End Violence Against Women blog

EVAW Coalition urges funding for women's services to deliver government violence against women strategy

2009-11-25T17:34:00.001Z

The End Violence Against Women Coalition (EVAW) warmly welcomes today’s announcement of a cross-government strategy to tackle all forms of violence against women including rape, domestic violence, trafficking and forced marriage. It sees this as a vital step towards the government fulfilling its human rights obligations and ending abuse of women and girls. All main political parties support a strategy, as does the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

But the Coalition warns that the strategy will only be effective if properly resourced and women will judge the strategy in terms of its impact on frontline women’s services. Women consulted for the strategy told the government they not only needed these services, but that, in some instances, they had literally saved their lives.

Professor Liz Kelly, EVAW Chair, said:

“Hundreds of thousands of women are affected by violence each year and the vast majority do not report to the police or disclose to health services. For too long there has been a fractured approach with key government departments, such as education and health, failing to meet their responsibilities. So we warmly welcome the government’s commitment to a more joined up approach that focuses on stopping violence and abuse of women and girls before it starts.

However, we know that women still face a postcode lottery when seeking support and much funding for existing services, such as rape crisis centres, refuges and services for ethnic minority women, is increasingly fragile. Women across the country will be dismayed if the strategy does not include a coherent plan for secure and sustainable funding for vital frontline women’s services”

The EVAW coalition says the strategy must;

• Join up policies and services across government at national and local levels, including on health, education and immigration.

• Stop violence and abuse of women in the first place through campaigns to change attitudes and work with young people in schools, rather than just picking up the pieces afterwards through the courts and criminal justice system.

• Guarantee adequate resources to deliver the strategy, particularly
funding for frontline women’s services that support victims, such asrefuges, rape crisis centres and services for ethnic minority women, many of which are threatened with closure.

'Women's rights groups say government provisions not enough', 12th November

2009-11-17T17:33:00.008Z

Today, the UK government announced a pilot scheme for women experiencing domestic violence but who cannot access safe housing and support due to their insecure immigration status.

The scheme will provide funding for a woman with ‘no recourse to public funds’ in a refuge for up to 40 days pending an application to remain in the UK under the Domestic Violence Rule. The scheme will run for three months, following which there will be a review as to its effectiveness.

Leading violence against women and human rights organisations give a cautious welcome to this initiative recognising that this is ‘a step in the right direction’. However they call on the government to ensure that all abused women have sufficient access to protection and safety when they need it for as long as they need it.

Hannana Siddiqui of SBS says:

‘We are pleased that our concerns about previous proposals to help abused and destitute women have been scrapped and that the government has recognised that women with insecure immigration status are entitled to protection and access to safety from violence and abuse. But we remain concerned that the proposals do not go far enough. We would like to see a more realistic and permanent solution that reflects the reality of women’s experiences of violence and abuse and the immense problems they encounter in accessing support, thus ending a stark choice between destitution or further violence ‘

Experience across the UK shows that supporting women with no recourse to public funds is a complex and time consuming process. Women fleeing domestic violence are often too traumatised by their experiences to tackle intrusive questioning on complex social, housing and immigration issues. Further, it is extremely difficult to access appropriate, timely legal aid solicitors and it takes considerable time to gather the necessary evidence, including police and medical reports that are necessary in order to qualify for permanent stay in the UK.

Campaigners are also deeply concerned that the short term scheme will only afford protection to women who have entered the UK as a spouse or intimate partner. It will not apply to women on student visas, over-stayers, those on temporary work permits, trafficked women and asylum seekers.

One London organisation this year found that only 9 out of 429 women with No Recourse to Public Funds were housed. It is impossible to say what happened to the remaining 420 – it is likely that they were compelled to return to violent and life threatening relationships.

Specialist black and minority women’s organisations and refuges, in particular, are feeling the impact of increased referrals for support for women with no recourse to public funds and decreasing funding streams. Under the pilot scheme, the burden will still fall to front-line women’s services that are already marginalised and under-funded.

This is why a permanent solution which offers adequate protection and support to all women is desperately needed. Under international human rights obligations, including recommendations under CEDAW and the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 2,3,8), States have a responsibility to act with due diligence, that is with due care and effort, to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of all women within their jurisdiction.

‘If the Government is serious about meeting its human rights obligations, it must exempt women experiencing violence from the No Recourse rule and provide up-front, sustainable funding to women’s organisations.’ (Kara Beavis, Women’s Resource Centre )

We seek a pre-election commitment from the government to a permanent solution.

Women's Resource Centre, Campaign to Abolish No Recourse to Public Funds

Response to “Women’s refuges told they must admit men”, The Observer Sunday 5th April

2009-04-14T15:39:00.003Z

We write to express our serious concern that some local authorities still misunderstand and misinterpret the Gender Equality Duty: the most important piece of equality legislation for women in Britain since the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975 (“Women’s refuges told they must admit men”, Sunday 5th April).

The Gender Equality Duty requires public bodies, including councils and government departments, to take steps to eliminate discrimination and promote equality between women and men. It is intended to ensure that the needs of women and men are met in an appropriate and proportionate manner, not through a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
Women are far more likely to experience rape, domestic violence, forced marriage and other forms of gender-based violence. Single sex services remain lawful and legitimate if they meet specific and identified needs, such as addressing these issues.

Quite simply, men are not subjected to the same dangers and do not have the same needs. Indeed, as stated by the Solicitor General to Parliament in May 2008, not only does the Duty not mean an end to women-only services, the government positively encourages public bodies to be proactive in tackling violence against women through these services. Single sex services are completely lawful and legitimate if they meet specific and identified needs. They do not breach any equality laws; in fact, specific guidance is provided in the Gender Equality Duty to support such services.
Nevertheless, problems remain and in July 2008, the UN Committee to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) called upon the Government to “ensure that the Gender Equality Duty is interpreted and applied properly so that women-only services and other activities of women’s organisations are not negatively affected”.
The Government and Local Authorities surely must adhere to this mandate from the UN, or risk finding themselves in breach of international and domestic equality legislation.

Signed by:
Professor Liz Kelly, Chair, End Violence Against Women Campaign (EVAW)
Holly Dustin, Campaign Manager, (EVAW)
Vivienne Hayes, Director, Women’s Resource Centre
IMKAAN
Newham Asian Women’s Project
Southall Black Sisters
Women's Aid
Dr Hilary Abrahams, Research Fellow, Violence against Women Group School for Policy Studies University of Bristol
Jo Aldridge, Loughborough University
Julie Chalder-Mills, Sheffiled University
Catherine Donovan PhD, Reader in Sociology, University of Sunderland
Dr Geetanjali Gangoli, Violence against Women Group School for Policy Studies University of Bristol
Dr Aisha Gill, Criminologist, Roehampton University/Newham Asian Women’s Project
Nicola Harwin CBE, Chief Executive, Women's Aid
Ms Nancy Lombard, Lecturer in Sociology Edinburgh Napier University
Professor Vanessa Munro, School of Law University of Nottingham
Dr Nicole Westmarland, School of Applied Social Sciences, Durham University
Dr Sue Griffiths, Senior Researcher, University of Sunderland
Dr Terry Gillespie, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Nottingham Trent University
Nesta Lloyd – Jones, Welsh Women's Aid
Dr Ellen Malos, Senior University Research Fellow, School for Policy Studies
University of Bristol
Dr Maggie O'Neill, Loughborough University
MACSAS - Minister & Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors
Professor Jill Radford, University of Teeside
Professor Paula Nicolson, Royal Holloway, University of London,
Carol Rivas, Research Fellow, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry
Dr Cathy Roberts
Ruth Swirsky, Principal Lecturer in Sociology, University of Westminster
Jo Todd, Chief Executive Officer, Respect
Dr Nicole Westmarland, School of Applied Social Sciences, Durham University
Karen Bailey, Greater London Domestic Violence Project

CPS to apologise to family of woman murdered by abusive husband

2009-03-13T14:23:00.001Z

Justice in the eyes of those who were close to Sabina Akhtar will not be fully realised if lessons are not learnt from this tragic case. Those who handled the case at the CPS must be held accountable for failing to protect young women like Sabina. We need to understand why it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge her husband who, after release from prison, breached his bail conditions and murdered his wife a few days later. A public inquiry is imperative and the IPCC should not procrastinate in ensuring the family get the answers they deserve. In the meantime, how many times do such cases of violence need to be reported to get a response?

This case shows that, despite repeated attacks from her husband (26 in all), violence against black and minority-ethnic women is not seen as a serious crime requiring a policy of deterrence and, concomitantly, harsh punishment for offenders. Despite the fact that there have been national guidelines introduced by the CPS in preventing violence against women, and also training for those who handle such cases, women are still being failed and the issue of victim credibility questioned. In other cases related to BME women, public confidence and trust in the system will not grow, and lessons not be learnt, unless criminal justice agencies accept culpability when they make mistakes and act to rectify them. This is essential in order to bring real change in the efforts to save the lives of vulnerable women. In the case of Sabina Akhtar, it will come too late…

Dr Aisha Gill
Chair of NAWP
a.gill@roehampton.ac.uk

Max Mosley and the campaign on privacy laws

2009-03-13T14:15:00.000Z

Having successfully sued the News of the World over allegations that his use of prostitutes for sado-masochistic sex involved Nazi undertones, Max Mosley, motor sport boss, has begun a campaign to promote further laws on privacy. The BBC quote Max Mosley as saying, "I think most people recognise there are some human activities that people prefer to do in private...With sex, it would in my opinion be very, very rare that the public have any need-to-know basis for their interest whatsoever." That Mosley did engage five prostitutes for sex is undisputed. The issue which Mosley successfully fought on was one of the defamatory nature of being associated with Nazism. Given the strong links between prostitution and trafficking and violence against women, this blog argues that any man who engages prostitutes waives his right of privacy for his sexual activity. It is strongly in the public interest for all who support an end to violence against women to know which men in public life continue to be involved in a trade that exploits women in this way. We are entitled to continue to view Max Mosley as morally reprehensible in this regard.

Abuse survivor

A Charter of Rights for women seeking asylum

2008-08-15T16:57:00.004Z

Shawna Spoor, Refugee Women's Resource Project

The UK government has established a forced marriage unit to save British citizens facing forced marriage abroad. Rape, domestic violence and honour crimes have all seen gender-sensitive practices develop around their handling in the criminal justice system. But a woman entering the United Kingdom seeking asylum from similar practices and crimes at home faces a far less gender-sensitive and understanding environment. Women seeking asylum are often doing so from a truly unique perspective; fleeing problems which men and often women from different cultural backgrounds would never face; female genital mutilation, honour killing, or forced marriage. Because of these and many other issues facing women seeking asylum the Refugee Women’s Resource Project at Asylum Aid, in consultation with a number of specialist organisations in the refugee, women’s and human rights sectors, has produced a Charter of rights of women seeking asylum.

