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???

We’re discussing Primark and the shit attack from you lot because Primark funded them.

So if your concern is about companies funding signatories of the Feminist Declaration, rather than just about the LGBT+ signatories, you should be able to stand that up by your criticism of any other corporate funders of signatories.

You can’t because it’s not. I’ve given you a crystal clear example of another signatory being funded by companies which also operate in the UK. So it should be really simple for you to show where you expressed the same outrage about Ford and Lush as you have about Primark, and the same outrage about the Coalition as you have about ILGA.

When you only check the LGBT ones, yes, of course it is.

Oh.. so now we are allowed to criticise organisations of your choice? Regardless of whether they are the signatories or supporting the signatories.

And not be called homophobes and bigots?

No, your logic does not hold up. You can make all the baseless claims you wish but you set that standard I am afraid. I look forward to the list though. Thanks.

Oh are we only supposed to look into companies for specific reasons that you allow, and travel back in time to do so?

Crikey.

More dehumanising language I see. Wonderful.

Please provide the list of signatories.

No. You gave us another group that has LGBT members.

Also, to be directly comparable to this particular situation, the corporations would also need to be running a campaign that also reflected safeguarding standards that were concerning for children and adolescents. Otherwise the comparison is irrelevant.

The outrage is about poor safeguarding. Again, keep focus and don't try to pivot to expand the discussion so that you can try to prove your entrenched prejudice against MN FWR.

I've got a couple of days spare later this week waiting for my accountant to finalise my first french tax return so will be able to look at other signatories if you can provide them.

Also, Lush I believe were sending binders out to girls a few years ago. Must relook at that one.

corporations that donated to the signatory.

Indeed they were. And indeed there were at least two threads about that very lax safeguarding.

.

So, to be clear, how many of the signatories had NO LGBT representation?

I think that is rather an important question to have answered? Because If we are being accused that we only check the LGBT ones, it is a rather ridiculous assertion.

To be clear again.

"if your concern is about companies funding signatories of the Feminist Declaration"

Our concern is the safeguarding issues that were in the clause if that declaration. The Primark communication has issues that do concern me as well. It should concern anyone who thinks that safeguarding children and adolescents should be prioritised regardless of the group they belong to.

This is the section of the declaration.

"Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure, or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents , people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use;"

These are the relevant phrases. (by the way, you assured everyone on this thread that this was 'common' language. something you have not yet supported)

Eliminate all laws and policies …. including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents , people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex

The statement IGLA issued when it was put to them that there was significant issues was:

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.

So, again, IGLA is a signatory with 1700 member organisations and they put out this unprofessional and contradictory statement that they expected to reinstate the trust in IGLA.

We are waiting for Klaxon to provide us with the list of other signatories and we shall look at who there is not an organisation that has LGBT representation.

Well if all of you object to Primark for funding a signatory to the Feminist Declaration, and if that objection is not driven by the fact that they funded an LGBT+ organisation, then logically you should have the same views about other companies funding other non-LGBT+ organisations who signed the Declaration.

Just to further clarify to anyone reading.

The fact that the list seems to not be readily provided gives us all an indication that us even knowing WHO was a signatory on this list other than IGLA and any we can remember (I only remember YWCA Australia because I had had prior dealings with them) will make our discussions around the signatories of the declarations really difficult.

Hard to have conversations about signatories that no one knows outside the major one.

And there it is.

No list? Ok.

I think that readers can see that this was just another tactic. What is your next pivot?

"And I really have no desire to humanise people who set out to contort themselves to link gay people and paedophilia."

And this is particularly important for readers to note.

Not once has any poster dehumanised Klaxon. Yet Klaxon has persistently called me and others homophobic and a bigot and used dehumanised language. While once making an accusation of posters 'not engaging in good faith'.

Do you see the hypocrisy yet readers? I think this has been an excellent demonstration of the tactics that are used by activist groups such as IGLA (we saw that in their statement) and their ideologically driven supporters.

Any legitimate concern about safeguarding for children, adolescents and vulnerable people is to be subject to personal attack.

I have questions that remain unanswered about why Primark is promoting and funnelling money to an organisation and what the money is going towards and why this promotion in particular.

It was other people that pointed out the history of links to men who also founded PIE. I don't understand why you are happy to wave it through with not even an eyebrow raised just because it has rainbows.

Gosh, to recap on how NOT to be accused by Klaxon of being a homophobe and a bigot we need to :

1 Check a list that cannot be located.

2 And on that list, that cannot be located, we should target only those without any LGBT membership to express our dismay at their support of a clause that was fucking so poorly worded it raises red flags for safeguarding. Expressing concern about any other organisation, one that represents LGBT people, will be homophobic and bigoted and Klaxon will feel free to dehumanise anyone who raises that concern.

Have I got it?

You lot didn’t care about Lush funding the Coalition because the coalition is not a Lesbian and Gay organisation.

Again with the dehumanising language.

But, I searched and I could not find a reference on the Coalition's site to that funding from Lush.

Not that it matters, because Coalition has LGBT membership. So we cannot analyse their communications, their support or whatever.

‘Still have questions’ - of course you do.

But conveniently never had the same questions about Lush or Ford funding another signatory.

The only difference - the signatory that attracted your ‘questions’ was an LGBT+ one, and the one that didn’t, wasn’t.

So, this is another pivot?

I have been discussing very clearly the failures in safeguarding.

You should look harder because they refer to funding from both Lush and Ford.

So any time you want to prove that you have been consistent in attacking the Coalition, Lush and Ford in the way that you have ILGA and Primark, feel free.

You can’t though can you?

Another pivot?

Have you been on another thread? I’ve been asking you to stop falsely linking ILGA to paedophilia for most of the thread.