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.

Yes, following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, there was an investigation into Oxfam aid workers using young girls12/13 for paid sex - I refuse to call them "prostitutes.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxfam-child-abuse-haiti-scandal-inquiry-sexual-exploitation-charity-commission-a8953566.html

Oxfam didn't go as far as naming and shaming groups who campaign against child prositution for being "anti-rights". They didn't decide that anti-VAWG groups who don't support child prostitution should be castigated for depriving children of the right to sexual freedom or the right to make a living, or for depriving adult men of the right to express their sexuality by buying those children. They didn't go to court to defend the rights of adult men to do that.

Because that would have been crazy.

How high in an organization does an individual have to be so that they are not “individuals in the field”?

I ask because I’m expecting to hear how these reports were the work products of one or two individuals “in the field” so to speak, how they never represented Amnesty’s official position, that AI campaigns on so many causes and areas that it’s simply not feasible to keep track of all of them and now this has come to light appropriate action is being taken to reign in the oh-so-junior staff.

Whatever Amnesty was having has clearly been shared with a bunch of unions now, They are refusing to attend Labour Women's Conference in September because men are not allowed. More shark jumping.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5560214-sexist-unions-boycott-labour-womens-conference

Save the Children were also doing that I think, it’s endemic in the large charities working in disaster zones. And the UN, remember the scandals in Bosnia in the 90s?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/27/jamiewilson

I don't remember the Bosnia stuff at all! That's awful. Did it make much of a splash at the time?

A bit later I think, hence the payout in 2002. They tried hard to brush it under the carpet.

During the hearing the firm admitted three officers had been sacked for using prostitutes - one of them had even "bought" a sex slave for $700 and kept her in his apartment.
Dennis Laducer, the deputy commissioner of the international police taskforce, had been caught in one of the most notorious brothels in Bosnia, the tribunal heard. Mr Laducer, an American who was one of the most senior officers in the UN's Bosnia mission, is no longer involved with the organisation and his employment records state he should never work for the UN again, the hearing was told.

It's almost as if these charities have poor safeguarding protocols and cultures...

And almost as if men are attracted to jobs that give them access to vulnerable women in situations of extreme power differentials...

It's so 'odd' and 'unpredictable'.

And 'complicated'.

"That's an unusual name", I thought. "I'll just give it a quick Google". Turns out he'd already (1997) been accused of sexual harassment when he was Assistant Sheriff of Orange County. Lt. Wendy Costello sued the police department, with her attorney Pat Thistle describing the offences as "a case of institutional terrorism against women, and it's been going on a long time". Still fine for a job with the UN though, apparently.

You mean like ex-members of PIE becoming teachers and scoutmasters and social workers and suchlike, putting them in positions of trust with children?

Exactly.
But also the 'ordinary family men' who became teachers, swimming coaches, doctors, basketball coaches, dance teachers, clergymen, nurses, police officers, and all the other jobs prolific abusers have found 'useful'

I think it is well known that women and children and the main casualties of war and disasters. And that doesn't mean the event itself but the aftermath. ie whether it is employees of charities, or local people, the "natural" male instinct is to exploit women and children have become even more vulnerable that they were when living in a settled community.

There was an international initiative spearheaded by Angelina Jolie and William Hague. A huge conference in east London. Loads of mainly male political leaders from any number of countries, met an agreed this should not be allowed to happen.

Lots of international agreements made. But nothing came of it.

Why? Because in all instances it would be up to the men in power to ensure this doesn't happen.

https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/sexual-violence-in-conflict

So the problem is that no one will say what the real issue is. That you cant trust men to not exploit women.

This is slightly at a tangent, but in relation to this past event in London, it wasn't just high profile people and politicians.

Many women's groups from countries in Africa and Asia for instances, raised money to send members to the event. They had stalls and were allowed sort of fringe events meeting.

And the strangest part was that not one established or even "fringe" women's group based in the UK made any sort of arrangement to maybe have shared meetings with any of these front line activists.

Or even said there will be an informal social event.s

And why - because it was associated with the Tories.

Just as know women's groups and making soap box statements, they were too keen not to be seen in any way involved in the event, even at the expense of basically snubbing other women.

I think that was the first time I realise how many women groups that claimed to be based on feminism were actually based on traditional party loyalties.

I think in most other countries, local women would have just out of sisterhood and hospitality organised something.

Or is it just British / English lack of courtesty

Just posting these links here that show other groups and demanding apologies from Amnesty:

Care https://care.org.uk/news/2026/07/care-writes-to-charity-commission-over-amnesty-report

Christian Institute: https://www.christian.org.uk/news/amnesty-row-charity-commission-must-reaffirm-the-value-of-faith-based-groups/

No!
And surely nobody would ever take advantage of a loophole in safeguarding procedures...
Oh...
Wait...

Someone linked this old thread https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4569839-equality-diversity-inclusion-where-has-this-come-from?reply=117906488

Made me realise that the word inclusion is everywhere on campus and wonder what does it really mean…

Just seen this in the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/5fd95312-e201-4165-801c-693e51da4e48?shareToken=8c7c01ad2bb690fb0bb3c816a5839799&ver=article

Just a quick apology or explanation that I was so hot today my brain was even more soggy than normal and can on apologise for not checking some of my posts where malapropisms and typos have made some of my posts more than a little strange.

I hadn't realised today was going to be so hot. But I am lucky compared to those who have to travel to work, and / or have steaming hot workplaces.

I blame a lot of this on the rhetoric you hear which claims Tories are evil people that hate women, poor people, minorities of all types, and would be happy to see babies eaten by alligators if it enriched them.

That kind of talk is so ubiquitous, from people who seem to have no actual exposure through print or in person to a normal conservative position.

So even things they do that seem good are interpreted as being in bad faith. Maybe even a dastardly trick.

One of the interesting effects of gender ideology has being that all of a sudden some women in the left are seeing people on the right, especially other women, who are fighting seriously and effectively for women's rights. Women who they would previously dismissed as anti feminist.

I blame a lot of this on the rhetoric you hear which claims Tories are evil people that hate women, poor people, minorities of all types, and would be happy to see babies eaten by alligators if it enriched them.

It really fucks with the heads of these types when you point out that the Conservative party has had three women prime ministers, one prime minister of colour, and is currently led by a black woman. The Labour party has never had other than a white european male leader.

I blame a lot of this on the rhetoric you hear which claims Tories are evil people that hate women, poor people, minorities of all types, and would be happy to see babies eaten by alligators if it enriched them.

I think that is true now, but back then, and counting on my fingers and toes it is 12 years ago, it was the old style Labour traditional loyalty through family and union affiliation.

But I suppose what is the same then as it is now, is that even if a Tory proposal is worthwhile, tradition had it that some how the Tories would corrupt it. Just because, even if they weren't actually all of that class, the Tory Party was seen to be the tool of the "ruling class", and for them to have an initiative, even if it was good, was bound to mean that in the long run it would be about them appropriating something to add to their empire.

And I was at that stage of my feminism, in terms of putting it into practice thinking, if you are a women's group you would at whatever occasion or opportunity reach out to other women's groups on the understanding that there would always be something in common to be shared.

And of course what actually took place was that predominantly groups of white women, just refuse to even recognise let alone interact with a range of women's groups from diverse back grounds.