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.

Amnesty clearly don't understand equality and human rights anymore.

They've officially disappeared up their own arses .

This is AFTER a bunch of court rulings which effectively say they Gender Ideology is sexist and homophobic in various ways. And have found the rights of women have been infringed.

Women clearly are not worthy of safety, dignity and privacy according to Amnesty. They should undress in front of males, they should stay in abusive marriages, they should accept female cocks if lesbians and they should reframe their trauma from rape.

Can we close these grifters down? They seem to be failing in their charitable aims.
Activities - how the charity spends its money
promotion of human rights throughout the world, including by: monitoring abuses, assisting the victims of such abuses and eliminating infringements; research into human rights issues and providing technical advice; contributing to the sound administration of human rights law; raising awareness of, and promoting public support for, human rights issues; and international advocacy of human rights.

Official aims.
TO PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD BY ALL OR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS: MONITORING ABUSES OF HUMAN RIGHTS; OBTAINING REDRESS FOR THE VICTIMS OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE; RELIEVING NEED AMONG THE VICTIMS OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE (AND IN PARTICULAR MEDICAL, REHABILITATIONAL OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE); RESEARCH INTO HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES; PROVIDING TECHNICAL ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS ON HUMAN RIGHTS MATTERS; CONTRIBUTING TO THE SOUND ADMINISTRATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; COMMENTING ON PROPOSED HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION; RAISING AWARENESS OF HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES; PROMOTING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS; PROMOTING RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AMONG INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS; INTERNATIONAL ADVOCACY OF HUMAN RIGHTS; ELIMINATING INFRINGEMENTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION PROCURING THE ABOLITION OF TORTURE, EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTION AND DISAPPEARANCE.

If you are misrepresenting this subject to this degree...

But here's the interesting bit.

Look at this graph. And when you look at the finer details boy are they unstable financially. Their donations are all over the place. They are reliant on legacy donations to keep the books looking good. Not general donations.

They are chasing wealthy older people. They aren't interested in vulnerable women with little or no money. They don't leave oodles of money to Amnesty. There's a massive conflict of interest here in their financial model.

Hang on a second. This all sounds a bit hmm ultra capitalist. Isn't that right wing?

Remember Amnesty International states that it is independent of any political ideology, economic interest, or religion. Errrr.... About that.

Then we have this gem.
Recruitment of new members was challenging in 2025. We invested less than we had allowed for in
our budget in this area, primarily as recruitment costs remain prohibitively high on paid digital media.
The number of lapsed Memberships exceeded the number of new recruits, leading to a reduction in
Members during 2025.
At the end of December 2025, the number of individual members of the UK Section stood at around
76,100. In comparison at December 2024, there were around 79,600 – a decrease of 4.4% which has contributed to a £0.3m decrease in income from members compared to 2024.

Fascinating stuff this.
Set out below are some of the key outcomes we will be working towards in 2026.
1- Narrative Shift - Human rights are part of everyday life in the UK, with most of the public
seeing them as essential and rejecting anti-rights agendas at the ballot box
Brand – Builds a strong, recognisable identity that positions human rights as positive,
essential and relevant
Persuading the Passives – Targets the 30% of the UK public who are neutral or
disengaged, shifting their attitudes toward supporting human rights
Persuading Young Men – Focuses on the demographic most vulnerable to anti-rights
narratives, reframing rights as aligned with their values

Hmm. Again fascinating. Especially given single sex and feminist groups are currently on Amnesty's hit list and gender ideology is a Men's Rights movement.

The accounts show a deficit of £6.2m for the year, a larger deficit by £4.4m from the £1.7m deficit in
2024

Hmm. It carries on

Income has decreased by £2.4m on 2024 levels to £12.1m in 2025. This is primarily due to a decrease
in Grant income from the Trust of £1.9m. The Trust had budgeted to sell the freehold former London
Head Office in 2025. A delay to that sale reduced the funding available to the Trust and its ability to
make grant payments. The Trust did complete a sale on 2 February 2026. The grant from the Trust is restricted to areas of the UK Section’s human rights work which aligned with the Trust’s charitable
objects, spanning our goals of: changing attitudes to human rights, building a powerful movement of
human rights activists and winning human rights victories. The Trust grant supports all aspects of the Section’s human rights work.
Income from other trading activities decreased by £0.1m from 2024 at £1.4m. The shops again made
a significant deficit of £0.8m despite stable income levels, after taking into account the allocation of
overhead costs such as bank charges, IT costs, human resources and other central services associated with supporting the shops. Around £0.3m in donations was raised by the UK Section for the Trust as part of the retail Gift Aid scheme, with the benefit of a further £0.1m in Gift Aid. We will continue to focus on increasing profitability of our retail portfolio during 2026.
Staff costs in the UK Section increased by £1m in 2025. The increase in staff costs was driven by some additional posts added in the year, and by increases in pay rates reflecting inflation-based cost of living adjustments negotiated with our recognised trade union. The budget for 2026 included plans to reduce our cost base, including in staffing. A cost reduction programme was concluded in March 2026 which will enable the UK Section to achieve surpluses and start rebuilding its free reserves.

