When Charity Should Stop At Home
This is a guest post by habibi
The guilty verdicts in the Holy Land Foundation trial were the reward for over a decade’s hard work by the Justice Department and the FBI. Better late than never.
So how is the UK doing when it comes to terrorists’ abuse of charities?
The Charity Commission offers a summary of its counterterrorist policies here and a long version - updated in July 2008 - here. At first glance, the summary is straightforward and reassuring. A sample:
The Commission works to three basic assumptions, and these have important implications for the way we deal with charities where suspicions of links to terrorism arise. The assumptions are:
- the Commission would not register an organisation that had support of terrorism explicitly or implicitly as an object;
- that use of an existing charity’s assets for support of terrorist activity is not a proper use of those assets;
- that links - or alleged links - between a charity and terrorism corrode public confidence in the integrity of charity.
Even better, among its “key principles when looking at charities with potential links to terrorism”, the Commission cites the following:
* Any links between charities and terrorist activity are totally unacceptable. ‘Links’ in this case might include fundraising or provision of facilities, but also include formal or informal links to organisations ‘proscribed’ under the Terrorism Act 2000.
* The Charity Commission will deal with any allegation of links between a charity and terrorist activity as an immediate priority.
…
* Charities should take all necessary steps to ensure their activities could not be misinterpreted. The Commission expects trustees or charities to ensure their activities are open and transparent, for example when transferring assets abroad. We hold trustees accountable for ensuring that procedures are put in place to ensure that terrorist organisations cannot take advantage of a charity’s status, reputation, facilities or assets.
Furthermore, since 2007 the Treasury has allocated an extra £1 million per year to the Commission. It has also “redirected” some of its existing resources. These measures, the Commission has said, will strengthen its compliance work in the context of terrorist links to charities.
That’s the policy in theory. The practice, at least in the case of Mohammed Al Ghabra of East London, a former trustee of the Al Ikhlas Foundation, also known (to the Commission as well) as the Muslim Prisoner Support Group, is dispiriting.
In September 2007 the Commission suspended al Ghabra as a trustee of the foundation. In October 2008, the Commission announced that it had concluded “that it was in the interests of the Charity [al Ikhlas] to remove Mohammed Al Ghabra as a trustee and/or agent of the Charity”.
What took them so long? Never mind access to intelligence (the Commission claims it works with law enforcement authorities), consider US, Bank of England and press reports open to all:
- The US Treasury, December 2006: “Al Ghabra has organized travel to Pakistan for individuals seeking to meet with senior al Qaida individuals and to undertake jihad training. Several of these individuals have returned to the UK to engage in covert activity on behalf of al Qaida. Additionally, Al Ghabra has provided material support and facilitated the travel of UK-based individuals to Iraq to support the insurgents fight against coalition forces.”
- The Bank of England, December 2006: “The Bank of England, as agent for Her Majesty’s Treasury, issues this news release to advise that on 12 December 2006 the United Nations Sanctions Committee approved the addition of Mohammed Al Ghabra to the UN Consolidated List maintained under Resolution 1390 (2002). The individual therefore falls within the UK financial sanctions regime under the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006. (December 2006)
- The Times, July 2007: “A suspected Al-Qaeda operative who is believed by MI5 to have played a key role in the events leading up to the July 21 failed bombings is at liberty and living in east London”
I think this is what native Brits (oh how I wish more of you were restless) call a “leisurely pace”. In counterterrorism, of all fields.
In fact, the Commission has said it “was informed” of Al Ghabra’s UN designation in July 2007. Apparently it did not bother to read Bank of England terrorist sanctions lists and would not have learned of this case without a third party informing it. This is very careless, to say the least.
Meanwhile, the foundation is still running, and remains dedicated to supporting convicted and suspected Islamist terrorists and supporters of terrorism, such as Omar Abdul Rahman, Aafia Siddiqui and, of course, Abu Hamza. Have a look at its web site. Furthermore, its required Commission filings - annual returns and accounts for the past two financial years - are long overdue.
How can this situation not “corrode public confidence in the integrity of charity”, which the Commission claims is such an important concern? How has it shown, in this case, that “Any links between charities and terrorist activity are totally unacceptable”?
Nor, apparently, is this the only case where the Commission’s pace is shockingly slow. As far as I can tell, it has yet to issue a ruling on Crescent Relief (see pages 12-13 of that pdf file), more than two years after freezing its funds. Furthermore, according to this article, the Crescent Relief investigation only began after the Commission bothered to read press reports. Note that Crescent Relief was founded by the father and uncle of Rashid Rauf.