Asylum Aid believes that the UK Border Agency could learn lessons from the criminal justice system and respond to women’s cases with similar standards. The women’s asylum charter covers all aspects of the end-to-end asylum process: the asylum determination system, accommodation, welfare, detention and removal. Ensuring fair treatment for women who are claiming asylum means that the Refugee Convention needs to be interpreted in a gender sensitive way. Actions suggested in the Charter include that the UK Border Agency should undertake gender impact assessments in relation to all asylum policies, train their staff to improve the quality of decision-making in relation to women’s claims and end the detention of families with children.

Since the Home Office incorporated its Asylum Policy Instruction on gender issues in the asylum claim in March 2004, the UK Border Agency has made some further progress but initiatives have tended to be piecemeal suggesting a failure to recognise gender as an underlying factor fundamental to creating a fair system. In addition there is, too often, a disconnection between the policy and the operational parts of the UK Border Agency, particularly on gender issues.

A multi-layered strategy is being developed to promote the Charter. This includes using the Charter as the basis for discussions with the UK Border Agency through formal stakeholders meetings and informal negotiations, setting up a Google group to provide a network for feedback between people working on the actions suggested in the Charter and holding a series of workshops to discuss with practitioners how to cooperate on promoting these issues. Thus organisations are being asked to endorse the Charter and, in doing so, commit themselves to promoting those actions which are within their sphere of influence (eg an NGO working for detained asylum seekers would promote the actions to do with detention).

The Charter has already been endorsed by 20 organisations including: Amnesty International UK, Bail for Immigration Detainees, End Violence Against Women Campaign, Fawcett Society, Liberty, Refugee Action, Refugee Council, Refugee Women’s Association. and Rights of Women. For your organisation to endorse the Charter or to join the Google group, please go to www.asylumaid.org.uk

IPCC: Met 'could have done more' to save Banaz

2008-07-10T17:43:00.003Z

IPCC Investigation determines that the MPS “could have done more” to prevent the murder of Banaz Mahmod
Dr Aisha Gill

It took the murder of Banaz Mahmod to expose, yet again, how often the police service fails to protect young women (IPCC Inquiry, 2008; Britten, 2008) in minority communities in the UK – women who face violence perpetrated by their families in the name of so-called ‘honour’, a concept used to justify heinous acts of dishonourable violence (Gill, 2008). Banaz’s case highlights that this horrific problem still has not been properly addressed, is under-investigated (Brady, 2008), and is under-resourced in terms of the specialist provision that the women can seek out to protect themselves if they do not receive support from the police (Gill & Banga, 2008).

Cry for help
Honour-based violence is not a hypothetical issue affecting remote population groups; it is immediate and brutal, ruining or even ending the lives of vulnerable women in the UK. Banaz was one victim of many, but one of the things that makes her case unusual was the extended nature of her ordeal (Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), 2007). Enraged by her audacity at breaking up her own troublesome marriage and by her decision to fall in love with an Iranian Kurd, Banaz’s father held a family meeting, at which – at the insistence of her uncle – it was decided that her punishment would be death. Her father actually made one attempt to kill her before her eventual murder on New Year’s Eve 2005. He forced her to drink alcohol and tried to subdue her before the assault. However, realising the danger she was in, Banaz managed to break a window and escape, cutting herself badly in the process. She found a telephone and made a frantic call for help to the police, who played down her distress as either an attention-seeking ploy or the consequence of a private family matter. Her cry for help was dismissed by a female police officer as ‘dramatic and calculating’ – this officer later admitted that she had made a “dreadful mistake” (Barton and Wright, 2007).

The officers who attended the scene and accompanied Banaz to hospital did not believe her story, and even considered charging her with criminal damage for breaking a window while making her escape. Her plight forced her to record a telephone video message on her boyfriend’s mobile phone, telling of her ordeal after she had been unable to persuade the police of the threat to her life; this message was later used to bring about justice in her case. Banaz’s death a short while after this incident was a brutal indictment of the police’s dismissive response (Gill, 2008) – her father eventually committed the murder in January 2006, with the assistance of a young fellow Kurd, and Banaz’s body was then stuffed in a suitcase and buried in a Birmingham garden.

Systemic failures
Fatally lax policing practices have allowed some of the perpetrators in this case to reoffend; shockingly, however, such systemic failures are the norm in cases of violence against girls and women (Newham Asian Women’s Project (NAWP), 2008). For instance, despite the case having been reported to them on four separate occasions, the police either ignored the evidence or failed to institute follow-up investigations into the threats to kill Banaz made by her uncle and father. In the 20 years that NAWP have worked with thousands of victims of gender-based violence, we have observed that such disastrous failures in police response are not uncommon.

For example, in 1993, Partivaben Patel was admitted to Newham General Hospital after being beaten with a hammer by her husband. Partivaben reported her husband’s abuse to East Ham Police but, because she was afraid to take any further action, she returned home. A week later she was dead (NAWP, 2007). NAWP campaigned to ensure that her death would not become another femicide statistic.

Fifteen years after this case, violence against women is still prevalent (EVAW, 2008) – a crime typically perpetrated by men, on women and children. Although the vast majority of victims are women, the abuse of women by husbands, boyfriends and other family members is not a phenomenon restricted to one part of society, but is found in every socioeconomic, cultural and racial group. It occurs with alarming frequency and severity in the UK, accounting for a quarter of all violent crime, and with more repeat victims than any other crime (Povey, Walker & Kershaw, 2005).

NAWP deals with hundreds of women each year who come to us when the prosecution of their abuser is dropped, either by the police or by the Crown Prosecution Service. In challenging their decisions, we often find that the prosecution’s case has broken down because of any number of failures: key evidence may have been inaccurately recorded, misinterpreted or destroyed, or not even gathered by police officers in the first place; the accused may well have been deemed more credible than the victim by the police; or a delay in reporting the crime may have been considered by the criminal justice system to have discredited the complainant. But perhaps the most devastating practice of all, and the one most relevant to the murder of Banaz, is that police officers who ignore the testimony of female victims or witnesses are rarely reprimanded; and if they are, as they were in the case of Banaz, they are only given “written warnings and words of advice” (IPCC, 2008), a practice which is not only shameful but unjust. Is this the only punishment to be meted out for failing Banaz? Furthermore, police forces that fail to gather or share relevant intelligence are the norm, with the result that subsequent incidents often occur where inexperienced officers fail to recognise cries for help (Middle East Centre for Women’s Rights, 2007; Gill, 2008).

Such failures are not surprising, because the government offers little in terms of investment in resources for minority women subject to gender-based violence. During the widespread coverage of Banaz’s murder, not a single prominent politician spoke out to condemn violence against women, call for a public inquiry or even propose a parliamentary debate. It was actually left to the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) violence-against-women movement to step forward and demand such an inquiry. Significant resources have been invested by the Government in the so-called ‘community cohesion agenda’, which has ruthlessly bulldozed services that were set up to support women who are desperately trying to lead violence-free lives. (For example, Ealing Council’s decision to cut the funding of Southall Black Sisters.) Money is thrown at initiatives intended to integrate communities, at the cost of excluding women from BME communities from the very services that they need to build their futures and to empower them to escape the violence perpetrated against them.

Enough is enough
Above all, we need to understand why the police service cannot, or will not, use its powers to protect women. At this very moment, somewhere in the country, an Asian woman could be in danger of her life as a result of domestic violence. Whether or not she will be able to reach a specialist refuge is questionable, as such lifelines are being denied to vulnerable women in the name of ‘community cohesion’. Whether or not she will be protected by the police attending the scene of the violence is anyone’s guess.

Public confidence and trust in the system will not grow, and lessons will not be learnt, unless agencies accept culpability when they make mistakes and act to rectify them, in order to bring real change in the efforts to save the lives of vulnerable women. Such changes require investment, commitment and accountability for mistakes made. When governments cut back on specialist services, as has been happening in the case of the Southall Black Sisters and other such agencies, the first to suffer are those in the greatest need.

Solving the killings of women is one thing; solving the complex social issues inextricably linked to those killings is quite another. But if we do not do it, and soon, how many more young women are going to end up dead? Violence and murder against women – the “honour-based” crimes that I prefer to call dishonourable crimes of murder – may be universal; but they are not inevitable, if we are ready to stand up, speak out and challenge the structures of inequality across society in order to change the way in which services are delivered. Each one of us must be clear and unequivocal: enough is enough. These human-rights violations should not be tolerated, and we will not remain silent or rest until “honour-based” violence, this insidious weapon of patriarchy, has been eradicated.

Dr Aisha Gill is the Chairwoman of Newham Asian Women’s Project and a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Roehampton University: a.gill@roehampton.ac.uk
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr_020408_banaz_mahmod.htm
Britten, B. (2008) Police failed to heed pleas from honour victim, available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/02/nhonour102.xml
Gill, A. (2008) Killing Women for ‘Honour’ and the Quest for Justice in Black and Minority Ethnic Communities, Criminal Justice Policy Review (f/c).
Gill, A. , Banga, B. (2008) The Reality and Impact of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 on BMER Women Experiencing Gender-Based Violence, Safe Journal, UK.
Crown Prosecution Service, (2007) Forced Marriage and Honour Crimes, pilot study in the UK, London.
Barton, F., Wright, S. (2007) Murder girl's five cries for help that were ignored, available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=461280&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source
Newham Asian Women’s Project (2007) Annual Report: Celebrating Twenty Years of Working with Women; Working against Violence, NAWP: London.
Nicholas, D. Povey, A. Walker & C. Kershaw (2005) Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005, Home Office.

Another Jack the Ripper exhibition

2008-06-05T09:53:00.007Z

Finn Mackay
Co-Founder: Feminist Coalition Against Prostitution
www.fcap.btik.com

There is a new Jack the Ripper exhibition at the Museum In the Docklands. This is the classier Jack the Ripper exhibition, and not to be confused with the tackier Jack the Ripper exhibition at The London Dungeon. That’s them that have the posters on the underground saying: “visit your local butcher”; tasteful.

The Museum In the Docklands however, is a very nice museum. They are obviously trying to get more people through their nice doors and they, probably rightly, think that a bit of sexualised violence against women will do the job....

