"Disparage the source and deny the content. "
You have been pointed to the possible motivation of the source Iains - you choose to ignore that
It is you who is disparaging sourcs, in this case, of an internationally admired and supported Human Rights organisation
Without them, we wold be at the mercy of ruthless politicians, avaricious businesses (and the Tommy Robinsons of this world
None of your links in any way deal with the subject in hand - rather they are an exercise in smear tactics

The Soros affair is interesting as it questions whether the 8th amendment referendum was a matter of politics or human rights
The fundamentalists (who were soundly trounced), claimed it to be political and so could not receive financial support from Amnesty
What isn't mentioned is that the same fundamentalists were receiving money and actual help from Trumpites and American fundamentalists politicians
It was a cross-party, non political campaign where people voted according to their conscience not their party preferences
Ti its credit, Amnesty stuck to its guns
No donor to a charity has the right to call the shots on what their money is spent on

I suppose it's a waste of my time asking you how you feel about Britain selling weapons to terrorist states and mass murderers (especially as you support many of our customers in their political aims
Jim Carroll