Aid sector is last safe haven for abusers

[Shamefulcorners]

www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jan/14/aid-sector-is-last-safe-haven-for-abusers-uk-investigation-warns

I've never started a thread under the Feminism topic before so forgive my ignorance but I read this Guardian article yesterday and was (a) appalled that this is still rife (according to MPs enquiry) despite there being such in-depth knowledge about it (b) that this wasn't higher up the news agenda and (c) that the article manages not to mention "men" or "males" at any point as far as I can see.

I know Covid-19 is taking up a lot of coverage but why aren't the media giving this story more of an airing? Is it just because it's happening to "Johnny foreigner" and therefore is off the agenda? I could be wrong but I don't recall it being mentioned in any of the standard television news bulletins yesterday.

I'd be interested to know from people familiar with the aid sector, is this enquiry likely to lead to any significant change?

It was covered by the Times yesterday too, linked to from the front page in the app so quite prominent. They've had quite a lot on this in the past.
As for not mentioning the sex of people involved - well, I guess most people will assume that abusers follows normal statistics. Whether that applies to those involved in the coverups I'm not so sure.

Aid charities providing the ‘last safe haven’ for sexual predators

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aid-charities-providing-the-last-safe-haven-for-sexual-predators-f9k6nqnk5?shareToken=f2c84fa2e00482457aec01b344013eff

I disagree. It's not the last safe haven for abusers. The internet is. It's full of creeps.

I've worked in the aid sector and I agree that the "culture of aid" is a big issue. You can see it with your own eyes in this article:

Sarah Champion, chair of the IDC, said: “Our inquiry has found that abuse of beneficiaries is rife

"Beneficiaries"?! These people are victims not beneficiaries! Honestly this stuff makes me want to bang my head against a wall repeatedly. I'm not convinced this enquiry will lead to major change. These issues have been known about for decades and a lot of people who see the problems just leave the aid sector altogether (yes I'm one of them).

@HartinClouds

I disagree. It's not the last safe haven for abusers. The internet is. It's full of creeps.

True, but presumably she meant in terms of big, supposedly 'good' physical institutions. Not that I'm convinced e.g. churches have truly rooted out institutional coverup mentality either, but at least there's some acknowledgement of their issues.

I read the Times article on this yesterday.

I think Errol is right - while institutions like schools, the church, etc. have brought in background checks, processes for removing abusers (okay, far from perfect, and still an institutional cover-up mentality), big charities seem to be doing nothing and still operating a "revolving door" approach to known abusers - i.e. "Been caught with your pants down at BigAid.org? That's fine, just move to HelpThePoor.org..."

I honestly think there's entrenched misogyny plus a kind of neo-liberal attitude of "well some of these poor women who are "beneficiaries" are also "sex workers" [sic] therefore putting a bit of business their way is no bad thing... Give a man a fishing net and all that (and a woman a packet of condoms...)"

It's horrific and possibly legislation is the only way forward. Just as we now have "no adults in positions of trust having affairs with students who are under 18, even if they're over the age of sexual consent" rules, perhaps a rule that "if your staff are caught having sexual relations with people dependent on your charity for money, you lose your charitable status".

I don’t like the way they are calling the ‘aid sector’ the ‘last’ safe haven for predators

To a degree that implies predators wouldn’t be found in other sectors

Things such as DBS checks and safeguarding processes and practices make it ‘harder’ for predators.

But DBS only identifies those who have been caught and identified.
A predator may be less likely to aim for sectors that have put measures in place but a predator will try to access their ‘prey’

The articles are valid in what they say about predators in aid sectors and that any measures in place haven’t ‘solved’ the problem

Just as in the past, if not caught a predator got away with it for years/decades until their prey speaks out, or there were suspicions / knowledge but it was covered up
Equally if on overseas aid it could be easy to get away with things with no knowledge, or for there to be suspicions among other aid workers. Unless there is confirmation, action and records then a predator can move on

No mention of Brendan Cox I see. Not surprising since it's The Guardian.