Being not interested in Jack the Ripper at all, but very interested in the history of prostitution, I decided to go along and check it out. I’ve known about the exhibition for some time now. I actually went to meet with the Education Officer at the Museum a few months ago, in my capacity as Co-Founder of the Feminist Coalition Against Prostitution. We talked about what form the show was going to take and the possibility of putting on linked events, which could address the issue of prostitution today. The Museum also consulted with organisations such as Toynbee Hall’s ‘Safe Exit’ programme, which supports women involved in prostitution. In all, they seemed very keen to ensure the exhibition was as sensitive as is possible. Well, as much as it can be of course, given that its in the name of a serial murderer who preyed on vulnerable, marginalized women involved in the world’s oldest oppression, and who has been treated as some sort of national hero ever since…

I visited on a Sunday and it was still fairly busy, staff told me that it had sold out the day before. Entry was being staggered to ensure it didn’t get too full. I’ve been to a few exhibitions at the Museum In the Docklands and I don’t remember them being so busy. Clearly London’s most famous son is a money-spinner, incidentally I’d always thought that was Dick Whittington, but I guess boys and their cats are not as exciting as killers. Bit of a failing if you ask me. The exhibition is advertised as not being suitable for children under 12. Pretty depressing to think that children not much older than that are actually being exploited in prostitution on our own streets every night. Indeed the global average age of entry into prostitution is only 13 to 14 years old. So, thinking these happy thoughts I made my way through the heavy double doors and into the exhibition, wondering just how bad it was going to be. On entering, the lighting gets much dimmer, for a more spooky effect I suppose. The interpretive panels are all quite plain, with the names of the murder victims written in red and the dates they were discovered. There are newspapers from the day, actual police reports of the crime scenes all filled out in lovely, swirly script and genuine copies of hoax letters sent to the Met, amongst many other artefacts and original documents. However, as I went round the displays I did think that this was perhaps less about Jack the Ripper and more an exercise in “The History of the East End (by stealth)”. There is in fact, a lot of very enlightening information on the history of the East End. The way people lived, the poverty and the attitudes of ‘civilised’ society to these slums and the people struggling to survive in them; attitudes that were anything but civilised. All of this was very interesting and I would say came across as the main focus of the exhibition.

As for Jack the Ripper himself, it was pretty much as I expected. Lots of attention to what we have made of him and the legend he has become over the centuries. Ironically, this exhibition in his name, of course further adds to his legend. Our fascination with constructing the murderer as some sort of mysterious, romantic anti-hero is another focus of the show. This fascination is unfortunately, perfectly exposed in the words of Bonnie Greer, interviewed especially for this event and making up one of the short interpretive films that are interspersed throughout. I’d always liked Bonnie Greer, but I’ve gone right off her now. She seems to sincerely believe, or has anyway persuaded herself for this showcase, that Jack the Ripper represents the savage in us all. That his crimes illustrate the desires and intentions that lie behind our veneer of civility and that if we scratch the surface we all want to “get away with it” as he did. She’ll be arguing that pornography protects free speech next. Perhaps she already does. After seeing this interview with her, it wouldn’t surprise me.
Considering the great number of often ignored freedom fighters, real heroes and heroines in the world, it is a great shame that a brutal murderer of women is being presented as the embodiment of ‘real’ human nature and our desire to put two fingers up to authority. Yes indeed, Jack fought the law and Jack won. But this doesn’t make him a hero. It perhaps says more about the lack of interest in finding a killer who only targeted “fallen women” from the “unfortunate classes” and also, the difficulties of investigating crimes in a ghetto, which had almost been boarded up and left to get on with it, by the rest of society.

Is it only because he was never found and brought to justice that this serial murderer has become such a legend? Would we say that Steve Wright is a hero? Peter Sutcliffe or Robert Pickton? When we do know who they are society brands them monstors, but in the case of Jack the Ripper his cloak shaped void has been filled by a lot of ridiculous romanticised notions and topped off with a hat and cane. Who is he? He is everyman, he could be anyone. He is invisible like most punters are. The truth that should come screaming out of this exhibition is that men have been abusing and killing women in prostitution for centuries, that these women have always been vulnerable and that stigma has always attached to them rather than the men who choose to exploit them.

The press cuttings reproduced in the exhibition illustrate this, showing us that views towards women in prostitution have not changed much. The articles are obsessed with the gory details of how the women were killed, are clear to point out that they were involved in prostitution and prompt the reader to make all the judgements that go with that. It reminded me that society seems so much more interested in prostituted women when they are dead. But only if they are killed in a spectacularly gory way that is, and if there are a lot of killings at once, otherwise nobody is that bothered. Because of course, women are killed and assaulted every day and this never hits the headlines, quite simply: it’s so common it isn’t news. Here in our country, two women every week are murdered by a violent male partner, for example. There are around 80,000 rapes every year. For women in prostitution the levels of male violence are even higher. They go missing all the time, are raped, killed and brutalised all the time. Canadian studies estimate that women involved in prostitution face a murder rate 40 times higher than the average. I wonder what women in prostitution in the East End now, think of Jack The Ripper. Their voices are of course, a glaring omission from the exhibition. Does the fact that his legend is still pulling in the punters today serve as a reminder that we find serial murders of women in prostitution a source of intrigue and entertainment, possibly a bit sexy? What does it say about our society that we have accepted the buying and selling of women as inevitable and cannot bring ourselves to question this status quo, yet we buy books, queue up and spend money to find out more about a man who brutally murdered prostituted women?

Personally, I don’t find the disembowelling of women entertaining. I’d rather I hadn’t looked at the cigarette card style, sepia photos of the victims that are displayed at the end of the exhibition. Each one is lined up along a starkly lit, white circular wall that forms a sort of round, mini-gallery. There is a warning on the outside, that some may find the crime scene photos disturbing. They certainly are images I could have done without putting into my head, and now they are an addition to all the other horrors that men inflict on women that I know far too much about. As I walked round the photos, with the name of each woman underneath, like some sort of ghoulish roll call, it felt like a memorial; an unfitting memorial. It made me think that perhaps we do need somewhere to remember our dead, to remember all our sisters fallen in a struggle that has been going on for far too long. But this place is not in a museum exhibition dedicated to one of their killers.

When I left I felt rather sullied, and found myself wondering what I’d been part of. I couldn’t wait to get outside into the fresh air and sunlight so I chose not to take up the offer, advertised on my ticket, of a “Jack the Ripper meal” at the Museum’s attached café. Perhaps I missed out by not stopping to taste their take on “what Jack would have dined on..”. But then, gory details of woman killing doesn’t do much for my appetite.

The last words in the Jack the Ripper exhibition, somewhat ironically, read: “The endless obsession with Jack the Ripper glamourises serial murderers and trivialises violence against women.” Indeed. Perhaps one day the violence against women that is prostitution will only be a feature in museums, and we will all look back in shame at what we condoned. I hope that everyone who visits this exhibition will ask themselves what they can do to make that day a reality.

YouTube: YouRape

2008-04-25T15:01:00.007Z

By Jane

YouTube is the current leader in online video. YouTube allows people to easily upload and share video clips. Anyone can view the content which can include current affairs, music videos, tv shows, film trailers or graphic rape.

YouTube relies on third parties to flag offensive video clips, which is why it is possible on anyday of the week to find explicit rape videos on YouTube. There are up to a thousand hits a day on films promising rape in the title and key words. Clips that are posted are often well known scenes from controversial films, most frequently from films which were originally banned, or which remain heavily censored in many countries.

A firm favorite is the 17 minute rape of Monica Belluci from Gaper Noe’s film “Irreversible”. The clip shows a scanntily clad, sexually attractive woman who enters a gloomy red glowing subway where she encounters a vicious gay pimp. He attacks her, sodomizes her and then beats her into a bloody, unrecognisable coma.
This film and others was included in “Audiences and Receptions of Sexual Violence in Contempory Cinema” a recent report commissioned from the University of Aberystwyth by the BBFC . The report acknowledges that the rape clip is frequently uploaded to YouTube by users wishing to be provocative and offensive. During March 2008 the same violent rape clip from Irreversible was posted 11 times by the same US user; one day he posted the same film from 2 different accounts, including a declaration stating the film was not for pussies.

YouTube users are able to post comments under rape film clips expressing how much the victim enjoyed being raped and what they would have done it to her... Popular rape clips include graphic sequences from “I Spit on Your Grave”, “Straw Dogs”, “Clockwork Orange” and “The Hills Have Eyes”. The only way for these films to be removed is by “flagging” by other YouTube users; there is no moderator to check on the content of material which is uploaded.

Some of the rape clips achieve up to 20,000 hits before they are suspended. Others have manged to get up to 7,000 hits in 4 days when uploaded at the weekend. This demonstrates YouTube do not check their flagging system at the weekend although the claim to check their site 24/7. The flagging system is slow, and if films have already been posted as mature content it takes even longer to get rape clips removed.

Some users post multiple rape videos; one recent example has been identified by his MSN and MySpace link as a 14 year old boy from the UK, who boasts a dvd collection of rape movies. His collection includes a rare scene from the “Last House on the Left” of a bloody drawn out gang rape which culminates in a young girl having her intestines squeezed out as she dies. After 16 days his collection was removed and his account was closed. Simultaneously he opened a new account claiming freedom of speech and his motives for posting rape films is that people have a right to view such scenes.

YouTube have been asked why they allow rape to be posted so freely on their video sharing site; they remain indifferent and direct users to the flagging system as the only way to remove offensive and provocative films. YouTube is an easy access site for users wishing to spread violence against women. Users are able to express their hatred freely and compare their fantasies. YouTube users encourage each other through the comments boards to consider rape to be an acceptable part of adult sexual relationships.

"These things happen in families"

2008-03-12T18:00:00.003Z

Anon

I have just read this item on Yahoo news. In response to Baroness Warsi saying forced marriages were an abhorrent act, home office minister Lord West of Spithead replied: "The difficulty is that these things happen in families.

We have taken a lot of advice and talked to many people. There is a feeling that the crime would go even further underground because people generally do not want to put their families through this.” He said that "because it was made a crime", the cases of domestic violence dropped from 814,000 in 1997 to 407,000 in 2006/7.

Does Lord West also think that domestic violence should be ignored because “these things happen in families”? Maybe he thinks the same consideration applies to the 102 women every year who are murdered by their partners. Is he truly saying that a crime isn’t a crime because it happens in a family context? The human rights of the victims of forced marriages are being abused by the very people who ought to be relied upon to protect those human rights – their families. That’s a double abuse. An abuse of human rights and an abuse of trust. Criminalising forced marriage is an inadequate answer of course.

Let’s draw a parallel with rape. Rape is a criminal offence but look at the appallingly low conviction rates and the degrading treatment of women who are brave enough to come forward to report it. What we need is a system that deals not only with the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity, but a system that deals with piecing the lives of victims back together and giving them emotional and practical support to become self-standing. Empowering young women and training Social Services to respond to their requests for help must go hand in hand in the government’s policy with the criminalisation of the families that put their children through this. There is no correlation as Lord West claims between decline in reported domestic violence crime and its creation as a criminal offence. ABH is a criminal offence, but the CPS routinely don’t take forward cases more than 6 months old of partners abusing their spouses. ABH against a partner is not necessarily classified by the police as a domestic violence crime, nor is rape.
Lord West should respond to this and explain his remarks.

