Two former Amnesty International UK board members have apologised for their “inaction and silence”, while accusing the organisation of failing to investigate evidence of a toxic culture.

NOTE: See latest development in this story headlined: Three Amnesty International staff resign…’

Ex-board member James Lovatt and former vice-chair Hannah Perry revealed they had written separate letters to the human rights organisation over the past few days calling for its leadership to be suspended. They want the charity to reveal and to “publish evidence of its awareness of a toxic culture for BME staff”.

Perry was vice-chair and a board member between 2011 and 2018. She wrote that she was sorry she had failed to act sooner when alerted to “clear evidence” of institutional racism in 2017.

Lovatt, who also called for senior leadership to be suspended, apologised for his role in “not getting voices heard earlier”.

He said he had shared evidence of a toxic culture with the charity’s director, Kate Allen, in February 2019, but it was dismissed as an isolated incident.

“This moment now can’t be allowed to pass without significant action,” said Lovatt.

Allen announced last month that she would step down from AIUK later this year after more than two decades in the role.

The new allegations follow the publication of an internal review last week that found incidents of overt racism at its international secretariat, a separate body but also based in the UK, including senior staff using the P-word and the N-word.

Third Sector spoke to several former AIUK staff who accused the organisation of being “institutionally racist” and called for all its senior leaders to step down.

The union Unite said it would put forward a motion echoing the call for the senior management team and its chair to resign.

It also accused AIUK of “misdirection” and “inaccuracies” in its response to media coverage earlier this week.

A “wholehearted” apology has already been released on behalf of the international secretariat, and a separate statement by AIUK promised to investigate the allegations against it “thoroughly in line with our policies and procedures”.

In the meantime, Almas Korotana, another former AIUK staff member, shared her experience from one-and-a-half years at the charity.

She said: “I was astounded by the lack of due process in place when white team members were being repeatedly promoted, compared with the experience of myself and other people of colour who were consistently made to interview against external candidates for roles.

“This is just one example of us not being afforded the same fair process and job security as our white counterparts.

“The contrast was so stark, and deeply upsetting.”

Severija Bielskytė also shared her experience of working as an unpaid intern at AIUK.

She said she was sometimes treated as if she did not exist and was pressured to take on more unpaid hours.

Bielskytė said she even signed a contract, but it was withdrawn on the day it was due to start. This led her to going into debt because she had quit a paid job believing she no longer needed the income.

“Unpaid internships and so-called ‘volunteering’ opportunities are exploitation, plain and simple,” she said. “This is another symptom of unfairness at Amnesty and the sector more widely, felt even more greatly by people of colour.”

Union calls for all senior leaders at Amnesty International UK to step down.

22 April 2021 by Third Sector.

The union Unite is calling for all senior leaders at Amnesty International UK to step down after reports of racism at the human rights organisation. 

The union said it would put forward a motion calling for all the AIUK senior management team and its chair to resign after accounts from former staff members about their experiences of encountering racism at the organisation. 

It also accused AIUK of “misdirection” and “inaccuracies” in its response to media coverage earlier this week. 

It comes after the emergence of an internal report that found incidents of overt racism at Amnesty’s international secretariat, including senior staff using the P-word and the N-word.

Third Sector spoke to three former staff members at AIUK about their experiences of working at the UK body, which is a separate organisation to the international secretariat. 

Kieran Aldred, who worked for AIUK as an advocacy officer for three years until 2018, described it as “institutionally racist”.

Aldred said in a tweet that Unite had passed a resolution calling for the resignation of the senior management team, including director Kate Allen and chair Eilidh Douglas.

Allen announced last month that she intended to step down later this year after 20 years in the role. 

All three ex-employees had also previously called for AIUK’s leadership to resign. 

The Guardian newspaper also included negative comments about AIUK from former staff members in an article earlier this week. 

A “wholehearted” apology was released on behalf of the international secretariat, and a separate statement by AIUK promised to investigate the allegations against it “thoroughly in line with our policies and procedures”.

But Unite said in a statement today: “Union members have alleged that the official organisational response to the media story contains inaccuracies, omissions, and misdirection, and insufficiently addresses the historic nature of the experience of our colleagues.”

The union said it believed that the toleration of racism at a human rights organisation – whether through ignorance, incompetence, indifference, inertia, or any other cause – was unacceptable.

In addition, there had been unacceptable failings by AIUK’s leadership, said Unite, as it presented 10 points it resolved to act on.

This included defending any union members victimised for speaking out against racism and supporting members to exercise their conscientious objection where their role required them to deliver an organisational response they believed to be untrue or harmful.

Unite said it would also investigate the legal, political and practical implications of adopting a position of non-compliance with grievance and disciplinary procedures until it was satisfied they were being implemented in a non-discriminatory way. 

AIUK said it understood the union was still drafting its motion and the organisation would not be able to provide a comment until AIUK leadership had seen the final version.