CaraDuneRedux a rule of ”If your staff are caught having sexual relations with people dependent on your charity for money , you lose your charitable status” would seem reasonable. I’d go so far as to say “dependent on your charity for support of any kind”

In the UK the Charity Commission has guidance for trustees of charities, I’m unsure whether it also has guidance for employees and volunteers but that could and should be covered by their internal policies. Perhaps the trustees of these big aid agencies should be asked what they have in place and why it does not appear to be working

I really can't understand why a central body which tracks aid workers and blacklists the ones with records cannot be set up. Surely this is something the UN should do? But it appears that not only can they get away with it they just move to different orgs.

Surely this is something the UN should do?

Given UN Peacekeepers' track record of rape, forcing women into prostitution and human trafficking in war zones, the UN is, sadly, the last body I'd trust to do this.

Thanks for all responses which I am reading in my lunch hour.

And thanks for Times link Errolthedragon. I agree with you btw that abuse has not been eradicated in RC church particularly in India, Africa and S America.

I totally agree with those of you who mention tracking systems and punitive meadures and I'm surprised those rules and sanctions doesn't already exist tbh.

Kangashade yes that's a v interesting point about "the culture of aid". I heard Melinda Gates speaking about it. She said that they have had to learn over the years that any organisation delivering aid which doesn't involve, engage and employ locals is not going to survive, and how those lessons lessen power disparities between "deliverers and end-users". Lessons are also being learned from the BLM movement.

Christ this is horrific. Imagine your community being dependent on aid workers for help and then this is what happens. The calls for cultural change at charities sound really important.

I noticed that some influential organisations like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, while doing excellent work in some areas (and I’d assume who have good safeguarding policies) are of the view that sex work should be decriminalised..
I’m sure the aid sector will have charities that take that view. I worry that political aspirational views of this kind that ‘sex work is just work’ like any other job could tend to weaken safeguarding arguments or process in general. Because if you stop seeing abuse and exploitation in some circumstances then it’s harder to see it in all circumstances. I’m not informed enough to really draw the links, this is just gut feel but I wondered if the corporate politics (and therefore working culture) are that way in the aid sector, that this could account for some of the apparent inactivity in tackling this?

www.hrw.org/news/2019/08/07/why-sex-work-should-be-decriminalized

www.amnesty.org/en/qa-policy-to-protect-the-human-rights-of-sex-workers/

@Shamefulcorners Melinda Gates is right but the area where even the Gates' have work to do is in understanding what aid should really be about. The idea that an incredibly rich Westerners like Bill and Melinda Gates should have the power to develop and deliver huge aid programmes into other countries is question begging. I don't doubt their motives but is this really the right model by which we empower the world's poorest? The aid sector has made a huge amount of mistakes in the past for which they have never really taken responsibility.

The use of the word "beneficiaries" in that Guardian quote is telling - there is an assumption that what you are doing is of benefit to people. As you can see, this assumption carries through even when there is clear evidence that what you have done is harmed people.

The example I heard Melinda Gates give about taking on board local experience was about AIDS prevention and the need for prostituted women to make punters wear condoms. The women laughed at this simply being something they could choose to do without getting beaten up and so the focus changed to include programmes related to violence against women.

Carla Cox very interesting post. I don't claim to know much about this at all but I imagine the Gates Foundation would cite issues surrounding security, governance, and corruption when questioned about power disparities, but I agree it's a much bigger question related to global capitalism, global power structures etc . Will there ever be a time when one part of the world is not richer than another? I need to read up!

Because if you stop seeing abuse and exploitation in some circumstances then it’s harder to see it in all circumstances.

^^ Hear hear to this ChattyLion and that is a very troubling issue.

Thanks everyone. I have much more reading to do.

Nauticant the MG interview I heard was not focused on HIV specifically but more generally on aid delivery. That's a pretty stark example though.