.

9. Fecking gobshites. You were on the roll. This is the official Alex Jones section. George Soros and other US corporations own Amnesty Ireland. You were even very good at linking to established news sites. Why didn't you find links for these? I have a hypothesis that even you felt bad if you link to Alex Jones or Breitbart, or any other of those sites. Well, the burden of proof is on me on my hypothesis, the burden of proof on claiming that George Soros or some other Us company owns Amnesty Ireland is on you. 

10. I don't even. I'll just give this site 7 out 10 shitefactor. Of all the Amnesty's awareness campaigns you took this one, and saw that it was a crime because there was only one tweet about it. 

Thank you for reading, and those anonymous gobshites, these were your 10 links of fame. Congratulations.

If I would like to be so ridiculous I would say that this blog has the same writers as the Life Institute or the Iona Institute. Take a look. Can you make a difference?

Celtic Tiger Might Take a Great Leap for Equality Today

This is a great moment to live in Ireland. You can see, hear, and feel the history being made. Referendum will be held today to decide what should be the age of presidential candidates. Important as well, but also the vote for Marriage equality will be cum in actum.

Posters of "Yes" and "No" side

As it is kind of obvious that equality includes the idea of similar rights for everyone, as well as similar obligations. There should only be a need to inspect why Ne Doit Pas -side seems to be steaming against equality. 

My favourite bully group, Iona Institute, has been publicly advocating against equality by saying it is inequality. Let's take a moment to look at the work of these great minds.

Reasoning is that a mother can't be a father, nor a father cannot be a mother. I don't think anyone has even tried regenderize (I don't know if that is even a word, but I'll let it be here for a while. Maybe it will grow some root) parents. On a grass root level the no-side has been vigorously handing out leaflets explaining why you should vote no in bullet points. The point seems to be that it is redefining marriage, and that even the Bible says something about something. I just fail to see what is the downside of Marriage Equality. Is there going to be a flood, or a swarm of grasshoppers raining from the skies? 

This is probably how they see themselves:

(excerpt from Iona Institute's Bible)

When I go through Iona Institute's established view points. I see this:

(excerpt from Iona Institute's legal division)

You kind of know that things have gone too far when a lobbyist group starts posting news about two heterosexual men marrying each other. It is like taking everything that you can find, and just keep throwing them at imaginary enemies. Well, why not. They seem to be in good terms with a special kind of imaginary friend. 

This is what was happening on O'Connell street yesterday:

I was too lazy to edit this video. Anyways, it seemed so appropriate that people were singing Queen. They also sang John Lennon's Imagine. 

Irish abortion laws are about to be reviewed

When it was revealed to the public that the death of Savita Halappanavar, on 28th of October, was because health officials declined to carry abortion, it gave a lot to think about for the Irish society.

Protesters outside Leinster House in Dublin

All started on the 20th of October, when Savita felt back pain so disturbing, that it was decided that she and her husband would go to hospital. At that time she was pregnant and on her 17th week. Next day they went to the hospital, but only the persistence of Halappanavars got them signed in to the hospital. First, after a series of tests, they were told that nothing was wrong, and the same thing happened when they returned just a half an hour later after being released to go home. It was when they were appointed to doctor when it was realised, after further examinations, that the cervix was dilated. Seven days later Savita Halappanavar was dead. She could have been saved if the pregnancy would have been terminated.

Some say that it is legal to have an abortion in Ireland, and this is based on The Case X. Although it is illegal to have an abortion in Ireland, there is a basis for it, if mother's life is in danger. Ireland has been in juridical vacuum since the Supreme Court ruling in 1992. In this case, 14 year old rape victim was allowed to have an abortion since there was a risk of suicide. Supreme Court's reasoning was that if the mother was suicidal, the fetus' rights are contingent of the mother's rights.

Now the Irish abortion law is probably going to be written again, but that won't be an easy task. Telegraph reported yesterday that Maria Steen of Iona Institute stated that "Irish law already allows the ending of a pregnancy when there is no other choice and there is a clear threat to the life of the mother." Clearly this was not the case in the death of Savita Halappanavar. Iona Institute is an Irish think tank of conservative nature, that is to say, it produces material, which is aimed against same-sex marriage, abortion, morning-after-pill, etc. (Pro tip: I don't recommend using their search engine, located on their website, cause it works as slowly as an christian anecdote about freedom of conscience concerning matters of choice. You'll find the information your looking a lot faster by using google and adding your keywords plus Iona Institute). Here's more of Maria Steen in Newstalk.

At the moment it seems that the new law is going to be based on the Case X. With no disrespect to anyone, it is fascinating to be following how this political struggle will end, with regards to Irish distinctive history in matters of abortion. This debate might explode to have a law that also includes abortion by demand, which in itself is abomination to orthodox Catholics. I think that if the law is going to be a compromise, that nobody wants, it's going to allow abortion on medical reasons (for conservatives it's the same thing as on demand; for liberals it's the same thing as still illegal). Even this kind of compromise would still give a lot wider framework for pro-choice people. There is always the possibility that medical reasons could be widened to include suicidal tendency qualified by the standards of the conceived. Which could in fact end that people who want an abortion by demand, just say that they are suicidal.

Draft of the law is bound to be published New Year, according to Enda Kenny, and the legislation should be ready by Easter. This could be one defining moment for Ireland. So I would recommend that people follow this case with a keen eye, cause this is history in making.