No Recourse - No Safety

2008-03-07T15:25:00.004Z

By Heather Harvey, Amnesty International UK

Most people would like to think that a woman suffering violence, if she can find the courage to leave home, will do so and go to a refuge. However, this is not always the case, there are some women who may be quite legally here in the UK on valid but temporary or conditional visas who may live with violent husbands, in-laws or employers and not be able to escape to a refuge - even women who have been so badly abused as to have been doused with petrol and threatened to be set alight or forced to abort their baby or beaten till their bones are broken.

How can this be? It is a little known fact that a minor legal provision called the " no recourse to public funds rule" stops such women accessing a refuge. The refuge may have bed spaces available and be desperate to help but refuges work on the principle that those staying there either have private means to cover their costs or have income support and housing benefit to cover their cost. These benefits are "public funds" and so for instance a woman marrying a UK national and living here legally as his wife on a 2 year probationary visa as the marriage settles in, is dependent on her husband and has no recourse to "public funds". If the marriage turns violent the refuge can't take her as there are no funds to cover her and so she has to choose between staying with her abuser and risking her health and even her life, living on the streets destitute and vulnerable or going back to her home country - even though this may mean losing her children or indeed may be such a dishonour as to put her life at risk at home too.

Southall Black Sisters and Amnesty International UK are launching a new report " No recourse - No Safety" on the no recourse to public funds rule on Thursday 13th March. Please join us at the Human Rights action centre (17-25 New Inn Yard, EC2A 3EA nearest tubes Old Street and Liverpool Street) for a 7pm start. The event will be chaired by Samira Ahmed of Channel 4 News, speakers include Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Hannana Siddiqui of SBS and a survivor. Then join us for a drinks reception afterwards from 8.30 onwards.

Please circulate and rsvp at www.amnesty.org.uk/events

Misogyny and male violence against women is endemic but the truth must remain hidden

2008-02-29T17:19:00.003Z

By Jennifer Drew

It was a particularly horrible week in respect of UK men’s sexual and physical violence against women. On Friday, 22nd February, 2008 Steve Wright was convicted of murdering five young women, the same day Mark Dixie was convicted of murdering Sally-Anne Bowman. On Monday, 25th February, 2008 Levi Bellfield was convicted of murdering Marsha McDonnell and Amelia Delagrange. Bellfield was also convicted of attempting to murder Kate Sheedy. All three men have been sentenced to life imprisonment.

So what is the connection between these male murderers. The answer is all three men hate women and all three men targeted women simply because of their biological sex. There is a term for this and it is not misogyny – it is femicide. Femicide means women who are murdered by men exclusively because they are women.

All three cases were high profile and received mass media attention. Steve Wright’s claim to infamy was because he targeted prostituted women and murdered five young women within a very short time frame. Mark Dixie’s claim to infamy is that he chose a young, white aspiring model to rape and murder. Levi Bellfield chose to target young blonde haired women and he selected these young women whilst they were travelling home after dark on buses. All the ingredients of salacious sexual violence and murder which is always guaranteed to ensure newspaper sales will increase dramatically for a few days before reverting to normal sales.

Much has been written in the press and media of the prostituted women’s lives but there is a now a new twist. The media has created a new myth, namely drug and/or alcohol abuse caused these young women to enter prostitution and subsequently be murdered by Wright. No need to question male sexual demand which is fuelling prostitution or the fact most prostituted women do not enter prostitution because of drug addiction. Rather prostituted women use drugs and/or alcohol in an attempt to dissociate from the trauma and intense pain of having to endure innumerable men raping and abusing their bodies. Male demand must never be discussed or analysed because it is supposedly ‘natural for men to need a constant supply of fresh women in order to obtain their “rightful” sexual satisfaction.’ But upon Wright’s sentence of life imprisonment, details of his life history are emerging. Wright had been buying women’s bodies for his sexual gratification for more than 25 years and Wright even claimed he resorted to using ‘prostituted women’ because his sex life with his female partner was non-existent. One newspaper, The Daily Mail claimed Wright’s family ‘believe his motive for murdering women could be revenge on his mother Patricia, who abandoned him when he was a child.’ The murders of five prostituted women has once again caused the media to focus on why women ‘choose’ (sic) to enter prostitution – as though it is a free and autonomous choice. Little has been written about the numerous male Johns who are the ones ensuring prostitution continues to exist.

Mark Dixie was convicted of murdering Sally-Anne Bowman and his defence was he ‘stumbled upon the unconscious body of Ms. Bowman and in a moment of uncontrollable (male) sexual arousal raped her. But the media did not refer to his confession as rape, instead he simply ‘had sex with a female who was either dead at the time or unconscious.’ Apparently it is ‘sex’ because Ms. Bowman omitted to tell Dixie she did not consent to him penetrating her body with his penis. Like Wright, immediately after Dixie was convicted, details of his hatred of women emerged. Dixie has a history of sexual offences committed against women and he is known to the police since he has five convictions for sex offences against women.

Bellfield’s history of sexual violence against women was also disclosed by the media immediately after he was convicted of murder. Bellfield too, is a serial sex offender with a history of multiple rapes and sexual abuses committed against women. Bellfield was known to target under-age girls in order to rape and sexually abuse them. Bellfield’s ex-partner Becky Williamson spoke publicly about Bellfield routinely beating and raping her, but his sexual and physical violence against her only ceased when he was arrested for the murder of Ms. Delagrange. Another aspect all three men have in common, apart from hatred of women, is that they all engaged in acts of violence against their female partners.

Wright and Dixie were initially reported by the media as being ‘deviants and monsters.’ But photographs of these men do not show them with horns or frothing at the mouth, instead they appear to be normal indistinguishable men. Very quickly the media began to apportion blame but of course these men alone must not be held responsible for their actions. Oh no, women have to be partially held responsible for causing these men to commit femicide.

The most common excuses/justifications for men’s sexual violence against women is that a man’s female partner was frigid and yes, this excuse/justification was used by Wright. Wright was supposedly driven to buy prostituted women because his female partner would not satisfy his sexual needs. Another common justification/excuse for men’s sexual violence against women is that the mother was responsible because she either abandoned the man when he was a boy or she was a ‘bad mother.’ These excuses/justifications are used to neatly deflect accountability away from the men who choose to commit violence against women and instead society holds women partially or totally responsible for men’s sexual and physical violence against women.

In the case of Bellfield it was not the media which first claimed these myths but a police officer. Det. Insp. Sutton made a public statement wherein he was reported as saying ‘Bellfield a psychology PhD waiting to happen, was very close to his mother. His father died when he was young. He (Bellfield) has a massive ego to feed, he thinks he is God’s gift to everyone.’ Not everyone, Det. Insp. Sutton, Bellfield’s ‘massive ego’ was in relation to women NOT MEN. Det. Insp. Sutton’s words serve as either justification for Bellfield since he is mad, or Bellfield’s mother is to blame since no male role model was around in order to show Bellfield how to become a ‘man.’ No need to raise the fact Bellfield’s relationships with women were ones typical of a violent man who rigidly adheres to the masculine script which defines ‘real manhood’ as one wherein men are expected to dominate and control women generally. Sexual relationships are ones wherein a man owns the woman and her sexuality is always for his sexual pleasure. If she deviates from this role he is entitled to rape and sexually abuse her. As evidenced by Bellfield’s ex-partner Becky Wilkinson’s disclosures.

Evidence of how men lie not only to themselves but others concerning their contempt and dismissal of women as dehumanised beings is contained with a BBC website report of Johns who regularly buy women’s bodies in order to rape and sexually abuse them.

Yet again women are being blamed for men’s sexual violence against women and already in less than a week the media is once again attempting to focus attention away from men’s sexual violence against women. Because it is men who are the real victims of women’s lies and duplicitousness. Irrespective that less than 5% of men charged with raping and committing sexual violence against women are convicted, the BBC news website has featured an article on the numbers of men falsely accused of raping women. No need to highlight the fact only around 3% of rape claims against men are false and this percentage is in line with other cases of false reporting such as fraudulent insurance claims, great attention is being paid to the very small number of men falsely charged. Male sexual violence against women in the UK is endemic and the truth is we live in a rape culture. Misogyny is rampant and continues to be denied; women are now routinely depicted by the media as men’s sexualised objects or toys. Pornography has now become mainstream and one only has to enter any random high street newsagent and immediately be met with graphic images of naked women bodies splayed and in poses which systematically dehumanise women as holes to be penetrated by men. Women are routinely depicted as dehumanised sexualised commodities who can be bought and male sexual violence/coercion against women is depicted as an important aspect of the normal male heterosexual script.

Another case which has received only minor media attention is the one wherein a number of arrogant teenage boys filmed themselves group raping a young woman as she lay unconscious in her own home. This video was put on Youtube’s website and was viewed by over 600 individuals. Not until local London newspaper, The South London Press raised this issue with Youtube was the video withdrawn. Yet another example of how male sexual violence against women goes unnoticed unless it is a particularly high profile case.

Sadly, already the media has once again returned to selective amnesia, because these three cases of men deliberately murdering women because they are women, plus the added sensationalism of sex, murder and violence are not common. The more mundane everyday cases of men raping, murdering and using physical violence against women and children will continue to pass unnoticed because it is not newsworthy. Only when at least three or more prostituted women are murdered in a short time frame, or if a particular case is considered to be ‘newsworthy’ will the everyday male violence against women be reported.

Instead the media is perpetuating the myth only deviant male monsters commit rape and sexualised murder against women.

Patrizia Romito, a feminist Professor of Social and Community Psychology at the University of Trieste, Italy, has just published a book entitled ‘A Deafening Silence: Hidden Violence Against Women and Children.’ Ms. Romito delineates the various ways male sexual and physical violence against women and children continues to be hidden. The various mechanisms used to hide men’s accountability and how women continue to be blamed for men’s sexual and physical violence against women. The book is published by Policypress and the ISBN number is 978-1-86134-961-3.

The links are:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/7258115.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7254628.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7257623.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=517401
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/ukcrime.gender
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/25/ukcrime
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7227830.stm
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200southlondonheadlines/tm_headline=mum-s-gang-rape-shown-on-internet%26method=full%260bjectid=2050755%26siteid=50100-name_page.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7265307.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/27/ukcrime

JENNIFER DREW
27th February, 2008

The Oldest Liberation Movement

2008-02-20T17:09:00.009Z

By Finn Mackay, Co-founder - FCAP

New Feminist group gives a voice to the majority who want a world without prostitution

On Monday 11th February over 100 women gathered at the Amnesty UK Human Rights Action Centre for a public meeting to launch the new Feminist Coalition Against Prostitution – FCAP.

Yes, I’ve already been told that this sounds like a form of female contraception, but then so did the Campaign Against Pornography – CAP – and it never seemed to do them any harm. So, I like to keep the spirit of the Second Wave alive!

