Dear Amnesty International, I Too Am 'Anti-Rights' That You Made Up Just Five Seconds Ago
Totalitarian demands on other people are not actual human rights
A venerable human rights organization that has beclowned itself in gender madness has offered to become an object lesson in how human rights actually work.
Amnesty International, which used to complain about regimes torturing and murdering dissidents, issued a report last week on the growing threat of an “ anti-rights movement targeting the rights of women and LGBT+ people in the UK”.
A theme emerges in this document. “Over 60% of the organisations mapped have emerged since 2017, the vast majority gender critical organisations.”
Indeed, the counter-movement to gender ideology has only existed since the overweening and totalizing demands of gender identity law and policy have been imposed on western societies by their elites.
Effect, meet Cause; Cause, this is Effect. Introductions are over.
Amnesty International withdrew the report from publication nearly the same day they published it. Over the weekend, gender critical organizers issued legal letters demanding explanations, apologies, retractions, and meetings. Both Amnesty and their gender critical campaigner targets are government-registered charities. This will get very British, very complicated, and take time to sort out.
The report is misleading throughout. Sex Matters, Genspect, and Gay Men’s Network are part of a vast right wing conspiracy of “formal and informal groups, individuals, private and state actors whose aim is to restrict human rights by undermining human rights protections in law and practice”. There is deliberate confusion and conflation from the beginning.
Some of these groups describe themselves as ‘anti-gender’ because they visibly oppose the rights and equality of women and LGBT+ people. However, by targeting women and LGBT+ people, they also challenge a fundamental human rights principle: that human rights belong to everyone equally. Human rights are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. When the rights of one group are restricted, protections for others can also be weakened, even where the effects are not immediately visible.
Only men can be ‘trans women’. Because ‘trans women are women’, however, opposing men in women’s change rooms, rape shelters, and sports is ‘anti-women’, which makes For Women Scotland anti-women’s rights. See how that works?
Let us do the math here: these anti-rights groups are “targeting women and LGBT+ people”, which makes the transgenders and the mysterious plus sign just two of six total identity categories supposedly targeted by this anti-rights campaign.
Imagine your creepy male neighbor and a man in a dress standing behind three homosexuals and a woman. Now imagine the two of them say they speak for this entire group, which is your neighborhood Homeowners Association.
Now imagine that they claim to have newly-minted rights that apply to your fence, your home security alarm system, your workout, your bathroom, and your children. If you oppose their demands, then you are at least a bigot, probably a criminal.
This is ‘trans rights’. The pushback was ordained in the undemocratic way these unpopular ‘rights’ were impressed on the British people in the first place, through political fiat, without a debate, much less a popular vote.