Note
A key part of our approach to everyday rights is supporting grassroots groups to lead changes in their communities. At the end of 2024, Amnesty UK launched a small-grants programme and training for such organisations.

What's interesting about the list of groups they are actively attacking is just how many are grassroots led.

SOCIAL MEDIA KEEPS GROWING
By mid-2025, Amnesty UK’s digital reach had already exceeded our 2024 reach, showing more people are seeing – and interacting with – the Amnesty message.
June 2025 was our best month in a decade, with 700,000 plus engagements and 10.5 million views on posts about Glastonbury, the Media Awards, Protect the Protest, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, social security cuts and trans rights. We also acquired 17,761 new followers in June alone – 45 per cent of social growth for the whole of 2024.
We had 43 artist-led posts, from people such as singer Kate Nash and presenter Gary Lineker. Several topped 1 million views and had more than 600,000 engagements on Instagram.

And there's your rub. Omni-cause. You don't get to call yourself a non-political organisation and have that written in your annual report. I'm sorry but that bloody laughable.

Amnesty aren't focused on rights. They are focused on social media hits and engagement to generate income. They are actively attacking grassroots organisations they don't like. The more cynical amongst us might say that they are attacking their financial competitors. And the irony is that despite having more social media hits - virtue signalling - they had a decline in membership - the active activists who do stuff rather than just virtue signal.

It's almost as if they are so focused on social media, they are out of touch with the general population.

It's also interesting how they seem to be so reliant on Glastonbury. This year there is no Glastonbury so next year's report will be interesting. They will struggle to match 2025s social media engagement. It would strike me that going for something round about June/July to shitstir on social media and whip up a fuss would be part of your strategy for a non-Glasto year.

Weirdly social media is heavily tilted to young people whilst legacy donations will come from old people. There's a bit of a problem here. And I would suggest there's a bit of an identity crisis going on within Amnesty and definitely a loss of direction in terms of rights.

They are chasing social media rather than promoting understanding of human rights. This way lies madness. Engagement does not mean follow up action. It leaves you vulnerable to fads and trends rather than substantial foundations in the stuff you are supposed to be campaigning on. It's whole model being centred on a Glastonbury demographic is slightly hilarious tbh in terms of how seriously they should be taken as a charity.

I think like Stonewall, this is a potential 'watch this space' in terms of relevance. It feels a little like when Mermaids tried to take on the LGB Alliance in mood.

These fuckers are not interested in women's rights. They clearly spend too much time on Reddit and Instagram. And think it's reflective of real life.

They are a marketing campaign not a serious human rights champion.

Thanks, that's very interesting.

I think that trans rights is a strategic decision for the likes of Amnesty because it's a clearly defined group which is relatively easy to target through attending events rather than paying to advertise on social media.

They aren't going to drop this target audience and all the work that has gone into reaching them. So they need to keep positioning themselves as pro trans rights to keep the target audience engaged.

And so many charities are doing this. There is no group easier to reach beyond social media than LGBT+.

Very interesting annual report. Lapsed subscribers… I’ll bet my boots that the demographics are a particular older female? I know 💯 that people heard Amnesty’s CEO on Woman’s Hour after the Supreme Court ruling and immediately went to cancel their long-standing direct debits… They might be targeting trans rights for social media clicks but if the baseline subs dry up they’re done for. Sounds like a campaign to me “Amnesty International - Destroyer of Women’s Rights”

Just at a time when I'd argue that trans rights as a cause is starting to wane in the public at large in terms of creditability and traction.

The trans money making bandwagon has passed. Amnesty didn't get the memo.

It would be fascinating to know the demographics on lapsed subscribers wouldn't it? I wonder if Amnesty themselves have looked at it.

Thank you for that detailed breakdown, @RedToothBrush

Amnesty isn't the only charity that has taken on politically-aligned causes in the past few years. I'm not sure what the Charity Commission is doing.

They've somehow co-opted the radical feminist view that gender is a social construct and strict gender roles are misogynistic, and are claiming that we now believe the opposite. Radical feminists, TERFs, gender critical people have opposed strict gender roles for many decades! It's an inherent element of radical feminism, not trans rights activism.

