"It's not as if we murdered babies in their cots" - Oxfam

If there is an anti-aid agenda, then all charities can help themselves enormously on that front by not allowing their staff to sexually exploit women and children.

Precisely this. There is an anti-aid agenda, has been for years. All the more reason, then, for aid workers to be above reproach and not to act in a way that is not only disgusting in itself, but which actively facilitates the removal of support to stricken peoples.

I heard it on the radio this morning - I was I can't believe anyone - let alone the CEO of a charity - would think it ok to say this!

They actually think it don't they? "Oh, what's a bit of child rape and misogyny - when we're doing so much good in the world? I mean we're not actually murdering babies!!"

I am disgusted. I'm appalled that their thought processes work like this - the dismissal of the suffering of women and children at the hands of their workers - and that we really should shut up because they're not killing babies in their cots fgs. Is that the benchmark of good charity work overseas, Oxfam? Not actually killing babies? Who knew it was so low.

"...wouldn’t you say, if a person cannot afford to feed themselves, the appropriate thing to put in their mouth is food, not your cock?" (Rachel Moran, sex trade survivor)''

twitter.com/bindelj?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

A lot of this is being driven by an anti aid agenda. Unfortunately the press won’t stop now until a lot of these charities are driven into the ground. Who benefits then?

What and whose anti aid agenda?

Of course there are people who object to the government using taxes for an overseas aid budget - but the UK has and will almost certainly continue to have. Part of that goes to charities like Oxfam but if Oxfam does not exist the UK will still be spending money on overseas aid.

Poor rich white man, his feelings are so much more important than the feelings of the black women and girls who his employees abused.

For the people arguing that we must support Oxfam because they do so much good etc - good for whom? Clearly not for the women and girls who they encounter in a professional context.

I've been thinking about this since I read the interview yesterday. I was shocked that he made this comment - it's unbelievably tone-deaf and self-pitying.

It seems the vulnerable women and girls involved (and by extension, others like them) are just so much collateral damage to these people. I guess I'm not surprised, and yet I'm horrified that they are so blatant about it. Like they don't really think the women and girls who've been abused and exploited really count as people, because Oxfam do good work, so don't nitpick, or because people have sex in disaster zones, its human nature, yeah?, or even because the victims were paid (yes, I saw this a couple of times in the Guardian comments), or because Oxfam aren't as bad as other aid organisations.

What is wrong with someone like the chairman that he doesn't just unequivocally condemn the crimes and abuse and issue an unqualified apology?

I'm far from anti aid, and I do think those on the right who are anti are loving this, but no, that doesn't make me feel supportive of Oxfam I'm afraid. This whole thing is just despicable.

Appalling.

I'm also shocked at MSF. They are one of the few charities I have - or had - almost complete confidence in. On social media recently someone who knew the NGO sector said that the only two aid charities where staff weren't sexually abusing people were MSF and Christian Aid.

'I am .... heartbroken.'

I would find that quite offensive, Van.

You are not the victim here, pal.

I think the CEO is completely out of his depth. None of the emails I've had from Oxfam in the last week or so, or the press releases, seem to hit the right note, or to fully accept responsibility. There is an evasiveness about some issues, such as the question of underage girls. One of the emails uses the phrase 'I am .... heartbroken.' It seems utterly ridiculous that his personal feelings and emotions are the first point in the email. This latest comment claiming Oxfam has 'not killed babies' is just absurd and irrelevant. It clearly shows the CEO's inability to take a rational, responsible position and demonstrate strong leadership in times of crisis. He should resign now.

Thank you for posting this.

One interesting number comparison was that Oxfam has 4 dedicated safeguarding staff and more than 20 press officers. (The Times.)

But when you have the most senior person in the organisation saying that it isn't that bad, then I think we can make a judgement about the culture of that organisation.

These men did not act alone, independently of the organisation. They acted together and organised sexual exploitation together. The parent organisation either didn't know (in which case their monitoring procedures are not working) or they covered it up. Neither scenario paints Oxfam in a good light.

If it had been one lone rapist and Oxfam called police as soon as his crimes were uncovered, then we'd all be commending Oxfam for their action.

These men acted as they did in part because they were aware that their organisation saw the sexual exploitation of women and children as "not that bad". They felt confident in doing it and in getting away with it.

Wow. Well that's blown my risk/benefit balance questions out of the water

I thought the comment was aimed st the media frenzy rather than justifying the activities in that there are large sections of the media now who will not rest until Oxfam has disbanded.

There is no context at all where that comment is in any way appropriate.

I totally agree that we cannot judge a whole organisation by the actions of a few rapists. But how the hell can they continue after this? A complete restructuring and examination of their so called safeguarding policies are a minimum. God what a terrible business

I don't have an anti-aid agenda.

I just happen to think sexually exploiting women and children in disaster areas by people who we are paying to help them is disgusting.

If there is an anti-aid agenda, then all charities can help themselves enormously on that front by not allowing their staff to sexually exploit women and children. And if it does happen, then to have procedures in place for bringing that worker to justice rather than put their efforts into covering it up and stating that it isn't as bad as murdering babies/genocide/whatever.

I thought the comment was aimed st the media frenzy rather than justifying the activities in that there are large sections of the media now who will not rest until Oxfam has disbanded.

While that may be the right response to their clear lack of oversight and total failure of safeguarding, it will also hamper aid efforts and discredit more of the people calling out the appalling levels of inequality in the world.

Cancelling my direct debit and supporting MSF instead

From the BBC website;

“Another charity - Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) - has now come under question as the president of Haiti called for an investigation into the activities of aid agencies working in his country.
Jovenel Moise, asked why the medical charity MSF had repatriated 17 of its staff members.”

I shall carry on giving to Oxfam as the good work they do shouldn’t be overshadowed by the actions of a few. Same with MSF.

I also think the Oxfam Chairman has a point. A lot of this is being driven by an anti aid agenda. Unfortunately the press won’t stop now until a lot of these charities are driven into the ground. Who benefits then?

It's hard to see how this organisation can continue in its present form.

I was on the fence too, but now I'm firmly over. I will be donating elsewhere from now on.

Omg did he actually say that? I don't understand why Oxfam isn't getting a harder time over this. Never like Minnie Driver but I love her now for having principles.

Oh well that's ok then, because raping extremely vulnerable children is totally acceptable