Amnesty apologises - "An Apology for A Growing Threat briefing, published on 8 July 2026" apology published 31st July 2026

Well, if this is the general TRA Reddit conclusion, then I think Amnesty has a lot to answer for:
"I guess then if there’s no way to fight them the way society wants us to then organisations like BASH BACK are the only option."

This.

That's a piss poor attempt Amnesty.

Try again, but this time with feeling, you're supposed to make the audience believe you are truly contrite.

Ok thats an apology from the international section.

Why isn't Amnesty UK also offering an apology? What action is being taken against those members of staff responsible for this?

Is there some retraining going on? Is there disciplinary action going on?

This is important as otherwise it's merely lip service to shut up the solicitors.

One of JKR's conditions was it gets pinned to all their social media.

i'm beginning to wonder if this is a pre-court case thing. We apologised, the conditions that were expected of us were entirely unreasonable, and here are all the reasons why

I suspect that is at least the 50th iteration of that particular letter. And somehow, it's all got a bit incoherent in the rewrites.

One interesting point about it, is that it is published/stored in their News section, rather than simply placed on their homepage. I'll be interested to see if it mysteriously vanishes from the News archives in future.

Related, they have done all they can to hide it from site searches once it drops off the homepage. Scroll down to the bottom of any other item on their News page and you'll see an "Article Details" box, containing tags that relate to the menus on the left.

The article directly preceding the non-apology has lots of extra info:

Article details
Posted
30 July 2026

Issue
Rise of authoritarianism

Country
United Kingdom

Article type
Press release

The non-apology has
Article details
Posted
31 July 2026

I look forward to the responses from
the organisations.

I hope that they push further with this. No organisation or person should be described as ‘anti-rights’ for rejecting the demand that a group of male people be treated as if they were female when there is not material reality to their claim to be female.

‘anti rights’ wasn’t even an accurate claim and was never acceptable. Yet, the people who use it think they are very clever, morally superior and progressive. The use of the term actively contradicts this. But it is always good to see who to ignore when they use the term.

Yeah I didn't get that either.

We're committed to this, that and the other, the rights of everyone, we've taken down the report, but we're really, really sorry to have disappointed you, our core supporters??

What the ever loving fuck!

The other AI thread, the jumping the shark one, has a letter that AI sent to supporters explaining the apology - it's almost as if they are apologising for having apologised.

Given the history of Amnesty, you would think that they, almost above any other organisation, would have really shit hot lawyers.

Honestly, this fucking ideology literally addles people.

It also shows that the superb letter from Beira's Place's lawyers has got them deeply worried. I really don't think this "apology" will be anything like enough to get them off the hook.

@BiologicalRobot wrote
Whilst we do not share the views of all these organisations,
They don't agree with women's rights??

and also, what does this mean:

Whilst we do not share the views of all these organisations,
Is that all the organisations or all their views?
We share all the views of some of them (unlikely)
We share some of the views of all of them (also unlikely).
We do not share any of the views of any of these organisations?

The only intimidation involved here came from Amnesty itself. This so-called apology is little more than a slightly filled-out version of the brief response it sent to the many complaints from organisations it had defamed. It should never have allowed this and the previous briefing be published and I hope the author of both is held to account for her deeply biased work. It will take the reputation of Amnesty International UK a long time to recover from this if it ever does.

Yeah, that's not an apology.

An apology will be oh my God we're so sorry, a rogue person posted that. Of course we understand that raped women need female only support. Plus we campaign for female toilets across the world, we know full well why women need privacy, dignity and safety.

That is a load of gritted teeth bollocks to ensure just enough compliance to stop legal action.

Well good fucking luck with that.

I don't think you heard, the woman is furious.

Well it's nice to have an apology, but they don't exactly acknowledge that they are continuing to prioritise men's rights over women's due to their ideological position, do they? They seem to be grudgingly admiting that it's OK for other organisations that prioritise women over men to be allowed to exist, and shouldn't be called "anti rights" because of it, but they are a long way short of actually treating women with anything approaching dignity or equality themselves.

In addition to all the great points made by PPs, I found
The briefing was taken down within 48 hours of publication, as soon as management were notified of its existence
interesting as a window into how 'management' at AI operates.

48 hours before 'management' knew about something that the entire online world could read because it was on their website?
And management had to be 'notified', they didn't..... like...um... look at their own website??

As a PP pointed out, the actual publication of the briefing is only the thick end of the wedge - does AI stand by committing all the work-hours which must have gone into researching and collating all that data on 'anti-rights' groups?

Are they just annoyed that for 48 hours the world could see what they had been up to?

Underpinned by so much male anger. Blokes really don't like being told no, do they?

Christ, the WHINING on there is doing my head in.

Let me guess - women were cancelling their regular donations/direct debits and so Amnesty is now in crisis mode.

JKR posted on X this quote from Iseult White, granddaughter of Amnesty founder. I watched Iseult in convo with Menno on his YT channel a few days ago.

Whilst we do not share the views of all these organisations, we recognise the concerns raised by those labelled as “anti-rights” in the document. To be clear: this labelling does not represent our institutional position, and we apologise for its inclusion. In particular, we apologise to Beira’s Place and other groups, which we categorised as gender critical organisations, which we should not have collectively labelled as anti-rights.

Oh that's very grudging and the subtext between those lines is easily read. I don't think that's going to save them; this is basically 'we're right but we should have phrased it a lot more carefully'.

It's a very small step - but I suppose ultimately it's up to the lawyer's of the organisations they went after as to whether it's sufficient.

It's a start isn't it?
".. we recognise the concerns raised by those labelled as “anti-rights” in the document. To be clear: this labelling does not represent our institutional position, and we apologise for its inclusion. In particular, we apologise to Beira’s Place and other groups, which we categorised as gender critical organisations, which we should not have collectively labelled as anti-rights.

I recall certain Christian organisations were included in their shopping list of anti rights groups so there's no apology to them? Interesting to see what happens next.