Michael Simmons has narrated this article for you to listen to.
Frivolous state funding isn’t only going to chancers, the plain lucky and the devious, but also to those who would see Britain – and the West – come to harm. Just over a year ago, the National Secular Society (NSS) compiled a dossier for the Charity Commission which called for 44 charities that had ‘fuelled anti-Semitism and division’ and shown support for ‘Hamas and other anti-western actors’ to be investigated. In every case these organisations have kept their charitable status.
The charities in the dossier have the stated purpose of ‘the advancement of religion for the public benefit’. In the NSS’s view, this is being used as cover for political agendas and extremist views – while the groups receive tax breaks and state funding.
The Spectator’s search engine to discover frivolous state funding, launched last week, shows that charities ‘advancing religion’ have received more than £1 billion in government grants in the past five years. These grants include £2.5 million to a charity promoting ‘Krishna consciousness’ and £20,000 to a dance company. While this funding may be frivolous, these organisations pose no harm to society. But can the same be said for all religious charities receiving public money or the perks that come with charitable status? As well as frivolous funding, are we also funding fanaticism?
The Charity Commission’s guidance states that the ‘public benefit requirement’ is a legal obligation which every charity must be able to demonstrate in all its activities. The Commission, in turn, is responsible for ensuring that charities ‘meet the public benefit requirement’ – and trustees have a legal duty to uphold it. The Commission is staffed by some 477 civil servants. Yet in many cases, it appears either unable or unwilling to enforce these rules.
Was Swansea Mosque and Islamic Community Centre contributing to the ‘public benefit’ when, ten days after the 7 October attacks in Israel, a preacher told worshippers ‘Victory to Islam’? The imam went on: ‘Get rid of your enemy and theirs and the enemies of the faith, destroy them and curse them and show us that they can be a lesson for anyone that goes against the faith.’
The charity Islam Answers has a video on YouTube saying: ‘Eradicate the enemies of the Muslims’
Over two years, the charity has received nearly £300,000 in grants and reclaimed £27,000 in Gift Aid – along with the other tax breaks that all charities enjoy.
On 20 October 2023, the Abdullah Quilliam Society streamed a sermon on Facebook which called the BBC’s reporting of the Hamas attack ‘complete lies’. It added: ‘If the two billion [Muslims] just marched on Israel, it’s all over. If we spat in the direction of Israel – two billion – it’s all over… You will be superior. You will be the superpower. No America, no Israeli, no British army can overpower you.’ The video remains on the charity’s Facebook page. That same year, it received a £7,000 government grant.
Should organisations which state they are at war with the West receive government funding? Acton’s Muslim Welfare Association only recently removed a Facebook video page containing the passage: ‘Not only are you facing Israel, we are facing the whole West. It is not only a war between the Palestinian and the Israeli people. But it is in fact a crusader war against Islam and against Muslims.’ The association has received £10,000 in government grants in the past four years.
Meanwhile, another charitable organisation, Islam Answers, has a video on its YouTube page saying: ‘Eradicate the enemies of the Muslims and the long suffering of the people of Gaza.’ Other mosques with charitable status publish openly anti-Semitic content online. Al-Istiqaamah, which describes itself as a ‘children’s Islamic evening school’, posted an article after the Hamas attacks that included the line: ‘In an ideological warfare, this is how the Jews try to dominate the world.’ The article also contained passages on ‘the treachery of the Jews (Zionists)’ and ‘Jewish propaganda’, followed by: ‘Jews are the people who taught the world the art of deception and hypocrisy.’ Yet Al-Istiqaamah remains a registered charity entitled to tax breaks, the ability to reclaim Gift Aid and easier access to grants and funding.
Then there is the Alfurqan Islamic Centre in Manchester, which hosted an imam who in the aftermath of 7 October was filmed praying for the victory of the ‘mujahideen’. The centre’s charitable arm has received £78,000 in taxpayer grants. Of course, it’s possible these individuals were acting without the charities’ knowledge or endorsement, but that doesn’t excuse it.
In December, the Times claimed that two charities – Dar Alhekha Trust and the Abrar Islamic Foundation – have possible links to the Iranian regime (they denied any allegations of wrongdoing). The Charity Commission opened an investigation but has had to pause it while the police decide whether or not to investigate, a process that could take years. In the meantime, both charities continue to reap the benefits conferred by charitable status. Dar Alhekma Trust said there is no formal police investigation and claimed the charity had been subject to foreign interference by the Bahraini government.
Last year, the Commission was accused of being ‘toothless’ by Fiyaz Mughal, who founded Faith Matters, an anti-extremism inter-faith group. The Telegraph reported then that the Commission could be given powers to clamp down on charities promoting Islamism following warnings from the Home Office, yet this has not happened.
While the NSS’s dossier was specifically focused on Islamic organisations, the issue of public benefit arises across many other religious charities.
The Spectator understands that the Charity Commission has internally investigated some – though not all – of the organisations mentioned in the NSS dossier and has issued an official warning to one charity. Some cases are ongoing. Red tape, and perhaps the all too familiar fears concerning public perception, continue to block any firm action being taken. ‘The Charity Commission now has nearly 500 employees yet this battalion of bureaucrats seem incapable of getting to grips with the Islamists using the cloak of charitable status to fund extremism,’ one expert who advises the government on counter-terrorism tells me. ‘This empire should be shaken up or even broken up.’ In fairness, the Commission can only act within the powers it has been handed by parliament. While it can issue guidance to charity trustees, or remove a trustee in extreme cases, only the High Court can remove an organisation’s charitable status. Which prompts the question of why the Commission needs to employ nearly 500 civil servants at a cost of more than £2 million in salaries every month?
If the Commission’s staff do not have adequate powers to take action against the type of organisations that the government’s own counter-terror advisers are concerned about, then what do they spend their days doing? As one government adviser tells me: ‘All that money, all that staff, and every time they just seem to thank people for alerting them, then go at a glacial pace.’
Of course, in a free society, organisations should have the right to promote, campaign for and express almost any belief – no matter how controversial – so long as they do not incite violence. But why should taxpayers be expected to subsidise those who push political agendas, promote extremism or blur the line between religious mission and radical activism? How many more cases are needed before the Charity Commission enforces its own rules or is given the appropriate powers to do so?
Comments