The meeting was titled “Not One Woman More” in reference to the tragic murders of five young women who were involved in prostitution in Ipswich. Many speakers were brought from all over the country and internationally, to discuss what we can do as a movement to ensure that not one woman more is lost to the ‘industry’ of prostitution. Speakers included Gunilla Ekberg from the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW) who advised the Swedish government on their prostitution law, Aravinda Kosaraju from the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping (CROP) based in Leeds, Jan MacLeod from the Glasgow Women’s Support Project and Fiona MacTaggart MP. The message was clear, that the time has come to focus on the demand side of prostitution. We heard from Sweden on how this was done, we heard from Fiona MacTaggart MP that it could be achieved here. Indeed Fiona MacTaggart called for all of us to contact our own MP’s and create a movement around this issue to adequately reflect public opinion. We cannot be complacent on this issue, we need to make it clear to our decision makers that this is a real concern to the people of this country and that now is the time for change. And it is real and radical change that FCAP is calling for – the decriminalisation of all those involved in prostitution and instead the criminalisation of demand, as has been carried out in Sweden with great success. This must go alongside dedicated investment in exit, support and safety services for those involved in prostitution.

Along with my political Sister Julie Bindel I am Co-founder of the new FCAP and am excited and proud to be giving a formal face to what I know is a majority view. I believe that most people don’t think that prostitution is a job like any other, or that it is of any benefit to women or society. A recent survey for The Politics Show in January found that 52% of the public polled thought that paying for sex should be made illegal, and 65% believed buying sex is exploitation of women. Younger people were more likely to hold these views. So what can we do to make these voices heard?

It is this question that was behind the founding of FCAP. A few years ago I attended a fringe meeting at NUS Women’s Conference. A group called Alliance for Workers Liberty (AWL) had organised a meeting with a speaker from the International Union of Sex Workers (IUSW). I will never forget what this speaker said to the group of over 20 young women in attendance. I quote –
“trafficking is a myth”, “the amount of money it costs to be brought over from Thailand you can pay back in less than 6 months if you work hard”, “prostitution is one of the only areas in Western society where women can feel good about their own bodies, because we go into work every day and men tell us we are beautiful”.
I know from my work in the London Feminist Network that most young women do not believe these lies. But, many women stay silent when faced with such views because they don’t feel they can argue with something presented as a workers rights issue. Well, the truth is this has nothing to do with workers rights and everything to do with women’s rights; and whether we believe men have a right to buy women, or not. It’s really as simple as that. What we have to do is take back our voice and say so. The IUSW and the similar English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP) who are part of Wages For Housework, do not represent the majority view in this country, and they certainly are not the ‘voice’ of the women’s movement or of women in this country. FCAP is about providing a safe space for the majority of us who don’t believe that anyone should be bought or sold, it aims to be a banner under which to mobilise on this oldest of oppressions.

In the face of this oldest oppression we need to build, or re-build, a movement against it, a movement for freedom for all. And anyone who is concerned with social justice, human rights, anti-globalisation, anti-consumerism, anti-racism, women and children’s rights – should all be part of this struggle. Because this is a struggle for the most oppressed, the most disenfranchised and silenced in our countries and communities. We must stand by, fight with, and speak out for women involved in prostitution, our sisters, who have been failed by state systems put in place to protect them and we cannot fail them too. The multi-billion dollar and growing ‘sex industry’ does not need anyone’s help to defend it, but all over the world women and children do. Prostitution is a global human rights abuse. It is perhaps the most brutal example of women’s continuing inequality in society today. A scientific study in the Journal of Trauma Practice (2003) found that 89% of women in prostitution wanted to leave immediately, but had no other options. Research from ‘Paying The Price’ (2004) found that the majority of those involved in street prostitution have spent time in local authority care, survived physical child abuse and almost half are survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Tonight, as every night, up to 5000 young people will be exploited on our streets in prostitution. Children and teenagers are groomed and pimped, indeed the average age of entry into prostitution is 13 – 14yrs old. Millions of women and children are trafficked around the world for the purposes of sexual exploitation every year. All to fulfil a demand that some try and tell us is inevitable. But men are not born on this earth with a biological understanding that half of the population can be bought and sold for sexual exploitation. This is learned, and therefore can be unlearned. We as a society can start teaching something new to our boys and young men, to all of us: the very real fact that violence and abuse is never inevitable and that change is always possible. Imagine waking up in a Britain that had stood up and said that women and children are not for sale. Now do what you can to make it real.

For more information and to join FCAP see –
http://www.fcap.btik.com/

Other useful links –

http://www.ldnfeministnetwork.ik.com/
http://www.reclaimthenight.org/
http://www.catwinternational.org/

Finn Mackay
Co-founder - FCAP

Power Struggle

2007-12-04T17:00:00.001Z

by Jon Bright from openDemocracy

On our 16 days blog, openDemocracy is hosting a stimulating, worldwide debate on how to end violence against women. Zohra Moosa, who is leading the debate for us, dives into the heart of one of the thorniest issues relating to gender violence - whether we are to be cultural relativists or moral imperialists...

Is there any role left for the idea of cultural relativism when it comes to violence against women? Part of me would like to say, ‘no', that violence against a woman transcends cultural norms and that hurt does not feel different depending what culture you come from. That part of me points to the fact that human rights are universal precisely because they relate to being human, regardless of race, class, citizenship, etc.

On the other hand, another part of me recognizes that when it comes to issues such as female genital mutilation (FGM), there are women who defend their decisions to practice the custom on themselves as this extract explains for women in Egypt. That part of me balks at the idea of dictating to another woman how she should and shouldn't behave, especially when I don't live in her environment or face the challenges she would face if she chose not to be cut.
(read Zohra's full article here)

I agree with how she sets it out, and am often caught in the same frame of mind. There are no easy answers. But the question of cultural relativism vs moral imperialism can sometimes presuppose that we have the power to decide the fate of other areas of the world – it’s just a question of whether we wield it or not. On OurKingdom, another part of openDemocracy, we are interested in studying issues of power and process. Not what the decision is, but how the decision is taken, and who takes it. So I think there is another way of looking at this problem.

That is one of empowerment. Don’t ask whether a culture is right or wrong, ask who debates and decides what is acceptable in that cultural sphere? Then the question is not so much how can ‘we’ prevent gendered violence, but why don’t women have the power to protect themselves? And I think in the UK we first need to look at out own processes.

At a recent Fawcett Society roundtable I attended, there was a palpable feeling that legislation alone had not been enough to achieve equality in the UK, that it had not been sufficient to change perceptions, or cultures of sexism – the types of cultures which are permissive to gendered violence occuring. Even with an increasing number of women in parliament and increasing legislation to prevent discrimination and violence on the basis of gender, a culture of masculinity prevails. Why is that?

I think part of the answer might be because our parliament has no cultural purchase on our population any more. Politicians in general are seen as out of touch and unrepresentative, mendacious and cheating. Representing a country of 56 million+, they have no real connection to local areas. It is not so much that women are not empowered in this country, but no-one is.

Part of the solution, therefore, seems to me to be devolution of power to local decision making structures. Meaningful local bodies, which were genuinely reflective of the diversity of their local populations, would provide fora for debate and discussion of local issues. People would exist in an environment where it was obvious who was taking the decisions which directly affected them, where there was a genuine sense of collective endeavour around building a local community, a local culture. If women formed a key part of this process, which they must, then I think, I hope, that the idea that violence against them was acceptable would wither and die pretty quickly.

Cameron weighs in on rape

2007-11-26T11:43:00.000Z

by Jon Collins, Senior Policy Officer, Fawcett Society

Conservative leader David Cameron, in a speech to the Conservative Women's Organisation, announced last week a package of measures to tackle rape. The speech gained widespread media coverage not all of which was positive (see The Guardian), but what about the substance?

The proposals covered three main areas – education on consent in schools as part of sex education, three-year funding cycles for rape crisis centres, and a review of sentences for rape. Perhaps most importantly, and largely ignored by the press, Cameron also pledged “to make sure that when we come into government, we have an integrated strategy to tackle all violence against women”. The Conservatives should be congratulated for promising this, a key demand of the End Violence Against Women campaign.

However, while overall the proposals are welcome, inevitably there are some questions to be asked. Firstly, the speech makes no promises for more funding for rape crisis centres. While longer-term funding is necessary, a much higher level of investment is also needed to stabilise and then expand this sector (link). Secondly, education on consent alone is not enough. Change is also needed in broader societal attitudes towards women and towards violence against women, and schools must play a central role in achieving this.

Thirdly, while Cameron identified the shamefully low conviction rate as a central problem in the criminal justice process, he did little to suggest how it can be increased. The focus on sentencing, traditional Conservative ground, is therefore a distraction. While the sentence should of course be proportionate to the crime, it is hardly the most pressing issue when so few rapes lead to a conviction.

Despite these caveats, the speech was a major step forward for the Conservatives and should put pressure on the Government to match their commitments. But what we need to see now is not a game of political point-scoring between the parties. Instead, we need a serious debate on how best to prevent rape and how to address the rape conviction rate and the lack of services available to rape victims.

Men Combating Violence against Women

2007-11-20T10:01:00.000Z

by John Austin, Member of the UK Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Committee (PACE) and also member of the PACE Equal Opportunities Committee.

The Council of Europe (COE) is currently running a massive 2 year campaign Combat Violence against Women across all 47 member countries, focusing this year on ‘involving men’...

The COE is currently supporting national parliaments and encouraging male parliamentarians to raise awareness politically and amongst the general public, specifically with the intention of engaging more men in combating violence against women.

Mr Chris Green, Chair of the White Ribbon Campaign UK, the largest NGO effort worldwide led by men that seeks to involve men in getting involved in advocating gender equality, argues that more male MPs need to take the lead in advocating gender equality:

"Parliamentarians enter parliament in order to make their community a better place.
There is no more important way to do this than by working to eliminate violence against women. Yet because of the overrepresentation of men in every Parliament in Europe, it is vital for individual male parliamentarians to be involved in order for change to take place”

One such model of best practice of men getting involved at political level is the Swedish network of Male Parliamentarians. Formed in 2002, this Male Network aims to carry out the debate in the meeting-rooms, on the building scaffoldings, on business trips, and, to improve men’s level of knowledge regarding the underlying structures that make men’s violence against women possible.

The Parliamentary Assembly is now in touch with MPs in the UK and is offering to help support the creation of any formal network of male MPs dedicated to combating violence against women within the APPG (All Political Party Group) on Domestic Violence. The recent rise in ‘involving men’ initiatives has been controversial, however with the 25th November fast approaching, arguably there is not better time for male parliamentarians in the UK to get involved, than now…

Links:

Council of Europe: Combat Violence against Women

Council of Europe – Men Combating Violence
http://www.coe.int/t/pace/campaign/stopviolence/mencombatviolence_en.asp
White Ribbon Campaign UK
http://www.whiteribboncampaign.co.uk

Violence Against Women: a universal phenomenon

2007-11-07T11:57:00.000Z

by Noema Chaplin

Half of humankind lives under the threat of violence, regardless of income, age, class, race, culture or ethnicity. Violence causes untold misery, harms families across generations and impoverishes communities...

