Fuck Oxfam

I think you are right @ManAboutTown . Every attempt to return things to the previously accepted (for millenia) man / woman binary is being fought tooth and nail not just in major orgnaisations like Oxfam, the NSPCC, Childline, the Arts Council, the NHS, the BBC or schools but in those organisations tasked with monitoring them like the Civil Service, the Charity Commission, Ofstead, Ofcom, the EHRC, even within the current Cabinet where although most are not woke there are still woke-lite people like Gillian Keegan.

The problem is that Oxfam is promoting a nonsense that our "establishment" believes in.

If they'd done something against Net Zero or COVID vaccines the authorities would be down on them like a ton of bricks

India is outside the reach of the UK charities commission.

The Charities Commission could easily have pulled the emails and process from start to finish regarding the commissioning of that video. That is what I would have done.

Oxfam has become a distortion of it's original mission bit like Stonewall.

Since it gets about 25% of its income from national government and the EU I can only assume their criminality stupidity and bigotry is supported by them

I probably don't have much in common politically with people like JK Rowling, Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel but I am in lockstep with them on this and admire their courage in speaking out for women

Further coverage in the Daily Telegrpah today as four more women have come forward:

"A former Oxfam worker claims she was told she could not know what oppression is because she was straight.

The employee is one of three more staff members to have come forward to spotlight the persecution that gender-critical women were subjected to by the charity, making a total of four women whose concerns have been reported by the Telegraph.

The three whistleblowers were emboldened to speak out after Oxfam was accused of attacking JK Rowling over her views on transgender issues in a controversial Pride cartoon."

It goes on:

"Sally said she considered making a formal complaint because she “felt bullied and very uncomfortable” going into work on a daily basis and had begun to look for other jobs.

But when she “tested the water” with a senior colleague in an informal conversation, she said they were “so hostile, coming close to calling me a bigot”, and told her to “think very carefully about your privilege” before “you paint yourself as the victim”."

and

"Gita also recalled one of her male colleagues lecturing her on being “whorephobic” after she made disapproving remarks about the Oxfam sexual exploitation scandal in Haiti."

Whorephobic for God's sake??!

Oxfam is a complete disgrace.

You can read more about the 4 women here

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/08/oxfam-employee-gender-critical/

"Intention" is the key word here, I think. They are not denying that it looks like JKR, but it would be hard to prove that this was done consciously by the artist. Unconscious association or imitation often happens in the arts. If someone asked me to draw a "self-regarding twat", I might draw a man with straw-like blond hair, without being conscious that I associated the phrase with the outgoing MP for Uxbridge & South Ruislip...

To be clear: I 💯think it was intentional by Oxfam; I just think that it would be very difficult to prove.

Datun · Today 10:02

DuesToTheDirt · Today 09:54

There was no intention by Oxfam or the film-makers for this slide to have portrayed any particular person or people.

I'm not sure where this quote comes from, but the paired pictures of the cartoon in the OP and the photo of JK Rowling wearing a similar dress, with a badge or brooch where the TERF badge is, are difficult to reconcile with this statement (sorry, I don't have a link to the side-by-side pictures).

Indeed. That denial is a load of old cobblers, imo.

Looking at the side-by-side cartoon and photo you can definitely see that the cartoon hair colour and hair style, the badge position and cut of dress are all very particular, and just like the photo. It is either not a coincidence, or else the cartoon artist was subliminally influenced by the photo of JKR.

Is there public concern over the image of the ‘trans kid’ with mastectomy scars? I somehow don’t recall that being mentioned much.

nice to see that Maya seems to be the Times's go to person for quotes on this story

quote from Oxfam:

“It is only when we respect and uphold all human rights that we can overcome poverty.”

nope

poverty and human rights are two separate things. deciding that you're going to ensure human rights (what human rights?) are rolled out to everyone before you can start focusing on poverty definitely counts as scope creep, and means you will fail in the objective of relieving poverty

Isn't TERF a hate term. People are being sued for using much less emotive words.

Exactly it's Oxfam full stop no matter what way they desperately try to spin the narrative to suit themselves. They must be losing millions already through loss of revenue & cancelled standing orders hence all the statements!

Yes, it would need JKR to sue them and obtain the documents through disclosure I suppose? But IADNAL.

I think perhaps the share tokens are now time or click limited @TheBiologyStupid?

They seem to work for a bit and then stop. Thanks for posting the archive link - I didn't think MN allowed them

That link seemed to go to a list of Times stories? There's an archived copy of the new Oxfam news report here: https://archive.ph/jNRSh

It should be a condition of receiving government funding over a certain threshold that you are subject to FOI. But, sadly, it isn't.

Even if charities were subject to FoI, that's a UK law - wouldn't apply to Oxfam India.

Indeed. That denial is a load of old cobblers, imo.

I wonder if this will be leaked by a disgruntled member of staff. Had the agency still locked its twitter account?

Yes, shame!

There was no intention by Oxfam or the film-makers for this slide to have portrayed any particular person or people.

I'm not sure where this quote comes from, but the paired pictures of the cartoon in the OP and the photo of JK Rowling wearing a similar dress, with a badge or brooch where the TERF badge is, are difficult to reconcile with this statement (sorry, I don't have a link to the side-by-side pictures).

How can an ordinary person tell the difference between Oxfam UK and Oxfam International?

And if donating to Oxfam UK means money is shifted to Oxfam International how can you claim the two are separate?

The idea that the fact they are registered differently means fuck all. Especially if one organisation isn't fully saying the other is out of order or isn't looking to rename itself to disassociate itself.

Oxfam UK gets its money off the brand reputation. Same goes for Oxfam International.

And in that respect they ARE the same. And that's the only thing that matters to the public.

As far as I’m aware, charities are not legally defined as “public bodies” and not subject to FOI act unless they’re delivering a public service under contract

which is a shame because I’d love to see the email trails on this!

There was no intention by Oxfam or the film-makers for this slide to have portrayed any particular person or people.

Can they be subject to an FOI? All the emails between oxfam and the film makers, for instance?

Looks like UK Oxfam got themselves into a Catch 22 situation, then. Richly deserved.