A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK says Amnesty who claim over 50% are Gender Critical groups

[IwantToRetire]

Quote:

Anti-rights actors seek a society in which women and men have fixed and distinct roles, based on what they view as ‘natural’ and ‘traditional’. These actors perceive the idea that gender is socially constructed as a threat because it suggests that gender roles can, and do, change across societies and over time. In fact, progress in the rights of women and LGBT+ people has been underpinned by changing understandings of gender and social roles.

Anti-rights actors refer to this perceived threat as ‘gender ideology’, portraying it as an attack on national traditions, family structures, marriage and religious freedom. These narratives often seek to generate fear and uncertainty and rely on misinformation or exaggerated claims.

The term ‘gender ideology’ emerged in the context of debates within international institutions, particularly the United Nations, about gender equality and sexual and reproductive rights.

In 1964, the Holy See became a Permanent Observer at the UN General Assembly, the only religious body with this status. As a permanent observer the Holy See can participate in processes at the General Assembly as well as other UN bodies. It cannot vote but it has the possibility to co-sponsor resolutions if a member state requests a vote. Although it cannot vote, the Holy See can participate in UN discussions and processes and has played an influential role in debates on women's rights and LGBT+ rights.

The term ‘gender ideology’ gained prominence in response to progress on gender equality and Cairo in 1994. These conference were a landmark moment for the global women's rights movement. The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action is widely regarded as a key international framework for advancing women's rights and gender equality, and states continue to report on its implementation through the Commission on the Status of Women.

While opposition to sexual and reproductive rights predates the Beijing conference, the term ‘gender ideology’ became a particularly important response to the advances achieved there. The phrase was coined to explain the growing influence of gender equality agendas and to mobilise opposition to them.

Although the term originated in debates at the international level, it has since become a broad political narrative used by a wide range of anti-rights actors. Today, it is often used to connect campaigns against gender equality, sexual and reproductive rights, and LGBT+ rights across different countries and contexts.

From intro to report at
https://media.amnesty.org.uk/documents/Report_-_A_growing_threat__the_anti-rights_movement_in_the_UK_July_2026.pdf

See images of the list of 51 groups Amnesty is claiming are right wing.

Thanks - is there an archive link by any chance?

https://archive.ph/FD6H0

Yes, I saw that and thought, WTF is this nonsense now?

So what's the damage done? "We can assume that the founder and chair of the board of Beira's place has the best interests of the organization in mind when she says she wants everyone to read the report - she would know what's best better than anyone. Therefore rather than a detriment, it must be in the interests of the organization for the report to be widely read."

A libel claim is founded on "nobody must read this". You can't simultaneously encourage people to read the impugned statements.

Thanks for the archive link as it has led to the report by Dentons.

No time to read it now, but seems something that could be of value.

As the article says how come a respectable law firm can write a report and people choose to ignore.

As said in the (Telegraph?) article, it is about what happens when ideologues take over.

On another thread (cant remember now) someone was using the phrase extreme left wing being the problem.

As others pointed out it isn't that sort of politics - and I think the word ideologues is much better. Because it is not just having a set of beliefs, but the absolute assurance that you have the right to impose it on others and punish anyone who doesn't comply.

(I think the thread must have been the latest Bristol Council madness.

A libel claim is founded on "nobody must read this". You can't simultaneously encourage people to read the impugned statements

I don't think that's true, is it? A libel claim is founded on "this demonstrably untrue thing was said and caused significant damage," isn't it?

Once it's been widely reported on, which it VERY MUCH has, I think you can both sue for libel AND say "look what those lying bastards are saying."

The Tribunal Tweets compilation is brilliant.

look what those lying bastards are saying is entirely compatible with a claim for libel.

"It's a good idea for as many people as possible to read this", isn't.

A libel claim is founded on "this demonstrably untrue thing was said and caused significant damage," isn't it?

Yes. But complete the sentence: the significant damage must be damage done to your reputation, when people read the bad thing and your reputation in their eyes is diminished by what they read. If you say or act to imply that people who read it won't be influenced against you by doing so, then you don't have a claim.

