Those who serve the public good
The “Good Law Project” fundraiser for their attack on the LGBA:
Charitable status is earned by those who serve the public good. Denigrating trans people, attacking those who speak for them, and campaigning to remove legal protections from them is the very opposite of a public good.
None of that is what the LGBA is doing. He’s not very scrupulous with his accusations, that fox-basher guy.
Whatever sweet nothings the so-called “LGB Alliance” whispered into the ear of the Charity Commission
That’s just rude, and kind of sexist. We’re meant to think the LGBA people are like prostitutes.
…the truth was set out in a speech by LGB Alliance director Bev Jackson on 9 March 2020. She described their real goal as follows:
We’re applying for charitable status and building an organization to challenge the dominance of those who promote the damaging theory of gender identity.”
We’re allowed to challenge dominance. Women are allowed to challenge male dominance. The trans “movement” is riddled with male dominance. Jolyon Maugham is massively domineering.
The money is pouring in of course. Lotta “activists” out there.
Updating to add JCJ’s much more succinct (and witty) take.
But misrepresenting the law, intimidating, no-platforming and seeking dismissal of those who know that men are not and can not be women, and removing legal protections for women through the erasure of sex is in the public good ? M’kay. Got it.
If this statement is a part of the formal proceedings, is he obliged to produce actual evidence to support these charges, or does he get to plop this unsupported smear into the record unopposed?
Yes, but imagine how much worse he would be had he not had that humbling journey away from know-it-all-ism.
Interesting. I suspect a lot of fundamentalist churches in the US count as charities. Will Stonewall be going after them?
Re #2:
The 501(c)(3) tax classification applies, according to Wikipedia, “to entities that are organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes; or for testing for public safety, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.” Contributions to organizations of this type are generally tax-deductible. I think this is what people in the US usually mean when they talk about “charitable status” organizations, but note that this is a very broad category, and some of these organizations would be a stretch to consider “public good”. I don’t know what “charitable status” in the UK implies, but I get the impression is more specific than “tax-deductible donations”.
(There are several other 501(c) categories, which exempt the organizations from paying taxes, but do not allow donors to deduct their contributions. I wish religious organizations were classed under one of those categories, such as 501(c)(7) social clubs. This would dry up a significant amount of financial support, and would remove donations to churches from “actual” charitable donations. But I digress.)
But to the point: yeah, why are they going after LGB Alliance when there have got to be other “charitable status” organizations they could pick on. This is retribution for a slight, nothing else.
This is more likely to end badly for Mermaids than for the LGB Alliance. As Le Canard Noir of Quackometer fame has pointed out on Twitter, the Charities Act 2011 requires that the Charity Commission authorise any proceedings relating to a charity. Given that Mermaids are challenging the decisions of the CC, it seems unlikely that such consent has been granted, so the litigation really can’t go anywhere. But more than that, there’s no way that launching half-arsed litigation can follow from Mermaids’ charitable objectives, so they may well be putting their own charitable status at risk should the CC pursue the matter (as they ought to). It’s shaping up to be a spectacular own goal.
I’d say “kind of” sexist is an understatement. That aside, the statement isn’t just rude to the LGBA, it’s a direct attack on the Charities Commission, the very body to whom Mermaids/The-kimonoed-fox-batterer/etc. are appealing. Doesn’t seem like a great strategy, on top of being sexist, patronising and, worst of all, blithering.
Does that make it better, or worse than arguing “They’re dividing the donor pool* and CUTTING INTO OUR MONEY”?
*Though, as Helen Staniland pointed out on Glinner’s podcast (linked on a previous post), Mermaids’ real competition for donation money is going to be other “T” centered charities, like Stonewall, and Gendered Intelligence, not Alliance LGB.