The Inter Faith Network drew on the pre-existing example of "Scottish Interfaith Week" and every year listed on its "Inter Faith Week" website various inter-religious events which were in actuality organised, financed and run mainly by other institutions and groups unconnected to the IFN; and IFN officials participated in meetings hosted by the Church of England and Lambeth Palace with members of the British royal family and government officials.
He states with specific reference to the IFN: "Whereas the most obvious of these organisational benefits come in the form of state-sponsored commissions, grants and subventions, the resources accrued through accessing political opportunity structures comprise a varied range of material goods and immaterial means (e.g. budget, personnel, plant, premises, reputation, influence, and status)".Amanda van Eck Duymaer van Twist, Deputy Director of INFORM writes from her academic study and qualitative research interviews with members of the Inter Faith Network that: "IFN has encouraged a structure of self-appointed leaders within communities where that traditionally would not have been appropriate.
[10]Duymaer van Twist continues and reports "resentment that the IFN had become such an established institution, with strong government and Church of England support, that some began to see it as a 'gatekeeper' that could grant or withhold 'legitimacy' to religious groups by way of membership".
[11] A multi-signature letter published on the case by clergy of different faiths in the Church Times states: "The rejection by the IFNUK of the lawfully recognised faith charity the Druid Network raises serious concerns about possible religious discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, which have been discussed in an expert legal statement published by the leading human-rights law firm Bindmans LLP (see www.religiousfreedom.org.uk/legal)...In particular, this activates questions related to Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 concerning the Public Sector Equality Duty of government and public bodies to consider issues of religious discrimination and exclusion that may arise when they decide to give the money of British taxpayers as public funding to interfaith and other groups".
Peter Colwell, Deputy General Secretary of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland (CTBI) writes of the tendency of interfaith bodies "to compete with each other and to make inflated claims of their own impact", while the CTBI Inter Faith Theological Advisory Group also addresses the politics of interfaith “gatekeepers” and blocking of admission to membership of the Inter Faith Network: "An argument that gives power over inclusion or exclusion to what can now be seen as the vested interests of existing dialogues where those dialogues have a political significance seems dangerous".
He writes, "What is less immediately visible is the extent to which the controlling Crabtree-esque politics of these Anglican-led faith and interfaith organisations are realised through the systematic abuse and bullying of whistleblowers, as a routine modus operandi".
[16] The newspaper reported on the Inter Faith Network that "Michael Gove's department is concerned about the failure of a taxpayer-funded interfaith group to explicitly condemn Hamas's attack on Israel".
Since my officials wrote to Dr Harriet Crabtree on 7 July 2023 to inform her that this department would make this offer subject to robust financial and due diligence checks, it has come to my attention that a member of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has been appointed as a trustee of the Inter Faith Network".The Church Times reported the response and criticism by the IFN of the government decision: "The Inter Faith Network (IFN) said that it had not been asked to proscribe membership of any individual, nor had it previously been advised by the department to expel any MCB members because of the Government's policy of non-engagement".
[23] Sharma asserts: "Over a number of years, my organisation along with a large number of faith leaders of different churches and religions, university academics and government officials, whom I have met, have raised strong concerns about the Inter Faith Network...These concerns range from issues of power, governance and accountability in the IFN, to very serious concerns of alleged bullying, discrimination and safeguarding matters, where some colleagues have suffered varying degrees of severe harassment to their professional and personal lives outside the IFN as a result of our having raised complaints and concerns about the behaviour of IFN officials".The Sunday Telegraph reported that Member of Parliament, Holly Lynch, proposed an Adjournment Debate on the Inter Faith Network in the House of Commons on 10 January 2024, and it reported, "Speaking in a Commons debate, Ms Lynch – who is supportive of the IFN – said that money apparently pledged by DLUHC to tide over the organisation between July 2023 and March 2024 had not yet materialised".
The BBC reported, "Communities Minister Felicity Buchan said that while the government would continue supporting other charities that promote interfaith dialogue, they would not change their stance over funding to the IFN".
[26] On 25 February 2024, the Sunday Telegraph reported that the Inter Faith Network was to close "after Michael Gove ended taxpayer funding because of what he called its 'deeply concerning' links to the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)" and that "the IFN had angered the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities".
[27] The newspaper cited a letter to the charity from Gove in which he confirmed he would not give the IFN any further money: "It is deeply concerning that an MCB member could be appointed into your core governance structure.
This increases the proximity between government funding and an organisation (the MCB) with which the Government has a long-standing policy of non-engagement...Interfaith work is hugely valuable but that does not require us to use taxpayers' money in a way that legitimises the influence of organisations such as the MCB".The Sunday Telegraph article quoted Member of Parliament, Stephen Timms, during a debate in the House of Commons in which he said that it was "extraordinarily stupid to be shutting down at this precise point our principal vehicle in the UK for Muslim-Jewish dialogue”.
[28] The Independent newspaper reported a statement from a spokesman for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities: "Interfaith work is hugely important but that does not require us to use taxpayer money in a way that legitimises the influence of organisations such as the MCB.