Rape charity turns down funding from anti-immigrant donors

It's not really them stating their views though. They would have been if they had made a public announcement they were turning down the funding because they disagreed with the views of the donors. They didn't do that. They privately and politely explained they couldn't accept the donation.
It was the other party who made it into a big political thing with they post on X. I understand maybe they had to tell people who had given money on the expectation that it would go to the charity that it wouldn't. But a neutral statement would have done that. Instead they made it about them being politically discriminated against. The charity has remained as neutral as possible throughout.

Staying neutral is difficult. Every decision is a stance, even if the goal is to avoid politicization.

In a case like this, some of their clients may be from the immigrant groups targeted by the potential donor. I think that makes it an easy decision. Those potential clients comfort receiving services is more important.

Too many charities have become platforms for moral laundering. Nice to see some taking a stand on this stuff for once.

Firstly, a lot of charity work involves direct public affairs/ policy making. Accepting donations from 'anyone' could muddy the waters from a public perspective and open the charity up to accusations of bribery etc.

A clear and transparent donation policy, alongside proper due diligence often means that donations from 'questionable' sources are avoided before they're even made. But like this donation, sometimes a charity isn't aware until they've receievd the money and there absolutely should be a way to refuse that money if trustees feel it is not in alignment with their core principles.

I know, my typing is terrible and my keyboard is about knackered due to joining this board lol

I'd bloody love a substantial amount of Monet. 😁

It is ridiculous to suggest that the vast majority of small charities would be questioning individuals personal political points of view.

Charities must be careful not to align in any way shape or form with groups and organisations with ANY type of political agenda.

Groups with a more philanthropic, or philosophical points of view, such as a religious group, are fine.

My agency received a substantial amount of Monet three years in a row via a solicitor. I could not get to the bottom of who this donor was.

So i had to check with the Charity Commission.

It was deemed fine because of the arms length nature of the funding.

I was given to understand from someone at a later date, that the donor was a surprisingly high profile individual. Who randomly would fund charities they took an interest in, always small charities and always for three years.

Someone should tell SCA that you can donate to charity both privately and anonymously, without trying to get any publicity from it.

Good for them. Not only would it lower trust for some service users, the anti-immigration groups don’t genuinely give a shit about women and girls - look at the high levels of DA by their own supporters, the fact that Tommy Robinson nearly derailed a grooming trial, how so many extreme right wingers actually want to remove rights which survivors rely on like the HRA.

They only claim to care about VAWG as a way to pretend they have a legitimate concern and bring women into the fold. Opportunistic nonsense.

None of the users of this service would have known who SCA were or the presumably myriad views of their followers if GCRC hadn't refused their donation.

There is no way of knowing if this is correct as it didn’t happen. They may have found themselves being smeared either way.

To me, it looks like the SCA are trying to make political capital out of an organisation that supports women.

'In a post on X, the SCA posted a screenshot of the rejection email dated Aug 14.

Members of the SCA had visited the charity to drop off hygiene kits for rape survivors, which were initially accepted by staff at the site.

But the email from the GCRC read: “Following your visit, some of our staff raised concerns regarding the political nature and public positions associated with your group.

“While we appreciate the hygiene kits you supplied and the time and effort taken to visit us, we are unable to accept fundraising activities undertaken on our behalf by organisations that campaign on issues relating to immigration or other political matters.

“To protect our independence and ensure that all survivors feel welcome, safe and supported, we do not enter into associations that could be perceived as endorsing particular political viewpoints. We must therefore respectfully decline your offer of fundraising support.”

In an accompanying statement on X, the SCA said: “We are furious. Disgusted. Glasgow Live and Glasgow & Clyde Rape Crisis have twisted the truth and smeared a community group that simply tried to help rape survivors.
“Staff accepted our women’s essential hygiene kits on the day. Hours later they rejected any further fundraising purely because of our positions on immigration and community safety. Politics over survivors.”'

