CARE writes to Charity Commission over Amnesty report

CARE, alongside other Christian charities, has written to the Charity Commission in response to Amnesty International’s report categorising them as ‘anti-rights’.

The UK branch of Amnesty International published a report earlier this month entitled ‘A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK’. The report targeted 117 organisations which it viewed as ‘anti-rights’, describing them as sharing values and tactics. The list included CARE alongside other Christian charities such as Affinity, Anglican Mainstream, the Evangelical Alliance, and Premier Christian Media.

Amnesty International has since withdrawn the report, saying that the publication’s “use of language does not reflect the position” of the organisation. The letter cites other instances where the charity has targeted organisations with Christian beliefs on topics such as gender, sexuality, and the sanctity of life.

The letter, signed by directors and CEOs of charities such as Christian Concern, the Christian Institute, and Christian Medical Fellowship, corrects inaccuracies within the report and highlights Amnesty International’s approach to these organisations. The signatories call on the Charity Commission to reaffirm the rights of charities to engage in public debate without being mischaracterised as a threat to human rights, and the valuable contribution that Christian charities in particular make to public life.

Full text of the letter follows:

28 July 2026

Dear Dame Julia Unwin,

We write on behalf of the 11 undersigned Catholic and Protestant charities, all of whom were listed among the 117 groups labelled “anti-rights organisations” in Amnesty International UK’s recent report, A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK, published on 8 July 2026 and withdrawn several days later. The report contains a range of sweeping generalisations, allegations, and inaccuracies, regarding which we are writing to set the record straight.

The report targets 117 organisations with vastly different missions and philosophical underpinnings, describing these as “an ecosystem sharing values, goals, strategy and tactics”. This is false. The condemned organisations include Christian charities and news outlets, professional bodies, medical associations, grassroots groups, organisations supporting women fleeing sexual abuse or facing crisis pregnancies, those advocating for sex-based rights, and others.

In most cases, the only thing these organisations share is disagreement with Amnesty International UK’s position on a handful of contested questions relating to the value of preborn human life, human sexuality, or the immutability of sex. Some take no public position on these issues, while others address only one or two of them. Even before considering any of the content, to speak of these organisations collectively constitutes – at best – a lazy generalisation.

We also want to correct the report’s characterisation of our work as “anti-rights” and seeking to “challenge core human rights principles”. Several of our organisations 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. Following the withdrawal of the report, Amnesty International UK commented that the publication’s “use of language does not reflect the position” of their charity.¹ However, Amnesty International UK has repeatedly engaged in vilifying organisations that hold Judeo-Christian beliefs regarding the sanctity of life and human sexuality, as well as calling on various bodies to actively censor or discriminate against these views. This was not an isolated instance.

A June 2025 Amnesty International UK blog post used similar language to describe 65 “anti-rights groups”, asserting without evidence that some of these organisations “pretend to offer impartial advice, but actually actively discourage abortion by spreading misinformation and stigma”.²

A May 2026 report, Like a snowball: the growth and impact of the gender critical movement in the UK, went further, advising press outlets to adopt biased, censorial techniques when covering issues relating to identity and specifically the belief that sex is based on biology and cannot be altered by self-chosen “gender”. These include recommendations such as:

• “Do not frame reporting as a ‘debate’”;
• “...explain that [being gender-critical] is an ideological stance that seeks to restrict the rights of trans people held by some lobby groups”;
• “Do not imply that [gender-critical] views represent women’s views”; and
• Do not ask those identifying as transgender “gotcha questions”³.

We raise these examples because the now-withdrawn report was not published in
isolation but appears to reflect a relatively consistent approach.

In the same vein, the most recent report advises the Charity Commission to “[r]eview the awarding of charitable status” of the targeted charitable organisations, and suggests that institutional donors and grant-makers “[s]trengthen due diligence processes to reduce the risk of funding organisations whose activities undermine human rights protections”; clearly implying these same groups.

These recommendations constitute an explicit call to discriminate against our organisations by removing the mechanisms and resources that enable much of our work to continue.

Amnesty International UK’s comment after the report’s withdrawal asserts that “[h]uman 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.”⁴ We agree with that principle without qualification – and it is precisely the principle according to which Amnesty should review its own work.

The Commission you lead – whose duty it is to maintain public confidence in charities by ensuring their proper compliance, governance and conduct – has previously criticised those who seek to engage in censorship. A 2023 statement made by the Commission affirms that “when engaging in public debate and campaigning, [charities] should do so with respect and tolerance. Demonising and undermining those who think differently is not acceptable behaviour from any charity on our register.”⁵

To that end, we note the news that the Charity Commission is taking steps to ensure Amnesty International UK’s compliance with its legal and charitable obligations.

However that case concludes, we ask the Charity Commission to reaffirm two things clearly:

1. That charities across the sector are entitled to engage in public debate on contested moral questions without being mischaracterised as a threat to human rights by other charities; and
2. That Christian charities committed to advancing religion, as well as faith-based organisations working on the sanctity of life, marriage and the family, and biological sex-based rights, make a legitimate and valuable contribution to public life in England and Wales.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy, ADF International
Graham Nicholls, Director, Affinity
Canon Dr Chris Sugden, Chairman, Anglican Mainstream
Ross Hendry, CEO, CARE (Christian Action, Research and Education)
Dr AJ Farrell, President, Catholic Medical Association
Andrea Williams, Chief Executive, Christian Concern and Christian Legal Centre
Ciarán Kelly, Director, The Christian Institute
Dr Mark Pickering, Chief Executive, Christian Medical Fellowship
Gavin Calver, CEO, The Evangelical Alliance
Dr Chris Richards, Director, Lovewise
Kevin Bennett, Chief Executive, Premier Christian Media Trust

¹ https://www.christiantoday.com/news/amnesty-international-uk-expresses-regret-over-report-that-branded-christian-groups-anti-rights
² https://www.amnesty.org.uk/knowledge-hub/all-resources/the-anti-rights-movement/
³ https://media.amnesty.org.uk/documents/Like_a_snowball_final_.pdf
⁴ https://www.christiantoday.com/news/amnesty-international-uk-expresses-regret-over-report-that-branded-christian-groups-anti-rights
⁵ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/charity-commission-responds-to-mermaidslgb-alliance-tribunal-verdict