The LGB Resistance

Added:

3 Comments for “The LGB Resistance”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    John Nicolson MP published an open letter demanding an explanation, despite the lengthy document from the Charity Commission setting-out their reasoning in full.

    Let me see!

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lgb-alliance/lgb-alliance-full-decision

    “2. The Commission accepted that LGB Alliance is established for exclusively charitable purposes, in accordance with the legal framework and based on the evidence received, and should be entered onto the register of charities with objects as follows:

    2.1.To promote equality and diversity for the public benefit, in particular by:
    the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation;
    advancing education and raising awareness in equality and diversity in respect of lesbian, gay and bisexual people;
    conducting or commissioning research on equality and diversity issues and publishing the useful results to the public; and
    cultivating a sentiment in favour of equality and diversity for lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

    2.2.To promote human rights (as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent United Nations conventions and declarations) and particularly the rights and freedoms of those who face discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation…

    2.3.To promote any other purpose that is charitable under the law of England and Wales.

    What the hell? This reads like a contract.

    Are you telling me, and please and kindly do tell me, would the government (either by US or UK standards) be required or convinced to negotiate and approve such a contract on behalf of both a Black Lives Matter and a Blue Lives Matter charity? What about both a Black Lives Matter and a White Lives Matter charity? Would it violate the freedom of speech of the public to decide differently–this decision having financial consequences, or would it be an appropriate use of government speech, not to endorse such statements as “Bong hits for Jesus” or imperceptibly shameful custom license plates?

    And I would be interested to know, but such a question is irrelevant to this situation. That there likes of mainstream GLBT organizations would make it so is precisely the danger. Fracturing society on putative moral grounds over differences that are merely political or a matter of clashing self-interest actually weakens the ability of our social and political institutions to define and police matters of social morality and scandal.

    (Which is, I’m sure, going to boomerang into a credible criticism of social conservatism.)

    It reminds me of the late Empire State Pride Agenda (which actually disbanded on a “Mission Accomplished” note about ten years ago). They were political, but they had a separate charity organization (which for all I know still exists). Anyway, they’re LGBT-promoting, and almost impossible to hate. But, you also have, oh, I don’t know, Gay Men’s Health Crisis? SAGE? (gay seniors). I’ve heard of an organization that helps transgender people pursue employment. HIV/AIDS, the combination of community rejection/isolation and senior health needs, and employment discrimination against transgender job applicants might be highly specialized areas of practice that could require sensitivity to the individual, especially the private individual who wants nothing else to do with community interests.

    LGBT New Yorkers being just as rude as everyone else, these differences sometimes cause resentment when they are dismissed by the wider community (I once heard NYC First Lady Charlane McCray being called a traitor for marrying a man; I do not believe the very narrow age, sex, race, queerness cohort on whose behalf she once wrote, let alone the region and education subset she was a part of, are likely see her that way).

    Hence the existence of specialized organizations.

    The rest of the decision is a fascinating read. Mr. GOV.UK has an excellent writer on staff.

    Reply
  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Are you telling me, and please and kindly do tell me, would the government (either by US or UK standards) be required or convinced to negotiate and approve such a contract on behalf of both a Black Lives Matter and a Blue Lives Matter charity? What about both a Black Lives Matter and a White Lives Matter charity? Would it violate the freedom of speech of the public to decide differently–this decision having financial consequences, or would it be an appropriate use of government speech, not to endorse such statements as “Bong hits for Jesus” or imperceptibly shameful custom license plates?

    What you are so shocked by is not unusual.

    In the United States, at both the federal and state level, charitable organizations and private foundations seeking tax-exempt status are required to furnish a considerable amount of information about organization and purpose to the appropriate government agencies in order to obtain tax-exempt status, and, going forward, to furnish a considerable amount of information about fundraising and operations to the appropriate government agencies in order to maintain tax-exempt status.

    At the federal level, and in most states, the organizations are issued a more-or-less detailed “tax exempt letter” that governs the tax-except status going forward, similar to the UK ruling that you find so shocking.

    Charitable organizations and private foundations are, in addition, typically subject to laws, rules and regulations governing their operations, laws rules and regulations intended to ensure that charitable organizations and private foundations fulfill the purpose for which they were founded.

    In my opinion, charitable organizations and private foundations, subject to reasonable exemptions from regulation for churches and other religious-purpose organizations, should be more tightly regulated in the United States than they now are. Way too many so-called charitable organizations and private foundations are thinly-disguised scams, with overhead in the 80-90% range, basically tax-exempt money-making operations for the organizers, with only a small portion of the funds raised being spent to further the organization’s charitable purpose.

    Reply
  3. posted by Jorge on

    What you are so shocked by is not unusual.

    I am not shocked, I am indignant, and what I am indignant about is not the form of the ruling, which is a bureaucrat’s sleeping dolphin, but the lack of faith it reveals activists to have in the rule of law, in a system based on one party agreeing to subject itself to the rules and regulations of another, carried out objectively.

    I would be supportive of rules that allow the government to consider whether, as the UK did, the organization applying is a sham with respect to its stated principles. I don’t like how they defined public interest as subservient to the laws and social norms that happen to be in vogue at the present time (denying for an organization opposed to animal research? Really?).

    Reply

Leave a Comment