RapeCrisis: yet another “fake charity”?

David Davis

Sean Gabb writes,  incidentally while he is not maintaining regular postings on the blog as he has other stuff to do…

“I did Rape Crisis over on the radio earlier. It’s denouncing George Galloway for his sensible comments on rape, and calling for all rape laws to be respected. One of the points I made was that RC can hardly be regarded as an independent voice. Bearing in mind that it gets the majority of its funding from the Home Office and the Equalities Unit, it should be regarded as a front for the British State – ie, it’s another fake charity. I didn’t actually accuse RC of corrupt motives, but did draw attention to the scale of funding and the fact that HMG would dearly love to put Julian Assange on the first plane to Stockholm.”

Sean points to the accounts, the most recent set available, which is not very recent by company-or-private-sector-standards and would get them heavily finded for lateness if they were a simple plumber or small retailer…which says in the small print at the back that:-

(1) “Rape Crisis” received in 2008, £6,285 from charitable and fundraising activities, and £103,750 from the Home Office, “Lankelly Chase” (which must be some place or other), “UNISON” and the Government Equalities Office”.

(2) In 2009, it received £11,214 from charitable and fundraising activities, and  £196.685 from the various collectivist sources stated just now above.

I think that makes it a “fake charity, don’t you? It seems to exist to do PR to lobby the government into bring in laws that the government wants brought in.

Don’t get us wrong: we’re not saying that rape is good or all right, just because we are nasty, neoconservative-white-male-dominated mysogynistic-right-wing-fascist-capitalist-imperialist-libertarians. Just that FemiNazis have hijacked rape as an issue to take more power over individuals’ behaviours towards each other, and push that power further deeply into the hands of the state.

For those who don’t know what the concept of a fake charity means, go to http://www.fakecharities.org

14 responses to “RapeCrisis: yet another “fake charity”?

  1. My own position on this is, broadly speaking, that the “fake charity” idea is a bit of a red herring.

    I’ve planning this book-I-never-write of mine, and one term I would like to introduce is “activist capture”, similar to “regulatory capture” with which we are all familiar. In regulatory capture, a government regulator set up to regulate industry X becomes staffed by people from industry x, so that the industry ends up regulating itself with State backing.

    I propose “activist capture” to describe the condition in which activist groups become participants in the State and “capture” it. This is very clear with Greens, Feminists and the like. It is distinct because the departments they capture are not regulating themselves, but other people. Tobacco zealots capture the Health Department, or Greens capture and set up an Environment Department. Arguably, the most famous example of activist capture is the Nazis capturing the German government.

    So the point is, every “charity” is trying to do this, because charities as we know them are almost universally pressure groups engaged in “advocacy” and as such, to capture government is a more thorough achievement than merely lobbying it (via “advocacy”). Activist capture is achieved by various strategems but the most obvious is the parachuting in of sympathetic persons who will then ask your charity to “get on board” to provide “independent advice”, at which point the capture becomes complete.

    The problem with the fake charity idea is that it implies that there are, or were, some noble genuinely independent charities who somehow got drawn in by an evil State; that is that charity is an innocent party and the State is the driving force. It is quite clear to me that the opposite is true; the charities actively sought to capture the government, and have done so. That they get money from the government is just a side effect. The major problem is that those charities who aren’t getting (much) government money are then marked as “clean” by the “fake charities” narrative.

    Rape Crisis are like all their fellows. They are insane zealots. They have, along with the rest of the Feminst movement, been successful in capturing the State- the government and legal system. They would be a “fake” charity regardless of whether or not they get any money, because they are a political organisation seeking ideological goals, not good persons selflessly giving soup to tramps.

    The purpose of Feminism is the reduction in rights of and, ideally, destruction of men. It is a hate movement. It does no charity. It would be “fake” charity if it didn’t get a penny; but of course it does happen to get lots of money, through the magic of Activist Capture.

    That’s my take on it anyway.

  2. Because it’s the kind of issue that can raise a firestorm of denunciation, I’ll break silence for this one. I agree with David that rape is a serious matter. However, I – and probably David – believe that rape should be defined as sex coerced by violence or what may reasonably be seen as threats of violence. I accept that this is a definition with fuzzy edges. But when the definition is pushed as far as it has been by the feminists and their fellow travellers, the word itself is in danger of losing its meaning. There are forms of seduction and general taking advantage that should be illegal. But it’s a bad idea to call these acts rape.

    Oh, and I certainly don’t accuse Rape Crisis of corrupt motives. I’ve no doubt its trustees regard people like Julian Assange as equal in their wickedness to Peter Sutcliffe. However, it has no right to be regarded as an independent voice when it receives so much of its funding from the State – and, as David says, gets it for saying what the politicians want to hear.

  3. Sorry, having written all that,still wasn’t very clear. What I mean is that Rape Crisis aren’t fronting for the State; the State is fronting for Rape Crisis. The State itself has no will; it is merely the articulation of those parties who rule. The State did not go looking for Rape Crisis. Rape Crisis went looking for the State, and captured it.

