Thursday, June 30, 2016

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News


Sexual harassment in summer

Posted: 29 Jun 2016 02:01 PM PDT

sexual harassment, summertime, The summer months aren’t all fun and games for women.

Sexual harassment is a 24/7, 365 days-a-year problem – and as a 22 year-old woman, I know this well. It's the bane of my day-to-day life, and it makes me feel on edge every time I leave the house.

But, with summer officially upon us, I think it's important to discuss the effects that the change in season has on the frequency and nature of sexual harassment.

I don't think it can be denied that sexual harassment tends to get worse in the summer, when women are less 'covered up', so to speak, and it can be a really stressful and frustrating time. We have to keep our guard up even more than usual for fear of unwanted groping, comments and propositions, and live in an almost constant state of anticipation and fear.

As well as dealing with the heat like everyone else, women are made to feel self-conscious, ashamed and ridiculed for dressing according to the weather.

We are asked to wear something 'less revealing', accused of looking 'slutty', eyed up and down as we pass along the street.

We are told, 'what do you expect when you dress like that?'.

Even when we do wear something longer, something with a higher neckline, or cover our legs completely, despite the potential discomfort that comes with it in hot weather, we still question whether we've dressed inappropriately.

We walk with our eyes to the floor, avoiding people's gaze, hoping nobody notices us. Hoping we won't attract the wrong sort of attention, hoping that we'll be let off this time.

We’ll go out on a warm summer’s evening, wearing a dress and feeling good about ourselves, only to be degraded by strangers. We are leered at, we are interrupted, we are grabbed, and we are shouted at.

We are made to feel like those big hunks of meat hanging from the ceiling in the butchers, on display for everyone to ogle at.

You know that I am not exaggerating, but this is the reality for women today, a reality which becomes even more unpleasant during what should be one of the nicest times of the year.

Blogger Rachel Hosie raised this issue in a recent post after she was sexually assaulted outside Victoria Station in London on her way to work: 'It was the first day of the year I'd ditched the tights and gone out with bare legs.

'I don't want to make a link between that and what happened, but it's bloody ridiculous that simply showing a little more flesh means some men think it's ok to grope a woman.

'I wasn't wearing a tiny, tight skirt – I was going to work after all – but it shouldn't have mattered if I was anyway.

'No woman is ever asking for it or inviting unwanted attention by how she dresses, and men need to learn this.'

What makes this particularly hard to swallow is the fact that when the sun comes out, men frequently walk around in public bare-chested, and nobody really bats an eyelid.

Women on the other hand, as a result of being highly sexualised over decades, are often judged and subjected to unwanted attention and scrutiny simply because they are wearing a vest top and shorts.

Don’t even get me started on what it’s like to be on a beach wearing a bikini.

This, to put it mildly, is grossly wrong. These double standards are out-dated and tiring. Every woman has the right to dress how she likes, when she likes, and should be able to enjoy the nice weather without people commenting, touching or harassing her.

It is perfectly possible to admire someone and acknowledge that you find them attractive from a distance, without acting on it in any way. If you do wish to act on it, then there are plenty of ways of going about that without humiliating, frightening, offending, or outright assaulting the person in question.

It’s not rocket science and it’s high-time this issue stopped being downplayed, and started being given the attention it needs.

Going out with bare legs shouldn't be a big deal, nor should my hemline or neckline be such an issue for other people. What I wear or how I look isn’t offensive – people’s attitudes are.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News


Austerity policies breach our human rights

Posted: 28 Jun 2016 03:11 PM PDT

UN human rights UK's austerity policies breach human rightsThe UK government policy and ongoing failure of most of the media to attend to the impact of austerity 'shameful'

The United Nations (UN) has confirmed that the UK’s Austerity policies breach the UK's international human rights obligations.

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has expressed "serious concern" about the impact of regressive policies on the enjoyment of economic and social rights in a damning report on the UK.

Based on evidence it received from Just Fair and other civil society groups, the Committee concludes that austerity measures and social security reform breach the UK's international human rights obligations.

This was the Committee's first review of the UK since 2009 and thus its first verdict on the Austerity policies pursued by successive governments since the financial crash.