It stops women from fulfilling their potential, restricts economic growth and undermines development. Efforts should be made to reach a consensus and set universal standards of behaviour through the elaboration of human rights in order to protect human life and dignity in our fast changing world

Violence is an extremely diffuse and complex phenomenon with biological, psychological, social and environmental roots, defined by the World Health Organization as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

The human cost is grief and pain, which, of course, can’t be calculated. The impact of violence: lives lost and health harmed. Many victims are too weak, scared or young to protect themselves. Much violence occurs out of sight, in homes, workplaces and even in medical and social institutions. Many acts of violence are never recorded because they do not come to the attention of authorities. Pretty often women became homeless or impoverished as the result of violence. It’s against human security and dignity.

A wide range of public health researchers in the United States and around the world have set themselves the task of understanding violence and finding ways to prevent it. Many different sectors and agencies should be involved in prevention activities and evaluation should be an integral part of all programs. Agencies should:

- Create, implement and monitor a national action plan for violence prevention;
- Enhance capacity for collecting data of violence;
- Increase collaboration and exchange of information on prevention, etc.

It is time to take these efforts to the next level. Members States can do more to implement the legal and policy frameworks to which they have committed themselves. All of us must form strong and effective partnerships with civil society, which has such a crucial role to play on this issue at every level. Together, we must work to create an environment where violence against
women is not tolerated. Let all of us -- men and women alike -- join forces in this mission.

Noema Chaplin
Board Member CCC/UN (Coordination Communication Committee)
Member of the Planning Committee of 57th, 58th, 59th DPI/NGO conference, New York
e-mail: noemachaplin[at]yahoo.com

Take pictures – not chances

2007-10-04T15:17:00.000Z

by Doug Horrigan from Bakoff

Over the past few years my wife and I have become increasingly worried about the increasing frequency, nature and ferocity of assaults, particularly those against women...

My wife works in the city and occasionally has to work late or socialise with work colleagues which means that she has to travel to the station either in a cab or by foot. It’s not too much of a problem walking in the summer, but dark winter nights are a different matter, so she tends to take a cab.

Usually you can get a black cab fairly quickly and these are generally quite safe, but sometimes she would have to wait around alone on deserted streets, and would occasionally take a passing minicab.

We thought that it would be a good idea to send a photo of the driver to me but when we tried we always had problems, either the message didn’t arrive or I had to try and retrieve it from a website somewhere, so in the end we gave up.

Matters came to a head last year when the five girls were murdered in Ipswich. Its not a million miles from Ipswich to the city and it’s very easy for a maniac to jump on a train and attack girls somewhere else, so we thought it was about time someone did something about it and try to make the streets a little safer.

I came up with the idea of ‘Bakoff’, a photo messaging service to help to deter attacks and provide an opportunity for people to act proactively regarding their safety and, in the worst case, assist in identification of an attacker.

Bakoff is very quick and easy to use; you just use a camera phone to take a photo of a caller, driver or new acquaintance before you’re alone with them then send it to us. We then send you a confirmation that we’ve received it and we’ll back it up on two separate systems so we don’t lose it.

We keep the price as low as possible; we would rather have people use the service than risk an assault just for the sake of a few pence.

To use the service, just send the photo with the word bakoff as the first word in the message to 07803 851600. Calls cost 50p and you’ll have a network charge of around 25p. The message is secure and anonymous, no one gets to see it unless there’s an assault or robbery then we pass it to the Police.

For more information about what we do, visit: www.bakoff.co.uk

Change of government - what does that mean for the End Violence Against Women campaign?

2007-06-28T09:12:00.000Z

by Janet Veitch, Vice Chair, EVAW

Watching TV and reading the papers it seems everyone is waiting with bated breath to see what changes our new Prime Minister will bring in when he takes over this week. Lots of hints have been dropped – so what will this mean for women and tackling violence against women?

This government has done more than any other to work on violence against women. But the statistics are still appalling and there are still shocking gaps in services. The British Crime Survey show that around half of all women experience some form of violence – rape, domestic violence, stalking, harassment....So what can Gordon Brown do to make a difference?

First, VAW has to be recognised as rooted in women’s inequality. Gender inequality is built into children from an early age – and when you consider the prevalence of domestic violence – it affects one in four women, and one in four pregnant women – and child abuse, it’s easy to see where children get the idea it’s ok for a man to hit an women. Domestic violence itself is based on men’s control over women – and this is often financial control. So while woman live in an unequal society, violence is likely to remain endemic.

The things that will make a difference to women on the ground are:

work in schools to stop the attitudes that lead to violence
better quality prosecutions – only 12% of women report a rape, and of these, 95% will see the accused walk free
better support services to help women recover from years of abuse.

The government can help by putting money into these things – but also by organising the government machine so that targets can be set to end violence against women, so that the achievement of these targets can be checked, and we can track where things are getting better and intervene where they are not. Important government targets are published in Public Service Agreements – we need one on violence against women to show that this issue is being taken seriously. The election of Harriet Harman this week as deputy Leader of the Labour Party is a very good sign that this will be given priority – Harriet worked hard as Minister for Women to build a strategy on violence against women, and set clear targets for action. A violence against women strategy at the highest level would bring together all the work that different departments are doing and coordinate it effectively, and put resources in where they are needed.

Most of all, of course, a word from our new Prime Minister on the importance of ending this scourge would send the most powerful signal of all – that this has his personal support.

No one has the right to defend their “honour” by murder

2007-06-12T10:39:00.000Z

by Dr. Aisha Gill
Chair of Newham Asian Women’s Project and Secretary of Imkaan

Banaz Mahmod, an Iraqi Kurd from the Kurdistan region, was garrotted with a shoelace before her body was stuffed in a suitcase and buried in a back garden...

The prosecution in Court 10 of the Old Bailey argued that the killing was ordered by Ms. Mahmod’s uncle, Ari Agha, at a family meeting, and that the killing was endorsed by her father Mahmod Mahmod. A fellow Kurd, Mohamad Hama, 30, earlier pleaded guilty to assisting with the murder.

Prosecuting for the Crown, Victor Temple QC told the court in his summing up that Banaz was murdered because she had fallen in love with a man whom her family did not want her to marry. Temple QC reminded the jury of a mobile phone video recording that was screened at the Old Bailey Criminal Court, in which Banaz Mahmod gave evidence from ‘beyond the grave’ as she was filmed on a hospital trolley by her boyfriend. In the recording, Banaz Mahmod said that she was “really scared” of her father after she broke her arranged marriage. Less than a month before her untimely death, the 20-year-old warned police that her family was plotting to murder her. Also two days before she was killed the family staged a failed attempt to kidnap her boyfriend Rahmat Suleimani. Temple QC also told the jury that if a man or woman in such a community has a relationship outside the confines of marriage they have to hide it. Families who disapprove will go to violent extremes to end the relationship. In chilling closing remarks he commented:

“If one brother wanted another brother to help he may choose the most violent means…in these communities honour is everything which means that brother will kill brother, uncle will kill uncle and father will kill daughter.”

This case has raised once again the complex issues surrounding the phenomenon of “honour” killings. Recent cases have made it clear that in various minority communities across the UK, people are increasingly committing murder in the name of preserving family honour. Culture and religion are often used as justifications for discrimination against women. Cultural reasons are used to maintain honour codes of conduct that deny the advance of women’s rights. Women who experience such violence, particularly South Asian/Iraqi Kurdish women, often live in communities where they are treated as repositories of community and family honour, and subsequently their bodies and sexuality are the sites of vengeance and gender-motivated violence. This woman was murdered for exercising her right to choose her own boyfriend.

What needs to be done?

The case of Banaz has several implications for the awareness of, prevention of, and intervention in cases of honour-based violence. First, there is a need to believe the testimony of a victim who reports that she has received threats of an honour killing by their families. This requires understanding how women understand their experiences, how they respond to violence, where they go for help, what happens when they ask for help, and the effectiveness of that help. There is a need to invest in prevention programmes and to expand financial, legal and support services for women fleeing crimes related to honour.

In the meantime, to deter recurrent patterns of this abuse, punitive responses must be made to those who perpetrate violence; those who conspire to commit murder must be pursued and punished with unrelenting certainty and severity. The criminal justice system must also provide robust and effective responses in the form of promptly responding to calls by vulnerable victims who may be subject to threats to their life so that we do not have another tragic case like that of Banaz. There also needs to be a massive injection of sustained long-term educational campaigns to highlight the various manifestations of honour-based violence. At the community level, there is a need for community participation in efforts to prevent violence, such as efforts to change social norms regarding violence. However, these efforts will need to be complemented by addressing the wider structural inequalities that contribute to the production of violence against women.

Dr. Aisha Gill
Chair of Newham Asian Women’s Project and Secretary of Imkaan
Email: a.gill@roehampton.ac.uk

Other Links
The Times Police ‘failed’ victim of honour killing
Read Aisha's Letter in The Times
FCO Guidelines on Forced Marriage
SOAS and CIMEL research on 'Honour' Crimes
Women's Hour report online
Combatting 'Honour' Based Violence Forum

Women In Prison

2007-05-29T14:24:00.000Z

by Chelsea McKinney and Althea Cribb from GLDVP

There are over 4000 women in prison – most should never have been sent there. Approximately two thirds are on remand awaiting trial or sentence – under half receive a prison sentence, while one in five is acquitted altogether...

The punitive environment can be damaging to women’s mental health and compound experiences of victimisation, while often doing little to support them or stop them re-offending. It costs £77,000 a year to keep a woman in prison, yet in 2003, 63% of women released from prison were reconvicted within two years.

Momentum is building behind a campaign to change this situation, and provide alternatives for women offenders – and those at risk of offending – who are often very vulnerable. Pressure comes from the Corston Report on vulnerable women in the criminal justice system, from a petition supporting her recommendations and calling on the government to implement them, and most recently from Cherie Blair , who highlighted the fact that 100 babies are born in prison each year.

Prison is inappropriate, unnecessary and harmful for most women offenders – as well as expensive and usually ineffective. It is worth quoting just some statistics, which highlight the many issues faced by women prisoners: only 16% have committed violent offences – most are imprisoned for theft or handling of stolen goods; more than 60% are mothers; 70% suffer from two or more mental health problems; 37% have attempted suicide; nearly a quarter have experienced self harm; and over 50% have experienced domestic violence – though other estimates put this figure much higher; there are a disproportionate number of black and minority ethnic women in prison; and around 20% of the female prison population are foreign nationals.