  4. I’m curious as to how the radio presenter responded to this perspective. Was it with a shocked meltdown?

  5. Rape is forcing a women (or a man) to have sex against their will (a violation of agency – the right of an agent, a person, to voluntarily CHOOSE) – rape is NOT having consentual sex, and then not being polite to the other person afterwards.

    “But Paul you are agreeing with George Galloway and Sean Gabb – and you do not like these people”.

    I would also agree with them if they said 1+1=2.

    Truth trumps everything else.

  6. Don’t worry, here’s one woman that agrees with you. Sometimes, “righteous wimmin” do more harm than good for the female species. The employment equality laws alone are a patronising insult. Rape is a contentious subject and let’s not forget, women aren’t the only victims. Each case has to be looked at individually and then preferably a trial by jury if it goes that far.

    Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned…. there are some evil bitches out there gentlemen.

  7. Whether a charity is funded by the state may not matter that much, as private companies can give them money too, which, as well as being a tax writeoff, can boost the company’s image if it’s a fashionable cause.

  8. Pressure groups–femmis etcshould not get charitable status at all (such “status”= they get ripped off a bit less than the rest of us). Only groups that actually do something concrete–RNLI, soup-feeders etc should get this. Activism alone will get them nothing. The problem is that many of the scummers–RSPCA/NSPCC ingetc started off doing something and would still claim they are–the RSCPA now spends more time hassling old grannies and their little dogs than it does on stopping serious animal cruelty (see Ambush Preditor blog passim). However we need to stop state funding of all such bodies and that would go a long way to curing them

  9. Oh aye–Ian B—- if the femmi/leftist freakshow can capture the state–why can’t we?. Their madness is rank compared to our belief in and support of freedom and free markets. Why do those having the most scummy and evil beliefs achieve such success?.

    • Sadly a libertarian or conservative who thinks they have “captured the state” have been captured by it.

      Even being elected to high office is only the first step to reducing the size and scope of government – as we all know only too well people are often elected to reduce the size of government and end up in office as government EXPANDS.

      It is possible to reduce the size and scope of government (as, for example, Mr Harris proved in Ontario), but the moment one allows one’s self to believe that one is in control of the state (that one has captured it) then all is lost.

  10. Ecks;

    What works for them doesn’t work for us. It’s mainly a first mover advantage. The Charidee/Pressure Group movement began in the 19th century and imbedded itself in the developing institutional structure (“modern” society largely consists of an institutional structure invented in that era, with the the “democratic” parliament as its capstone). Thus, they have control of the “Third Sector” as they call themselves and have a power of veto over new entrants. Anyone not attuned to their general philosophy won’t get their foot in the door. And the key factor in the success of a new group is its ability to do that- to join the institutional network.

    An interesting example is Erin Pizzey’s experience, who started the Refuge movement. She recognised that both women and men are responsible for family violence and breakdown; but she was shoved aside by the Feminists who turned it into the misandrist movement it is today, in which women are victims and men agressors, always. She is quite clear about how this happened; the Feminists had contacts in the GLC and could grab the funding and council support. They were part of the network. Thus, Pizzey’s approach- which on the face of it was much more attuned with ordinary peoples’s experience that there are bad fathers, and there are bad mothers, and often problem families are bad *couples*, was pushed aside by a minority, extremist (marxist Feminist) viewpoint with minimal support in the wider population, simply as a function of their superior networking.

  11. Blathering on, it’s also worth noting, having mentioned Pizzey, that I was watching an interview with her on YouTube the other day. We hear a lot these days about how the internet needs to be censored because of hate speech against women journalists in comment threads and on Twitter, and nobody seems to be anybody these days without death threats.

    Way before the internet, Pizzey co-authored a book called “Prone To Violence” and attempted a speaking tour to promote it. She received death threats from Feminists, venues were mobbed, and she had to have a police escort everywhere. She finally called it a day and left the country when, after receiving a suspicious package, the police said she should have all her mail forwarded through them otherwise they were worried they couldn’t protect her from mailbombs. From Feminists.

    It’s worth remembering that when the “New Left” were on their way up, they were threatening, violent and spawned many terrorist groups (back in the 70s) including, in Britain, the Angry Brigade. Now that they’re securely in charge, they can afford to be peaceful and opposed to such behaviours.

    From Wikipedia-

    Their targets included banks, embassies, the Miss World event in 1970 (or rather a BBC Outside Broadcast vehicle to be used in the corporation’s coverage) and the homes of Conservative MPs. In total, 25 bombings were attributed to them by the police. The damage done by the bombings was mostly limited to property damage although one person was slightly injured.

    Although the group purported to represent “the autonomous working class”, when the police arrested nine suspected members of the group, only one, (Jake Prescott, who was arrested in Notting Hill) came from the working class; the other eight, four men and four women (arrested together in Stoke Newington) were middle-class student drop-outs from the universities of Cambridge and Essex.

    One of the former Angry Brigade, Angela Mason, is now chair (no titular gender specified) of the Radical Feminist pressure group The Fawcett Society, a Labour councillor, and has received an OBE.

  12. Pingback: LA Director’s Bulletin, 2nd October 2012 | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG