Why are Primark promoting "Found Family"

[WandaWomblesaurus]

www.primark.com/en-us/a/inspiration/special-occasions/celebrating-found-families

"A Found Family Is About Finally Feeling Whole, Something That Might Be Absent In Your Biological Family, Like A Full Set Of Acrylic Nails Or A Good Pair Of Fake Lashes. It’s A Community You Choose, Whose Values And Honesty Speak To Your Own."
- Jude & Michael, Germany

What???

It takes special obnoxiousness to tell a lesbian that she doesn’t understand the term lesbian.

Like I said, go sea lion someone else.

Gosh, what a horrible declaration. Is it some sort of charter for abusers? Those at 10 years of age good to go for sex (Adolescents defined by WHO from 10-19 year olds). I can image this is music to many dodgy people's ears. What sort of person would defend that?

Surprised at that bit about knowingly passing on HIV to an unsuspecting victim being fine and dandy too. Again, wondering what sort of people would defend that?

It means that failure to disclose HIV status should not be a criminal offence.

Apologies - I thought I was responding to another poster who referred to other posters as supporters of child abuse.

That wasn’t you.

Yeah it’s not limited to LGBT adolescents.

In the context of women’s and girls rights, criminalising girls who engage in sex as adolescents is one form of oppression used against girls, just as different ages of consent for gay people is a tool of oppression against gay people.

Both of those are well evidenced and well discussed issues.

Lol. If you're not willing to clarify what you mean by homosexual, you could be a man who identifies as a lesbian.

i've asked what? three times now?

It would appear sea lioning another expression you don't understand.

In your opinion.

And do just keep on calling me homophobic. Because I think by now most readers will see you have simply tried to tell us that we should have your level of trust in an organisation that has, to my mind, shown they don’t actually read critically what they sign up to support and has not done one thing to rectify the situation.

You claim that they should not have to. I am saying that they absolutely should have done more to redeem whatever reputational damage they sustained. They are a huge influencer of law and policy. Their reputation has been damaged and this statement that really was ambiguous didn’t help. Despite YOUR assertions.

Feel free to keep asserting that they did enough and that you trust them. Well done. It is a great live demonstration of the tactics of silencing those you disagree with.

Do you think is an issue of consent in that?

Ok. Thank you for clarifying.

And safeguarding issues relating to the age of consent are also well documented and evidenced.

Yet, you are the only one here trying convince people to trust this organisation based on one statement and one that is not been written to explicitly mention the declaration they supported. You don’t see the importance of that, I do. Professionally, their statement was not really fit for the intended purpose and has certainly not been convincing to any but you on this thread, it seems.

In response to us saying that their reputation and all other organisations who supported the same declaration has been significantly impacted by this oversight in safeguarding, to be clear - that one sentence, had been to personally attack with accusations of homophobia and bigotry.

This was always a safeguarding issue. And safeguarding has also been very well documented and failures are also based in evidence.

I am glad we agree this is not just a LGB issue. It is also not just a ‘women’s rights’ issue. It is a children and adolescent safeguarding issue. And those issues are also of interest to feminists.

Why should any person trust an organisation who dismissed the points being made with this:

”As regards our member organisations, we take strict measures to ensure that they abide by our values, and they are thoroughly screened during the application process.”

No. They demonstrated that they do not take ‘strict measures’. And What screening? They couldn’t even screen the wording of a declaration they supported!

And that doesn’t even cover the safeguarding issues relating to sex partners not disclosing to a person about HIV status. Again, which adolescents does that benefit?

“I know it’s inconvenient when gay people call out that homophobia but falsely claiming gay people or organisations support paedophilia is about as homophobic as it gets.”

Calling people homophobic is something that I seem to remember you doing on other threads. You seem to not be able to engage with any evidence to support your claims, and yet fall back on calling people homophobic or bigots. No matter how much you wish to label me both, it is clearly simply a sign you have nothing to post that counters the points raised.

What other organisation should we trust after releasing a statement that contradicts its own claims of supporting ‘strict measures’ to address safeguarding concerns? mermaids? Oxfam?

Start a thread and I’ll discuss it there.

@Datun
"You probably don't know this, but many women on these boards are lesbian."

Yes, but heteronormative patriarchal lesbians don't forget! ;)

Great posts, btw!

"In particular - do you agree that it is homophobic to claim a gay organisation supports paedophilia even after they have been explicit that they do not support a reduction in the age of consent?"

Surely it depends on the reasons for calling it so. If you're calling it because it declares itself a gay organization then yes, that's probably homophobic. I don't think that's the reason anybody here is. If you accuse it of that because one of the founding members was a paedophile and it was formed partly out of a paedophile organization and they have called for a lowering of the age of consent and made statements about not restricting children's sexual choices, then it's not homophobic to do so. Your reasons are based on observed history and statements.

BTW, could you link me to their exact statement where they say they "do not support a reduction in the age of consent" because that contradicts their original statement and the rebuttal statement that was linked earlier did not say the above. Just looking for the statement to read for myself, thanks.

Old Gardinia

This is the text of the statement IGLA made. I found the font used for the first paragraph confusing to the eye while on my phone. That is why I missed it the first time myself.

“ILGA World is appalled that false stories are circulating attempting to imply that ILGA World is advocating to lower or eliminate the age of consent. ILGA World categorically, and in no uncertain terms, does not advocate to eliminate or lower the general age of consent, nor supports paedophilia in any way, shape or form - and never has. Our position on this is clear and a matter of public record. These spurious claims, as old as homophobia itself, are dangerous and irresponsible, and we urge those making or sharing them, to stop.”

“ILGA World calls for the strengthening of the rights of children and young people, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and condemns all forms of abuse (including sexual abuse), coercion, and exploitation of children and young people.”

”As regards our member organisations, we take strict measures to ensure that they abide by our values, and they are thoroughly screened during the application process. Any complaints or information received about members advocating or promoting paedophilia, are dealt with, and if founded will result in their expulsion from ILGA World.”

The term ‘general’ age of consent is interesting. Because I wonder if there are instances where that might be put aside such as within ‘marriage’. I do not know this and don’t have the energy tonight to research it.

I did find the term used when discussing Austria’s age of consent. Which Wikipedia said allowed 12 year olds to have consensual sex in certain instances but 13 was general age of consent with certain age differences. Now, that is also something I am going to check tomorrow.

Thanks. I also immediately picked up on "general age of consent". If they think the age of consent should be, e.g. 16, they can just say that. But they don't. Given their history I remain suspicious.

Well apparently oldgardinia holding an LGB group to the same high standards as other groups is homophobic.

I was not well yesterday so was not really firing on all cylinders. Overnight I thought about this more. And the reality is, we are being told that to hold this group’s safeguarding efforts up to scrutiny and finding them superficial only without the depth is homophobic. I mean you should want to see any organisation that has 1700 member organisations across the world get it right and acknowledge they got it wrong and that they will do better.

You don’t want such an influential organisation to write a statement that does not once refer to the source of the complaints they received. You don’t want to see a statement that is written as if they are an affronted youth and not once acknowledging they got it wrong.

And I say that every single supporter of that declaration was in the wrong.

However, IGLA reacted with that weak statement. As a marketing manager, if someone put that statement in front of me, I would be embarrassed. It was like an answer to a twitter stoush and not a statement that responded with maturity and integrity. It also shifted the blame and made the same accusations that have been made on here.

And IGLA is the charity receiving funds from Primark with this campaign. Hence they are the discussion topic.

If one of the other supporters of that declaration was the recipient of the funds, I would say they also had shown they egregiously lack adequate safeguarding processes.

I was asked why I would have legal involved in reading such a declaration. Because the language in that declaration talked about strategies for law reform. That section highlighted, was discussing the group’s strategy for law reform. By ‘group’ I mean all supporters, but it also means that IGLA is then seen as supporting that strategy.

If any marketing department believes supporting a declaration such as this is a ‘pick and choose’ exercise, they are poorly led. You sign the declaration, you own it. All of it, unless you issue a statement otherwise. It is not that fucking hard to understand! It will always come back to you and your unequivocal support.

If you are an organisation with 1700 members, you are a major supporter! Most likely ‘THE’ major supporter. Your legal team would have the power to say, this clause is very poor and needs to be reworded or we cannot support this declaration. It is that important!

You don’t write some statement that takes on the aggressive stance that IGLA statement did. Not only did it fail to acknowledge the situation and blame everyone else for their fuck up in not picking up the language. That statement was also contradictory. It stated the group take ‘strict measures’.

What the actual fuck!

What part of strict measures is supporting a declaration that has such poor wording that it could be seen as being a huge red flag for safeguarding children, adolescents and other vulnerable people?

I reject that assurance that it is ‘commonly used language’. No! It wasn’t. Even if it was a clause lifted from a UN document, it was published in a way that was without context to clarify. I agree that standardisation of the ages for consent for heterosexual and homosexual sex is important and is common. I don’t believe I said anything to the contrary.

