Rape charity turns down funding from anti-immigrant donors

[IwantToRetire]

Glasgow and Clyde centre says it cannot accept £380 ‘in good conscience’ from group whose supporters link sexual violence to nationality

The centre said it needed to “maintain the trust of everyone who turns to us” and that it could not accept the funding, understood to be £380, “in good conscience”.

Full article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/18/glasgow-rape-charity-refuse-funding-anti-immigrant-donors/

And at https://archive.is/zuDlW

Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis is one of the groups that stopped working with Rape Crisis Scotland and formed an alliance with other RCC providing single sex services.
https://www.glasgowclyderapecrisis.org.uk/news/alliance-to-combat-rise-in-sexual-violence-against-women-and-girls/

Good for them.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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).

^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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.