As Baroness Corston so rightly recommends, the solution is increased use of community punishments, and the development of holistic women’s centres. Such centres could then more effectively address women’s offending by considering their experiences of domestic violence and abuse, mental health problems, and drug and alcohol use, being aware of how these intersect and lead to criminal behaviour.

Appropriate interventions in the community would prevent the unnecessary and damaging situation where so many women who lose their homes on imprisonment, and have nowhere to go on release, leading to separation from their children, families and homes. Neither community punishments, nor a more therapeutic prison environment, are ‘soft’ options. They are not only more effective, but are much more challenging for women than interventions which do not require such personal exploration and development.

http://www.gldvp.org.uk/
http://www.womeninprison.org.uk/

Corston Report: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/corston-report/

Petition: http://www.womeninprison.org.uk/index.php?option=com_mospetition&Itemid=83

Barrister: Gang Rape Girl was "Glad of the Attention"

2007-05-22T09:42:00.000Z

by Helen Jones

The Daily Mirror published a story - 'Gang Rape Girl was Glad of the Attention' by Robert Stansfield on May 18th 2007

"A TEENAGE girl who claims she was gang raped by three 13-year-old boys was overweight and would have been "glad of the attention", a barrister told a court yesterday. The schoolgirl and her friend, both 16, have told how the boys, two of whom have since turned 14, mugged them for their phones then raped them repeatedly in a park while filming the ordeal on a mobile. But Sheilagh Davies, defending the boy of 13, insisted the girls consented to sex. She told the jury one of the girls, who gave evidence by video link, had "slimmed down a lot" since the incident on November 23 last year."

The barrister, Sheilagh Davies, has made unsupported allegations about the character and the actions of the rape complainant. The complainants dress-size has no bearing on this case at all and this is little more than another example of the mobilization of rape myths to attack the credibility of a rape complainant.

With cases such as these it is little wonder that the conviction rate in rape stands at a pitiful 5.2% in England and Wales . It is our duty to complain about the treatment of women by agents of the (so-called) justice system if women are to ever receive justice through the courts. There is a complaints mechanism and we encourage everyone who feels aggrieved by this case to complain.

The Bar Standards Board was established in January 2006. They are the independent regulatory board of the Bar Council, with responsibility for regulating barristers called to the Bar in England and Wales . They take decisions independently and in the public interest. They publish a Code of Conduct that barristers must abide by, and takes action where there is evidence that the Code has been breached and/or professional standards have not been maintained. The Code of Conduct sets demanding standards for barristers to meet and they rely on members of the public to bring to attention any potential breaches. Making a complaint costs nothing.

The website has a downloadable complaints form and guidance notes about how to do this.

Further details:
Complaints Department,
The Bar Standards Board,
289-293 High Holborn,
London WC1V 7HZ
Telephone: 020 7611 1444
Fax: 020 7611 1342
http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/

Responding to Virginia – Gender Matters

2007-05-01T15:28:00.000Z

Posted by Helen Jones, Criminology teacher at Manchester Metropolitan University

As the world’s media retreat from Virginia, it is worth looking at how the tragedy of the campus shootings has been interpreted and how a feminist analysis can go beyond the reports of the past week.

Multiple shootings are not unknown in universities. Many know of the killings at Columbine in 1999 and at Monash University Australia in 2002. These incidents connect to a history that can be charted at least as far back as 1989 when, in Montreal Canada, 14 women were killed by a man whose suicide letter made reference to ‘the feminists who have always ruined [his] life’. In the aftermath of such events, the question that first emerges is: Why? Journalists, academics and politicians struggle for answers and as the past week has shown, the focus tends to fall on a narrow range of explanations including the culture of violence in US society, the availability of guns and the individual characteristics (and mental health) of the killer.

Few articles pay attention to gender. That the killer was a man is so obvious as to be un-noteworthy. Even though the earliest reports linked the first two killings to a possible romantic rejection of the killer, the subsequent reporting was gender neutral. When reports of the first shootings (at 7.15am in West Ambler Johnston Hall) were made to the police, they assumed it was a ‘domestic incident’ and that the gunman had left the campus. The assumption was that a man willing to kill two people over a ‘domestic’ was of no danger to the wider community. This assumption led to the deaths of another thirty people. Gender matters and it is important to make masculinity visible.

Schools and universities are important places for ‘doing’ masculinity. The construction and reproduction of masculinity is achieved in two main ways, male dominance of females and dominance by high-status males of low-status males. The killer was not a typical student and wasn’t part of the male world of frat houses and football. His was a subordinated masculinity which finally pushed back against the alpha males and the hegemonic masculinity that had subordinated him and silenced him. Raging against this, he responded by asserting his own manliness, taking up hyper-masculine poses in a video and then methodically destroying what he saw as a high-status elite who had challenged his masculine identity.

In Virginia, as in Monash, Columbine, Montreal and in many other such incidents, the violence is not gender neutral. In every case the killer is male, usually a young man who feels aggrieved by some (real or imagined) attack on his masculine identity, but we should not focus simply on individual psychopathology. The news media has argued that these men were ‘crazed’ individuals who ‘snapped’, resulting in rare and isolated events which do not require societal change. But the events are not so rare and the killers tend to put a lot of planning into their actions: they do not ‘snap’. A gendered approach takes us beyond the incomplete explanations of these shootings which do little more than blame the individual or the gun. If we can make the connections between these killings and the wider culture of violence which is part of many men’s masculine identity, we may be able to move towards effective policy responses to tackle the gendered nature of violence.

Helen Jones teaches Criminology at Manchester Metropolitan University

Gender Equality in Northern Ireland

2007-04-17T13:54:00.000Z

Posted by Bronagh Hinds WNC Commissioner for Northern Ireland

Even Northern Ireland’s cynically hardened journalists were surprised to find how moved they were at recent political developments in Northern Ireland. The Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Fein, two apparently implacably opposed opponents described by some as arch enemies, sat together on 26 March to announce they had agreed terms to share government. And just a week later they agreed on how to carve up Ministerial posts. Roll on D-Day - 8 May - when the Assembly and the Executive will really start business.

But what does all this mean for women?

The 2007 Assembly Election did not demonstrate a model of good practice in political leadership in advancing equality for women. Overall, there were three less women candidates this year than in the last election. Disappointingly, the same number of women of MLAs were elected in 2007 as in 2003 – so no advance there. In fact, women did proportionately worse in all political parties, even in the one party in which the number of women MLAs increased. Why? Because when parties increased their votes the extra seats went to men. When parties lost votes women were casualties.

Sinn Fein was better than other parties, increasing its women MLAs to 8 with its 9 women candidates running mainly in winnable seats. While 40% of SDLP candidates were women just 4 were elected – one less than in 2003. The DUP was also one woman down from 2003 with 3 women MLAs, while the Ulster Unionist Party’s sole woman candidate failed to get elected. Alliance retained 2 women MLAs; and Anna Lo is the first MLA from a minority ethnic background and the first Hong Kong Chinese person to be elected to any European parliament.

But electing women is only half the story. The other half is what is the Assembly going to do for women?

Women’s organisations got together before the election to prepare a Women’s Manifesto. It is really time the parties did something for women. Here are some things that women want prioritised:

· Strong Ministerial leadership of a Gender Equality Strategy for Northern Ireland that is properly resourced
· Adequate funding for the infrastructure of women's organizations rather than fostering competition and division
· Consultation with women on all policies and services
· Gender proofing of all public policy
· A programme to end trafficking and violence against women
· Investment in entrepreneurial activity by women
· Support for family planning and education on sexual health for young women

Every party made demands before they would share power, allow others into government, decommission weapons, join policing arrangements or whatever. Yet women are still waiting for ALL parties to make good on these promises to women in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement: ‘the right of women to full and equal political participation’ and ‘the advancement of women in public life’. We know from experiences in legislatures where women form a critical mass – like those in Scotland and Wales – that there are new perspectives, policy priorities change, outreach and involvement are more inclusive and cultures are transformed. There must be more women appointed as Chairs and Members of public bodies; and parties must select equal number of female and male candidates in winnable seats in all future elections starting with the next Council elections.

Bronagh Hinds is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Governance, Queen’s University Belfast with interests in equality, democracy and governance. She previously held posts in the voluntary sector and has been active on gender and other matters at European and international level. As Deputy Chief Commissioner of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland she led the introduction of the statutory duties on equality and good relations. She was a founder of the Women’s Coalition and involved in negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement. She runs DemocraShe to improve women’s access to politics and public life and is a partner in an initiative to advance women in local councils. She is a Member of the Local Government Staff Commission.

Female Genital Mutilation: The Power of the Clitoris

2007-04-10T15:47:00.000Z

Posted by Enshrah Ahmed of FORWARD

The World Health Organisation defines Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) as “Comprising all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for cultural or other non-therapeutic reason.”

There are four main types of FGM, the first three are classified according to the severity of the procedures. For example FGM type one consists of the excision of the prepuce with partial of total removal of the clitoris itself while FGM type 2 consists of the removal the prepuce and the clitoris with total or partial excision of the labia minora. The most serve type of FGM is type three which consists of the excision of part or all of the external genitalia and a stitching or narrowing of the vaginal opening.

Why People Practice FGM:
Each practicing community has explanations / rationalisations of why they practice FGM. These explanations include religion, culture, hygiene, health and beauty. For example it has been documented in Mali’s oral culture that clitoris harms men’s penises during intercourse, due to this belief they carry out FGM as proactive and preventive measure. It has also been reported that some of the Yoruba people in the west African coast think the clitoris harms the baby’s head during delivery, therefore, they practice FGM on pregnant women during the second
trimester i.e. FGM is carried out before the delivery of the baby. Likewise some communities in Northern Ghana, they hold the believe that if a woman doesn’t go through FGM and touches /steps across a tree, the tree would not bear fruit.
Interestingly, in the Horn of Africa particularly Sudanese and Somali view women with their intact genitals as “wild” women. For some Muslim FGM practicing communities, the removal of the clitoris means lesser sexual desire for women which is thought to prevent them from being promiscuous.
Underpinning all these explanations is the fact that, these FGM practicing communities view the clitoris as distinctive source of women’s power .Thus for these communities to attain complete control over women, they opt for FGM. FGM like any other form of gender based violence(GBV), must be seen as an indictor of the dynamics of gender power within that community.
Throughout history societies have come up with various forms of GBV particularly violence against women to curtail women’s freedom and prevent them from the full enjoyment of their rights.

For more information on FGM please visit FORWARD’s website www.forwarduk.org.uk.

The Missing Link

2007-04-04T15:23:00.000Z

Posted by Jennifer Drew
Researcher in Male Sexual Violence Against Women

Consider how the following sentences all focus on women and girls and omit naming the perpetrators. X number of women and girls were raped last year. How many teenage girls have been in abusive relationships? How many women have experienced domestic violence within the last year? Here are the same sentences again but with a slight difference. Males raped X number of women and girls last year. How many boys have sexually abused their girlfriends? How many men have sexually/physically abused their female partners within the last year?

