Amnesty International UK has apologised for publishing a report that branded dozens of Christian, pro-life and gender-critical organisations “anti-rights”.
The human rights organisation said the briefing, titled “A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK”, “should never have been published” and fell “significantly short” of its standards for research, evidence and editorial oversight.
“Full responsibility for this error rests with Amnesty International UK,” it said.
The report listed 117 organisations it claimed formed part of an “anti-rights movement” supposedly working to roll back protections for women and LGBT+ people in the UK.
They included the Evangelical Alliance, Christian Concern, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, the Christian Medical Fellowship, The Christian Institute, Christians in Parliament, CARE, Premier, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association UK.
Also named were crisis pregnancy centres and gender-critical groups campaigning for the protection of single-sex spaces, as well as Beira’s Place, an organisation supporting female victims of sexual assault set up by Harry Potter author JK Rowling. Notably it did not include a single Muslim organisation.
The report called on the Charity Commission to review the charitable status of organisations on the list and said the NHS should stop signposting women to crisis pregnancy centres.
It was removed from Amnesty’s website within 48 hours following a backlash from the listed groups as well as women’s rights campaigners, including JK Rowling.
Amnesty initially expressed “regret” and said the briefing had been published without going through its usual internal checks.
An internal investigation into how the report came to be published is ongoing, but Amnesty has also promised to commission an independent external review.
In its formal apology, Amnesty acknowledged that the document should not have been published at all while confirming that it would not be republished.
“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,” it said.
“To be clear: this labelling does not represent our institutional position, and we apologise for its inclusion.”
Amnesty issued a particular apology to Beira’s Place and other gender-critical organisations, saying they “should not have [been] collectively labelled as anti-rights”.
It has also removed an earlier briefing, titled “Like a Snowball”, which referred to a wide range of organisations in a similar manner and branded gender-critical views as transphobic.
The apology follows calls from 11 of the blacklisted Christian charities to the Charity Commission to defend their right to participate in public debate.
In their letter to the regulator, they accused Amnesty of making a “lazy generalisation” in the way it had listed broadly different groups together, and objected to being labelled “anti-rights” when many “exist specifically to protect the fundamental freedoms that have formed the bedrock of democratic society for centuries, have deep roots in Christian thought, and are enshrined in international human rights frameworks”.
When the report was first published, Ciarán Kelly, Director of The Christian Institute, said: “Amnesty has fallen a long way from its origins defending prisoners of conscience. Now it has a pick ‘n’ mix approach to human rights.
“Tragically, this doesn’t include the right to life for babies in the womb, the rights of women being exploited through prostitution, or the rights of freedom of conscience and speech.”
Peter Lynas, UK director of the Evangelical Alliance, said it was “sad to watch Amnesty abandon rights in favour of the latest ideologies”.
Premier chief executive Kevin Bennett said, “Amnesty has real questions to answer about how this report came to be created and published in the first place, and what it reveals about their true position on these matters.
“Amnesty was founded with a mission to protect freedom of conscience and belief. It is sadly ironic that in reports like this it actually achieves the complete opposite, by making accusations against organisations and individuals seeking to thoughtfully contribute to the national debate on what are complex and contentious issues.”