Never mind, for a moment, the Commission moving at a snail’s pace. Frustrating as that is, the quality of its work and judgment is the most important issue. I think this, from the Commission’s counterterrorism guidance document, is the heart of the problem:
“The Commission applies a risk-based and proportionate approach to regulation. This means that we engage with charities in a way which will make most difference to them and those who benefit from them. As a modern regulator, the Commission’s approach emphasises providing support and guidance and promoting best practice as well as ensuring that charities comply with their legal obligations. We aim to encourage and support charities to improve their performance by working in partnership with them and with umbrella groups, helping to define and facilitate best practice and sharing this knowledge widely.”
If you read the Ikhlas ruling, alongside criticism you will see this “we want to help” strategy in action, on behalf of pro-terrorist campaigners. It states:
“The Commission has provided advice and guidance to the Trustees of the Charity which will allow them to take the Charity forward on a strong administrative footing.”
To further illustrate the approach and attitude at work here, consider this article, where the Commission’s chief executive, Andrew Hind, offers a display of spectacular complacency:
The Charity Commission has been reluctant to tout its role in the battle to stamp out the sources of terrorism, instead choosing to focus on the benefits that charities bring society. In an interview on Wednesday, commission chief executive Andrew Hind described the commission’s mission as “trying to encourage 1,000 flowers to bloom.”
A strong individual volunteer sector is “a fundamental element” to a functioning civil society, Hind said.
A former BBC World Service chief operating officer and finance director, Hind is reluctant to discuss the group’s role in terrorism tracking, and chooses his words carefully. He sees charity, and Britain’s strong tradition of contributing time and money to those less fortunate, as akin to the role of a free press in society, he said.
The commission is not in the habit of actively investigating organizations for links to terrorism, he said, and often relies on tips from the public to spur investigations. “This is a very small part of our overall” mission, he insists.
…
Hind said there are no regularly scheduled conversations with United States or European officials on the subject. Establishing regular communication with the United States would be unwelcome, Hind said. “I hope it doesn’t happen, because that would be indicative of larger problems,” he said.
In a war, and make no mistake, Islamists are waging war on the UK and its interests and allies abroad, no government body should help the enemy. The Charity Commission, in all of what appears to be its arrogance and incompetence, does not seem to get this, at all. Most unfortunately, assuming HMG gives a damn that is, the Commission’s operations are independent, by law.
To conclude, entirely randomly of course, and with no reference to any of the above, oh no sir, have a look at this US Treasury announcement of November 2008 and this one of 2003, consider the time that has passed without further official news since this Commission press release, and then enjoy some more Liberace.
Comments
| 30 November 2008, 9:21 pm |
In England we have come to rely upon a comfortable time-lag of fifty years or a century intervening between the perception that something ought to be done and a serious attempt to do it. — H.G. Wells
So I guess the Charity Commission is going at warp speed on this one.
| 30 November 2008, 9:31 pm |
Good job well done, habibi. Boy, how long it takes to get us Anglo-Saxons to wake up. Look how long it took in the 1930s, even with Churchill on the job.
| 30 November 2008, 9:32 pm |
Who needs Churchill when we have Morgoth.
Seriously, though - Liberace was absolute brilliant, wasn’t he?
| 30 November 2008, 9:56 pm |
Some people puposefully ignore the US Treasury and UN lists of Al Queda funders.
Saad Al Fagih,one of the funders of the East African Embassy bombings is on those lists and yet was writing for the Guardian, who told me that although they could not pay him directly they had offered to give the fee to a charity of his choosing.
They also claimed that he was only on the list a s a “favour” to the Saudi Government and that if he was guilty of anything he would “be in Belmarsh”.
O/T
-Check out Richard “I can see Kashmir from my house” Seymour’s latest ramblings on anti semitism.
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/11/antisemitism-of-new-antisemitism.html
| 30 November 2008, 10:16 pm |
The US Treasury “Union Of Good” press release includes this paragraph:
The Union of Good’s executive leadership and board of directors includes Hamas leaders, Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs), and other terrorist supporters. The secretary general of the Union of Good, for example, also acts as the vice-chairman of the United Kingdom-based Interpal, which was designated in 2003 for providing financial support to Hamas under the cover of charitable activity. As of mid-2007, this official served on the Hamas executive committee under Hamas leader Khaled Misha’al.
Just sayin’ and all that.
| 30 November 2008, 10:38 pm |
two years ago Panorama made a program about a charity that was shown by actually visiting Gaza to be funding Hamas. They included covert material obtained in the usa.
They put it to the Commission as something they needed to investiaget.
My impression was that the Commission is sh.t scared to say anything at all in case their inspectors and the commission get a fatwa. beheading or bombing (MY impression!)
This requires the Govt or Bank of England to foce the Charities Commission to close the terrorist fronts down
| 30 November 2008, 10:51 pm |
Look at MPAC UK’s take on Lloyds TSB withdrawing facilities for another Palestinian Charity http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/5115/102/
Careful, reading the item and commenting may render the reader liable to a fatwa.
