Something queer is going on at the headquarters of OXFAM 

OXFAM, originally the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, has given up just stuffing food into the mouths of hungry people worldwide, and is now stuffing its employees’ heads with the politically correct nonsense contained in their Inclusive Language Guide. The editor of this illustrious organ got there in mentioning it before me in his Sunday column, but I suspect, like some of the other commentators on the same issue, he may not have exposed himself to the full majesty of this lengthy document.

Foolishly, I decided to print it—all 92 pages worth. I set it printing, had my lunch and a cup of tea and it was still going, spewing paper out onto my office floor, sucking up my ink, and then proved too large to staple, even with my super-stapler.

So much for its volume, what about its contents? Some of the words such as ‘headquarters’, ‘mother/father’ and ‘youth’ have already been reported elsewhere. Thus, I have violated OXFAM’s guidance twice in the title to this article. ‘Headquarters’ is obviously one word; I bet you can’t spot the other? But there is so much more.

It is hard to know where to start but within nine pages of the report there is a trigger warning and, remarkably, it is to the contents of the report. How afraid is OXFAM of criticism from the snowflakes in their organisation to have to issue a trigger warning to a guide on inclusive language? And, incidentally, ‘snowflakes’ is not one of the proscribed words in the report. Someone’s job ought to be on the line for that. They ought to be removed from the ‘workforce’, which is listed in the guide.

No longer can you refer to someone as being ‘heathy’ – presumably you have to find something wrong with them. If that something is walking into walls then they cannot be referred to as ‘blind’, nor may they be referred to as ‘deaf’ should they ignore your warning not to walk into said wall. If they simultaneously claim to be Napoleon don’t even think about describing them as a ‘mental patient’; just call them Napoleon and ask them about Waterloo. If you support people who are visually impaired, hearing impaired or as daft as a brush you cannot say that you are ‘standing with’ them; someone within earshot may have a standing up difficulty.

Someone who hurls themself off a tall building or blows his brains out with a shotgun has no longer ‘committed suicide’, although many people reading the report may do just that. I won’t even bore you with the myriad alternatives to being dead as a doornail by your own hand as there is always the danger that you may adopt one of them. Suffice to say, and no surprise, if someone commits suicide then it’s our fault and not theirs.

‘Child marriage’ is out and ‘forced marriage’ is in. More inclusive apparently, but if anyone cannot see the difference between a woman of legal reproductive age being bedded by a beardy old imam (par example) from a pre-pubescent girl being used for his entertainment then they are ignoring reality. Both situations are wrong, but given that the line in some communities between ‘forced marriage’ and ‘arranged marriage’ is blurred, I am sure that this is designed not to offend. It certainly does not protect underage girls (and, incidentally, ’girls’ is another banned word).

It goes on, as could I. ‘Prostitute’ is out and ‘sex worker’ is in, presumably to dignify women who lose their dignity every half hour on their backs. I would classify these women as ‘victims’ but that is out too as is ‘rape victim’; the preferred term is ‘survivor’ and, for the life of me I cannot work out why. Of course, there are no ‘biological’ males or females and for those who are otherwise gendered and so forth the correct term is ‘LGBTQIA+’. Rolls off the tongue doesn’t it?

Of course there are no ‘illegal immigrants’ and no ‘migration crisis’, which is true if you live in an area where no illegal immigrants are housed. There is nobody of ‘mixed race’ any longer and if someone crawls out of an igloo ‘they/them’ is not an ‘eskimo’. Finally, with respect to charity work the terms ‘beneficiaries’ and ‘recipients’ no longer apply. I am in complete agreement with this as Oxfam—until it drops this load of bollocks—will no longer be the recipient of any money from me and, for that reason, there will be no beneficiaries. Well done OXFAM.

Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He is a columnist with Unity News Network and writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.

Please follow and like us: