Amnesty International UK: Rights and Wrongs

Introduction

This post provides an archive of material associated with Amnesty International UK’s decision to publish defamatory material about a large number of UK groups who do not agree with its position on sex and self-declared gender.

Background: For Women Scotland v the Scottish Ministers

In November 2024, Amnesty International UK intervened unsuccessfully in the legal case brought by For Women Scotland (FWS) against the Scottish Government, to oppose sex being defined as an unchangeable physical characteristic for the purpose of the Equality Act 2010. Prior to the case, we noted Amnesty’s history of activism on this issue in Scotland here; this is part of self-ID activism by Amnesty over a number of years, for example here and here.

We asked all the parties to the case if they would publish their written submissions to the court. As we recorded at the time:

On 24 October, we wrote to the Chief Executive of Amnesty International UK asking whether the organisation intended to publish its submission, given the high level of public interest in the case… Last week, we received a response from Amnesty. This stated that Amnesty would make their submission public, but did not indicate when… On Monday this week (18 November), we wrote to all parties involved with the case, stating our intention to lodge an application with the Registrar of the Supreme Court seeking disclosure of all unpublished submissions…We received a response from lawyers acting for Amnesty International UK on 19 November. They also neither consented nor objected to our proposed application. They restated that Amnesty intended to publish its submission in future, but not when… Soon after we submitted papers to the court, Amnesty gave a new undertaking, to publish ahead of the hearing.

Amnesty’s submission to the court is available here. The Supreme Court was not persuaded by these arguments, and decided in favour of FWS and others who intervened in support of its case.

Amnesty’s publication on 8 July 2026

On 8 July, Amnesty International UK published a report A Growing Threat – the Anti-Rights Movement in the UK.

The report named a large number of UK based groups which reject Amnesty’s position on sex and self-declared gender, including us. The publication described us all as “anti-rights”, accompanying this with a lengthy description of what Amnesty International UK believes to be the beliefs, characteristics and practical situation of “anti-rights” groups. The organisations named included all those involved on the successful side in the Supreme Court case (For Women Scotland, Sex Matters, LGB Alliance and the Lesbian Project) with the exception of Scottish Lesbians.

By the mid-evening of 10 July, Amnesty had withdrawn the report from its site. At the time of writing, the page where it was previously posted includes this note:

The document remains in the public domain however, through archived copies. We are not posting it here, to avoid republishing the defamatory content.

Our correspondence with Amnesty

On 10 July, before the document was withdrawn, we wrote to the Chairs of the Amnesty International UK Section Board and Amnesty UK’s Charitable Trust.

We notice that in the report A Growing Threat – the Anti-Rights Movement in the UK published on 9 July by Amnesty International UK, we are listed on page 20 as an “anti-rights organisation.”

Please set out, by specific reference to our work, your reasoning for publishing this statement about us.

We would be grateful for your early response.

We have not received a response from the Chairs to our question, although this evening we have received a letter from the Chief Executive, which repeats the statement Amnesty International UK has given the press, quoted at the end of this blog.

Other letters sent to Amnesty

We provide for reference below the letters we are so far aware have subsequently been sent to Amnesty by other organisations named in their publication. We are indebted to journalist Gethin Chamberlain for collating these on Twitter/X.

Many of these letters go into more detail than ours, for example, setting out the legal issues raised by Amnesty’s behaviour, explaining the harm already done to organisations named and that its actions will continue to do, even if the report remains unavailable on its site, and proposing actions that it should take to alleviate this, and/or to avoid formal legal action. Genspect has sent the most formal letter, giving formal notice of its claim arising from defamatory statement published by Amnesty, and explicitly reserving its legal right to commence proceedings, if necessary. It includes a stipulation that Amnesty should not destroy any relevant documents and seeks a response within 14 days.

As many of these letters note, in contrast to Amnesty, the groups it has chosen to name are overwhelmingly composed of volunteers, without any salaried staff or the ability to retain or engage lawyers, and can only take on legal action at personal cost and risk. By contrast, Amnesty International UK appears to have an annual budget somewhere well in excess of £10m (its structure of separate charitable and campaigning parts makes the exact figure more complex to establish).

Sex Matters has also just published a list of letters sent, with helpful extracts.