All those who dislike seeing Jews (Zionists) verbally abused and assaulted please don’t look any further than the article.
| 30 November 2008, 11:01 pm |
PATHETIC–SICKENING-NOT FUNNY-but unfortunately, TYPICAL.
Good Job, Habibi
| 30 November 2008, 11:05 pm |
Good article- yallah habibi!
How’s this for restless- we have got the BOYCOTT SHARIAH COMPLIANT BANKS site up in 2 days…
Now with a proper messageboard to coordinate the campaign. Please have a look and sign up if you agree with our aims.
Thanks
| 30 November 2008, 11:11 pm |
PS:
Liberace was a nice touch, also. Could that be our boy Mack the Knife in the personage of you-know-who slipping it between our shoulder blades while we look the other way?
| 30 November 2008, 11:15 pm |
Speaking of reading and Panorama, try a ctrl+F on “Yusuf” (both of them on that page) here.
Searching there for the surnames “Sawalha” and “Salah” could also fill in some interesting blanks and highlight revealing links for some HP readers.
| 30 November 2008, 11:18 pm |
BOYCOTT SHARIAH COMPLIANT BANKS
You could have probably had it running within an hour if you’d put it where it belongs - on the BNP website. I would be happy to stab an Islamist Terrorist with a rusty knife but you cannot conflate Terrorists with everyday, Joe The Muslim, who has a right to carry out their lives as provided by law.
If you want to argue whether we should have Shariah Laws in our finance Act then that is a different discussion.
While they are lawful I have no problem with them.
| 30 November 2008, 11:22 pm |
Speaking of reading and Panorama, try a ctrl+F on “Yusuf” (both of them on that page) here.
Got your drift! What happens if we find his name and press ctrl + K? Does it take him out? Just asking!
(BTW I know its Find. F3 works as well for digit challenged people)
| 30 November 2008, 11:24 pm |
I have no interest (sorry, couldn’t resist) in boycotting “sharia-compliant” banks. That is not what this post is about.
| 30 November 2008, 11:24 pm |
habibi, thanks for providing the link. I couldn’t remember anything else that would let me find it.
| 30 November 2008, 11:26 pm |
Another masterful example of investigative reporting from Habibi. Well done.
This points to an underlying rift between what the Charity Commission are supposed to do, and what the individuals feel inclined to do. If the personalities are equivocal on terrorism, the Commission will reflect that, regardless of its mission statement. And any organisation like this is bound to attract the type of person who is averse to accountability, and scrutiny.
The public demand transparency from the charities they support. No-one demands transparency from the CC.
David:
“Seriously, though - Liberace was absolute brilliant, wasn’t he?”
I still reckon that all the time we were speculating about his lifestyle, he was actually stealing expensive pianos.
| 30 November 2008, 11:38 pm |
Maven:
“You could have probably had it running within an hour if you’d put it where it belongs - on the BNP website… you cannot conflate Terrorists with everyday, Joe The Muslim, who has a right to carry out their lives as provided by law”
One can oppose Shariah Compliant Finance without having the slightest interest in the BNP. I certainly have no interest in it.
Our campaign does not dispute the right of anybody to do anything legal. It is aimed at discouraging the banks from funding Shariah authorities, unless the authorities they use make explicit statements condemning those aspects of Shariah which conflict with our laws.
Particularly with the part-nationalised banks, that is not such a shocking request, is it?
| 30 November 2008, 11:38 pm |
“How’s this for restless- we have got the BOYCOTT SHARIAH COMPLIANT BANKS site up in 2 days…”
Sorry but ridiculous. It’s the same coin as Islamists claiming Goldmans is a ‘Jewish’ bank - ironically on your list.
| 30 November 2008, 11:44 pm |
Meir- how so?
The list are all banks which do actually provide Shariah compliant products. It’s a matter of fact, not conjecture.
Those banks pay Shariah authorities without any assurances that the same authorities condemn e.g. the sentence of death on apostates.
What is ridiculous about calling for more scrutiny of that process?
| 30 November 2008, 11:56 pm |
Boycott. Are you aware that praying 5 times a day is part of the sharia? Presumably you want Muslims stopped from praying because that’s supporting people having their hands cut off?
Those banks pay Shariah authorities without any assurances that the same authorities condemn e.g. the sentence of death on apostates.
Innocent until proved guilty mean anything to you?
| 1 December 2008, 12:02 am |
Maven. Can’t believe how whole-heartedly I agree with you.
Interpal’s letter to the Times certainly makes for incoherent reading.
We are under no illusions that this action by Mr. Daniels and his bank is driven by declarations and unsubstantiated allegations from the other side of the Atlantic which originate in the Middle East.
What has it come to when you mangle even the most mundane of conspiracy theories?
