There is no such thing as a ‘child prostitute’ The phrase was used in the Oxfam scandal to dehumanise alleged victims

The Charity Commission’s report into allegations of sexual “misconduct” by Oxfam bosses and workers in Haiti, among other safeguarding issues at the charity, pulls no punches.

How could it? “Misconduct” in this case refers to allegations of criminally abusive behaviour including the statutory rape of girls as young as 12.

It has become standard for the girls and women at the heart of this story to be referred to as “prostitutes”. This doesn’t stop with the Oxfam debacle, either. Girls and women in sexual scandals, abusive or otherwise, are routinely referred to as prostitutes. The BBC, in its coverage of the Charity Commission report, even refers to “young prostitutes”

i's opinion newsletter: talking points from today Email address is invalid Email address is invalid Thank you for subscribing! Sorry, there was a problem with your subscription.

‘Oxfam is by no means alone in being part of a skewed and biased global power dynamic’

What does the phrase “young prostitute” mean? Under-age prostitute? In reports that don’t discount the involvement of people as young as 12, everyone should be more careful. Why is it so hard for people to comprehend that giving money to a child in exchange for sex does not legitimise her rape or transform her into a sex worker? Why does the term “child prostitute” remain so perennially popular when it is such a disgusting oxymoron? The answer, as ever with such matters, stares us in the face.

In the eyes of the world, a prostitute solicits sex. Not money, like a greengrocer does, or a plumber. Somehow, the money is just an added extra that the prostitute manages to get along with the sex that she has dangled before a reluctant fool who cannot resist.

Much has been made of the fact that Oxfam seems to have sought to protect itself and its donations by hushing up the brewing scandal in Haiti, which happened in the wake of the 2010 earthquake. Less has been made of the fact that repeated emphasis on “prostitutes” in this story can be viewed as a psychological attack on girls who have allegedly already been physically attacked.

The use of the word, in general, protects men from responsibility for their own behaviour. That’s what the word “prostitute” exists to do. That’s how its meaning works. No one else is really involved in a transaction with a prostitute. She prostitutes herself.

So, once somebody has been categorised as a prostitute, even a child, she is complaining about things she has done to herself. At Oxfam, accusations of sexual abuse by a 13-year-old girl on behalf of her and another 12-year-old girl were not believed. The idea of them as prostitutes – particularly in this case, in which a child described herself as one – is virtually the only thing that is deemed to be credible. It’s easy to dismiss the accusations of a prostitute.

In 2011, four Oxfam employees were sacked and three others resigned, including county director Roland van Hauwermeiren. It wasn’t until last year that it was revealed that they lost their jobs for “using prostitutes” Whether any of the girls were underage has never been established.

It has since emerged that problems with sexually inappropriate behaviour were by no means limited to Haiti. Sixteen serious incidents involving under-18 volunteers at UK charity shops were mentioned in the report. Staggering. You’d imagine that your child was safe, working at an Oxfam charity shop.

It’s such a sick joke, the way that, again and again, as stories of serial sexual exploitation emerge, at home and abroad, in deprived communities and the wealthiest ones in the world, females have to roll their eyes and suggest that maybe females are not listened to. The fact that this has to be said, anew, time after time, only proves the point. Anyway, even if there is a danger that a woman might be listened to, she can always be labelled a prostitute. Women who speak out on a public platform become used to being called whores – or too ugly to be whores.

‘Oxfam could surely have been expected to defy this corrosive culture, instead of perpetuating it’

Oxfam is by no means alone in being part of a skewed and biased global power dynamic, in which those powerful enough to be able to present themselves as victims are accommodated as much as they can be, while the actual victims do not have enough power to make themselves heard at all.

But Oxfam could surely have been expected to defy this corrosive culture, instead of doing its best to perpetuate it. I have heard about no Oxfam worker who has been charged with a crime. I have heard about no victim who has been compensated. These are the actions that make a difference, that bring clarity to the seemingly difficult question of who is perpetrator and who is victim.

Instead, the charity is now training staff to understand that they must not sexually exploit people that they are supposed to be helping. It is described as “basic safeguarding training” and one can only comment that “basic” is the mot juste. What sort of a world requires people to be trained in not committing the major, life-changing crimes of interpersonal exploitation, child abuse and sexual violence? This one.

Twitter: @DeborahJaneOrr