Women left unprotected by new charity powers -The National Secular Society has expressed concern that proposed new powers for the charity regulator will fail to adequately tackle misogyny and homophobia promoted by religious charities. NSS

[IwantToRetire]

The National Secular Society has expressed concern that proposed new powers for the charity regulator will fail to adequately tackle misogyny and homophobia promoted by religious charities.

... while the new powers may help to stop charities promoting hatred towards people based on race or religion or belief, they will not apply to hatred based on other characteristics – including sex and sexual orientation.

Full article https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2026/10/women-left-unprotected-by-new-charity-powers-nss-says

(edited to say sorry seem to have added the start of the post to the title!)

Yeah absolutely, theres a point where whether I like it or not we would be impinging on someone else religious freedom.

I remember when Tim Farron got i to all that trouble about whether gay sex was a sin or not. Clearly he does believe it is sinful as an evangelical Christian. However at no point did he suggest we should be stoning gay people etc.

However if a charity for example distributes advice on a woman’s obligation to be obedient, this may be entirely religiously correct and probably should be treated as an opinion. If they promote that a woman refusing sex with her husband will be cursed by the angels, ok coercive but doesn’t oblige the husband to take action against the wife, withdrawing from her bed, ok yeah you are allowed to be stroppy, also coercive but no physical harm, you may strike your wife, now this is the problem, we would be prohibiting people from spreading aspects of their religious rights and obligations that come into conflict with UK law.

I think the Uk is just going to have to start taking a hardline on this. No-one can prevent the publication and sharing of things in religious texts (I imagine there are plenty of examples in other holy books that are deeply unpleasant when it comes to gay people and women, I’m referencing Islam specifically because of the recent news of sermons that the secular society have been highlighting). I think we should be able to say anyone conducting a sermon or publishing advice etc etc that includes incitement to use any kind of physical punishment against anyone should expect to be arrested.

Yes and that's a huge problem no one wants to talk about. We need a secular Britain asap.

Where do bisexuals fit into that?

We are of course sex realists. Like gay men we are attracted to male bodies & like gay women we are attracted to female bodies. What we not attracted to are male or female bodies mutilated by transgender surgery &/or cross sex hormones.

It's not an infringement of protected belief rights, or freedom of expression rights, to withhold charitable status (and tax relief etc) from proselytism.

"The advancement of religion" should be removed from the list of recognised charitable purposes in law. Why should taxpayers subsidise the practice or preaching of any belief system?

Charities can still exist that have a link to a religious body, but which serve a non-religious purpose, such as Christian Aid or the Red Crescent.

This is not about religious institutions it's about charilty law. Should charities be in receipt of charitable status while teaching that husbands should hit their wives. Is this a view worthy of respect.
The issues go back to the fact that misogyny is not a hate crime.
No charity should promote misogyny and the inferiority of women and be in receipt of public money.

Telling anyone they can hit anyone in any circumstances except self defence is a crime already and does not need any more law passed.

The question was whether it should be a crime for someone to say they think wives should be at home with the children, in the kitchen cooking dinner. Or that homosexuality is a crime in the eyes of God.

The Law is not being enforced and those making these statements are doing it as representatives of a charity in receipt of money, tax breaks etc including gov money.
There is no suggestion that the statements in the second paragraph should be a crime. The question is should they be funded as charitable institutions. This is about the regulation of charities. The Charity Commission has insufficient powers to deal with misconduct by charities.