Over eight months the Committee conducted a dialogue with government officials, the UK human rights commissions and civil society groups.

In a wide ranging assessment, expressed in unusually strong terms, the Committee sets out the following findings:

Tax policies, including VAT increases and reductions in inheritance and corporation tax, have diminished the UK's ability "to address persistent social inequality and to collect sufficient resources to achieve the full realization of economic, social and cultural rights".

The Committee recommends the UK adopt a "socially equitable" tax policy and the adoption of strict measures to tackle tax abuse, in particular by corporations and high-net-worth individuals;

Austerity measures introduced since 2010 are having a disproportionate adverse impact on the most marginalised and disadvantaged citizens including women, children, persons with disabilities, low-income families and those with two or more children.

The Committee recommends that the UK reverse the cuts in social security benefits and reviews the use of sanctions;

The new 'National Living Wage' is not sufficient to ensure a decent standard of living and should be extended to under-25s.

The UK should also take steps to reduce use of "zero hour contracts", which disproportionately affect women;

Despite rising employment levels the Committee is concerned about the high number of low-paid jobs, especially in sectors such as cleaning and homecare;

The Committee urges the UK to take immediate measures to reduce the exceptionally high levels of homelessness, particularly in England and Northern Ireland, and highlights the high cost and poor quality of homes in the private rented sector and the lack of sufficient social housing; and

The UK is not doing enough to reduce reliance on food banks.

Jamie Burton, chair of Just Fair, said: "The UN's verdict is clear and indisputable.

"It considered extensive evidence and gave the Government every opportunity to show why its tax and policy reforms were necessary and fair.

"In many important respects the Government proved unable to do this.

"It is clear that since 2010, ministers were fully aware that their policies would hit lower income groups hardest and deepen the suffering of many already facing disadvantage without offering any long term gain for the pain they inflicted.

"We urge the Government to take heed of the Committee's recommendations and commit to ensuring that it does not diminish human rights further in the UK."

Simon Duffy, director of the Centre for Welfare Reform, a member of the Just Fair Consortium said: “The past six years of Austerity have seen the UK Government intentionally diminish the rights of its own citizens.

"The Centre for Welfare Reform welcomes the news that the United Nations has strongly criticised the UK Government for these policies – policies that have harmed immigrants, asylum seekers, disabled people and those living in poverty.

"There is no good reason for these ongoing attacks; instead it seems likely that these groups have been targeted simply because they are convenient scapegoats for problems they did not cause.

“The UK Government’s policy has been shameful, and so is the ongoing failure of most of the media to attend to the impact of Austerity.

"So, we are all the more grateful to Just Fair for coordinating the efforts of civil society organisations like ourselves, and for helping to draw attention to these injustices.

“The Government of the UK is now in chaos and its future leadership is uncertain.

"Sadly it is unlikely that any immediate change in leadership will lead to the recognition of the UK’s human rights obligations.

"Given recent events, it is even to be feared that the Government might try to blame international bodies for holding them to account for the obligations they freely entered into.

“The Centre adds its voice to all those who seek an end to Austerity and to the mounting injustice we’ve seen over the past six years.

"We will continue to work with groups or organisations who seek to advance justice, human rights and respect for all human beings – in all our diversity.”

A version of this article appeared on the Centre for Welfare Reform's website on 28 June 2016.

The Just Fair Consortium includes 76 national and local organisations and has published a series of reports that have highlighted the impact of austerity measures and social security reform on economic and social rights in the UK.

Auto-enrolment excludes millions of women

Posted: 28 Jun 2016 03:09 PM PDT

workplace pension, auto-enrolment, part-time women, Frances O'Grady, TUC reportSignificant numbers of people, particularly women, are not benefiting from the roll-out of auto-enrolment.

A TUC report published earlier this week has found that more than three million part-time women workers are excluded from workplace pensions.

The report, ‘Unfinished Business: Building a fresh consensus on workplace pensions’, finds from an analysis of official data that 4.6 million UK workers earn less than £10,000, which is the trigger amount for automatic enrolment into a pension, due either to their age or low earnings.

