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.

You can write whatever random words you like, and to be honest all individuals or organisations are allowed to donate to and support whatever they want.

But the fact that women who met in here and took down the transes and their 'getting ahead of the law' aka illegal practices is and always will be chefs kiss.

I have to admire Mash’s confidence. Quoting Amnesty International as your source on a thread about a potentially libellous Amnesty International report is quite a bold move.

Mash seems to know a lot about this mysterious right wing funding. Do you think Mash could tell me how I sign up for my share? I wasn’t here the day they were handing out the forms. Will they backdate it, does anyone know?

The thing is, even if you do believe that left wing women are too silly to stand up for their own rights and are being duped by Christian and right wing organisations, there was a time when Amnesty would have been aware of articke 9 rights - freedom of thought, belief and religion. In fact protection of that right was their whole purpose.

I think this campaign does more harm to the credibility of Amnesty than anyone else. It’s sad to see what they have come to.

For example, author J.K. Rowling famously funded the For Women Scotland Supreme Court appeal, which successfully changed the legal definition of "sex" under the Equality Act to biological sex.”

I thought AI was improving, but apparently not.

legislation cannot be changed by the courts.

This is the big concern.

BUT think about it.

Getting our membership of the EHRC revoked and the Equality Act abolished gives Amnesty a long term purpose in the uk.

Kerching!

This is a bit like the suggestion that Union leaders have a vested interest in bad government and laws, thus ultimately are shit because it's a self serving gravy train to be like this rather than do their job better.

If you were afraid of the situation Stonewall found themselves in through the success of gay acceptance, then what better business model.

The tell with amnesty is this business of targeting men who normally don't have an interest in rights as a strategy rather than seeking good issues to campaign on.

As I say up thread the message on twitter which I saw that really is important is the one saying that Amnesty have showed no interest in campaigning against the removal of a right to trial in the UK.

They made a conscious decision to market amnesty as a lifestyle product rather than look for injustice. This is as far removed from grassroot campaigning as it gets.

It makes me wonder how well informed their safe are and whether they lack general knowledge skills. If they have hired a bunch of marketers rather than people who have a solid understanding of the workings of democracy, they'd be screwed.

Many of the groups it has attacked are very firmly grassroots organisations. They pose a direct risk to Amnesty - they are chock full of people with a good understanding of rights and a history of action not virtue signalling. Again this stands to be a direct threat to Amnesty because they've been working to dismantle the misinformation

This could come down to poor pay in the charity sector and the overall quality of staff declining v charities who have few paid employees but very active volunteers. As well as a public who have declining levels of general knowledge and political understanding.

We know that less people watch the news or read the news than in previous decades. The decline of the tv news viewership and newspaper readerships is quantifiable. Increased competition from TV on demand means habits have changed. Gone are the days where everyone watched the 6pm news after neighbours cos there was fuck all else on TV in that hour. Most young people get their awareness of the news through social media not good quality sources of information. We've seen the switch in newspapers from investigative journalism which is expensive to cheap opinion columns due to financial decisions and pressures.

Note the shrinking number of Amnesty members in this too. Amnesty are in effect like the BBC - struggling to adapt to technology change in communication (oooh look a media studies degree thesis subject here - this would be great for someone). Their entire model - like the licence fee - is effectively at risk because it's no longer fits into the world of grass roots activism. There aren't young people watching/reading heavy duty or long reports into an injustice. They can't get their brains around anything more than 256 characters, thought terminating cliches and scripted plans in what they should believe to identify as progressive. This is a failure of education.

There's far too many people including sitting politicians who don't understand the workings of the courts and parliament. This nonsense of wanting to overturn the ECHR guidance rather than lobbying MPs to change the law by Amnesty of all people, is shocking.

They are trying to undermine the due process of law and the checks and balances of law. They have no concept of how much this is playing with fire over the very existence of democracy in the UK. It's authoritarian play book stuff. But this suits their income stream.

Same here. But then they’ve been completely captured for years now, I stopped donating to them 5+ years ago for this very reason. It’s sad, they used to do important work but now it’s all about the men feelings.

Their entire model - like the licence fee - is effectively at risk because it's no longer fits into the world of grass roots activism. There aren't young people watching/reading heavy duty or long reports into an injustice. They can't get their brains around anything more than 256 characters, thought terminating cliches and scripted plans in what they should believe to identify as progressive. This is a failure of education.