Thing is, it appeals to a reasonably sized group which is reachable through eg turning up at Pride events. They don't have the money to spend on social media. Students (the other easy to target in person group) don't have the spare cash. So I can see why they are going to keep attending Pride etc and make themselves as pro trans as possible to make them so popular with the LGBT+ crowd.

Adoption agencies seem to have been using a similar strategy. The agency that recruited the couple who murdered baby Preston in Blackpool are on record in their annual report bemoaning the fact that their recruitment of prospective adopters from the LGBT+ community had fallen from the previous year's 24%. Nearly a quarter! Again I believe it's partly because it's an easy to target group.

So charities etc are all chasing this group. They have higher than average disposable income and want to donate/use businesses and organisations whose values they like.

The bloody nerve to imply that we're the ones reinforcing gender stereotypes. 😡

Edited for grammar 🙄

I think there's a large pool of virtue signallers with no money and a small pool of activists who do something who have money. And there's lots of people chasing this small pool.

If you are a T activist and see competition from the LGB Alliance and Stonewall/Mermaids etc in trouble, are you going to pick Amnesty over them?

This is the issue for Amnesty in chasing this narrow demographic. They are competing against other charities who are more focussed on the rights of the group they are targeting. In other words they are not at the front of the queue for potential donors, they are somewhat further down the line in terms of priority.

Likewise for piggies backing other omni-cause causes.

Amnesty effectively ends up being just another omni-cause rather than having it's own distinct agenda and purpose. I do wonder how sustainable that is as a financial model.

Indeed it is all about a financial model and not it's core values and promotion of human rights. You have to understand human rights to promote them and to get grassroots support because it has to connect.

All they are doing is getting hits on social media. And the trouble with social media is people think they've done their bit of they've shared rather than doing anything more.

"Wearing our arguments " and "wearing our experiences." Clear as day.

So, Stonewall, Mermaids, Amnesty... who was it that first said that gender ideology destroys everything it touches? (although Mermaids has only itself to blame...)

Is the Supreme Court on their list of anti-rights organisations?

How is this a priority for them, anyway? What human rights do trans people lack?

Well in some countries they will lack basic rights - counties where gender stereotypes are rigourousky enforced

and women suffer because those same stereotypes tend to work against women

but at least women can wear a frock and make it that way inclined. I don’t think that’s much to be happy about really !

They care less about the basic rights of those people than they do the terrible plight of entitled British men who want to use women’s toilets.

Clearly.
And Parliament.

You know all those MPs who could change the law but also like to virtue signal because they know damn well that it's a vote loser because it infringes on the rights of too many other groups to replace sex with gender and no fucker actually believes this shit in practice.

I forgot to look, but suppose the EHRC is also on the list?

Your name will also go on the list!

Article in the Scotland section of the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/c6c2d068-1a10-4764-bd0b-04db9b7b848f?shareToken=c3fea802840237eb8cd6d6134af4c87d&ver=article

Hoping JKR posts about it so that Amnesty can beclown themselves further in public.

Am glad (some of) the press are picking up on this eg Scotsman:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/jk-rowlings-rape-support-centre-labelled-anti-rights-group-by-amnesty-8789792

Besides everything else, this concept of "anti-rights" is just so... childish. Anti-rights?! It sounds like something from a Year 10 kid's half-hearted AI effort at a Humanities or ethics essay.

"Human rights are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. When the rights of one group are restricted, protections for others can also be weakened, even where the effects are not immediately visible."

I'm afraid I stopped marking here, Shaun. Your use of AI is fairly obvious, and your logic very flawed. Step back and think harder. Yes, in an abstract, ideological sense, human rights may be "mutually-reinforcing". But you appear to take this in a rather too literal and absolutist way. For example, in practical terms, in order for one group to have particular rights often needs some kind of concession from another group (think of single-sex spaces, or resources set aside for disabled people only). Go back and try again, aiming for a more nuanced understanding of this complex issue - you're capable of far better than this rhetoric.

Fuck all is the only answer.

Amnesty have now removed the report from online. Seems they have received a number of letters requesting evidence from the many women's groups they libelled (without evidence of what they lied about could be very expensive)

From X 'newsandpics'
'The link to the report appears to have now been removed, possibly because Amnesty realised that calling for removal of charitable status and funding met the criteria for serious financial loss required for a successful libel action.Too late and the damage is done. The board probably needs to publish an apology, an explanation and set aside funds to deal with claims. Those of us who have supported Amnesty financially over the years are also due an apology. Board members should consider their positions.'

I called it https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/2075638852111249643