Habibi, thanks for another fascinating post.
| 1 December 2008, 2:17 am |
“allegations from the other side of the Atlantic which originate in the Middle East.”
I’m still trying to work that one out.
It’s like finding armholes on your knickers.
| 1 December 2008, 3:14 am |
Gsirrah…comment on your blog…unrelated to this post after than the familiar Islam is evil motif
What about JIMAS, the bastion of public interest Islamic propaganda? Isn’t their chief agitator that unreconstructed salafist Abu Muntasir? Aren’t they registered as a charity too yet have only spent in the region of 30, 000 in the last 4 years on objectivally public interest (i.e. in everyone’s interest not just unreconstructed salafists)? And this despite nearly doubling their income to just short of half a million squid and spending nigh on a quarter mill each year?
Q. Where does the rest of it go?
A. ‘diversity’ seminars; outreach work; Islamic propaganda
Q. Is this defined as ‘in the public interest’ by the Charities Commission?
A. Not really. Apparently it’s something to do with that rather fuzzy concept ’social justice’.
Q. How is it socially just then?
A. It’s not. I read it in that canny prognosticator Gramsci’s prison notebooks.
Q. Didn’t he die a Catholic?
A. He did. But he’s swimming round the lake of fire as we speak.
| 1 December 2008, 8:39 am |
“Seriously, though - Liberace was absolute brilliant, wasn’t he?” says David T- I’m glad I’m not the only one who makes typing slips. David, were you alive when Liberace was about?
May I be excused for bringing in some light relief. I remember going up the stairs to my music teacher’s room and hearing a pupil play a piece by Schumann. I was determined to tell my teacher that this pupil was so bad, that he should be told to give up music. When I entered the room I found it was not a pupil but an LP of Liberace!!
But maybe Liberace was a good showman - I enjoyed watching him on TV.
I have nothing to add to habibi’s article. Mr. Hind is simply unspeakable. Maybe someone should tell him that it’s in his own interest to be attentive to terrorism. His pronouncements amount to socialised schizophrenia, and here liberalism equals barabarism.
| 1 December 2008, 9:43 am |
Oh, he wasn’t a great pianist. But he was tremendously good fun.
I’d rather watch him, than John Sergeant.
| 1 December 2008, 10:23 am |
GSirrah:
“Boycott. Are you aware that praying 5 times a day is part of the sharia? Presumably you want Muslims stopped from praying because that’s supporting people having their hands cut off?”
No, the point is to discourage banks from offering products certified as compliant by people who also consider e.g. stoning to be legitimate.
“Innocent until proved guilty mean anything to you?”
Shariah is a complete legal system. If you (as a scholar) believe it enough to forbid interest, you are also bound to agree with the prescribed punishments.
| 1 December 2008, 2:59 pm |
I have no interest (sorry, couldn’t resist) in boycotting “sharia-compliant” banks. That is not what this post is about.
But this posting and sharia finance are related issues. A pourcentage of every Sharia financial transaction, no matter how small, will be siphoned off and chanelled to groups who push the Islamist agenda both peacefully AND violently. It is just as sinister and as dangerous as certain islamic ‘charities’.
Seriously, though - Liberace was absolute brilliant, wasn’t he?
The man was a study in Polish pink, and Elton John owes his entire career and stage presence/personna to the guy.
And as someone with extenisve training in classical piano, I can assure you that Liberace was most certainly an excellent pianist; probably one of the best in mid-century America.
It’s just that his camp got in the road of what was a tremendous natural talent.
| 1 December 2008, 5:25 pm |
Boycott.
1) You do not appear to list who the experts on sharia finance are who are advising these banks. If you did list them, apologies. I happen to personally know a number of people who have degrees in Islamic finance but who are either not Muslim or are fierce supporters of secular governance. There is only the most superficial of connections between an expert on Islamic finance and, as you try to suggest, the system of law in Saudi. Or Iran. It absolutely does not follow that somebody who believes riba is a sin is “bound to agree” with the hudud penalties.
2) Shariah is a complete legal system.
Some people claim it to be this. Others - the majority of modern scholars on Islamic law - disagree.
If sharia were the monolithic legal system which you suggest, how do you account for the vast differences between the legal systems of the states which claim to enforce sharia in one form or another? For example, Tunisia, Malaysia and Saudi all claim to have sharia for family law (and Saudi claim for all law). Tunisia’s version of sharia has banned polygamy, most states in Malaysia have banned it but a couple have not, Saudi is all for polygamy.
| 1 December 2008, 8:58 pm |
Many thanks to all who found this post interesting.
Should you wish to register your concerns about these issues with the Charity Commission, its compliance director is Mr Kenneth Dibble.
There is a contact form here.
Alternatively, and this may be a better option, please contact your MP:
| 31 December 2008, 1:21 am |
italic bold quote
Write a comment