“LGB Alliance is one of a dwindling number of organisations across the world that focuses exclusively on the rights of LGB people. We believe we are now the only group in the UK that defends and promotes the interests of LGB people as defined in the Equality Act (2010) – that is, on the basis of biological sex. Yet we’ve faced many threats from the day we were formed. Lies have been told, false stories circulated, and petitions have been organised against us. Our Crowdfunders were taken down, and boycotts mounted of anyone who dared to show support. The tone of claims about us has been angry and sometimes vicious. We’ve just got on with the job we were set up to do, which is to defend and promote the interests and rights of lesbians, gays and bisexuals.
Now Mermaids is challenging the Charity Commission’s decision to award us charity status. We’re determined to defend what was an important breakthrough.
We are therefore raising funds to pay the necessary legal fees. If Mermaids succeeds, we will have our charitable status cancelled and will no longer be able to do our job as effectively as we would like to.
The substance of our case is primarily that Mermaids has no standing on which to bring this case. See s.319(2)(b) Charities Act 2011, which points to Schedule 6 Column 2 of the Act. These say that the only people who can bring such litigation are the Attorney General, the trustees of LGB Alliance, LGB Alliance itself, or “any other person who is or may be affected by the decision”.
Mermaids say they are “any other person who is or may be affected by the decision”. Both we and the Charity Commission have set out why Mermaids’ pleaded case is simply wrong and they don’t have standing.
There is a clear precedent in Nicholson v the Charity Commission for England and Wales [2016] UKUT 198 (TCC). The ruling stated that a person has no standing to bring an appeal of this nature even if they “disagree[s] with the decision [to register a charity] emotionally, politically or intellectually and as a result is affected emotionally and/or socially”. This perfectly describes and therefore excludes Mermaids from bringing its case. Mermaids’ case should therefore, we say, be thrown out.
Secondarily, even if the tribunal rules that they do have standing, their case has no merit. The substance of Mermaids’ appeal is that they disagree with our views on sex and gender. We take what has become known as a “gender-critical” approach to these matters: that sex in humans is biological and immutable. Mermaids say that this is wrong, and any charity that is founded on these principles is unworthy of registration as a charity.
Our lawyers are Peter Daly and a team at Doyle Clayton, and Alice de Coverley at 3 Paper Buildings. Their work up to now has been fantastic but we did not want to be in this litigation.
We are now at a stage where we need to raise money to complete the litigation. We are the underdog in this battle.
Mermaids have a team of lawyers and a conglomerate of other organisations in the background. They have raised around £70,000 for this case so far. Our opponents are extremely well resourced.
In the first instance, we are seeking £5,000 as an initial target. This will help cover the costs we have incurred to date. If the matter proceeds, we will need to raise more. Any surplus will be reallocated to cases that defend LGB rights and the importance in law of biological sex.
This is a crucial case for us. If we lose our charity status it will be harder to raise funds for the important work we plan to do: such as offering assistance to young and vulnerable lesbians, pushing back against the erasure of LGB people across the world, and reviving LGB culture. It will also be a blow to the right of same-sex attracted people to lawfully organise and form a regulated charity. If we lose, people with same-sex sexual orientation will lose a fundamental legal right.
Please support us.
We will be very grateful for all your donations!”