Seems Oxfam is the latest in a long line of N.G.O.s to capitulate to transgender ideology. The attraction of Rainbow washing for this charity probably lies in its shameful history of turning a blind eye to employees; who sexually exploited some of the most vulnerable women and girls on the planet. For anyone not aware Oxfam was accused of turning a blind eye to members of their staff sexually exploiting young women (and, possibly, under age girls) in Haiti.
Before I cover Oxfam’s new “inclusive language” guidance, in Part 2, here is a bit of background on the NGO.
The Charity Commission published an investigation into Oxfam in 2019. You can access their findings here along with an Independent assessment of Oxfam and Safeguarding.
There was an investigation by Oxfam and also an Independent Review of Oxfam, focused on safeguarding.
In this investigation they pointed out the sex of the victims and that of the majority perpetrators
They highlighted the lack of appreciation that safeguarding had any bearing on the way conducted its business. The review strongly opposed this perspective and insisting that the charity should adopt a Safeguarding First approach in all it’s activities. 👇
They also questioned the pervading “cultural relativism” which saw employees prioritising respect for local customs and culture, even when those cultural practices were inherently abusive.
The main focus was on Oxfam’s overseas activities but they also revealed nine cases of registered sex offenders working in Oxfam shops. Something they also pointed out, of which I was unaware, was that Oxfam was not legally able to obtain the type of criminal record check that would reveal these offences.
I am assuming these sex offences would only be revealed by an enhanced check under the disclosure and barring service. Having looked at the on line tool it appears that an employer of shop volunteer would not be entitled to make a DBS check. This looks like a loophole for the government to address.
Another disturbing issue is that some of these registered sex offenders were known to shop staff and allowed to continue in their role.
The Independent review made a number of recommendations one of which was to appoint people with a strong track record in promoting the rights of women and girls. How will this play out now Oxfam is questioning what is a woman/girl?
The investigation by the Charity Commission resulted in sanctions for the Charity using their regulatory powers.
In February 2018 allegations emerged which dated back some years.
Turns out that Oxfam do not explicitly oppose the sexual exploitation of women and girls. Some staff were sexually exploiting women/girls on the charity premises.
The charity seemed to spend more energy in finding ways to expel rogue staff members than they showed for the victims.
In another part of the report it was revealed that they had a less than rigorous approach to prospective employee references, in one instance one of the men had a reference from one of the men in Haiti who was implicated in the other allegations. During the investigation into Haiti further allegations arose in relation to Chad. These leads were not followed up.
This was one of the recommendations. There should be female only meetings when overseas locations are inspected.
My question is that if Oxfam are now pretending that they can’t define women and if they include men who identify women in our sex class how are they protecting female only meetings? This is their statement on women, from the inclusive language guide, making it clear they have erased women as a sex class.
Next I will cover their guide to “inclusive” language guide.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)