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/

Is this hypothetical risk from possibly one comment that otherwise would have gone entirely un-noticed (though we don't actually know what it is) more or less dangerous than women who are against illegal immigration feeling they would not be welcome at GCRC now?

Is it more or less dangerous than shutting down free speech and freedom of belief?

Personally I think performative virtue signalling that positions people with mild anti-all forms of immigration views as racist makes riots more likely not less likely. And could even be seen in certain lights as incitement (I'm not specifically talking about GCRC's actions here, just the whole general position that so many hold that even having a conversation about immigration is racist) If you shut people up for mild views or even wanting a conversation or solid data, then discontent and anger grows. I think silencing of those with legal opinions makes riots more likely. Saying you can't donate unless all your published opinions align with ours is suppressing free speech.

It's difficult to know if this decision was right because we don't know what SCA allegedly said and we don't have receipts. There is no evidence.

None of the users of this service would have known who SCA were or the presumably myriad views of their followers if GCRC hadn't refused their donation. And if donations are refused for political opinions will rape survivors be turned away for political opinions too? Will right wing women be free to speak freely in rape counselling or will they be 'challenged for bigotry' and denied access to the service if they have something negative to say about their sexual abuser who happens to be an immigrant?

It's tangential, but it's truly bizarre to me that people try to argue that men who are mostly from (according to AI overview) Eritrea, Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, and Somalia wouldn't be more likely to be misogynistic and (sexually) violent towards women, given the environment they've been raised in have extremely high levels of both misogyny and sexual violence embedded into the culture.

It's this really weird denial of reality that I don't understand. It feels like TRA levels of gaslighting to try to tell women with a straight face that these men from countries with massive issues with sexual violence aren't statistically more likely to pose a threat to them.

Precisely this.

The group's FB statement:

'Statement: Glasgow & Clyde Rape Crisis donation refusal

We are not a political party and we are not politically aligned with any party.

We are a community group focused on safety and wellbeing in Scotland.

This includes support for women and children, safeguarding, housing and public services.

We have consistently raised concerns with politicians who have failed on these issues.

This is about accountability, not political alignment.

We have never said we are against immigration.

We support a fair and lawful immigration system.

Our concerns relate to the impact of high levels of migration on housing, public services and community safety.

We do not target people based on nationality, ethnicity, religion or background.

We donated women’s essential care kits, which were accepted by the service.

Staff engaged positively with us at the time.

Shortly afterwards, we were informed by email that the fundraising could not proceed due to concerns about our wider public positions.

We are disappointed by this decision.

Glasgow & Clyde Rape Crisis has publicly stated that demand for their services is high, that waiting lists have been closed, and that survivors face significant waits for support in some cases up to 226 days.

They have also made clear that they need additional resources and donations.

We had hoped to contribute to that support.

The refusal means the funds raised cannot now go directly to the women and girls they were intended to help.

This is not about us. It is about the survivors who still need support.

We do not want this situation to put anyone off donating to Glasgow & Clyde Rape Crisis.

Women and girls continue to need help.

If your donation will be accepted, please still give.

All donations made through our fundraiser will be refunded.

Full details will be shared as soon as possible.

We will continue to support women and girls in our communities.'

It's impossible to know if this was a good decision or not based on the info available, in my opinion.

I find it suspicious that the 'messaging' and 'comments' that is cited is not reproduced - there is no evidence, we're supposed to accept this as true (just as we've been expected formerly to accept men are women etc). That suggests to me a judgement has been made that may not be warranted or hold up to scrutiny. The anger from SCA suggests it may well have been either an individual comment from someone giving a donation, not their position as an organisation or misrepresented.

What if one of the people donating who made a 'comment' that they didn't like is a victim of rape? Are they likely to feel they would be welcomed at GCRC now?

Far better to have a blanket policy that they can demonstrate applies to all e.g. either they accept donations from any organisation with political views (with a clear statement this doesn't mean endorsement) or they don't. I don't think GCRC have done this. I also don't think, for the record, it's clear that SCA are a political organisation, certainly not primarily. Every individual has political views so it's a slippery slope.

Cross posted with Arabella. Thank you for posting their statement in full.

I'm less and less convinced the decision was the right one and - ironically - not politically motivated.

Plus, rightly or wrongly, you then open yourself to conspiracy theories. Their reputation is cleaned, yours is tarnished and that really matters if you are trying to cater to already vulnerable people. I can see how "supported by Masons" would spiral.

Especially for a charity that already had to deal with the fallout from the debate over single sex spaces I can see why they would be cautious. I wonder if the people criticising it would also think about how (eg) a trans charity supporting a rape crisis centre could impact that centres decisions. It makes sense to be as neutral as possible.

I can remember there were a bunch of men that raised money for an NHS charity by dressing as "sexy nuns" for a fun run and actual nurses were really annoyed because they have to deal with the consequences of being sexualised etc.

For the charity to turn it down means they asked for a photo / letter to put on their media which makes it a statement.

Just wondering if there's any evidence for this?

