Last Wednesday (21 October) an important agreement was reached between the campaign group
Last Wednesday (21 October) an important agreement was reached between the campaign group CAGE, Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT) and the Charity Commission at the High Court.
CAGE (which campaigns on behalf of communities affected by the war on terror) had taken out a judicial review against the Charity Commission. The judicial review claimed that two former funders JRCT and The Roddick Foundation had been urged to never fund CAGE again. According to JRCT ‘acute regulatory pressure’ was applied to ensure the organisation complied.
The matter was resolved by CAGE withdrawing its action on the basis that the Charity Commission agreed that JRCT “must be free to exercise their powers and duties in the light of circumstances existing at the time”. The Charity Commission stated further it wasn’t trying to fetter the charity’s discretion to fund CAGE “for all time regardless of changing circumstances”.
The decision was welcomed by charities and campaigners alarmed by what many considered to be an ‘over-reach’ from the Commission. And it matters for two reasons.
Firstly, the Charity Commission claimed it intervened because of public concerns raised when it emerged that CAGE had in the past supported Mohammed Emwazi, the IS member identified as ‘Jihadi John’. This was compounded by CAGE’s suggesting that Emwazi had been radicalised because of harassment of the security services. The Commission alleged that such an attitude was offensive to most of the British population.
Emwazi, who has claimed to have beheaded Western hostages is understandably reviled by the British public, and it is also understandable that many would take offence at CAGE’s description of him as a ‘beautiful’ man. However, CAGE is not the only organisation to suggest that if you harass Muslims, some may become so angry they may become radicalised. (Similar allegations were made about the murderer of Lee Rigby.) And holding such views is neither illegal or cause to withhold funding from an organisation giving vital support to the victims of the ‘war on terror’ we never hear about – innocent people subject to miscarriages of justice.
Furthermore, it emerged in court that William Shawcross, the Head of the Commission, who has defended torture at Guantanamo Bay, was responding to suggestions from US security services that CAGE (who have campaigned against Guantanamo) was a front for jihadis. Such behaviour casts doubt on his ability to run the Commission without undue influence.
The targeting of CAGE fits into a wider pattern of Muslim groups and individuals being treated differently from non Muslim. For example, last July HSBC inexplicably closed down the bank accounts of Anas Altikriti of the Cordoba Foundation and his 16 year old son. I can’t imagine that happening to me and my 16 year old. Meanwhile a young Muslim boy was recently taken out of class and interviewed by staff under the Prevent programme, due to his discussion of eco-terrorism. Again, I’d be surprised if my children were treated like that if they discussed their Dad’s record of civil disobedience at school. But then we are white, middle class Christians and not seen to be in a suspect group.
The second reason this matters is that despite the Charity Commission’s denials, it clearly was trying to ‘fetter’ JRCT and had it succeeded would have meant the charity and many others being forced to be far more circumspect in who they funded in future. With forthcoming charities bill suggesting further regulation and the sector already subject to the ‘chilling’ effects of the Lobbying Act, it was important that CAGE and JRCT didn’t lose.
So this outcome is a welcome relief. And I hope that, as Ben Jackson of BOND suggests, legislators take note and do not try to further restrict charitable powers in future. Otherwise, it won’t just be Muslim organisations looking over their shoulders being careful what they say, it will be all of us
—-
© Virginia Moffatt is Chief Operating Officer of Ekklesia.