Charity Commission statement re tribunal judgement on LGB Alliance

[Lynnikins]

Here's the link the the Charity Commission's statement.
Charity Commission responds to Mermaids vs LGB Alliance tribunal outcome - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Last year the charity regulator opened a statutory inquiry into Mermaids, after identifying concerns about its governance and management. Mermaids also filed serious incident reports to the Commission, on a number of matters reported in the media.

"Demonising and undermining those who think differently is not acceptable behaviour from any charity on our register"

Mermaids, take note.

The problem is that the conviction is held that rules on behaviour are for everyone else and don't apply to the blessed.

I wonder what the Commission will make of the fact that Mermaids, up until recently, had a paedophile enabler on their board of trustees, Jacob Breslow. He's known for favourably comparing "cumming on a child" to "cumming on a shoe":

"Just as the desire to and the act of cumming on a shoe requires a rethinking of the shoe and how it comes into being, I want to now argue that the desire to and the act of cumming on, or possibly even with, a child requires a rethinking both of the child, which we just begun, and of the person for whom the child is a sexual fantasy or partner."

For being excited by the thought of "minor attraction" as a "sexual or political identity":

"allowing for a form of non-diagnosable minor attraction is exciting, as it potentially creates a sexual or political identity by which activists, scholars and clinicians can begin to better understand minor-attracted persons (MAPs)."

And, related to the above, his thoughts on "queering" children to allow "the child's pleasures, desires, and perversities":

"the queering that 'queer' does to the child, is one of resisting the child's alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child's pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer"

What is Mr Breslow up to these days?

Probably posting here using one of those three word usernames that they are so fond of.

Probably best not ask, @Toseland.

I've not read Jacob's 'academic article' quoted above, but ... why a shoe, do we know? As I typed 'shoe', an emoji of a man's brogue popped up: I don't think that's the sort of shoe Jacob has in mind.

But was Jacob merely taking a shoe as an example or was he admitting to being a foot fetishist?

Again, perhaps it's best we don't know.

Breslow's talk was reported on in https://www.avemarialaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Reisman.Strickland.pdf - about the shoe the authors wrote:

He discussed the heuristic of shoes so as to "think differently about our shoes." He "wanted to work through the phenomenological questions" and explained "phenomenology asks of us to take our objects that we see as familiar and approach them as if they were unfamiliar." This "may mean attending to our objects physically and spatially." He analogized asking a shoe if it wants to be worn to asking a child if he or she wants to have sex, stating that the manner in which it is asked "must not require an answer, or again at least not one which is conventionally intelligible or audible." Jacob Breslow argued that just as the desire to and act of reaching sexual climax upon a shoe required a rethinking of the shoe and how it comes into being, so does the desire to and the act of reaching sexual climax upon or with a child require a rethinking of both the child and of the person for whom the child is a sexual fantasy or partner.

Vile words.