Over the last few weeks new evidence has emerged of the issues and culture within Oxfam. The article from Third Sector was amongst the most balanced.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fj4YStITvqgCIF04jFm5FcQCOPih5dA6/view?usp=sharing

Much of this is evidence that the Charity Commission will have to take account of as part of it’s investigation.

The latest from them included:

‘I can assure you that we are currently considering information relating to concerns raised about the Charity. While we will hold the information you have provided on our records, we are unable to provide updates while conducting further enquiries; although we will contact you if we require any additional information.’

This seems an appropriate response, even if it is not particularly enlightening. In short, their enquiries are continuing, and they cannot be expected to provide a running commentary on them.

However, amongst the coverage, there has also been a very unfortunate ‘red herring’, which has taken the spotlight off in a very odd direction.

One of the public accusations made against Halima when she was forced out was that she had called for an arms embargo against Israel, a clear indication of her views on the ‘conflict’. She was subsequently (spuriously) accused of breaking Oxfam’s impartiality guidelines for speaking out on this. No one else within the organisation faced such criticism.

In a recent interview she was asked among other things about governance issues. One of those was related to the issue of naming the genocide in Gaza. This is where the story gets a little complicated.

There is an active group of Conservative MPs, the ‘Common Sense Group’, who spend their time seeking to undermine any Charity that foregrounds equality. Among their previous targets were Barnardo's, the National Trust and the Runnymede Trust (where  Halima had previously been CEO).

Halima’s point was that the term ‘genocide’ was contested, and for Oxfam to use the term without a documented paper trail of due diligence, would lay the organisation open to criticism (and consequently cost and reputational damage) on the basis that: there has been no international court finding of genocide against Israel (although there has been a finding of a prima facie case) and that they had not used the same terminology in Darfur and elsewhere. Her point was about risk management (effectively not walking into a trap), it did not stop her speaking out about the Israeli actions in Gaza, or calling for an arms embargo.

Once she had overseen Oxfam undertaking the necessary due diligence, and was confident that it could successfully respond to any allegations from the right, it did use the term genocide to describe the slaughter in Gaza. Frankly, this is the process that any well managed Charity must take. Unfortunately, in these matters, it is not a question of whether you are right or wrong, but whether you can demonstrate appropriate governance. Charity law is a complex issue, and the nuance does not come over well in a soundbite.

Halima’s commitment to human rights in Gaza and her record on speaking out is clear. She stands full square behind justice for Palestine. Indeed, it was one of Oxfam’s complaints against her when she was forced out.

Unfortunately, in part because Oxfam’s and Charles Gurassa’s lawyers threatening injunctions the section of the interview broadcast could not focus on the substance of Halima’s tribunal case against them, but ended up on this side issue of governance, which was then picked up as ‘newsworthy’ by other outlets (including a number of pro-Israeli papers).

This issue is not Halima’s focus. Her case is fundamentally about sexism, racism, and Islamophobia. Unfortunately, in a world that struggles to hold multiple complexities at once, the work of charities must operate within a careful balance of impartiality, neutrality, and independence, or risk losing their charitable status, with all the financial and reputational costs associated with such a loss. These principles are meant to safeguard the ability of charities to speak out on critical issues without that speech being weaponised.

The suffering in Gaza is among the worst humanitarian crises in recent times. The continued silence around, and neglect of, the crisis in Sudan is equally abhorrent. Unfortunately, nuance gets lost when lives are at stake, and that is understandable.

Halima has long been an outspoken critic of the Israeli government’s treatment of the Palestinian people. But no one should be surprised that as a respected sector leader she grounds her work in the principles of impartiality, neutrality, and independence.

The reality, is that Oxfam continue to employ expensive lawyers, and media management in an attempt to justify their response to Halima’s whistleblowing on racism, sexism and islamophobia. Despite an appalling history of misogyny within the organisation, it still appears more interested in protecting powerful white men and enabling sexism at the expense of the organisation’s ability to function effectively.

What the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson crisis has demonstrated is the extent to which institutions will close ranks to protect their own until it is simply no longer possible to do so. The problem of the disproportionate power and influence of the rich and well connected goes beyond single individuals. Such abuse of power exists across society, including in the media, and in charities.

This year Oxfam published a report on the corrosive power of very rich men and their ability to distort priorities. What happened to Halima (and others) at Oxfam does not appear to be any different. As elsewhere, it is all happening in plain sight, with the interests of people, causes and organisations being sacrificed in an apparent attempt to protect a powerful individual’s reputation.

Thank you for your support,


John