In 1968, the author John Braine published his novel, The Crying Game. It is a satirical view of London in the “swinging 60s”, as seen through the eyes of Frank Batcombe, a young, Conservative journalist.

One of our hero’s housemates is an eccentric character named Basil. One of the most memorable things about him, is his regular greeting to all and Sundry, “down with Oxfam”. Were he real, and living today, he might give that greeting with considerably more feeling.

The Oxford Committee for Famine Relief was formed on 5th October 1942, and was made up of prominent local quakers, and university academics. The aim of the committee was to provide food for the people of Greece. At that time, Greece was subject both to occupation by German and Italian forces, and an allied naval blockade. The committee wished to persuade the British government to allow food shipments to be made.

Over the next few years, the committee evolved into one of the most innovative, and for a time the largest, charity in the UK. It also officially abbreviated its somewhat cumbersome name, making use of its telegraphic address, and became “Oxfam”.

The first overseas committee of Oxfam was established in Canada in 1963. Subsequently, more such committees appeared, all operating under what we would now call the Oxfam brand. In 1995, twenty-one such organisations formed a confederation, Oxfam International. It’s aim is to relieve poverty and promote equality.

So far, so laudable. But then the scandals came along.

Over the last few years, a number of allegations of sexual misconduct, bullying and intimidation, both in Oxfam’s shops, and in areas of charitable operations, have been made. An internal enquiry revealed a culture of impunity among members of staff in Haiti, as well as the admission from the charity’s Belgian country director, Roland Van Hauwermeiren, that he had used the services of prostitutes in a villa rented with charitable funds. Van Hauwermeiren was prevailed on to resign, by the then CEO, Dame Barbara Stocking, because it would give him more dignity, and prevent any reputational damage for Oxfam.

In June 2021, The Daily Telegraph reported the leaking of training documents for Oxfam staff. These documents claimed that “privileged white women and mainstream feminism” supported the route causes of sexual violence, because they were wanting “bad men” to lose their jobs or be imprisoned. They also, bizarrely, claimed that reporting sexual assaults, “legitimises criminal punishment, harming black and other marginalised people”. Louise Perry of The New Statesman has said that the documents “might well make pleasant reading for rapists”, and has suggested that Oxfam was appealing to identity politics and “woke” ideology in order to try and “extricate itself from the shame of its ongoing failure”.

And now, we have the Pride Month video. An animated video was posted on the internet, which contained what was believed to be a caricature of the novelist JK Rowling, wearing a badge labeled “TERF”. For those who may not be aware, permit me to explain that “TERF” is a derogatory acronym standing for “trans exclusionary radicle feminist”. The trans lobby asserts that Rowling is such a person, because she accepts immutable biological facts, rather than subscribing to certain current social mores. It was also reported in The Times, that a worker from one of Oxfam’s UK shops was dismissed, because she argued that there was no reason not to sell Rowling’s books if they were donated.

If people bothered to read what she has written on the subject, they would know that JK Rowling is not remotely transphobic. Oxfam’s advertising people should never have countenanced thinly veiled, ad hominem attacks. If they really want to make a statement regarding the rights of LGBT people, they would do better to lobby the government of Uganda, which has recently passed a law allowing for the execution of gay people, simply for being gay. That is a real attack on human rights. Holding what some might consider a heterodox view on trans rights, is not.

All of this means that Oxfam is losing vast amounts of support, both financial and voluntary. Given the above, this is hardly surprising. If an organisation alienates people, why should they fund or work for it?

Oxfam must get its house in order when it comes to sexual misconduct. It must also cease all bullying and intimidation, including its absurd interventions in identity politics. If it does not, I might find myself echoing my fictional namesake.