Women's Views on News |
| Posted: 13 Oct 2014 06:09 AM PDT
By Sue Marsh Never has there been a better example of naive little fishes swimming in a vast, Machiavellian pond than Nick Clegg's "Orange Bookers". It's easy now to forget just how shocking and incomprehensible we all found even the concept of a Tory/LibDem coalition. To forget those 5 surreal days our democracy was in hiatus, holding its breath while just 4 men decided the future of our countries behind a locked door. For 5 days and 5 nights, Cameron, Osborne, Alexander and Clegg hammered out their agreement. A vacuum where one day, history would be. Four men. After 29 million, 691 thousand, 380 people had voted, in fact they may as well not have bothered. The manifestos they thought they had voted for were discarded along with student trust and the last drop of belief in our political system. The party of civil liberties were artfully convinced to give them up for the promise of a few tempting beans. Cameron and Osborne, foxes in tails holding knives and forks and licking their lips. Clegg and Alexander eager as sixth-formers convinced they are ready to play men's games. Clegg went into the room with a left of centre economic position, that passion for civil liberties, a determination to see electoral reform in both the Commons and the Lords, and a pledge to scrap tuition fees. He came out having ceded to Osborne's right wing economic strategy, with the promise of a referendum on AV that was dependent on boundary changes that would see the Tories gain an almost indefinite majority in the commons, tripling tuition fees and supporting a welfare reform bill that would throw all but the most fortunate to the wolves. Almost every policy decision for the next 5 years was decided in that room, by those 4 men. Since then, each time democracy has tried to object, she has been silenced with either bribery, dishonesty or the Whip. From using financial privilege to overturn Lord's amendments and increasing government surveillance measures, to threatening the BBC and deleting old speeches from the internet. They ripped up disability living allowance and replaced it with personal independence payments in that room, agreeing to slash a random 20 per cent of people with disabilities from the budget – it was in neither manifesto. They awarded themselves 5 years of power with virtually no possibility of challenge the very day they left the room. I remember Nick Clegg saying at the time "I asked a mutual friend "Can I trust this guy" [Cameron]. The friend said he thought he could and before we knew it we were feeling queasy at the sight of that new bromance flowering in the rose garden. I had always assumed that the very first thing they learn in politician-nursery-school is "You can't trust anyone." Nothing has demoralised me more than watching previously centre left politicians with apparently, well, Liberal values, file into those lobbies, one by one, in support of slashing payments for disabled children, selling off our NHS in piecemeal chunks and slashing legal aid. I watched them argue over how terminally ill you have to be to qualify for disability benefit. I watched them decide that there was no longer any need to treat profoundly disabled children who would never work as though they had contributed national insurance, ensuring they were always entitled to support in their own name. After all, it was argued, they "might inherit". But that just demoralised me. What disgusted me, was being assured through it all that the Lib Dems had somehow stopped the worst excesses of the Tories. I have found myself living in a country that has allowed sick and disabled people to die in hunger and despair and they dare speak to me of mitigation? I think in a funny way, the UK public did vote for a coalition. I just don't think they trusted either the Tories or Labour to govern with free reign. They gave Clegg a once-in-a-generation opportunity to show that coalition could work. They "agreed with Nick". A unique chance to dictate how and when he and his MPs would support the Conservatives and how and when they would not, issue by issue. Instead, he was smoothly convinced that his job was first and foremost only to "think of the markets" and "put stability above everything." He didn't even see the handcuffs coming. Or, it seems, such familiar right-wing euphemisms for stuffing the poor. Now, we start to see the predictable sight of the little fishes trying to swim like mad away from the shark. But it's too late to pretend they're in the wrong pond now. In fact, they've forgotten the idealistic, self-righteous little minnow pond they started from altogether. Now, when Danny Alexander is "pissed off" with Conservative economic policy, it is only because they stole it from him. In 2010 it was because – as he rightly pointed out – that same policy would delay recovery by 3 long years. Tim Farron, the last remaining token voice of the handful of centre left Lib Dems who haven't deserted the sinking ship describes the Conservatives as "borderline immoral". Any politician that thinks finding people in comas fit for work and scrapping the social fund is only "borderline" immoral has a very different definition of immorality to me. The total disdain voters in Scotland showed for Westminster in the recent independence referendum rang a warning loud and clear. "Reform or Die". From the actions of all 3 parties at their recent annual conferences, it seems the message is as far from getting through as it ever was. A version of this article first appeared on Sue Marsh’s blog Diary of a Benefit Scrounger on 6 October.
|
| Posted: 13 Oct 2014 04:23 AM PDT
The Minister for Crime Prevention, Norman Baker MP, has now confirmed that supermarkets that display magazines and newspapers with sexualised front covers at child height are "not observing current legislation in relation to the Indecent Displays Act 1981." Child Eyes is campaigning for legislation to make it illegal to display pornographic images around children. "Child Eyes' concerns about publications with inappropriate or indecent images or text are fully understood and I believe the problem lies with the retailers, not the publishers," the Minister said in a letter to Child Eyes founders following a meeting at the Home Office. "I am grateful to the work of Child Eyes and I am particularly struck by the difficulties and resistance parents have been experiencing when seeking the cooperation of supermarkets who are often not observing current legislation." Minister Baker has written to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, on Child Eyes' behalf and received a "positive reply". David Cameron referred Minister Baker to the Bailey Review into the sexualisation of children, "Letting Children Be Children", which was commissioned in 2012, which made a series of recommendations that shops and supermarkets should 'ensure that magazines and newspapers with sexualised images on their covers are not in easy sight of children'. Minister Baker said that it is "vital that a robust approach to promoting the self-regulation is in place and that the Indecent Displays Act is able to provide for sufficient protection on matters raised by Child Eyes." A government report by the Children's Commissioner, "Basically Porn is Everywhere" in 2013, found that exposure to sexualised images is "damaging to children, negatively affecting their sexual development, relationships and self-esteem and makes risky sexual behaviour more likely." The images and content found in publications like The Sun, The Star, The Sport and 'lads' mags' were also linked with attitudes that underpin violence against women. Child Eyes is a national campaign run by volunteer parents fed up of their children being confronted with sexualised and degrading images in their local shops and supermarkets. The campaign launched a petition in March 2013 asking for the Government to make it illegal to display porn around children. We initially petitioned Edward Timpson MP in his role as Children and Families Minister. Sadly, Timpson refused to engage with the campaign and refused to pay attention to our evidence, arguing that voluntary codes do work. We have rigorously tested this and are certain that they do not work – and we have a great deal of proof that the government refuses to view. The petition is still running – please sign it. |
| What was achieved at Girl Summit 2014 Posted: 13 Oct 2014 12:08 AM PDT
On 22 July 2014, the UK government and UNICEF hosted a Girl Summit, aimed at mobilising domestic and international efforts to end female genital mutilation (FGM) and child, early and forced marriage (CEFM) within a generation. The ensuing ‘Girl Summit Charter on ending female genital mutilation and child, early and forced marriage’ was signed by hundreds of signatories who agreed that: No one should be forced into marriage, or made to marry while still a child; No girl or woman should have to endure the physical and psychological effects of female genital mutilation; These practices violate the fundamental rights of all girls and women to live free from violence and discrimination; and Such violations not only harm individual girls; by undermining girls' ability to make their own choices and reach their full potential, they also diminish the strength of families, communities and society. And they committed themselves to work together to end child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation, for girls and women, everywhere, for ever. And they said 'We agree that: 1. Child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation must end, and the elimination of these practices should be reflected in the post 2015 development framework. 2. Every girl and woman at risk of or affected by these practices must have access to appropriate services like education, counselling, shelter, reproductive health and medical care. 3. Governments must design and implement effective, properly funded policies and clear legislation to end these practices forever, and to protect anyone at risk. Where necessary they should work together across borders to implement these policies and legislation. 4. Legislation alone is not enough. We will all raise awareness and understanding so everyone respects the equal value and potential of girls. We will support local groups around the world – led by women and men, girls and boys – to do the same. Lasting change will come from communities themselves. 5. We will gather more and better data, improve the way we measure social change, and make open source data publicly available to help make the right decisions about how to end these practices. 6. We must drive systemic, sustainable change in the way girls and women are valued in our societies, so they can seize the same opportunities and realise the same rights as boys and men. 7. We need to invest in all girls so they have the knowledge, education, skills, and self-confidence to take control of their lives. We will work together across different systems, including education, health and reproductive health, justice, social protection, child protection, and civil registration. 8. Young people are a powerful force for change. We need to listen to, and consult with, young people – especially those affected – and support youth-led initiatives to break the cycle of these practices. 9. All of us need to take action to end these practices, including governments, faith groups, traditional leaders, non-governmental organisations and civil society groups, young people, practitioners, people affected by these practices, communities, international organisations, media and the private sector. 10. The individual commitments that accompany this Charter will be monitored and assessed on an annual basis, and the results published on-line.’ And a UK inter-faith declaration was also announced at the summit. And signed by hundreds of faith leaders and representatives. The signatories agreed that they recognised that: 1. Female Genital Mutilation, in all its types, is a grave violation of the rights of girls and women. 2. Female Genital Mutilation is child abuse and a violation of a child's bodily integrity as well as their right to health. 3. Female Genital Mutilation can have serious consequences for a woman's health and in some instances can lead to death. 4. Female Genital Mutilation is not a religious requirement. Causing harm and distress is not condoned by our faith. That was what they said. You can join this global movement for change, too. If you want to add your name – or the name of your organisation – to the charter, please email The Department for International Development (DFID). Or you or your organisation can make a commitment towards ending FGM and CEFM; simply fill out the making a commitment form and email it to DFID. And to see how this all progresses, you can follow Girl Summit – on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. The DFID also has a monitoring framework which explains how the DFID is tracking and reporting on Girl Summit commitments, so you can keep an eye on that. And if you have any questions – on the post-Summit state of inertia, for example – raise them. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |