Amnesty International Statement on FiLiA

People would have to never read or watch or listen to the news ever, never use social media ever, never read about things that affect them and their families, like schools or healthcare, and never discuss what’s going on with the world if friends or family bring it up.

I can’t believe the vast majority can’t be at least aware of the conflict between gender ideology and women’s rights by this point, let alone amnesty.

The workforce at the top of most of the big, serious income charities is about as peculiar, insular and incestuous as those at the top of the big political parties. There is a lot of busy work on high paid salaries more than a serious grassroots connection and grip on the reality of the work on the ground, the thinking is the classic extreme end liberal elite and people who land jobs are people who think right and like everyone else in that group so there's again a huge distance between the group all reinforcing each other and the average person in the street. There's a lot of networking with other similar people in similar jobs doing lots of busy paperwork and bids and marketing all of whom think alike, and periodically the top bods all swap jobs.

Hence the head of stonewall becomes the head of x charity and the head of x charity becomes chair of y charity.... musical chairs.

It's ivory towers.

Amnesty International UK believes there should have been absolutely no place for the use of any threatening or aggressive language or imagery towards any of the attendees of that conference, or indeed towards any women."

But it's fine to taunt those same women with "I AM WHO I SAY I AM" placards. So sensitive, after Sarah Everard believed a man who said he was arresting her for breaking covid regulations, and there's already been at least one attempt at a copycat kidnapping.

And children: you mustn't be suspicious of a man saying your parents sent him to pick you up. No, no -- HE IS WHO HE SAYS HE IS.

Jesus wept.

Amnesty is actively working to break down women's and children's justified cautiousness towards potential predators.

How do they justify this?

Oh yes, of course. Because "LOVE IS A HUMAN RIGHT". Let's trigger every woman who's been raped or beaten up by a man whining that he loves her. Remember: it's his human right.

Amnesty have been campaigning against women's rights for a while now. From its sex trade policy, to calling for women to lose political representation, to protesting FiLiA. It's a far cry from the great organisation it once was.

Actually, sorry, I’m just remembering the mess they got into over whether they should describe Alexei Navalny as a prisoner of conscience.

Of course they don’t have the organisational capacity to think this through.

I'm not sure I agree ItsAllGoingToBeFine. Amnesty have openly taken a side against women and women's rights. I'd bet they knew about FILIA and decided to support those trying to silence women.
The fact that the conference covered rape, DV, abuse would simply have added to their excitement at silencing women. The seedy inappropriate nature of the placards confirms this.

I suspect they didn't know. I suspect that Steph told them that they were going to protest a gathering of transphobes, and amnesty didn't enquire further.

At this point it’s difficult to believe that employees of amnesty haven’t noticed the arguments being by people like Kathleen Stock . They might not agree with them, but I don’t think an organisation like Amnesty can claim to be oblivious, given that they have taken the decision to be actively involved.

Yes, it is strange. If they objected to the views on gender that might be expressed it's hard to see how that particular sign is very relevant. The only reading seems to be, you are a bigot for not having sex with transwomen, but to send that how out of touch would you have to be?

Amnesty must have known why the demonstration was happening - are they really so stupid that they wouldn’t see the message the signs appear to be sending re: the cotton ceiling?

I suspect they didn't know. I suspect that Steph told them that they were going to protest a gathering of transphobes, and amnesty didn't enquire further.

It’s very odd that the posters have been used in this specific context. I can’t see the link between ‘love is a human right’ and anything that has been discussed at the conference, except perhaps lesbians saying they are only same sex attracted.

Amnesty must have known why the demonstration was happening - are they really so stupid that they wouldn’t see the message the signs appear to be sending re: the cotton ceiling?

The snag is, Steph has been busy making sure Amnesty are associated with the protest they organised, and they documented the support Amnesty provided.

The effort to associate FiLia with fascists is perhaps just an additional indication that Steph is a little tone-deaf to what actually FiLia does. But their words are clear; violence at the FiLia conference was being considered as a possibility by her, and she manages to drop Hampshire Police in it to.

www.stephsplace.uk/fly-the-flag-the-inquest.cfm

Good point

'Agree with everything we agree with or we will protest against you nasty independently thinking women'.

I mean, I assume all other abuses in the world had been solved by last weekend.

And this is a little awkward. I notice Amnesty UK aren't refuting this;

twitter.com/PlaceSteph/status/1449473898446266371

So either Amnesty or Steph are lying, and as Amnesty provided the posters, I'm inclined to believe Steph.

I am who I say I am.
CEOP ( Child Exploitation and Online Protection command) spend a lot of time, effort and money explaining to children and young people that people sometimes aren't who they say they are.
This is an important safety issue that is being undermined by this kind of idiotic statement.

I am who I say I am...
And when I say say I’m a copper from the met you should believe me, or perhaps women should be “more streetwise” and ask check with my control room.
Make up your mind, or perhaps just stop lecturing us

Love is a human right - reminds me of incels, men who can't take being told no from a woman without lashing out, men who think they can buy a woman for sex or buy a foreign wife from a poor country because of the imbalance of power, or of any abuser who uses the word love to get away with abuse.

I am who I say I am - reminds me of all the times my mum would tell me not to talk to strangers, even if they said they knew my mum and dad, even if they said they were friends and they'd been sent to find me or bring me home, or those Charlie Says adverts about not going with someone who offers to show you some puppies or kittens or buy you some sweets.

There's real danger in these slogans. The first is basically stating that you have a right to anyone else, regardless of their feelings or boundaries, the other is telling you not to trust your own instincts and to just 'be kind' to anyone who tells you anything.

And I think we all know which sex would mostly benefit from the first statement, and which sex will mostly suffer because of the second.

[quote NCBlossom]**@trancepants* and @LobsterNapkin* it’s really not love that is good for a child, it’s security, respect, trust, safety, guidance, boundaries, routine, skill, care, bonding and nurture. Love is dressed up as so much and a good proportion is not good, especially for children where much of their mental hang ups can come from the parent who abuses / neglects but says they love them. Love must mean respect. Which is why a banner with ‘love is a human right’ on could then be used alongside such sexually violent threats, because it doesn’t preclude violence and entitlement.[/quote]
Yes this is what I was trying to say. A child could (probably theoretically, as these things tend to engender and arise from love) have a good upbringing without actually being loved but with these things in place. Conversely children who are loved sometimes have abusive chaotic terrible childhoods which leave them terribly damaged courtesy of those who love them most.

Love is a feeling. Even towards a child, it can't be compelled. Some therapeutic foster parents will say: they will unconditionally provide nurture, positive attention, care, routine, stability, approval, play and stimulation, listening and compassion - it is not the same as 'loving' a child. Even in the case of children, love is a two way street and it's a naturally occurring feeling between two people.

It isn't a right, it isn't an entitlement, it can't be provided by someone on demand; no one can 'make' themselves love on demand. It has to be broken down as to what 'love' is perceived to mean on these posters, and sadly yes, Amnesty's other messages imply a right to sex.

Which compels someone else to provide it.

If it's a right to unconditional self declaration and acceptance of identity for all - then Amnesty and the trans political lobbies need to recognise that this works only when reciprocal, and that means accepting women self declaring as adult human females and having an identity that requires male excluding facilities.

In this sense it's still 'you must do as I say and give what I want, but you don't have any right to anything from me'.

I can't find any definition of 'love' that fits with this kind of belief, it's not loving at all. It's more in the keeping of the Oliver Twist 'God Is Love' on the wall of the workhouse behind the birch rods on the wall kind of thing.

Unfortunate.

Oh well, if they say so...

Well, this is awkward.