July 6, 2023 - 3:15pm
A trans organisation has lost its attempt to have another charity stripped of its charitable status — and quite right too. If Mermaids had succeeded in having the LGB Alliance struck off the charity register, it would have opened the door to other organisations — an anti-abortion group, for instance — trying to do the same to charities whose aims they don’t like.
At first sight, the case before two judges from the grandly-named General Regulatory Chamber of the First-Tier Tribunal involved a technical point in the law, which was whether Mermaids had legal standing to bring a challenge. The judges decided it didn’t, but the hearing also raised important questions about free speech.
The Alliance was set up to campaign for the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, and one of its core beliefs is that sex is based on biology. It rejects the claim that male-bodied trans women can be lesbians, prompting wearily familiar accusations of “transphobia” from Mermaids. Many charities have conflicting beliefs, but this is the first time one has argued that another should be struck off, with grave implications for its ability to raise money.
The Alliance is a new organisation — set up in 2019 by two lesbians, Kate Harris and Bev Jackson — and Mermaids’ legal action was a threat to its very existence. Fighting the case has cost the Alliance more than £250,000 in legal fees, paid for by small donations from its supporters. Mermaids is itself under investigation in a separate case, after being accused of safeguarding concerns in relation to its dealings with children.
In a strongly worded judgment, the Tribunal pointed out that it is not up to the Charity Commission “to tell people what to think, or to regulate public debate in a context where there are deeply held, sincere beliefs on all sides”. The Commission’s response was even more forthright, reminding charities of the need to debate and campaign “with respect and tolerance”. It said that “demonising and undermining those who think differently is not acceptable behaviour from any charity on our register”.
That’s exactly what has happened to the Alliance, which has repeatedly been slandered as a “hate group”. The group’s lawyer, Karon Monaghan KC, described Mermaids’ attempt to get it struck off as “profoundly homophobic”, a proposition borne out by the fresh bout of abuse of lesbians and gay men that greeted the judgment on Thursday morning.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“The Commission’s response was even more forthright, reminding charities of the need to debate and campaign “with respect and tolerance”.”
Nobody should respect or tolerate the likes of Mermaids. They advocate child mutilation.
Indeed, the LGB Alliance has far more grounds for seeking to strip Mermaids of its charitable status given that it seeks to propagandise gay youths with the belief that they are actually the wrong sex and should mutilate themselves and sign up to a lifetime of experimental hormone treatments. Conversion therapy is too kind a name for it.
Exactly. It’s basically just a child castration cult.
I suspect that the Charity Commission will be looking very closely at Mermaids after this. How wonderfully ironic!
Indeed, and the Tribunal should at least have scolded Mermaids for bringing the case in the first place.
Exactly. It’s basically just a child castration cult.
I suspect that the Charity Commission will be looking very closely at Mermaids after this. How wonderfully ironic!
Indeed, and the Tribunal should at least have scolded Mermaids for bringing the case in the first place.
Indeed, the LGB Alliance has far more grounds for seeking to strip Mermaids of its charitable status given that it seeks to propagandise gay youths with the belief that they are actually the wrong sex and should mutilate themselves and sign up to a lifetime of experimental hormone treatments. Conversion therapy is too kind a name for it.
“The Commission’s response was even more forthright, reminding charities of the need to debate and campaign “with respect and tolerance”.”
Nobody should respect or tolerate the likes of Mermaids. They advocate child mutilation.
“It rejects the claim that male-bodied trans women can be lesbians”
*It rejects the claim that men can be lesbians
Because, as they are always telling us, they were ‘born in the wrong body’.
Isn’t it strange how its the wrong body for them but is automatically the right body for any lesbian (and they had better not say otherwise or they are transphobes)?
Isn’t it strange how its the wrong body for them but is automatically the right body for any lesbian (and they had better not say otherwise or they are transphobes)?
Because, as they are always telling us, they were ‘born in the wrong body’.
