Rape charity turns down funding from anti-immigrant donors

Why don't you try and report back?

I also would be very interested in the answer to this.

If it's the rape crisis centre themselves that ran to the papers I would question their decision. Although for lots of reasons that seems unlikely.
If it was someone from the group from whom the donation was refused then why do that? Presumably for more publicity but then it puts into question how genuinely altruistic they were with their initial offer. It would seem to be an attempt to make themselves the victims (bearing in mind this is a rape crisis centre!) and get attention by creating a dog pile on a women's charity. I don't like that and I wouldn't like it if it was a left wing or pro-immigrant or anti-racist or pro- trans group doing it either.

If your donation will be accepted, please still give

Interesting part of the statement. Will donations from people who are openly right voters (e.g. someone who's a member of the Conservative party, or - HORRORS - Reform) be accepted, or not? Would be interesting to have clarity on that.

Well maybe there is a case to be made there. But then that case should be made separate to the sharp end of providing services to the victims of rape. They are different things. In the same way if a pro-immigration group were providing funding to a rape crisis centre one might worry that it might concern women raped by immigrants etc that they would be policed in how they talked about their trauma

I think Mhira Whadals appointment had a real impact on how trusted that rape crisis charity could be to deal with how women talked about their experiences. Tjey were told to "reframe your trauma". Unacceptable - as soon as a rape crisis centre starts taking positions on other political issues you run the risk that the centre aim of the charity is misdirected. And again, it can be argued women's experiences with sexual violence were used as a cover to further political aims. Even if the donors in this case had pure intentions I can completely understand why the charity would be cautions..once bitten twice shy.

For the charity to turn it down means they asked for a photo / letter to put on their media which makes it a statement.

Just wondering if there's any evidence for this?

Plus, rightly or wrongly, you then open yourself to conspiracy theories. Their reputation is cleaned, yours is tarnished and that really matters if you are trying to cater to already vulnerable people. I can see how "supported by Masons" would spiral.

Especially for a charity that already had to deal with the fallout from the debate over single sex spaces I can see why they would be cautious. I wonder if the people criticising it would also think about how (eg) a trans charity supporting a rape crisis centre could impact that centres decisions. It makes sense to be as neutral as possible.

I can remember there were a bunch of men that raised money for an NHS charity by dressing as "sexy nuns" for a fun run and actual nurses were really annoyed because they have to deal with the consequences of being sexualised etc.

Cross posted with Arabella. Thank you for posting their statement in full.

I'm less and less convinced the decision was the right one and - ironically - not politically motivated.

It's impossible to know if this was a good decision or not based on the info available, in my opinion.

I find it suspicious that the 'messaging' and 'comments' that is cited is not reproduced - there is no evidence, we're supposed to accept this as true (just as we've been expected formerly to accept men are women etc). That suggests to me a judgement has been made that may not be warranted or hold up to scrutiny. The anger from SCA suggests it may well have been either an individual comment from someone giving a donation, not their position as an organisation or misrepresented.

What if one of the people donating who made a 'comment' that they didn't like is a victim of rape? Are they likely to feel they would be welcomed at GCRC now?

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. I don't think GCRC have done this. I also don't think, for the record, it's clear that SCA are a political organisation, certainly not primarily. Every individual has political views so it's a slippery slope.

The group's FB statement:

'Statement: Glasgow & Clyde Rape Crisis donation refusal

We are not a political party and we are not politically aligned with any party.

We are a community group focused on safety and wellbeing in Scotland.

This includes support for women and children, safeguarding, housing and public services.

We have consistently raised concerns with politicians who have failed on these issues.

This is about accountability, not political alignment.

We have never said we are against immigration.

We support a fair and lawful immigration system.

Our concerns relate to the impact of high levels of migration on housing, public services and community safety.

We do not target people based on nationality, ethnicity, religion or background.

We donated women’s essential care kits, which were accepted by the service.

Staff engaged positively with us at the time.

Shortly afterwards, we were informed by email that the fundraising could not proceed due to concerns about our wider public positions.

We are disappointed by this decision.

Glasgow & Clyde Rape Crisis has publicly stated that demand for their services is high, that waiting lists have been closed, and that survivors face significant waits for support in some cases up to 226 days.

They have also made clear that they need additional resources and donations.

We had hoped to contribute to that support.

The refusal means the funds raised cannot now go directly to the women and girls they were intended to help.

This is not about us. It is about the survivors who still need support.

We do not want this situation to put anyone off donating to Glasgow & Clyde Rape Crisis.

Women and girls continue to need help.

If your donation will be accepted, please still give.

All donations made through our fundraiser will be refunded.

Full details will be shared as soon as possible.

We will continue to support women and girls in our communities.'

Precisely this.

It's tangential, but it's truly bizarre to me that people try to argue that men who are mostly from (according to AI overview) Eritrea, Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, and Somalia wouldn't be more likely to be misogynistic and (sexually) violent towards women, given the environment they've been raised in have extremely high levels of both misogyny and sexual violence embedded into the culture.

It's this really weird denial of reality that I don't understand. It feels like TRA levels of gaslighting to try to tell women with a straight face that these men from countries with massive issues with sexual violence aren't statistically more likely to pose a threat to them.

Is this hypothetical risk from possibly one comment that otherwise would have gone entirely un-noticed (though we don't actually know what it is) more or less dangerous than women who are against illegal immigration feeling they would not be welcome at GCRC now?

Is it more or less dangerous than shutting down free speech and freedom of belief?

Personally I think performative virtue signalling that positions people with mild anti-all forms of immigration views as racist makes riots more likely not less likely. And could even be seen in certain lights as incitement (I'm not specifically talking about GCRC's actions here, just the whole general position that so many hold that even having a conversation about immigration is racist) If you shut people up for mild views or even wanting a conversation or solid data, then discontent and anger grows. I think silencing of those with legal opinions makes riots more likely. Saying you can't donate unless all your published opinions align with ours is suppressing free speech.

It's difficult to know if this decision was right because we don't know what SCA allegedly said and we don't have receipts. There is no evidence.

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. And if donations are refused for political opinions will rape survivors be turned away for political opinions too? Will right wing women be free to speak freely in rape counselling or will they be 'challenged for bigotry' and denied access to the service if they have something negative to say about their sexual abuser who happens to be an immigrant?

Yes, I'd like more detail on this, really. I don't have Facebook, so can't check out the SCA.

I don't think they (the SCA) should have publicised the charity's refusal (just find another charity to donate to), but I also think that accepting donations from some people and not others means that the charity creates the impression that it endorses its donors' views, and actively doesn't endorse the views of those it turns down.

Which makes it feel a little as though women who aren't keen on male asylum seekers(?) from countries with extreme misogyny against women, or who are attacked by an immigrant and feel embittered by that, wouldn't be welcomed at the charity if seeking their support.

I think some of the views expressed on this thread amply demonstrate why they did not accept the donation.

I might add i personally suspect that men from certain cultures who have come to this country, for whatever reason, are a greater risk of sexual offending.

But that would not influence a decision not to accept this donation. Which would be made at trustee level after careful discussion.

I would also say that even if it was what they consider a problematic view, if it was just a comment from someone who donated to the fundraiser and not the SCA themselves this is also pretty dodgy - holding the organisation accountable for the views of all those who support them.

But unfortunately we don't have this detail, which in itself I find rather odd.

Seems correct. The charity should be inclusive for all women and certain types of anti-immigrant rhetoric puts some of the users of their service in danger too. As we saw when the riots spilled out in Belfast and attacks on non-whites in Glasgow.

Looking at SCAs Facebook page they look like they concentrate on community safety etc and target men from all races who have committed crimes. Why should they (or we) have to pretend that men from certain countries don't present more of a threat and not be angry about them being imported into our formerly much safer countries? Why won't govt publish the figures (although we know from more sensible countries like Denmark that do publish the figures that there are men that pose much more of a threat based on their country of origin). What about their stance is political, it's just factual? The same as the trans issue is not political just factual really.

I'm sad to be so jaded but this rather reminds me of women who had GC opinions being told to 'reframe their trauma' and accept men who ID as women in their recovery space by rape crisis centres.

We don't know what the 'messaging' was. If it was simply a person making a donation to the SCA fundraiser describing a rape by an immigrant would that be ok or not? Are women allowed to tell the truth about what happens to them or not? Are they allowed to form opinions based on what's happened to them / their daughters?

Happy to be proven wrong here, but unfortunately we simply don't know on what basis the decision was made. Very light on that detail. The SCA refute the GCRC's statement about their 'messaging'.

I can understand how people simply trying to help feel furious at this. I don't think there's any evidence the SCA, which has nothing about immigration in its name, tried to create publicity linking them to GCRC. They just tried to raise money from their supporters. The article is a bit light on the 'messaging' which is condemned but not reproduced where they claim SCA 'linked sexual violence to someone's immigration status'. I'd like to make up my own mind on that, I think.

I also wonder how women on "the right" (which appears to be anyone questioning any aspect of immigration reality in this country) will now feel about seeking support from this group.

Honestly, I think they got this wrong and have created exactly the situation they were afraid of through their actions as it's now blown up. However, the people who may now lose trust in them are probably what they consider to be women with the wrong opinions, and I find myself wondering if they care.

People should donate without making a big fuss of it and any rejection etc should likewise not be public. IMO.

So one thing I would question is who has raised this issue and why is it in the papers/

I also question the issue of publicity.

A rape crisis centre necessarily maintains a tricky profile - they need to be visible enough to operate, advertise their services, and fundraise.

But they also have to be very careful not to compromise the safety and privacy of the women they are there to support.

For that reason, I understand avoiding all political involvement.

I would very much hope so.

The charity prioritise women and girls and support victims. By refusing to get into political stramash, they are prioritising recovery and support, the women they serve, not the interests of whomever wants to use the charity to make apoint.

Again, based only on the article, the charity has done nothing that should make her concerned.

If she had been attacked by a Green councillor or an Islamist or a Tory or a Trotskyite, should she feel equally silenced? Donations from groups opposing those positions are also not accepted (from what the charity says).

^https://www.fundraisingregulator.org.uk/code/standards-which-apply-all-fundraising/responsibilities-those-who-govern-charitable^

2.2 Accepting, refusing and returning donations

In this section, ‘you’ means the governing body of a charitable institution.
2.2.1
You must only refuse or return donations in exceptional circumstances. If you decide to refuse or return a donation you must document your decision appropriately.
You must make sure those fundraising on your behalf are aware that decisions relating to refusing or returning a donation must be made by you or in line with a policy you have set.

2.2.2
You must carry out appropriate due diligence, proportionate to the size and nature of the donation, on the potential donor before accepting a donation.

2.2.3

You must only refund a donation in line with your charitable institution’s policies or in exceptional circumstances. However, you must refund a donation if a donor correctly exercises their right to a refund.
Before you refund a donation, you must make sure you have the power to do this. If it is unclear whether or not you should refund a donation, consider getting legal advice.