So it looks like it was the SCA who donated kits, the GRCC emailed to say they couldn't accept donations from organisations that campaign on political matters, then SCA took to social media to say how 'furious' and 'disgusted' they were. GRCC then made a statement.

Hmm. That's true but I just read the post and it is... Illuminating.

But this centre already seperated itself from other rape crisis centres due to it's wish to continue with single sex services. They have already seen the consequences of political capture and how messy they can get.

You also don't know if they have "discriminated" (interesting use of words) against other political groups. We only know about this because the group themselves went to social media to talk about their feelings (disgusted) because their offer was turned down. Rape crisis centres have the right to centre women who are victims of rape. And that includes the right to "discriminate against trans people" by not catering to biological men. It also includes the right to turn down funding or donations from political groups whose main focus is outside of the very narrow focus if the rape crisis centre.

The group can still campaign, post on social media, raise funds for themselves. Their existence is not being threatened by the fact a women's group doesn't want to align with them. Horseshoe theory in action.

It looks like they ran a specific fund raising campaign for the centre. If the donation was refused they have to let the people who donated to campaign so the donors can decide whether to request a refund or permit the donation to be used for something else.

I’m not sure how they could do this without publicly announcing it.

Oh, I absolutely agree it's not the place of the charity to hold views on that kind of thing. But I think that refusing donations kind of seems like them stating their views on the issue too? Unless they also have refused donations from any organisations that are pro-asylum seekers?

Although I can understand their thinking, and practically speaking, depending on what their usual supporters think, it might be for the best when it comes to optics and assuring future donations.

This was my first thought too. This is something of a non-event, yet someone has pushed it into the press. I find myself wondering whether they would have been smeared either way.

I’m sadly cynical these days, especially where women are making a stand for women’s rights. Look at all the aggravation KJK receives because she lets anyone speak and has been linked to literal Nazis, because they paraded beside her.

I suspect that, whatever they did, they couldn’t win.

SCA claim not to be political, but I am not sure that it's possible to campaign on political issues without being political.

Because if one political group are discriminated against when others aren't it's bad?

They can do right easily
They just need to be better at always centring men and the concerns of men. Then they would be OK. Unfortunately this rape crisis centre has failed to do this TWICE now. Hence the tantrums.

(Maybe there are women in the SCA. But a quick look at their social media suggests it is quite male dominated)

I mean, the SCA have turned down support from people who didn't match their values:

'Scottish Citizens Army postpones Parkhead demonstration

Titles are generated by AI from Meta
A demonstration was planned for 29 July at 6pm in Parkhead, meeting at the Whiterose Hall.
It has since been shared and promoted by people and groups whose involvement does not match our aims and values.
To protect the integrity and reputation of the SCA, and to keep full control of our message, we have decided to postpone this event.
We will be planning this for a different date.
Sorry for any disruption this has caused.
This is a careful and deliberate choice.'

(Facebook, 27th July).

People get accused all the time of 'aligning with the far right' and when a group who wants to remain completely nautral refuses a donation they get castigated for it.

Women's groups cannot do anything right can they?

Me neither. They also wouldn't know if you were or not so it seems irrelevant, unless you labelled the donation "I am giving this as a Reform voter/Labour voter". But why on earth would that be even relevant to a donation re rape.
This wasn't individuals. This was a specific group of people with (apparently) a political.slant. Which is fine, but that's different to an individual giving money and charities have a right to exercise discretion in whether they accept money from groups not individuals. Given the group then (apparently) went to the papers to complain suggests the charities instincts were correct.

If you aren't even a member of Reform then why would it be a concern that one can't donate to the charity? It feels like an extrapolation from the actual issue anyway.

Far better to have a blanket policy that they can demonstrate applies to all e.g. either they accept donations from any organisation with political views (with a clear statement this doesn't mean endorsement) or they don't.

They may well have such a policy, it just may not be public.

Well I'm not a member of a political party, so it wouldn't help much.