Oxfam, how could you! - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14890120
I don't mind local small scale fundraising but these corporation like charities are inefficient poorly regulated over funded and rarely solve a problem.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14890123
I don't mind local small scale fundraising but these corporation like charities are inefficient poorly regulated over funded and rarely solve a problem.


I completely agree. All of my contributions go to small, local charities.
#14890124
Last night Mr van Hauwermeiren said he was 'not perfect' but insisted he never slept with prostitutes in Haiti.

Instead, the 68-year-old said he slept with a 'mature' local woman but did not pay her.

The former sex worker, who asked to remain anonymous, said she 'did not have the means to say no' because she needed money to feed her baby after the earthquake, which left 220,000 dead and 1.5million people homeless.

Now 23, she did not realise Oxfam was supposed to be helping her country because of the way Mr van Hauwermeiren allegedly behaved towards her.

The young woman who spoke to the Mail is one of eight children. She was just 15 when the quake destroyed her family home in January 2010. Desperate and starving, she turned to prostitution as a means of survival. She became pregnant three months after the quake and claims she first met Mr van Hauwermeiren in January 2011 just before she gave birth.

'I was 16 when Roland first met me on the street near his home,' she said. 'He was in an Oxfam truck. He spoke a little French, enough for us to communicate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... t-age.html


I don't know why these former sex workers are claiming to be sexually abused by Hauwermeiren. They turned to prostitution as a means of survival after the earthquake destroyed their homes. Rich Westerners like Hauwermeiren were their good customers, who helped these women feed their starving families.
User avatar
By colliric
#14890128
Drlee wrote:I completely agree. All of my contributions go to small, local charities.


I am currently donating to(I like being specific so I will say them):

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(RSPCA for short), one of Australia's best groups to donate to because you know where your cash is going. Regular bank Donations. I think PETA is a terrible organisation and splits the charity field up resulting in good organisations like the traditional animal welfare RSPCA getting less funding.

Guidedogs Victoria, also regular account donations. Training Dogs to help guide blind people and keep them company is important.

Ronald McDonald House Charities (linked to McDonald's, but ive always found them to be good for local stuff)... Always donate my loose change when eating there.

Caritas International (only fully international Charity I donate to, Catholic Church's global charity), Regular monthly Account Donations.

Occasionally Saint Vincent's too, but that is rare for me now too.

Also been thinking of regular giving to the Royal Children's hospital Good Friday Appeal, but never gone through with it.
By foxdemon
#14890437
Drlee wrote:Why not do away with charities altogether? As the Roman Catholics say, "better to avoid the near occasion of sin" than to risk sinning.

Better yet. How about an international corps of eunuchs? They worked swimmingly to keep the Sultan's harem "pure".

Here is the thing. It seems that prostitutes have a habit of coming on to men! :eek: Who knew? And what is even more odd is that some men fall to this temptation. Zounds!

About all an organization like Oxfam can do is publish rules, investigate misconduct when it is uncovered, and discipline/sack those involved.

But I like the shotgun approach. Let's just do away with charities altogether. Make them all for-profit corporations. If we do there will be no more of this talk about moral behavior muddying the issue of helping people who desperately need it.



It isn’t charity that is the problem. There are plenty of worthwhile charities around.

Rather it is those who use the cause of charity to impress others and make themselves look good. Oxfam and the like attract people who suffer from snobbery and entitlement. It shouldn’t be surprising that they exploit trust. It is just an expression of the true character of sort of people who engage in political correctness.
By skinster
#14890467
ThirdTerm wrote:I don't know why these former sex workers are claiming to be sexually abused by Hauwermeiren. They turned to prostitution as a means of survival after the earthquake destroyed their homes. Rich Westerners like Hauwermeiren were their good customers, who helped these women feed their starving families.


I don't know how much of a choice it was for a 15 year old "sex worker" to sell her body in order to survive. Coerced sex is rape.
#14890473
foxdemon wrote:It isn’t charity that is the problem. There are plenty of worthwhile charities around.

Rather it is those who use the cause of charity to impress others and make themselves look good. Oxfam and the like attract people who suffer from snobbery and entitlement. It shouldn’t be surprising that they exploit trust. It is just an expression of the true character of sort of people who engage in political correctness.


Normally, I would ask for evidence at this point, specifically evidence that people who engage in political correctness are more likely to engage in sexual abuse.

