Threatening and abusive correspondence

Comments

6 responses to “Threatening and abusive correspondence”

1. 

   guest

   Jul 16, 2026 11:06 PM

   I’ve read elsewhere someone suggesting that that was the actual purpose of the report – it wasn’t intended for people to take it seriously, but rather to stir up the extremists against these organisations and give them some imaginary justification for violence.
2. 

   Mostly Cloudy

   Jul 17, 2026 5:09 AM

   It’s the way they – gender-huggers in general, not just Amnesty – class all of us…Just monsters all the way down.

   I’m aware that there have always been controversies and divisions in the feminist movement. But the sheer venom we’ve seen levelled at women who are suspected or actual sex-realist feminists – often from other women who call themselves feminists – is extraordinary.

   The “Terf” has become a veritable folk devil in progressive circles over the last 15 years.

   Reminds me of this passage:

   The young woman who expresses concern about male bodied people in women’s changing rooms does not receive a considered rebuttal. She receives social punishment in the form of pile ons, unfollowing, accusations of bigotry, and potential real world consequences including loss of friendships and professional opportunities.

   https://nitter.poast.org/i/article/2058056297593864606

   Anyway, you’d have thought that even if the TRAs strongly disagreed with the philosophy behind Beira’ Place, that they would have discerned that publicly attacking a domestic violence shelter as “anti-rights” would be a bad idea. Not so.
3. 

   Mostly Cloudy

   Jul 17, 2026 6:06 AM

   I just found this online. From Helen Staniland, two years ago:

   From the Amnesty website. It’s just insulting to the women and girls of Afghanistan – and actually everywhere – to even hint at their oppression under the Taliban being due to ‘identifying as a girl’ rather than being born female.

   https://nitter.poast.org/helenstaniland/status/1827299173571469442#m

   Grotesque. That Amnesty post implies that the poor women and girls of Afghanistan somehow “identified into oppression”.
4. 

   maddog1129

   Jul 17, 2026 8:18 AM

   But when it comes to figuring out which people to rape, suddenly everyone knows exactly who is a woman.
5. 

   Ophelia Benson

   Jul 17, 2026 10:18 AM

   Also when figuring out which people can be “surrogate mothers”.
6. 

   Holms

   Jul 18, 2026 4:25 AM

   The human rights charity apologised for the report and said it had been withdrawn while an internal review took place.

   Weird. Though it is before my time, the impression I have is that the earlier generations of rights activists – suffragettes, MLK’s movement and similar – never took this timid ‘oh gawsh’ approach with their principled stand. Instead, they accepted that they were opposed by powerful people and groups – even the government – and accepted that there would be consequences such as charges and arrests as the price to pay for their principles. In later days, when the dust settled on their issue in their favour, they often considered the arrests and such as a badge of honour.

   Amnesty’s reaction is different. They are backing off, and from this I infer they know they are not fighting the good fight, so much as they are just… mouthing off. Performing outrage to maintain ‘ally’ bona fides. Further, I suspect they are afraid of discovery in particular should this be taken to court, as that would require them to show the justification behind the assertions.

   Any of the earlier activist movements would go in knowing the system might be against them, but they had the evidence behind their assertions. These guys know they are cooked.