And the idea of writing physical letters, with a pen and paper, putting a stamp on them and posting them to people imprisoned for their beliefs now seems lightyears away from what Amnesty has turned into.

Masha doing sterling work for TRSOH and #OperationLetThemSpeak, kudos

A friend of mine works for a law firm. He says they won't be out out of jobs by AI for a long time. They have legal problems due to someone who has been lazy and used it for their work. He points out that AI just isn't capable of understanding niche case law or the nuance of complex real life situations.

We've just run a community event. The head person did all his event planning and risk assessments through AI. Rather than ask for help from those who had experience of running the same event and experience of writing and implementing risk assessments in real world situations. Omg it's been a car crash. A few of us have run around like headless chickens covering all the cracks and gaps in what AI produced. The whole document he produced was utter nonsense, didn't reflect human behaviour and had massive gaps in knowledge. Fortunately we had that experience and oversight. But imagine a work environment without that?

AI is a massive risk - we should be writing risk assessments for it's use in many scenarios. It isn't a substitute for experience and in-depth work environments. It's too shallow in its level of understanding. Garbage in, Garbage out remains the problem.

If someonecwas to set up a rapre crisus centre exclusively for transwomen... there wouldnt be outcry.
Or for men.
Or for women of a particular religion or race (except perhaps Christian).
But for women of any religion, or race, or age... as long as they are biological women...

Its "anti rights".
Can someone explain the logic...

Yes.

££££££

Follow the money.

Again repeating myself.

Note the number of former Amnesty members/workers/donor's here and elsewhere who are gender critical.

It's not a coincidence.

On the contrary, BirdLandedonmyHead, 'If someone was to set up a rape crisis centre exclusively for... men.'
I for one would be entirely supportive.

Especially if the 'someones' were men themselves, or transwomen setting up a centre for transwomen, just as women campaigned and fundraised and worked for decades to set up rape crisis centres, without any official assistance and often met with obstruction and intimidation.

So if men, transwomen, whoever, want to campaign and fundraise and put in the hard yards to set up crisis centres to help and support men, transwomen, whoever, who have been subjected to sexual assault of any kind - I'm right behind them, and I respect their right to their own spaces to deal with their own particular experiences of trauma.

If I meet any of them ratting collection boxes, as women had to do to fund RCCs, I'd even put a few bob in myself to support them. I presume you would too, BirdLandedonmyHead?

Actually DOING something, rather than blowing hot air on social media seems to be a theme.

Who are the doers? Who are the blowers?

Im guessing you misread "wouldnt be an outcry" as "would be an outcry".

Im supportive of a few mens mental health chairitys, like Mens Sheds, as they do goid work for men.
And no one compmains they are exclusively for men.

So what exactly is wrong with a service just for women?

In fact, it turned out that billions of dollars were being spent overseas on pro LGBT+ campaigns by the US USAID programme. Elon Musk famously cut this off in one fell swoop, leading to us learning where places like Stonewall were getting much of their funding from.

I see that in a subsequent post you highlight three organisations that Amnesty claim get funding from US right wing sources. Whatever, that is a tiny fraction of the orgs on the Amnesty hit list.

The fact is, you cannot cherry pick like this, or ignore the funding from the likes of USAID https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c36we3pnxy6o

Not only that but we're doing what Amnesty used to do. Sitting in our living rooms firing off letters. Admittedly it's emails nowadays and anyway it's only about boring old women's rights so who cares, but even so.

Amnesty went off chasing big money and big influence. And now they're surprised that all those women who used to make Amnesty so effective in their own time and on their own money can still campaign effectively in our own time and on our money. Only Amnesty stopped caring about women and we stopped caring about Amnesty.

I don't want to see Amnesty sued. I just want to see them sitting in the corner in a dunce's cap.

JKR...

https://x.com/i/status/2076230556258324600

.

Nitter for comments

https://nitter.net/jk_rowling/status/2076230556258324600

Yes, another one here. I used to write letters and run charity stalls for them. Wouldn’t touch them or Oxfam with a barge pole now

I'm surprised we haven't seen JKR go to court yet due to the numerous shite she has thrown at her and her good work. Its only a matter of time though. I'm stocking up on popcorn.

I think legal action might be the only sensible option at this point. Amnesty have behaved appallingly and widespread defamation can’t be allowed to sit.

Sincerest apologies, yes that's exactly how I misread it.