“It rejects the claim that male-bodied trans women can be lesbians”
*It rejects the claim that men can be lesbians
“the Tribunal pointed out that it is not up to the Charity Commission “to tell people what to think, or to regulate public debate in a context where there are deeply held, sincere beliefs on all sides”.”
Not one single living individual sincerely believes what “trans” activists claim to believe.
And yet I am pretty sure an English National Socialist Workers Charity that advocated the virtues of a Judenrein England would not be looked on kindly whatever the sincerity of the promoters belief that it was charitable and for the public good.
I am not sure why my comment regarding the fact that the Charity Commission will in fact draw a line on what people think if they are to qualify as a charity has attracted 4 thumbs down. I am not actually suggesting that an English National Socialist Workers Charity with such an aim should qualify as a charity, a point that at least the moderators managed to grasp and so left the comment standing.
I am not sure why my comment regarding the fact that the Charity Commission will in fact draw a line on what people think if they are to qualify as a charity has attracted 4 thumbs down. I am not actually suggesting that an English National Socialist Workers Charity with such an aim should qualify as a charity, a point that at least the moderators managed to grasp and so left the comment standing.
And yet I am pretty sure an English National Socialist Workers Charity that advocated the virtues of a Judenrein England would not be looked on kindly whatever the sincerity of the promoters belief that it was charitable and for the public good.
“the Tribunal pointed out that it is not up to the Charity Commission “to tell people what to think, or to regulate public debate in a context where there are deeply held, sincere beliefs on all sides”.”
Not one single living individual sincerely believes what “trans” activists claim to believe.
Mermaids advocate that gender bewilderment in a young girl leading to mastectomy of her healthy breasts to reinforce her vague masculine-ish ‘boyish’ persona is a good outcome. Please, in the name of any of the gods, tell me why Mermaids is allowed on the Charity Register?
Presumably because no one has drummed up enough money to challenge their inclusion in the manner of the Good money spinner project.
Presumably because no one has drummed up enough money to challenge their inclusion in the manner of the Good money spinner project.
Mermaids advocate that gender bewilderment in a young girl leading to mastectomy of her healthy breasts to reinforce her vague masculine-ish ‘boyish’ persona is a good outcome. Please, in the name of any of the gods, tell me why Mermaids is allowed on the Charity Register?
Mermaids didn’t have a tail to stand on on this one.
As a full on defender of female rights I sense it’s 2 steps forward and anywhere between 1 and 3 steps back on this one. Certainly the incursion into schools is starting to focus parental minds, but Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index has proved very hard to resist (as the recent banking saga reveals). The scale of the boomer cohort has delayed the natural generational baton passing. However, by 2032 the Millenials+ cohorts will be firmly in control. Tracking where they stand on many topics is somewhat disheartening. Since many are not intent on having children, “life maximisation in the now” is likely to predominate, and I fear that without the handrails of generational self-restraint that kids impose we face more chaos.
Mermaids didn’t have a tail to stand on on this one.
As a full on defender of female rights I sense it’s 2 steps forward and anywhere between 1 and 3 steps back on this one. Certainly the incursion into schools is starting to focus parental minds, but Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index has proved very hard to resist (as the recent banking saga reveals). The scale of the boomer cohort has delayed the natural generational baton passing. However, by 2032 the Millenials+ cohorts will be firmly in control. Tracking where they stand on many topics is somewhat disheartening. Since many are not intent on having children, “life maximisation in the now” is likely to predominate, and I fear that without the handrails of generational self-restraint that kids impose we face more chaos.
No mention of the fact this dismissal is yet another high profile defeat for the Good Laugh Project?
One wonders how long the middle classes of Epson and Newell will continue throwing money at Maugham’s vanity project when they could be using it to feed their enormous mortgages and electric car lease payments instead.
No mention of the fact this dismissal is yet another high profile defeat for the Good Laugh Project?
One wonders how long the middle classes of Epson and Newell will continue throwing money at Maugham’s vanity project when they could be using it to feed their enormous mortgages and electric car lease payments instead.
BOR…. ING!
BOR…. ING!