Rights and Wrongs, part 3: unanswered questions

This blog records our continued attempts to obtain a direct, unreserved apology from Amnesty International UK (AIUK), as well as greater clarity about past events and about how AIUK is addressing the failures it has acknowleged here.

Background

These earlier blogs set out the background.

We wrote to the Chairs of the charitable and non-charitable parts of AIUK on 10 July and received a general response from the Chief Executive on 13 July, on the same terms as the statement reported in our first blog, below.

We wrote again to the Chairs on 17 July, linked in our second blog below.

Latest exchanges

On 31 July, the Chair of the non-charitable part of AIUK responded to us, as set out below.

Background

I write in response to your letters dated 10 July and 17 July concerning the briefing “A growing threat”.

By way of background, Amnesty International UK Section Charitable Trust (the “Trust”) grants funds to support work carried out by Amnesty International UK Section (the “Section”). Section and Trust work together as Amnesty International UK (“AIUK”) as part of the wider global Amnesty International movement. References to AIUK throughout this letter are to Section and Trust collectively.

The “A Growing Threat” Briefing

The “A Growing Threat” Briefing was uploaded to the AIUK website just before midnight on 8 July. It was not promoted to any external media or on AIUK’s social media channels.

It was (as you note) referenced (pre-publication) by the author at a Civic Power Fund for 20 invitees at a meeting at Shoreditch Arts Club on 8 July, but no hard copies were distributed. This was not endorsed or supported by AIUK.

The Briefing was taken down early evening on 10 July, as soon as AIUK’s management heard of it. It was available for less than 48 hours. AIUK recognised that it should not have been published, and in its place published on 13 July the following statement:

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. Human rights protections are strongest when they apply equally to everyone, and no community should be singled out for unfair treatment or denied their dignity and rights.

AIUK has confirmed that it has no intention of republishing the Briefing.

AIUK also has no intention of using the methodology underpinning the Briefing in relation to the use of the language “anti-rights” in future publications. In addition, AIUK has removed the more discursive Like a Snowball Briefing, given the accompanying appendix and read in the light of the later A Growing Threat Briefing.

Action Sought

In your letter dated 17 July, you called for various actions.

AIUK undertake that the Briefing and its accompanying methodology will be permanently withdrawn.

On 31 July, AIUK issued the following public statement of apology on its website¹:

We apologise for the publication of the briefing “A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK.” This document should never have been published, and full responsibility for this error rests with Amnesty International UK.

The briefing was taken down within 48 hours of publication, as soon as management were notified of its existence, was not actively promoted, and will not be republished. We have an ongoing internal investigation into how this briefing came to be published.

Whilst we do not share the views of all these organisations, we recognise the concerns raised by those labelled as “anti-rights” in the document. To be clear: this labelling does not represent our institutional position, and we apologise for its inclusion. In particular, we apologise to Beira’s Place and other groups, which we categorised as gender critical organisations, which we should not have collectively labelled as anti-rights. We have also taken down an earlier more discursive briefing (entitled Like A Snowball) which also referenced a wide range of organisations.

AIUK holds itself to the highest standards of research, evidence and editorial oversight in all its publications. We have concluded that this briefing fell significantly short of those standards. We will commission an independent external review to learn from this moment.

AIUK remains fully committed to defending the human rights, dignity, and equality of all marginalised groups, including women, girls, and members of the trans community.

This apology will remain live on our website for 30 days.

We can also confirm that an external investigation will be commissioned to independently investigate shortcomings, including in relation to AIUK’s systems and processes, that led to the issues about which your client and others have complained, and the lessons to be learned. Your comments in relation to what the external investigation should cover are duly noted.

Closing Comment

AIUK has a longstanding commitment to supporting the right to respect for private and family life as part of its wider work on human rights for all, including the rights of both women and transgender individuals. Although AIUK supported the position of the Scottish Ministers in the case raised by For Women Scotland, AIUK respects the decision of the Supreme Court and does not condone any abusive or threatening behaviour, including where directed at organisations or individuals who offer single-sex services in accordance with the Equality Act. We reject any assertion or insinuation otherwise.

Our response

We replied on 27 August. We welcomed some actions taken, but some questions we had asked were unanswered, or only partially addressed. We note, for example, that the response is silent on whether an electronic link to the report was shared when it was presented by a staff member at an event on 8 July. We have a new question about the report author’s scheduled appearance to discuss her work at an event later this month. We would also like to know the remit and timetable of the proposed review. Our response is shown below.

