The pro-Israel antisemitism charity, Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), faces regulatory action by Britain’s charity watchdog after publishing an article criticising the UK government’s decision to suspend arms exports to Israel.
CAA has been called out over “mismanagement” by the Charity Commission due to an article published on 3 September titled “An Obscene Decision”, which criticised the then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s announcement that the government would be suspending some 30 licences for arms exports to Israel.
The Commission concluded that comments, which include calling the government’s move “obscene”, went beyond the charity’s remit and that trustees failed to keep “adequate records” of how the statement was approved.
The Commission has now issued a Regulatory Action Plan ordering trustees to improve governance of the charity in response.
In the article, CAA also accused the British government of being “hostile toward the Jewish state” and urged their members to write to Lammy and other MPs to express their disapproval at halting the export of arms being used in a genocide.
A spokesperson for the Charity Commission said: “We thoroughly examined concerns raised about Campaign Against Antisemitism, which included, among other issues, concerns about an article published by the charity, as part of a regulatory compliance case. We reviewed all available evidence and engaged with the charity’s trustees.
“We have concluded that not all of the content within the article was capable of furthering the charity’s objects. The trustees were also unable to provide sufficient documentation about the decision to publish the article and the decision-making process around its publication. This failure to keep adequate records amounts to mismanagement.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
“We have issued the charity’s trustees with a Regulatory Action Plan requiring them to make improvements to how it operates. Charities are required to follow remedial steps set out in an Action Plan, and we will be contacting this charity’s trustees to monitor compliance in due course. In the meantime, we have closed our regulatory compliance case into these concerns.”
This development follows a formal complaint submitted by Muslim advocacy group CAGE International earlier this year against both the CAA and UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI).
The complaint detailed how both charities “defend and advocate for the State of Israel’s apartheid and genocidal policies in a manner that contravenes their charitable purpose.”
According to CAGE, the Commission’s intervention marks the second regulatory consequence resulting from a CAGE complaint.
In a statement, CAGE said that in September, Middle East Eye revealed that the Commission had opened an active investigation into the UKLFI Charitable Trust, the fundraising arm of UK Lawyers for Israel, over concerns that “some of its activities may fall outside the scope of its charitable objectives.”
Dr Asim Qureshi, CAGE International’s Research Director, said: “Britain faces a democratic emergency, with free expression under sustained attack from a network of bad-faith actors who collaborate with willing and racist government institutions to suppress popular opposition to Zionism and support for the Palestinian people.”
“What begins with the silencing of Palestine advocacy today, could be turned against any contentious issue in future.”
CAA seeks judicial review
CAA has announced plans to submit a formal application for a judicial review of the Commissions sanctions which they claim are “baseless and unacceptable.”
It contended that the article’s content was equivalent to similar statements made by other Jewish charities, such as the Board of Deputies saying that the arms suspension sent “a dangerous message” and the Jewish Leadership Council claiming it could “place in jeopardy the UK’s own security.”
The CAA said: “We are now preparing to challenge on judicial review the Commission’s unfounded claim that CAA has committed ‘mismanagement’ simply because a single routine conversation involving trustees was not formally minuted.”
A spokesperson for CAA said: “The Charity Commission has taken a year to come to a decision that we regard as seriously flawed.”
CAA said: “Inexcusably, it then sent out its statement to the utterly disreputable CAGE organisation which was published [on CAGE’s website] 24 hours before we were due to submit formal submissions in response.”
“The Commission should clearly not have behaved in this way. The Commission’s conduct has denied us a fair hearing and enabled CAGE to use the Commission to further its ends.”
The mismanagement ruling is defined as “any act (or failure to act) that may cause charitable resources to be misused or the people who benefit from the charity to be put at risk.”
The “failure to comply with an order or direction of the Commission” can also be considered mismanagement under the Commission’s rules.
