UPDATE: The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) is taking urgent action following accusations of “mismanagement” from the Charity Commission, announcing plans for a judicial review. This development comes as the Commission found that a controversial article published by the CAA exceeded its charitable remit, labeling it as “obscene” in response to the UK’s suspension of some arms exports to Israel.
The Charity Commission’s findings allege that CAA trustees failed to provide adequate documentation regarding the decision to publish the article, which they say constitutes “mismanagement.” According to the Commission, this term refers to actions that are deemed “criminal, unlawful or improper” or failures to comply with regulatory orders.
In a swift rebuttal, CAA has branded the Commission’s findings as “baseless and unacceptable,” with a spokesperson emphasizing that the article reflected similar positions held by other respected Jewish organizations, including statements from the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council. They argue that public concerns echoed by government officials, such as Sarah Sackman MP, underscore the relevance of their statements regarding the arms suspension’s potential implications for Israel’s security.
This controversy escalated after Cage International, an organization advocating for the rights of Muslim detainees, lodged a complaint with the Charity Commission. Remarkably, Cage announced the Commission’s findings on their website before CAA was informed, raising questions about the transparency of the process. CAA claims they were due to submit their defense 24 hours before the Commission’s announcement, which they describe as a violation of fair hearing protocols.
Following the investigation, the Commission has mandated a Regulatory Action Plan requiring CAA to implement specific operational improvements. The spokesperson for CAA criticized the one-year duration of the investigation, calling it “seriously flawed” and expressing outrage that their response was preempted by Cage’s publication.
“The Commission’s conduct has denied us a fair hearing,” the spokesperson stated, stressing that the article in question mirrors sentiments shared by leading Jewish figures. They plan to challenge the Commission’s assertion that a lack of formal minutes from trustee discussions constitutes mismanagement, arguing that such conversations are routine in their dynamic environment.
The Charity Commission has defended its actions, stating that they conducted a thorough examination of the issues raised regarding CAA. They confirmed that not all content within the article aligned with the charity’s objectives and highlighted the inadequacies in record-keeping by the trustees.
“We have concluded that not all of the content within the article was capable of furthering the charity’s objects,” a spokesperson from the Commission explained, reinforcing the necessity for the charity to adhere to compliance regulations.
As this situation unfolds, CAA is poised for a legal battle, intending to argue that the Charity Commission’s actions are improper and detrimental to their mission of defending British Jews during a time of heightened threat.
The implications of this case extend beyond CAA, raising critical questions about regulatory practices and the intersection of charitable work and political discourse. The eyes of the public and various advocacy groups will be closely watching as CAA prepares to challenge the Commission’s findings in court.
Stay tuned for further updates on this developing story as CAA navigates the judicial review process.
