Rape charity turns down funding from anti-immigrant donors

The main thing is I think not that they would be accepting a donation from a group that disagrees with their politics (which, to be clear, I would applaud them for).

It is that the issue of men's violence against women is an issue which should not be diluted by an anti-immigration stance. It would be easy for action against VAWG to become a branch of anti-immigration campaigning if you accept donations from people who use VAWG as an example of why immigration is bad and fundraise to make a point about that. This ignores what the actual problem is (men. Of all nationalities and probably mostly, in this country, British).

All I have to go on is the Telegraph article.

The charity says “we do not enter into associations that could be perceived as endorsing particular political viewpoints” and declined the donation on those grounds.

I don’t think any service user could reasonably feel silenced by that stance.

Obviously if they’ve been happily accepting donations from groups that endorse other politics then they have some explaining to do.

But I think the reaction of SCA was pretty poor. Their donation fell outside the charity’s expressed policy and they took to social media to attack the charity. If the Greens had done that I’d be unimpressed at that too.

So for example, will the victim from this attack feel safe to seek support from this group now and tell the truth about her assault? Or not?

news.sky.com/story/syrian-man-who-fled-uk-after-raping-15-year-old-girl-near-hampden-park-is-jailed-13366784

How do you think the refusal of this donation will affect the trust of women raped by immigrant men? Do you think they'll feel free now to speak the truth about their rape?

If they'd accepted the donation I see no evidence at all that the group donating was planning to make a big thing of it. They actually say they feel their views have been misrepresented by GCRC. They could have just accepted the support and no-one would have known, presumably they would have been one of very many donors in a long list. Now they've created a mess of their own making. And I think they're probably on very shaky legal ground (given anti-immigration opinions are legal) unless every single other donor doesn't have political views. Which seems unlikely.

I suspect what's happened here, given that women working at the centre accepted practical support at first, is that one or two women who have strong political views at the centre have pushed for this. Such a shame.

I think this too.

There's a big difference between 'we're not accepting this money because it's from a group with overtly political aims and they're trying to link us to those via this donation' and 'we don't agree with some of the views of people who support this group'. The statement seems to imply the latter and they also seem to have unilaterally decided that it's not ok for people to hold anti-immigration views. Last time I looked this was a legal position to hold, it's not a crime.

The latter is insane purity politics, that puts the politics of those running the centre over the women and girls they are there to support. The former I can see, but I still think it's problematic if you single out one group and not another and surely there is a way to just prevent this by having a statement saying that accepting a donation does not mean agreement with aims of donors and does not allow the donors to link their group to GCRC for political aims. It's not rocket science.

It seems from the article the group were just providing support, they did NOT try and tie their support with politics. So GCRC appear to be the one making this political (and high profile) rather than focusing on women and girls who are survivors of sexual violence.

And whilst yes, some of their service users will be immigrants, some of them may have been raped by immigrant men too. Taking a political stance in this way won't help those women or girls at all, and could stop women from coming forward for help by this group. How awful for these women and girls. Women and girls should feel they can be truthful about their sexual assault to a group like this, now they won't feel they can. They should have stayed neutral.

It seems like a slippery slope - which views are problematic enough for donations to be refused? What about businesses who might have sweat shops in their supply chain? Are they going to do a background check on any man donating to make sure he's never in any way supported porn or prostitution, or had a restraining order, or hit his wife? How far do you go?

Perhaps it could start a trend! But yes, I understand that might cause it to be looked down on by the general public. It's such a shame, as 'bad' money spends just the same as 'good', and is far better put to a positive charitable use than sitting in the donor's pocket.

The latter policy would be good but is only workable if all institutions adopted it together (which they won’t).

Being the single charity going public with their Welcoming Satanic Donors Policy is unlikely to end well.

The charity trustees need to act in the best interests of the charity and its charitable aims.

I think given their rationale (maintain trust of all users) they are on pretty safe grounds.

The reputational consideration is also valid, though it does unfortunately create a heckler’s veto.

And I’m someone who thinks sex crime data probably would show significantly higher rates for some immigrant groups, as it does it other European countries that publish it. But that’s not the charity’s job to get into.

I agree. They're free to refuse donations, of course, and it wasn't a particularly significant amount, but it's odd to think that one person or group's money is acceptable, and another's isn't, because of their views.

(Although personally, I don't disagree with the idea that sexual violence is likely be more widespread amongst men who come from cultures where women are treated far worse than they are in Britain, with fewer rights, and more misogynistic attitudes. It seems bizarre to me to try to argue that people from a culture that view women as lesser wouldn't also treat them as lesser, to a greater degree than British men do (which is bad enough). But that's by the by.)

I would have thought that the best approach would be to say 'we will take money from anyone who will give us money, including Satan himself should he wish to donate, as it's all going to help women and girls. We absolutely don't endorse any of our donors' views just because they've given us money'. I wouldn't boycott a charity or think less of them because they took money from Trump, for instance. It's all money, going to a good cause. But perhaps the general public would think differently, and it would negatively affect the charity in the long run.

I’d agree that they made the right decision. This group could of made an anonymous donation and no one would of been the wiser. For the charity to turn it down means they asked for a photo / letter to put on their media which makes it a statement.

When I was a trustee we declined a donation from local Masonic lodge as they wanted similar. It’s reputation laundering, we aren’t “bad” as we do xyz

Just adding my voice to the many others approving their decision. Good for them.

Good for them.

https://www.glasgowclyderapecrisis.org.uk/get-involved/

Yep, they’d weaponise it. Essentially the charity would be providing them with cover and they’d mention they support the centre at every opportunity. It’s a stunt. I don’t see what else they could have done.

I wonder if there is an easy search to find a donation page for them?

Given their explanation I think this is the right choice.

They need to maintain trust of all users.

I think the rest of their explanation is a bit ambiguous but doesn’t override the above.

If a donor believed publicly that British women invite rape but nonetheless wanted to support them, I’d say the charity should turn that down too for the same reason.

Sorry - we've cross posted and I've edited my last post.

Nothing you've said changes my view

I have read the Telegraph article.

If you think i'm missing something - perhaps I am - what is it?

[edit - I understand the charity's explanation for refusing the donation - what I'm querying is whether their explanation is valid or just a "we don't like this donor's political position". I think charitiies should accept donations. Who would think they were adopting the views of their donors? I wouldn't]

Some things:

1 Does this mean charities should not accept donations from any political (or non-political for that matter) groups (or individuals), or only those that someone thinks have views that are "unacceptable"?

2 Does the Charities Commission allow charities to refuse donations on "political" grounds if the charity is non-political itself?

3 (a) I have no idea (I don't do Faceache /Twitter/X etc social media bollocks) what the aims or views of the Scottish Citizens Army are beyond what the Telegraph article says - ie they are "a proud supporter of strong immigration laws, community safety, and putting local people first"

I'm in favour of all those myself.

Why wouldn't GRCS also be in favour of those? (GRCS can still carry out its primary aim of supporting female rape victims whether they are local scottish women or immigrants - legal or illegal)

(b) I wonder if there might be a significant number of Mumsnet members who sincerely believe that uncontrolled immigration into the UK of young males (ie immigrants) from countries and cultures where women are more likely to be disrespected and to be subject to routine domestic abuse and sexual violence (including rape) than they are in the UK might be something that needs some thought given to?

What about this: Article on the threat to UK women from Afghan immigrants | Mumsnet

My own view is that charities should accept whatever donations they are given.

But if donors want to make a point out of the fact that a particular charity has accepted their donation, then the charity should be free to say that they only accepted the donation in good faith and that they do not endorse the views of the donor.

Why is this so difficult?

Charities need what they can get to fulfill their charitable aims

They don't need people virtue signalling that they don't like this donation because we think its "racist"

Correct decision. They cannot be allied to any political agenda.

@IwantToRetire I appreciate your thread from a personal point of view.

It may not gain much traction.

But also i appreciate your contributions to his board whether i agree with you or not.