This is a fascinating subject and is sure to be causing much head-scratching at London Bethel. I recommend anyone interested in reading more to go here.
The bottom line - is the WTS and its affiliates charitable and are they acting in the public benefit??
E4. Principle 1c Benefits must be balanced against any detriment or harm
‘Benefit’ means the overall or net benefit to the public. It is not simply a question of showing that some benefit may result.
The achievement of a particular aim may be of some benefit to the public but, in achieving that benefit, may also have detrimental or harmful effects. In assessing the public benefit of individual organisations, we will consider any evidence of significant detrimental or harmful effects of that organisation carrying out its aims in its particular circumstances. There would need to be some real evidence of detriment or harm; it cannot just be supposed.
The existence of detriment or harm does not necessarily mean that the organisation cannot be charitable. It is a question of balancing the benefits against the detriment or harm.
If the detrimental or harmful consequences are greater than the benefits, the overall result is that the organisation would not be charitable.
Examples of things that might be evidenced to be detrimental or harmful might include:
- something that is damaging to the environment;
- something that is dangerous or damaging to mental or physical health;
- something that encourages or promotes violence or hatred towards others;
- unlawfully restricting a person’s freedom.
No organisation that has aims that are illegal, or that intentionally deceives or misrepresents its aims and so is a sham, can be a charity. Where that sort of detriment or harm is present then there is no balancing to be done as, notwithstanding any benefits that might arise from carrying out the organisation’s aims, it cannot be recognised as charitable.
As with the consideration of benefits, we are concerned only with the detriment or harm that arises from the particular organisation carrying out its particular aims. The fact that it may be argued there is detriment or harm to the public generally from certain types of charity carrying out particular charitable purposes does not mean that the detriment or harm actually exists. Or, if it does exist, that it necessarily applies to any organisation having those charitable purposes in its objects.
Where the benefits are overwhelming, the existence of some inconsequential detriment would not affect public benefit.
For example, it might be argued that the provision of motorised transport for people with a disability has some harmful effect on the environment. But, in general, the benefits of giving mobility to people with a disability are considerably greater than any consequential harmful effects on the environment. We might encourage the charity to consider ways of minimising any harmful environmental effects. But, unless the transport were grossly polluting of the environment for some reason (in which case it is unlikely to be roadworthy anyway), we would consider the benefits to outweigh the harm.
Conversely, where there may be some benefit but the harm is considerable enough to negate the benefits, public benefit would be affected.
For example, we recognise that there are risks involved in playing any sport. But some dangerous or ‘extreme’ sports involve risks that go far beyond the usual risks associated with energetic physical exercise. If an organisation is concerned with promoting participation in such a sport, we would consider what steps the organisation takes to minimise the dangers to personal safety and reduce the risks of injury to a minimum. If insufficient steps were taken to minimise the risks, then whatever health benefits there might be from the physical exercise of participating in the sport would be greatly outweighed by the dangers to physical health.
Given the above I think there is a real opportunity here for UK residents to write to the CC with their own experience of harm suffered due to organisational policy or doctrine - protected paedophiles, blood issues, shunning are some things I can think of. Important that your letter should be addressing the points from the quoted section above - once I write a letter I will post it.