The difference is the first group of sentences depict women and girls as passive victims. The second group names the gender responsible for acts of sexual and physical violence against women and girls.

One of the most pernicious aspects of male violence against women and girls is its continued invisibility. The phrase ‘violence against women’ or ‘domestic violence’ tells us nothing apart from the fact women experience violence. But just who are committing these acts? Can it be other women? Or perhaps women are abusing themselves. The media too collaborates in taking a gender neutral stance wherein it is always ‘people’ or ‘youths’ who have committed violence. Of course those taboo words ‘male or men’ must on no account be used, as attention will then focus rightly on to the perpetrators’ actions and not the victims.

But there is no such taboo against the words ‘women or girls.’ Naming the female gender is central whenever the media reports such acts of violence. As in ‘a woman committed violence’ or ‘a teenage girl hit someone.’ Victim blaming is very popular for a number of reasons, but the primary one is to remove attention from men’s and boys’ accountability. It also reinforces the message that (male) violence against women is solely a female issue and effectively makes invisible males’ central role in violence against women and girls.

Challenging male violence against women and girls is vital but unless the gender of the perpetrators is always named, nothing will change. Refusing to name the gender primarily responsible for (male) violence against women, means we are inadvertently colluding in hiding and excusing male accountability. Of course not all men and boys commit violent acts against women and girls, but the fact remains many do. How boys and men are socialised into what is perceived as ‘natural’ masculinities must be constantly challenged.

Links:

http://www.truthaboutrape.co.uk/
http://www.mencanstoprape.org/
http://www.whiteribboncampaign.co.uk/
http://www.xyonline.net/ - Men, Masculinities & Gender Politics
http://www.swapcampaign.co.uk/
http://scottishwomenagainstpornography.co.uk/ (Note site is currently being reconstructed)

Slavery in the 21st Century

2007-03-27T17:33:00.000Z

by Heather Harvey

Campaign Manager- Stop Violence Against Women Campaign

Amnesty International UK

As we are all celebrating the 200 year anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in Britain, and the UK government’s signature of the Council of Europe Convention Action Against trafficking in Human Beings, this is a good moment for reflection.

Some people believe that trafficking is the same as illegal immigration or people smuggling. It is not – in both illegal immigration and people smuggling, once the people arrive at their destination country they are free to go and take their chances. Trafficked people, firstly are not always here illegally but secondly are both tricked or forced into their situation for the express intention of exploiting them. The Convention defines trafficking “the movement of people, using violence, coercion or deception, in order to exploit their labour or services” The UN definition makes it clear that trafficking is not limited to sexual exploitation but also encompasses domestic servitude, forced marriage and labour exploitation. The UN also makes clear that trafficking is a contemporary form of slavery. Of course this does not mean it is the same as the transatlantic slave trade. The attention on trafficking is not intended to be at the expense of recognising the brutality of the transatlantic slave trade and the lasting poverty and inequality that it caused and which continues today.

Nonetheless it is estimated that some 12 million men, women and children are living in slavery today. In 2003 Home office figures estimated some 4000 men, women and children were trafficked to the UK to be exploited and abused and in a recent study by End Child Prostitution, Pornography and Trafficking (ECPAT) it was found that 32 out of 33 London Boroughs had problems with child trafficking. Amnesty’s current campaign has been drawing attention to steps that Government’s can take to help victims and the UK government in particular can do more.

“Maryam”

“Maryam”, a 13 year old girl with a twin sister from West Africa were doing well at school until their parents felt they had had enough education and it was time they were married off to some village elders in their community. To be marriageable though they first had to undergo circumcision or “female genital mutilation”. Maryam’s twin died during the procedure and Maryam did not want to go through with it or with the marriage. When she refused her parents rejected her so she ended up on the streets. Here a man offered to bring her to London for a better life and an education. Once here, she was locked in a basement and used as a child prostitute from age 13-19. At 19 her trafficker her released her and took her to Waterloo with false documents wanting her to leave the country. At Waterloo she was arrested for being in possession of false documents – she was convicted and served a 10 month prison sentence. At no time was she offered rape crisis counselling, sexual abuse counselling, sexual and medical health advice, post traumatic stress counselling or any other services that a child victim of abduction, imprisonment, physical and sexual violence would need.

It this sort of repeat victimisation and criminalisation by the state that implementing the convention would address – within the terms of the convention the first priority would be identifying and meeting the needs of the victim.

Useful Links:

Slave Britain

Amnesty International UK

New Route to Make Police Accountable

2007-03-21T18:47:00.000Z

Posted by Frank Mullane

My sister Julia Pemberton and nephew William Pemberton (pictured left) were murdered on 18th November 2003, 14 months after Alan Pemberton promised to kill Julia, notice that was given to Thames Valley Police (TVP).

This Force had no Domestic Violence policy despite Home office guidance requiring it, years before. It ignored the reporting of explicit death threats, of intensifying threats and infringements of the injunction with power of arrest.

TVP’s futile firearms policy was of more danger to the victim and yet was redeployed seven months later at Highmoor Cross when Vicky Horgan and Emma Walton were murdered. At that Inquest, TVP testified that the call handler doesn’t know the operational response of the police. It is of enormous significance that this Force, under the charge of Chief Constable Peter Neyroud who has never communicated with my family, allowed a call handler to offer my sister encouragement and advice which amounted to critically misleading life dependent information. Julia was being promised immediate assistance whilst the police log recorded “No units to attend”. It is equally significant that this untenable firearms policy was not changed before the tragedy at Highmoor Cross even though the police must have known it was not about going to the assistance of the victim/s.

Suing the police for negligence in the past has proved very difficult as they have successfully relied upon the case of Hill. Today, there may be another way via the The Human Rights Act by asking a High Court judge for a 'declaration' that the police failed to protect the victims' right to life. Last year, the family of Giles Van Colle was awarded £50,000. The judge ruled that the police had failed to 'discharge their positive obligation' to Van Colle by doing nothing about the threats, adding that his family's distress had been intensified by the force's failure to apologise. The police have appealed, the judgement being outstanding.

If the Van Colle family wins, other cases will follow potentially bringing an unprecedented level of scrutiny to bear on police handling of domestic violence cases. Use of this remedy is in its infancy and such cases need support.

John Latham, the solicitor representing many families in these cases said:

“All these cases have clear evidence of systemic failure. It's just not good enough, as the police have claimed in the past, to say that women died because certain individuals did not get it right.”

Read further articles by Frank Mullane
April 2006 and March 2007

fmullane@hotmail.com

The Forced Marriage Bill- A response

2007-03-14T16:54:00.000Z

Posted by Aisha Gill, Chair of Newham Asian Women's Project

In 2005, the Joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office Forced Marriage Unit (JFCO/HO/FMU), consulted on a proposal to create a specific criminal offence related to forced marriage. Newham Asian Women’s Project welcomed and supported the need to create early intervention and preventative mechanisms to combat such marriages. At the time we argued that, on balance, we did not believe that creating a specific offence would be the most effective way to deter this harmful practice and provide adequate protection for victims. In agreement with many other key organisations working in this area, we stated that such legislation would be problematic.

We welcome the efforts of Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC in recognising that the issue of forced marriages needs more committed attention than it has received, and thus we support proposals to amend the Bill.

However, we would like to raise some issues in regards to tightening the content to avoid “implementation problems”. The procedure for obtaining injunctive relief appears to be similar to that for obtaining injunctive relief in other domestic violence situations under the Family Law Act, and for this reason, it would be a natural extension to incorporate the provisions into the Family Law Act. The courts, the police and family lawyers are already familiar with the workings of the Family Law Act and such incorporation would involve minimal “disruption” and costs – and most importantly, swifter adoption by those seeking this redressal. It would be a fairly simple exercise to amend the current documentation and procedures that already exist on an application under the Family Law Act to include forced marriage.

In our view, a free-standing law on forced marriages will not achieve any greater purpose than an amendment in the FLA. By creating a specific legislation on forced marriages, a distinctive law on the issue will be created instead of recognising forced marriages as a form of domestic violence. For better response to survivors of forced marriages, there is a growing need to integrate the responses, services and remedies available to all forms of domestic violence.

It is not clear why a free-standing act should be any easier for victims to use and understand. The actual wording of the Act will remain essentially the same. Surely, if there is to be any simplification, it should be in the language of the Act. Furthermore, an assumption is being also made that victims will be “going it alone” when in fact the vast majority will rely upon family lawyers to make the applications for them. In addition, there have been various ‘DIY Injunction kits’ available for survivors of domestic violence to apply for injunctions under the FLA and similar kits can be made available for the proposed Part 4A of the Act.

Aisha Gill
Chair of NAWP a.gill@roehampton.ac.uk
To read the full response from NAWP click here

Three times the number of lap-dancing clubs as rape crisis centres

2007-03-06T12:35:00.000Z

Professor Liz Kelly
EVAW Chair

As we celebrate the achievements of women around the world this International Women’s Day, March 8th, we should also reflect on the continuing barriers to equality.

Pause for a moment and think - if a female friend was raped wouldn’t you advise them to call a helpline, maybe even rape crisis. Did you know there is no 24-hour sexual violence helpline in the entire UK? Or that there are now half the rape crisis centres there were in 1984 (then there were 68, now just 37)? That there are no rape crisis services at all in Wales and Northern Ireland?

The Government has made some efforts recently to stem the haemorrhaging of sexual violence services – investing £4 million from the Victims Fund spread between establishing new Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs) and support for existing rape crisis and survivors groups. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hors285.pdf

£4million sounds like a lot, but government is spending ten times that amount (£40 million) on public information about the switch to digital media. For three years delays in announcing continuation funding until the very last minute places impossible burdens on already fragile groups, who have to issue redundancy notices to core staff. Who cares about the survivors for whom these groups are a lifeline, the women who will be assaulted in the future who will have nowhere to turn?

What does it tell us that in 2007 the state of Florida has almost twice the number of rape crisis centres as the entire United Kingdom (53:37)? That there are three times (and growing) as many lap-dancing clubs as rape crisis centres (and falling)?

This is a real crisis and I have had enough of uninterested journalists and complacent politicians – I want to start a new campaign. It has two simple asks.

· The first is for an immediate grand gesture - if a single premier league football donated one weeks wages it would secure all rape crisis centres for at least a year.
· The second is that the Government creates a mechanism to secure existing sexual violence services consistent with its own compact for voluntary sector – that funding is done on a three year cycle.

For too long women have settled for very little, it is time to say the standard of services available communicate something profound. In the aftermath of sexual violence it tells us whether as a country we think women are worth more or worth less.