Reading the Beira's place letter before action, the remedies demanded to avoid legal action are: formal retraction; undertaking to not republish; apology (in Beira's terms); preservation & presentation of evidence & process; an external inquiry 'how did this happen'. {JKR will be complaining to Charty Commission separately}.
(paraphrased, but its online in the Tribunal Tweets bundle posted upthread recently Beira's Letter )

While it's great that JKR is on the case [pace MyAmpleSheep's suggestion of a blunder re libel] there is a slight downside in that it may be framed as Amnesty International [Saintly All Round Good Guys OTRSOH] v. JKR [Notorious Always-Wrong Hate-fuelled Transphobic Bigot].

I hope the focus is kept on the other 50+ groups accused of being 'anti-rights' , as well as on JKR and Beira's Place.

I'm glad TT have gathered all the letters to AI, I think Sex Matters is doing that too?

It’s inevitable that it will be framed that way.

Amnesty have now referred themselves to the charity commission

So they dont have the integrity to set about examining not just their ideas but their process, and are going to make the CC do their thinking for them.

Or is this the next step to brand the CC as transphobic which is why so many charities that are transphobic have not been criticised or had their charity status removed?

But that's just here - there are all the other organisations who can take action, plus can Beira's Place take action separate from her?

Interesting point. Could the argument be that this is because Amnesty wants people's money, so before deciding whether to contribute, everyone whould ensure that they know what Amnesty's "real" aims and beliefs now are?

Because I think a lot of people don't know that, for instance, Amnesty want women to be imprisoned with male prisoners, and they would probably not believe someone who told them that without proof. The report is that proof.

The first section of this video (from Dublin Pride 2026) is with Steven Bowen from Amnesty.

I am a little disquieted that all the reporting seems to say "JK Rowling is funding" or "is offering to fund" this or that, whereas in fact, as I understand it, her trust (which is not her self) is available to fund women who want to complain, but she is offering personally to fund male gays who might want to pull Amnesty up; her trust is for women, and male gays are not women and it can't help them. There is a difference between the two personae, JKR and JKR's trust.

Yes; I think it's unlikely that a charity or organization is going to be demanding damages from another charity (AI) - the optics of that are very bad.

And I also agree that JKR can't be said to be speaking for any of the other groups or charities who can claim a libel.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime There is a difference between the two personae, JKR and JKR's trust.

There is a difference, but in political terms (if not legal terms) it's a very very very small one.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jul/16/amnesty-uk-self-reports-to-watchdog-calling-women-centre-anti-rights

And in the Times

https://www.thetimes.com/article/ce5fdae1-f763-4616-be2e-e269acceb886?shareToken=63c17fd20714eec4f25bc1aef4e8c76d

It isn't 'hostility to gender critical groups' it's hostility to the sustained legal protections of women and gay people. It's that simple. The 'non gender critical' people are defined merely by saying they don't personally care about women and gay people having those protections. At the moment. If trans activitsts don't want them to have them. And probably haven't thought this position or their own naivety through.

And the bit about 'trans voices were under represented' - ffs no they bloody weren't!

where were women's voices at all?! Women's Hour being merely one example!

As I recall, the TRAs had enough clout to come over here and spend their days (and evenings, and nights) getting women deleted and banned - when this was one of the very few places where GC voices got any sort of a hearing.

Bodies like AI come out with crap like this, and then some people wonder why public trust in the great institutions is plummeting.

It's because they lie to us, chaps. They've been lying for a while now - something like 20 years. It's not good for democracy, it really isn't. It undermines public trust and public faith in politicians, universities and academia, large NGOs, and so on, and gives openings to populist politicians.

It's like watching a disaster in slow motion.

That’s why we call them The Monitors, because there was a magazine interview with some of them where they admitted this.

I believe they have a duty to report if they break the rules. And even if there's not not a statutory duty, they know plenty of others will be reporting and they look marginally less bad if they get ahead of it and report it themselves.