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

[JaimesGoldenHand]

Apparently the Oxfam CEO thinks the reaction to the Aid Worker rape and use of prostitutes and the subsequent apparent cover-up has been disproportionate. It happens in all aid agencies so why the fuss.

I was in two minds as to whether to boycott Oxfam but this has decided me. I feel physically sick.

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.

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

Thank you for posting this.

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.

'I am .... heartbroken.'

I would find that quite offensive, Van.

You are not the victim here, pal.

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'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.

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.

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.

"...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

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.

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 read it as them saying that they're doing good for men and boys (ie actual people) so who cares if a few women and girls are collateral damage? The rape is a bonus that they were happy to offer their workers and now nasty people have gone and ruined their nice little arrangement for them.

Shades of Strauss-Kahn in the way this man talks. Men like this think that having women to rape is a perk that men are entitled to because they work so hard for the good of the world.

...banker level salaries....*

Those are not banker level salaries by a mile. The salaries in question for senior executives of a huge multi- national organisation with the level of income of Oxfam are not outrageous. Chief Executives of local authorities get more.

It isn't objectionable to pay salaries at that level if the recclients are bringing commercial skills which benefit the charity.

Thanks all for the msf info, will read up on it

For anyone not wanting to give to these corporate aid entities any longer but still wanting to donate to developing world causes, this is a good list of orgs that do good work and make the absolute most of your donations:

www.givingwhatwecan.org/giving-recommendations/

I seriously wouldn't give to any of the big players. They're all implicated one way or another.

Well that's a Ratners moment if ever I saw one.

Highlights from my rant at DH

• Anti aid agenda? WTF? The idea that people might be genuinely upset at the thought of men going to countries that have experienced catastrophes and sexually exploiting the people (women and children that we've heard about so far) who are affected? He doesn't think that people could possibly be actually upset about that, he is looking for a different reason. Shows what he thinks about women and girls
• So, he doesn''t really see women and children as people. Who is he trying to help with his charity?

I donate to charity every month, 4 of them. Picked one each for one each of the family. Anto aid poeple stirring my arse. But he literally can't understand that anyone would genuinely believe this is bad! WTF x 1000000000000.

He thinks the opportunity to "have sex" (rape, but he won't see it that way) with local women is a reward for all the "good work" their people do. There are lots of men in aid work, the military etc who think that way.

Their 'fun' reps were out in my town this week. Cynically, I think, to see if our backwater was aware of the scandal and to measure public opinion.
Yes, Oxfam we are aware and don't like it.

On NGOs

There have been widespread stories of sexual explotation for a long time.

One I remember in particular was abuses by UN peacekeepers which were horrendous and never IIRC really addressed.

These organisations present a fantastic opportunity for predators. And I suppose for entitled men who see nothing wrong with buying "cheap prostitutes" in countries which have experienced disaster.

I will eat my hat if none of them were underage - of course we will never find out.

When this came up with the UN, someone suggested that given the breadth of the problem and the inability of the organisations to bother doing anything about it, maybe all peackeepers should be women. Can't imagine it would happen. But. If all the people on the ground in these organisations were female, how much rape would we see? I'm willing to guess not much.

In The Times, I saw that the CEO of Oxfam, Mark Goldring, last year was paid £127,000 LassWiADelicateAir. I was struck by how modest it was, in relative terms.

By Oxfam's standards Jimmy Savile was a good man: he raised a lot of money for charity and (probably) didn't murder any babies in their cots.

there wsa that young man recently who used working for aid organisations as a cover to rape large numbers of children.

Different situation BUT these agencies need to get to grips with sexual exploitation.

I saw a picture of a sign up in a country for aid workers reminding them not to have sex with under 18s????!!!

There are also the times where no money changes hands and the "relationship" is not described as prostitution but is still akin, sexual exploitation.

NGOs need to not be interacting sexually with the people they have been sent to help, under any circumstances. Is the bottom line. That should be the rule.

Wow! What an incredibly misjudged comment. He really doesn't get it at all, does he?!

I'd be surprised if he is able to hold on to his job after this. If Oxfam don't boot him out, they're surely finished?

Given the way aid agencies are behaving in Haiti atm I'm not willing to donate. They seem to have forgotten the 'teach a man to fish' attitude and see themselves as income generators.

We give to local charities run by local people now.

I feel sorry for those people who work for these charities that genuinely want to help. It must be deeply frustrating for them to see this happening.