In which Amnesty jumps the shark

[WrongKindOfFeminist]

A report on 'anti gender actors' from Amnesty appears to be a puzzling work of jumbled nonsense and overwrought fiction.

Either they completely fail to grasp what 'gender critical' means, or they are deliberately trying desperately to bundle it in with Xtian rightwing US organisations. Maybe both.

Trans activists have been accusing UK feminists of being rightwing Xtian US fundamentalist funded for years. Sometimes it's funny, more often it's just fucking tedious.

Anyway.

'An organised anti-rights movement targeting the rights of women and LGBT+ people is growing in the UK. Over 60% of the organisations mapped have emerged since 2017, the vast majority gender critical organisations'

What the everloving fuck do they think they mean, here?

Feminists 'target' the rights of women? In terms of - feminists have fought long and hard for the rights of women? Yes, well done, Amnesty.

Then they whang on a lot about abortion and well funded US rightwing organisations, including religious groups, etc.

And then ...

'In fact, gender critical organisations only account for 2.5% of total expenditure but have been remarkably successful in realising their agenda through strategic litigation and campaigning.'

Will you ever actually use your brains, Amnesty?

The list at the end should give them a wee clue. Dozens of feminist organisations, almost all listed as 'informal', yet lumped in bizarrely with massive US anti abortion groups.

Idiots.

www.amnesty.org.uk/knowledge-hub/all-resources/report-a-growing-threat-the-anti-rights-movement-in-the-uk-july-2026/

@Fridayyesterday
I clicked on your link, and found myself down a rabbit hole.
Ended up at a you tube video.
One of the comments started off with this. I swear I've not altered it.
'Women weren't prevented from "taking contraception" in the 1950s. Aural contraceptive pills simply didn't exist until 1960.'
All seriousness melted away, and my brain is now frantically imagining all sorts of ways to implement "Aural" contraception. It's all getting very hectic in my head right now.

Aural contraception: being told if you have sex outside marriage you’ll go to hell?

I’ve been circling the rabbit hole, trying not to fall in. Here are the notes introducting the podcast, written over 5 months ago,

“In this week's Stage Talk we were joined by Amnesty International UK’s Gender Justice Director Chiara Capraro. In a recent report, Chiara and her team mapped the structure and funding of 65 anti-rights groups operating across the UK. She shares the methodology behind the research, what it reveals about the current trajectory of rights-restriction campaigning, and what it could mean in the years ahead. We also explore the key similarities and differences between movements in the UK and the US.
The talk was hosted by Charlotte Maher on Thursday February 12th 2026”

As @MarieDeGournay says, it’s not thrown together over a weekend by the office junior.

I took an archive of that link in case it gets taken down.
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20260715230211/rss.com/podcasts/bellingcatstagetalk/2547258/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20260715230211/rss.com/podcasts/bellingcatstagetalk/2547258/

It's use of language does not reflect the position of Amnesty International UK

The correct first word would be "its", a third person possessive pronoun. I'm assuming that Maya copy-pasted verbatim, making the error Amnesty's?

LGB Alliance also intervened for the plaintiffs in the ECtHR case Fedotova and Others v Russia (2021), which judicially reprimanded Russia for not allowing same-sex couples to have a civil partnership or similar legal recognition of their committed relationship. Again, demonstrating that they are an LGB rights organisation.

To the tune of La Donna E Mobile:
We want the 😆 back,
we want the 😆 back...

Or, to quote Ken Dodd, same tune

Woman is fickle
Give her a tickle…

Probably not.

A propos of nothing, I went on holiday with a Diddyman once.

I skim read that transcript the other day. It’s similar to the Guilty Feminist one which I’ve listened to.

'legitimises them as part of civil society' - Amnesty doing a DARVO

I've read that Amnesty will not be republishing the report.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/26282623.jk-rowlings-charity-threatens-take-amnesty-uk-court/

'Asked to comment on the letter from Beira's Place's lawyers, a spokesperson for Amnesty said: "We are aware of the letter and are engaging constructively with the process. We can confirm that we will not be republishing the briefing." '

"We are aware of the letter and are engaging constructively with the process. We can confirm that we will not be republishing the briefing."

That sounds like something our soon to be X PM would say, he was very wedded to hiding behind the 'process'. 😂

The TRAs will be enraged and sharing it even more, causing more damage and more liability.

They need to sack someone.

I wonder what Amnesty will do next. They have three options:

1. Refuse to agree to Beira's Place requests, and be prepared to fight a libel action, which will be expensive and they will almost certainly lose.
2. Agree to Beira's Place requests in full (ie publish an apology and commission an external review into why they published the doc in the first place). Humiliating, but also relatively cheap, and will probably serve to close down the legal threats from the other defamed organisations.
3. Quibble over the requests, eg saying they will apologise but will publish the apology on an obscure bit of their website and they'll commission an internal review but not an external one. This will be tiresome and will just prolong the agony, and will no doubt end up costing them money.

The only sensible option as far as I can see is 2.

Is it the word “no!” through every speaker in the house? Or maybe “stop that you dirty dirty pair”?

Oh no - maybe it is what “getting f*ed in the ear” refers to. I have never understood that saying.

I wish they'd all go straight to suing

Even from Amnesty's point of view option 2 has some upsides. On the surface it is eating humble pie. But there's some upsides. It comes across as taking the most responsibility, and being the best response from an onlooker's point of view. I think there's another less obvious upside for Amnesty, it opens the door to AI making staffing changes at AIUK as a result of the review and any recommendations.
@Fridayyesterday 's link on the previous page proves this wasn't a hasty slip up. This debacle has been many months in the making with Amnesty International UK’s Gender Justice Director Chiara Capraro apparently leading it. That sounds to me like a senior position. The report can't be brushed off as a mistake made in haste, it has patently been born out of strategy adopted by AIUK. That causes not only the current legal peril, but questions for AI about what else is going on in AIUK? What other problems will come out of AIUK in the future? What ongoing effects will AIUK have on the reputation of AI?
This sounds to me like a people problem. AIUK has become in my opinion a liability for AI. What better way to address an internal people problem than with an impartial external review? Especially if that review is to resolve external legal conflict resulting from AIUK's actions.
Option 2 above gives AI a chance to resolve people issues at AIUK in a very open and transparent way, avoiding legal backlash from outside, and within. A great opportunity to clean house.

Yes, but I wonder if they’re also scared of a visit from Bash Back?

So the question is, can they swallow their 'righteousness' and actually do option 2?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Or the Trannish Inquisition either! Apparently it doesn’t matter if AIUK bankrupt themselves over this because then they’ll be martyrs & that’s a good thing.

If they are, they might like to reflect on the extent to which their own actions and pronouncements have got us to a position where an organisation like Bash Back (a) exists and (b) has not immediately been condemned by everybody in government, charities, NGOs, think tanks etc.

Letter before action is important for costs 😁

Is there another possibility, 2b if you like, where every decision maker resigns now, before it moves to legal action and before any investigation begins? A feeble apology is published, but any enquiry is hampered by the fact that all the key players are no longer working for AI, and their replacements just plead ignorance.
TBH, that’s what I’d do if I was involved with this mess - resign pronto to ‘spend more time with my family’ and ensure that someone else gets to clean up the shit.