• Children of Transitioners and Trans Widows Voices
• Clinical Advisory Group on Sex and Gender
• For Women Scotland
• Gay Men’s Network
• Genspect
• Kate Coleman re Keep Prisons Single Sex
• Labour Women’s Declaration
• LGB Alliance
• LGB Alliance Cymru
• Liberal Voice for Women
• Safe Schools Alliance
• ScotPag
• SEEN in Health
• SEEN in Journalism
• SEEN in Publishing
• Sex Matters
• Third Sector SEEN
• Thoughtful Therapists
• Transgender Trend
• Virago Women’s Workshop
• Women’s Rights Network

In addition, Beira’s Place has issued a statement:

Related research and statements by Amnesty

The anti-rights movement (June 2025)

In June 2025 Amnesty published a blog and video on “anti-rights” groups, overviewing its research to date (we could not find a standalone report). The blog said:

Our analysis maps the nature and finances of 65 anti-rights groups operating across the UK, including anti-abortion organisations, groups promoting so-called “conversion therapy,” UK branches of powerful US-based organisations, and ultra-conservative Christian groups, with many groups emerging since 2015. Three quarters are registered either as a charity or a company.

“Mapping the Anti-Rights Movement From the US to the UK” with Amnesty International UK, February 2026

In February 2026 the lead of the “anti-rights” work strand, a long-standing member of staff at Amnesty UK, its Gender Justice Programme Director Chiara Capraro, gave an interview to the website Bellingcat. In this she described how she had approached the work. For Women Scotland have commented in detail on the interview here.

Like a Snowball: the Growth and Impact of the Gender Critical Movement in the UK, May 2026

In May 2026 Amnesty published a precursor report Like a Snowball: the Growth and Impact of the Gender Critical Movement in the UK, apparently authored by Chiara Capraro. This purported to be an analysis of what it termed the “gender critical” movement in the UK. A technical annex named the groups it had deemed relevant in preparing the document, including many of the same organisations named by it as “anti-rights” in July, including us. We have not checked if there is any difference between the two lists. We are not linking it here, as it has been named as a further potential defamatory document in responses to Amnesty.

An accompanying news release said:

It stated:

Chiara Capraro is quoted further as stating:

“Anti-rights” update, July 2026

Following publication of the recent (now withdrawn) report, an update to the 2025 blog webpage (still available as an archive) made clear that in constructing its 2026 publication, Amnesty took a general view in principle that all organisations it classed as “gender critical”, because they disagreed with it on self-ID, are the same in nature as the anti-abortion and religious organisations it had examined in 2025.

Archived as of 10 July 2026

The reaction to objections of defamation

Some of the response to those raising objections to being defamed in this way illustrates the difficulty Amnesty has created for itself in publishing this material, regardless of whether it remains published on its website, and how it has created a Catch-22 of further reputational damage for those defamed: challenging the defamation is now being used to create a narrative of censorship. It also illustrates the guilt by association resulting from Amnesty’s approach.

This account has 213,000 followers on BlueSky, and the person who it belongs to teaches at a major US university.

There are further examples from social media of the Amnesty report’s original publication being used as “evidence” against groups named in it, including after it was withdrawn.

Public comment by Amnesty International

On 11 July, Amnesty International UK was reported as declining to comment to the press.

On 13 July, The Herald obtained comments from the International Secretariat of Amnesty International, the umbrella organisation for Amnesty’s separate national branches, and from Amnesty International UK.

The International Secretariat said:

This briefing was developed and published by Amnesty International UK (AI UK), one of 72 national entities in the Amnesty International movement.

AI UK has since removed the briefing from its website and has initiated an internal review process.

Amnesty’s International Secretariat was not involved in the development of this briefing and is awaiting the results of AI UK’s review. We support the decision to withdraw the report from AI UK’s website.

Amnesty International conducts independent research and campaigns on human rights issues worldwide, and works alongside victims and communities on the frontlines of the struggle for dignity and justice. This work includes a long‑standing and explicit commitment to gender justice, including the rights of women, LGBTQI and trans people.

Amnesty International UK commented that:

We regret that this briefing was uploaded to our website without going through the established internal review processes that are in place to ensure consistency, accuracy and alignment with Amnesty International UK’s positions. Its use of language does not reflect the position of Amnesty International UK which is why it was promptly removed.

We remain committed to defending human rights, including both the rights of women and the rights of trans people.

Barrister Barbara Rich has observed that “Isn’t the problem that the evidence suggests that the report is consistent and aligned with Amnesty International UK’s positions, and its managers and trustees now have to grasp the nettle of having taken those positions at quite a senior level and over some period of time?”.