This is a response to your letter of 31 July.

Firstly, regarding our status, you refer at one point to ‘your client’, with the implication that we are representing MBM. To be clear, we are corresponding with you directly, as a very small policy analysis company, made up of three women. We do not have lawyers and have not to date taken up an offer of no win/no fee legal support. Unlike those involved with Amnesty International UK, we do not benefit from the shelter of a large corporation and its lawyers. We continue to ask you to take that into account here.

Continuing to reserve our position, we make the points below. We would also be grateful for answers to several questions, so that we can consider further steps.

a) We welcome the withdrawal of ‘A Growing Threat’ and ‘Like A Snowball’.

b) We draw to your attention the continuing circulation of the ‘Growing Threat’ publication in archived form. We provide several examples that we are aware of in the attached Annex.

c) Others have commented on the limitations of the content of your apology. We are disappointed also that it is only to be published on Amnesty International UK’s website for a period of 30 days. We do not understand the reason for this, particularly given clear evidence that the report remains in circulation. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, we note that the apology has not been published on any of your social media platforms. Please explain these decisions.

d) We welcome the commissioning of an external investigation. On that point:

i. We would welcome sight of the terms of reference and to know the timetable for that.

ii. We note that you will draw the points we highlighted to the reviewer’s attention. As the relevance of these points is an issue for those commissioning the review, we would be grateful if you could confirm that you have not only drawn them to the reviewer’s attention, but also asked that they are taken into account.

iii. Will the reviewer be asked to contact those of us named by Amnesty International UK, so that we can explain the impact on us? If not, how is the Board reassuring itself that that aspect will be properly dealt with?

iv. Will the report of the review be shared with us?

e) You advise that the author, when attending the Civic Power Fund event on 8 July explicitly in her capacity as an employee of Amnesty International UK, did not share any hard copies. Can you confirm whether a link to the online version was shared?

f) Please also advise whether you have informed all organisations in attendance at the event of the subsequent decision by Amnesty to withdraw both reports, and the reason for this.

g) We are aware the author is currently billed as appearing to discuss ‘anti-rights movements’ on the panel at a forthcoming event. We would be grateful to know what actions the Board has taken to oversee external engagements by Amnesty International UK staff involved in its ‘anti-rights’ work. Specifically, how has the Board ensured that these engagements do not conflict with the withdrawal of ‘A Growing Threat’ and ‘Like A Snowball’.

h) We note and regret the absence of a response to points (c), (d), (e) and (g) in our letter of 17 July 2026.

For reference, we said that we:

c) would expect that apology to be shared by you actively as necessary, at minimum with all those to whom you have already
advertised the report, including any attendees at the event held on 8 July, discussed below, who were pointed to the publication online or offered a printed copy.

d) seek an unreserved apology directly addressed to us, in terms to be agreed with us, in a formally signed and certified letter that we can keep on permanent record to use as needed, as your actions have created a new open-ended reputational risk to us, which you will be unable to remove entirely.

e) ask for an ex gratia payment, in recognition of the time we have lost dealing with your actions, which we would accept in lieu of pursuing any more substantial form of financial settlement

g) seek confirmation of what steps you intend to take to prevent such failures of fairness and accuracy in future.

We ask that the above points are now addressed.

Last, you conclude that Amnesty International UK ‘does not condone any abusive or threatening behaviour, including where directed at organisations or individuals who offer single-sex services in accordance with the Equality Act. We reject any assertion
or insinuation otherwise.’ This is a puzzling statement. The issue we raised is not what you condone, it is the abuse that you have caused to groups including those arguing in support of such services, and whether you recognise and regret doing so.

More generally, we remain to be reassured that the Board of Amnesty International UK fully appreciates and accepts responsibility for how the organisation has exposed us to reputational damage, and distress, by naming us inaccurately as it has, and has taken all the action it could to deal with that. We contrast the terms of the published apology, on which your letter to us rests, with the email sent by your chief executive which stated that “We know that this will be disappointing, frustrating and upsetting for our supporters, members and activists and for this, too, we apologise without reservation.” (emphasis added)

We look forward to your response. Copy goes to Sandy Ruthven, for his interest as Chair of Amnesty International UK’s charitable trust, and to Dame Judith Unwin, Chair of the Charity Commission for England and Wales, for information.

Conclusion

We continue to hope that the Board of Amnesty International UK will recognise properly the harm their organisation has done to much smaller and less securely established organisations, such as ours, and the ethical obligations that creates.