Well maybe there is a case to be made there. But then that case should be made separate to the sharp end of providing services to the victims of rape. They are different things. In the same way if a pro-immigration group were providing funding to a rape crisis centre one might worry that it might concern women raped by immigrants etc that they would be policed in how they talked about their trauma

I think Mhira Whadals appointment had a real impact on how trusted that rape crisis charity could be to deal with how women talked about their experiences. Tjey were told to "reframe your trauma". Unacceptable - as soon as a rape crisis centre starts taking positions on other political issues you run the risk that the centre aim of the charity is misdirected. And again, it can be argued women's experiences with sexual violence were used as a cover to further political aims. Even if the donors in this case had pure intentions I can completely understand why the charity would be cautions..once bitten twice shy.

If your donation will be accepted, please still give

Interesting part of the statement. Will donations from people who are openly right voters (e.g. someone who's a member of the Conservative party, or - HORRORS - Reform) be accepted, or not? Would be interesting to have clarity on that.

I also would be very interested in the answer to this.

If it's the rape crisis centre themselves that ran to the papers I would question their decision. Although for lots of reasons that seems unlikely.
If it was someone from the group from whom the donation was refused then why do that? Presumably for more publicity but then it puts into question how genuinely altruistic they were with their initial offer. It would seem to be an attempt to make themselves the victims (bearing in mind this is a rape crisis centre!) and get attention by creating a dog pile on a women's charity. I don't like that and I wouldn't like it if it was a left wing or pro-immigrant or anti-racist or pro- trans group doing it either.

Why don't you try and report back?

Well I'm not a member of a political party, so it wouldn't help much.

Far better to have a blanket policy that they can demonstrate applies to all e.g. either they accept donations from any organisation with political views (with a clear statement this doesn't mean endorsement) or they don't.

They may well have such a policy, it just may not be public.

Me neither. They also wouldn't know if you were or not so it seems irrelevant, unless you labelled the donation "I am giving this as a Reform voter/Labour voter". But why on earth would that be even relevant to a donation re rape.
This wasn't individuals. This was a specific group of people with (apparently) a political.slant. Which is fine, but that's different to an individual giving money and charities have a right to exercise discretion in whether they accept money from groups not individuals. Given the group then (apparently) went to the papers to complain suggests the charities instincts were correct.

If you aren't even a member of Reform then why would it be a concern that one can't donate to the charity? It feels like an extrapolation from the actual issue anyway.

People get accused all the time of 'aligning with the far right' and when a group who wants to remain completely nautral refuses a donation they get castigated for it.

Women's groups cannot do anything right can they?

I mean, the SCA have turned down support from people who didn't match their values:

'Scottish Citizens Army postpones Parkhead demonstration

Titles are generated by AI from Meta
A demonstration was planned for 29 July at 6pm in Parkhead, meeting at the Whiterose Hall.
It has since been shared and promoted by people and groups whose involvement does not match our aims and values.
To protect the integrity and reputation of the SCA, and to keep full control of our message, we have decided to postpone this event.
We will be planning this for a different date.
Sorry for any disruption this has caused.
This is a careful and deliberate choice.'

(Facebook, 27th July).

They can do right easily
They just need to be better at always centring men and the concerns of men. Then they would be OK. Unfortunately this rape crisis centre has failed to do this TWICE now. Hence the tantrums.

(Maybe there are women in the SCA. But a quick look at their social media suggests it is quite male dominated)

Because if one political group are discriminated against when others aren't it's bad?

SCA claim not to be political, but I am not sure that it's possible to campaign on political issues without being political.

This was my first thought too. This is something of a non-event, yet someone has pushed it into the press. I find myself wondering whether they would have been smeared either way.

I’m sadly cynical these days, especially where women are making a stand for women’s rights. Look at all the aggravation KJK receives because she lets anyone speak and has been linked to literal Nazis, because they paraded beside her.

I suspect that, whatever they did, they couldn’t win.

Oh, I absolutely agree it's not the place of the charity to hold views on that kind of thing. But I think that refusing donations kind of seems like them stating their views on the issue too? Unless they also have refused donations from any organisations that are pro-asylum seekers?

Although I can understand their thinking, and practically speaking, depending on what their usual supporters think, it might be for the best when it comes to optics and assuring future donations.

It looks like they ran a specific fund raising campaign for the centre. If the donation was refused they have to let the people who donated to campaign so the donors can decide whether to request a refund or permit the donation to be used for something else.

I’m not sure how they could do this without publicly announcing it.

But this centre already seperated itself from other rape crisis centres due to it's wish to continue with single sex services. They have already seen the consequences of political capture and how messy they can get.

You also don't know if they have "discriminated" (interesting use of words) against other political groups. We only know about this because the group themselves went to social media to talk about their feelings (disgusted) because their offer was turned down. Rape crisis centres have the right to centre women who are victims of rape. And that includes the right to "discriminate against trans people" by not catering to biological men. It also includes the right to turn down funding or donations from political groups whose main focus is outside of the very narrow focus if the rape crisis centre.

The group can still campaign, post on social media, raise funds for themselves. Their existence is not being threatened by the fact a women's group doesn't want to align with them. Horseshoe theory in action.

Hmm. That's true but I just read the post and it is... Illuminating.