But THIS clause was wrong.

And then releasing an aggressive, equally poorly worded statement that shows that there is a complete fucking disconnect between what they say is strict measures around safeguarding and what the reality of that exercise proved. That was not a good PR move.

That statement performed to the supporters and blamed the questioners. If you as an organisation cannot review what you have done with maturity why should anyone have any confidence in you unless it is ideologically driven support?

Now that I think of it, why do some people think ‘near enough is good enough’ for safeguarding any group of children or adolescents? Why is it that lesser safeguarding standards are acceptable for any group of children or adolescents?

So much so that any discussion of it where serious issues are found, if it is within the LGBTQ+ realm, personal attacks of homophobia and bigotry are used to shame anyone raising the issues.

No. As a parent of a teen who would be impacted by this law reform, the language of that clause is vital to my teen’s safeguarding.

Telling me repeatedly that I am a homophobe and a bigot for analysing this group’s activity is fucking outrageous.

The exact same thing with Rotherham and the racist accusations.

That IGLA statement falling back onto implying that claims are homophobic was an act of silencing. This comes across as being written by a graduate with no ability to reflect on the substance of the issue at hand. That IGLA supported a declaration that used wording that was unclear and deeply concerning in the way it read.

"ILGA World is appalled that false stories are circulating attempting to imply that ILGA World is advocating to lower or eliminate the age of consent. ILGA World categorically, and in no uncertain terms, does not advocate to eliminate or lower the general age of consent, nor supports paedophilia in any way, shape or form - and never has. Our position on this is clear and a matter of public record. These spurious claims, as old as homophobia itself, are dangerous and irresponsible, and we urge those making or sharing them, to stop."

This is not a statement that encourages people to come to IGLA with legitimate concerns. They have just told the world to interpret anything that IGLA publishes or supports directly only ever with good faith and to gloss over or hand wave over anything that is concerning. Anything else is homophobic. No wonder people do this on FWR sometimes, they have lifted it from activist lobby groups such as this.

That in itself is counter to 'strict measures' of good safeguarding. Strong safeguarding would surely be about keeping communication open.

And no. I don't accept IGLA was 'being attacked' as an excuse for their failure of a statement.

And by 'graduate' I mean that I probably would have written this coming straight out of university over two decades ago. And it should have been rejected.

That's a brilliant post, Hellofabore.

Sometimes one knows when one is being fed a 'less than open' line, but, I have to say, I rarely see anyone analyse it quite so forensically as you.

The number of ways i'm glad you are fighting on behalf of women, are too numerous to list, but that is definitely one of them.

"ILGA World is appalled that false stories are circulating attempting to imply that ILGA World is advocating to lower or eliminate the age of consent. ILGA World categorically, and in no uncertain terms, does not advocate to eliminate or lower the general age of consent, nor supports paedophilia in any way, shape or form - and never has. Our position on this is clear and a matter of public record. These spurious claims, as old as homophobia itself, are dangerous and irresponsible, and we urge those making or sharing them, to stop."

And yes, this wording is less than professional.

You don't describe what's happened as 'false stories'. You address the reason why people have got the impression they have.

The words 'categorically' and 'in no uncertain terms', is empty rhetoric, unless you are addressing the specific issue.

Also them saying their position is clear is a matter of public record, is in direct contradiction to what they've just supported.

The claims aren't 'spurious', given the declaration. They're completely understandable. If they truly believe they are dangerous and responsible, then address the bloody reason for them.

it could well be that they are shocked about what they have supported, but address it then.

@Helleofabore ❤

Thanks Datun. Right back atcha. You know how much I appreciate your concision and clear insight.

But the reality is that I just didn't have the clear head yesterday to pull the statement apart. I could see it was bordering on dishonest but I couldn't articulate why.

I am afraid that any person holding this statement up as defence of IGLA's failure at making sure that the declaration was tight and clear in every single clause, really shows that they choose to have a lower safeguarding standard. Because they are perfectly willing to give anyone who is ideologically aligned with them the benefit of the doubt. Rather than objectively acknowledging there was a fucking glaring issue with the wording of that declaration.

All the twists, the 'it is commonly used language', the weak professionalism 'they don't have to denounce, why should they', the constant and persistent personal attacks, might have convinced some people who also only ever looked at this superficially. However, it cannot ignore that the substance of the issue was not to be discussed.

I also think this Primark release was also not looked over with a balanced eye. It also has issues.