Mermaids vs LGB Alliance and Charity Commissioner - First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Thread 4

[nauticant]

UPDATE: a transcript of the proceedings has been published and can be found here: lgballiance.org.uk/tribunal-transcript/

The Tribunal started on 9 September, witness testimony was heard from 12 to 15 September, and then, following a break, closing submissions are taking place on 7 and 8 November.

[This paragraph is probaby now redundant] To obtain access to view the proceedings, send a request email to [email protected] about case CA/2021/0013 - Mermaids vs Charity Commissioner and LGB Alliance and ask for permission to join. You then have to provide certain information and agree to a judge's direction in order to be able to join.

There is also live tweeting from www.twitter.com/tribunaltweets

Abbreviations:

J or judge: Presiding Judge, Judge Lynn Griffin
AJ or Judge: Assisted by Judge Joe Neville
MG: Mermaids counsel is Michael Gibbon KC
KM: LGB Alliance counsel is Karon Monaghan KC
AR: Karon is assisted by Akua Reindorf
IS: Charity Commission counsel is Iain Steele

(Also the witnesses, PR: Paul Roberts, JN: John Nicolson. BB: Belinda Bell, BJ: Beverley Jackson, KH: Kate Harris, and EG: Eileen Gallagher.)

Thread 1: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4629679-mermaids-versus-lgb-alliance-in-court-today
Thread 2: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4632780-mermaids-vs-lgb-alliance-and-charity-commissioner-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chameber-thread-2
Thread 3: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4633653-mermaids-vs-lgb-alliance-and-charity-commissioner-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chamber-thread-3?page=31&reply=121335177
Thread 4: ongoing

Witnesses for the applicant (Mermaids):

Paul Roberts - CEO of LGBT Consortium (12 September)
John Nicolson MP - Deputy Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT+ Rights (13 September)
Dr Belinda Bell - Chair of trustees of Mermaids (13 September)

Witnesses for the respondent (LGB Alliance):

Beverley Jackson - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (13-14 September)
Kate Harris - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (14-15 September)
Eileen Gallagher OBE - Chair of trustees of LGB Alliance (15 September)

Witness Statements:

Paul Roberts: www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Paul-Roberts-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
John Nicolson MP - www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/John-Nicolson-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Dr Belinda Bell: www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Belinda-Bell-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Beverley Jackson: www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Bev-Jackson-Witness-Statement-Exhibits-1.pdf
Kate Harris: www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Kate-Harris-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Eileen Gallagher (two statements): www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Eileen-Gallagher-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Eileen-Gallagher-Second-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf

Submissions:

www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Volume-4-Submissions-CA.2021.0013.pdf

(Header format follows the gold standard established by @ickky)

post updated by MNHQ at OP's request in order to include the most up to date information.

The deeper I get into this the more it feels like a massive conspiracy, but who by and what for? Why did Stonewall make the umbrella so big that pretty much anyone who isn't either Barbie or GI Joe is trans?

Well that's the WWF down the pipe, can't save tigers until they're so common they don't need saving.

@IcakethereforeIam 😂

Surely, if a single individual slips through the net and is left very vulnerable and without any family or state support then it is in the public interest for the public to be reassured that a charity has been set up to help that one individual, and that if they were similarly to slip through the net a charity might be set up to specifically help them?

I don;t agree with the logic.... a charity can be in the public interest whilst advocating for a single specific person, IMHO.

By definition the LGB alliance support everyone who is LGB - if they don;t realise they're being helped, or claim to be LGB when they're not, and are therefore not helped by LGBA, then that's not the fault of LGBA

Whoops, old thread!!

Completely agree - we're told time and again that trans identifying people are such a tiny persecuted minority that they need all the protection and all the help. So Mermaids exists. How does the argument then stand that only charities working with large groups of people are valid charities? And how many is enough?

Can someone cleverer than me tell me why it's ok for Stonewall to lobby politically?

And does it need to be a number or a percentage. Say there were a disease that affected only people called Sheridan but 100% of people called Sheridan would be affected by it. That's a small number of people in total but a large % of the relevant group - woukd they be allowed to set up a charity to research that disease?

Lots of charities are based on ideologies that compete with those of other charities.

This doesn't mean that charities who belief that Jesus Christ is everyone's personal Lord and Saviour can try and get charitable status taken off a charity set up to help Muslim women, because the latter has different beliefs about god.

Charities can lobby to an extent, but I think it's quite complex area of law.

www.gov.uk/guidance/political-activity-and-campaigning-by-charities

'Charities can take part in political activity that supports their purpose and is in their best interests.

There may be situations where carrying out political activity is the best way for trustees to support their charity’s purpose. However, political activity must not become the reason for the charity’s existence.

Charities must remain independent and must not give their support to a political party.'

Surely their logic would cause most charities to cease to be needed?

A charity is something set up to help those in need.

So by its definition, if more than half the population isn't in need of the thing, then it has to wait until it is? And then become a charity?