I am willing to go out on a limb and predict that no such evidence is forthcoming. Consequently, I am going to dismiss that claim as merely an unsubtle attack on progressives.

It would probably be more correct to say that this abuse is part of a much larger and longer pattern of abuse that has been taking place since the colonial era. Colonialists and imperialists have often used rape as a way of enforcing power over local communities. From plantations to battlefields, this has been the norm.

Oxfam, though, is theoretically about helping these people. And this is supposedly a difference between this sort of international intervention and the history of oppression associated with colonialism and imperialism. But when we look at the genocidal campaigns of that era, they were also supposedly about helping the colonised. Slavery was supposed to bring the benefits of civilisation to Africa. The forced conversions of indigenous people were to save their souls. Taking children away to raise them in residential schools was supposed to help them integrate into European societies. We supposedly brought freedom and democracy to Iraq.

It would seem that all these interventions were theoretically about helping the locals, and were invariably hijacked or abused (or revealed to be run) by people intent on abusing locals for their own profit.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14890502
It would probably be more correct to say that this abuse is part of a much larger and longer pattern of abuse that has been taking place since the colonial era. Colonialists and imperialists have often used rape as a way of enforcing power over local communities. From plantations to battlefields, this has been the norm.


Really POD?

So now visiting a prostitute is "abuse"?

You have used an allegation that some Oxfam workers visited prostitutes to segway into rape and enforcing power over local communities. You have attached colonialism for some reason and mentioned battlefields and plantations. And you did this right after dissing Foxdeamon for "Consequently, I am going to dismiss that claim as merely an unsubtle attack on progressives." Your hyperbole wins the day. His pales in comparison.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14890506
I do not agree with this. It might be but it is not always.
As ugly as this case is......

Rick
#14891927
Drlee wrote:I completely agree. All of my contributions go to small, local charities.


Quite to the contrary, in Hong Kong these charities like just outlets of corrupt organisations (Chinese Commies, most likely) and I actually trust them less.

"Too big to bite bullets" is what I think to the Oxfam incident. They surely need to clean things up, but to say they are corrupt beyond repair is a bit too early.
By foxdemon
#14893227
Pants-of-dog wrote:Normally, I would ask for evidence at this point, specifically evidence that people who engage in political correctness are more likely to engage in sexual abuse.

I am willing to go out on a limb and predict that no such evidence is forthcoming. Consequently, I am going to dismiss that claim as merely an unsubtle attack on progressives.


I don’t have to prove PC people are worse than others. I only have to show they are no better than anyone else. They power is built on their moral authority. Without it, they have have no power...which is what I want to happen.



It would probably be more correct to say that this abuse is part of a much larger and longer pattern of abuse that has been taking place since the colonial era. Colonialists and imperialists have often used rape as a way of enforcing power over local communities. From plantations to battlefields, this has been the norm.

Oxfam, though, is theoretically about helping these people. And this is supposedly a difference between this sort of international intervention and the history of oppression associated with colonialism and imperialism. But when we look at the genocidal campaigns of that era, they were also supposedly about helping the colonised. Slavery was supposed to bring the benefits of civilisation to Africa. The forced conversions of indigenous people were to save their souls. Taking children away to raise them in residential schools was supposed to help them integrate into European societies. We supposedly brought freedom and democracy to Iraq.

It would seem that all these interventions were theoretically about helping the locals, and were invariably hijacked or abused (or revealed to be run) by people intent on abusing locals for their own profit.



Yes, yes, yes...it is worth recognising that the PC white people are typically white elites. White elites invented white racism. Common whites weren’t responsible but get saddled with the responsibility today. PC white racism against white people is actually logical. If one wants power in a white country, why oppress the minority when the white majority is where the power is? Just like criminals rob banks cause that’s where the money is.

So the PC white people are the sort of people who would have been white supremacists 100 years ago, even if they swear black and blue that they aren’t racist, and despite their best efforts to push the onus for white racism on to poorer white people. To what extent hav they really changed? Given one recognises who they are, should it be any surprise that they still harbour attitudes that result in exploitation of those they claim to be helping (while vilifying common whites)?

Sure, but they are too stupid to understand, Trum[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

This is the issue. It is not changing. https://y[…]

@annatar1914 do not despair. Again, el amor pu[…]

I think we really have to ask ourselves what t[…]