Amnesty International: You Have Lost All Integrity

It has been yet another episode of insanity brought about by identity politics. We know very well how lies corrupt organisations and destroy their very point of purpose.

The latest organisation to fall into this trap has undoubtedly been Amnesty International. And as Maya Forstater has documented, it has demonstrated a significant history of its capture.

As we have documented online, ScotPAG appeared on the, now famous, Amnesty UK list. It is a strange time when a small group of highly experienced professionals warning about the erosion of safeguarding principles and practices particularly regarding children, appears on an 'anti-rights' list. Particularly on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. It is even more alarming when this is perpetrated by a huge, well-funded international organisation.

ScotPAG has sent formal letters to Amnesty International UK challenging their unfortunate report which we have placed online. Several of our members have also responded out of a sense of incredulity, and overwhelming injustice at being publicly slurred. Here is an excerpt from just one of them:

Formal complaint concerning A Growing Threat – The Anti-Rights Movement in the UK

To: Amnesty International UK 

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to lodge a formal complaint about Amnesty UK’s report, A Growing Threat – The Anti-Rights Movement in the UK, in which ScotPAG is characterised as part of an “anti-rights” movement.

I am a member of ScotPAG, a small unfunded group of concerned professionals who engage in public discussion, advocacy and commentary on matters relating to sex, children, safeguarding and the protection of women’s rights in law. I have spent my entire professional life defending the rights and welfare of children, especially vulnerable children, through my work as a teacher, headteacher, schools inspector and, ultimately, Director of Education for a large local authority. Although I am now retired, I remain professionally and personally identified with that work, and my reputation continues to matter greatly to me.

I do not recognise ScotPAG, or my own beliefs and conduct, in Amnesty UK’s characterisation. My beliefs are simply that - beliefs. However, they are sincerely held, lawful and protected. These views arise from a lifelong professional commitment to safeguarding, child welfare, open inquiry and the fair balancing of competing rights.

It is my considered belief that gender ideology is a harmful social construct and that children should not be exposed to it as though it were settled fact. I do not believe that children or young people should be encouraged to understand themselves through the framework of having been “born in the wrong body”.

My position on rights is straightforward. I believe that all people are entitled to dignity, safety and fair treatment under the law. I have been a lifelong member of trade unions which defend the rights of workers. I have demonstrated that I have defended rights of those who can’t speak up for themselves countless times- through words and, more importantly, deeds. This can be evidenced. I believe in equitable treatment- in particular of more marginalised and stigmatised groups of people.

Where rights conflict, I believe they must be handled lawfully, sensibly and fairly.Against that background, I am deeply concerned that Amnesty UK has published or circulated a report which groups ScotPAG, a group of which I am a member, within an “anti-rights” framework. That label is not merely provocative. It is false, damaging and wholly unjustified in its implication that I, and the group of which I am a member, are opposed to the human rights of others as such. It misrepresents my work, my motivations and my ethical stance, and it is defamatory to my reputation.

Although I am retired, this does not lessen the seriousness of the harm. My professional standing has been built over many years in roles dedicated to the welfare, education and protection of children. Amnesty UK is a prominent public organisation, and its published judgments are capable of carrying significant weight with professionals, public bodies, charities, campaigners and the wider public. A public association with an “anti-rights” movement is therefore capable of causing serious reputational damage by suggesting prejudice, hostility or bad faith where none exists.

I am also troubled by the wider implications of a globally recognised human rights organisation applying morally loaded labels to individuals and groups holding lawful, protected beliefs. Such characterisations risk chilling legitimate public debate and wrongly stigmatising those who raise good-faith concerns about safeguarding, women’s rights and child protection. They may also deter others from engaging with or supporting those views, not because the views have been fairly examined, but because they have been branded in advance as morally suspect. I note that my core political values have not changed much since I was a student and big advocate of the work that Amnesty International promoted in the 1980’s and 90’s in particular. However I note that the world has changed around me so that organisations I have previously chosen to align myself with have failed spectacularly in keeping a core set of principles and have drifted so far down a rabbit hole of nonsense that they appear incapable of finding the way out into the sunlight where ideas and truth and justice can be debated and where I always defend the rights of others to hold different beliefs and am eternally curious and up for healthy debate.

Crucially, I would be happy to debate the author of the report in a dignified way. I would be happy to explain why my beliefs are as they are. I would also be more than happy to consider any evidence that is contradictory to my own beliefs which are not rigid and welcome respectful challenge and curiosity,

I am particularly disappointed that Amnesty UK does not appear to have sought to engage with our ScotPAG group before reaching and publishing these conclusions. Asking about our objectives, activities and the evidence underpinning our work would have been both straightforward and consistent with basic standards of fairness.

Accordingly, I ask Amnesty UK to provide:

•  The full evidential basis upon which ScotPAG was included within this report or

framework.

•  The methodology used to classify ScotPAG as part of an “anti-rights” movement.

•  Details of any published material, statements or activities relied upon in reaching that

conclusion.

•  Details of whether anyone at Amnesty UK contacted ScotPAG or any of its members

before publication to verify facts or seek comment.

•  Confirmation of whether ScotPAG, or any individual associated with it, remains included

in any current or proposed version of the report, database, briefing or related material.

•  Confirmation of what steps Amnesty UK now intends to take to correct, qualify, withdraw

or otherwise remedy this characterisation.

I would be grateful if this letter could be acknowledged promptly and treated as a formal complaint. I am looking for answers, not obfuscation. Once I have received your substantive response, I will consider what further steps, including any legal or regulatory remedies that may be available to me and to others affected, are appropriate.

Yours sincerely,

Carole McKenzie

Member, ScotPAG, Retired Director of Education