So if Big Food Giants wanted to get rid of small food charities for example, they could just set up a charitable arm and get the small food charities to close because their bigger charity meets the larger numbers of people requirements?

Are they quite mad? Don't answer that.

Sorry Eton. Only 260 pupils per school year. No more charitable status for you.

So Mermaids are trying to argue that LGB Alliance have been solely set up (or mainly set up) to campaign politically hence they aren't a charity.

This charity's obviously on a hiding to nowhere:

www.onewhale.org/

.

I killed the old thread, by the way.

It does seem that Mermaids council has a very slim case and unless they have a gotcha this afternoon, I can't see logically how the tribunal can agree with them on the points raised.

Also good that LGBA council has got all night to form rebuttals to their arguments.

Are the Charities Commission making a closing statement this afternoon?

Hello friends, just placemarking so I can catch up later and saying thank you for everyone updating the thread!

😂😂😂

So does everyone just have to pretend that Mermaids isnt being investigated by the CC?

😂 excellent!

I guess that SW could argue that as it is possible for a male sex person to have a birth certificate saying they are female sex if they have a GRC then ‘woman’ includes themes too. The For Woman Scotland case on the gender recognition on boards act found that ‘sex’ in the EqA means biological sex but it’s why the Sex Matters Parliamentary petition to make it clear that ‘sex’ in the EqA means biological sex is so important

I thought their whole premise was that the LGBA was set up to diss mermaids and trans people in general.

Is there a reason why they haven't re-addressed what the LGBA think of mermaids? And why?

<Ponders>

Charities and campaigning is indeed a bit of a tricky area, which is why some organisations retain more freedom by not being registered charities (eg Greenpeace) and others have separate charities and 'companies' within their structure, so that the company can take on the campaigning to leave their hands free.

The Charity Commission recently published a new 5m guide clarifying their guidance, which I think (IANAL) can be summarised by:

• you can advocate for policies and political change to further your charitable objectives
• you can't advocate for particular parties, or to influence how people might vote in an election
• political campaigning can't be the only thing you do (you need to be doing either some other kinds of campaigning, like awareness raising or changing public opinion, or some other services or activities to further your objectives)

The examples in the CCommission's guide are quite helpful:

Example
An organisation set up to oppose a new runway at an airport applies for charity registration. The commission would reject the application as having a political purpose, as it would oppose the government’s policy on airports.

Example
An organisation set up to protect the environment applies for charity registration. The organisation carries out a range of activities, including some political activity aimed at securing a change in the government’s policy on airports. The commission would accept the application if it was clear that securing a change in government policy was not the continuing and sole activity of the charity, but part of a wider range of activities aimed at furthering its charitable purposes.

Example
An organisation which has been established to protect life and property by the prevention of all abortions applies for charity registration. Since the purpose can only be achieved through a change in law, the commission would reject the application as having a political purpose.

Example
An organisation was set up to campaign for an end to all animal experimentation in the UK. This was considered by the courts not to be charitable, because the only way of achieving its purpose was to seek a change in the law, thus its reason for existing would not come under any of the charitable purposes defined in charity law. It was also considered that an end to animal experimentation could well be against the public interest, as medical research would thus be curtailed. However, it is possible that a charity with wider animal welfare objects could campaign for amendments to the law on animal experimentation, where it could show that such amendments would be likely to support the delivery of its charitable purposes.

More here, quite readable: www.gov.uk/government/publications/speaking-out-guidance-on-campaigning-and-political-activity-by-charities-cc9/speaking-out-guidance-on-campaigning-and-political-activity-by-charities#the-key-questions

You can't have a charity for a single individual. It has to benefit the public in general or a sufficient section of the public.

www.gov.uk/guidance/public-benefit-rules-for-charities?step-by-step-nav=3dd66b86-ce29-4f31-bfa2-a5a18b877f11#the-public-benefit-requirement

The public benefit requirement

Your charity’s ‘purpose’ is what it is set up to achieve. For an organisation to be a charity, each of its purposes must be for the public benefit. The Charities Act 2011 calls this the ‘public benefit requirement’.

The public benefit requirement has two aspects:

The ‘benefit aspect’

To satisfy this aspect:

• a purpose must be beneficial - this must be in a way that is identifiable and capable of being proved by evidence where necessary and which is not based on personal views

• any detriment or harm that results from the purpose (to people, property or the environment) must not outweigh the benefit - this is also based on evidence and not on personal views

The ‘public aspect’

To satisfy this aspect the purpose must:

• benefit the public in general, or a sufficient section of the public - what is a ‘sufficient section of the public’ varies from purpose to purpose
• not give rise to more than incidental personal benefit - personal benefit is ‘incidental’ where (having regard both to its nature and to its amount) it is a necessary result or by-product of carrying out the purpose

In general, for a purpose to be a charitable purpose it must satisfy both the benefit and the public aspects. However, charities for the relief (and in some cases the prevention) of poverty need only satisfy the benefit aspect.

Your organisation cannot be a charity if it has some purposes that are charitable and some that are not. For more information, read Public benefit: the public benefit requirement.