Of these, 3.4 million are women.

More than half (57 per cent) of part-time workers earn less than £10,000 and by being excluded from automatic enrolment miss out on the employer contributions received by their colleagues.

And even workers whose earnings from multiple jobs total more than £10,000 also miss out on automatic enrolment.

Until auto-enrolment began to be rolled out in 2012, pensions saving in the UK was inadequate and getting worse. In 2012, membership of workplace pension schemes dropped to 46 per cent. This meant nearly nine million workers were not saving for their old age, against 10.5 million who were. Millions more were saving inadequate sums.

Compared to 2013, the highest growth in the proportion of employees with work place pensions was for full-time female employees in the private sector at 17 percentage points.

However, as the report shows, show significant numbers of people, particularly women, are not benefiting from the roll-out of auto-enrolment.

The TUC is calling for the government to use a planned review of automatic enrolment, which is due to report in 2017, to set out a roadmap for long-term development of workplace pensions.

The TUC says the roadmap should determine how more low-paid workers are to be brought into workplace pensions and contributions raised to a level that gives workers a good chance of a decent income in retirement.

The main findings are:

Automatic enrolment has brought members of many key groups into the workplace pensions system;

However, as it is currently constituted, many low-paid and part-time workers are missing out on workplace pensions. Women and those from certain ethnic minorities are most likely to fall into this category; and

Contribution levels remain inadequate for a decent standard of living in retirement.

The TUC's key policy recommendations are:

The 2017 review of automatic enrolment should be as wide-ranging as possible and used as the opportunity for the government to engage with trade unions and the government to develop a long-term plan for the development of auto-enrolment;

Abolish the earnings threshold for employer contributions;

Simplify radically the system of band earnings; and

There should be a pathway to increase contribution rates with serious consideration given to an additional flat-rate contribution and auto-escalation.

The TUC’s General Secretary, Frances O'Grady, said: "Automatic enrolment has been a great success, giving six million more people access to a workplace pension.

"But millions of women workers are still missing out.

"We need to remove the barrier of the earnings trigger so that the millions of workers in part-time work, including those holding down multiple jobs, are automatically enrolled onto workplace pensions too.

"Too many people are only receiving the legal minimum pension contributions.

"We need a clear plan to increase the money going into pensions to give workers a good chance of a decent retirement."

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News


Mass lobby to defend women’s pension rights

Posted: 27 Jun 2016 09:31 AM PDT

WASPI, lobby, national demo, women's pension rights, Even if you can't get to the London demo you have a role to play: be part of the Home Team!

Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) is a campaign group for women born in the 1950s who will not be getting their state pension at 60 and who are angry because the government did not inform them in time of the two changes to their pension age – and who face poverty despite having paid their national insurance as required.

For because of the timescale when the changes were introduced, hundreds of thousands of women born in the 1950s had no opportunity to make any contingency plans for retirement.

And many women born in the 1950s were not allowed to join private pension schemes or had to retire early to care for relatives or because of personal illness, so the state pension will be their only source of income.

WASPI is campaigning to put this right.

WASPI is campaigning for fair transitional arrangements such as a bridging pension to provide an income from age 60 to the new State Pension Age (SPA), and that this is not means-tested, given that WASPI members who have paid in and have also managed to save should not be punished again.

A national demo and mass lobby of MPs has been set up to take place at the Houses of Parliament on 29 June.

But even if you can't get there you too have a role to play.

On Demo Day, you can be part of the Home Team!

WASPI suggests that you write to your own MP – whether or not supportive – a very short email on the lines of: Today I would be in London demonstrating with WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality), but I cannot be there because 'I am forced to work' 'carrying out caring duties' 'looking after the grandkids' 'unable to walk/too unwell' 'cannot afford to travel' (whatever your personal circumstances).

If you can, include a photo of yourself with something saying WASPI – be that a piece of paper or your WASPI sash.

If s/he is on Facebook, put a similar message on their facebook page.

If you are on Twitter and your MP is also, send him/her a similar tweet.

Send your email also to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Stephen Crabb at Stephen.crabb.mp@parliament.uk

Put a similar message on his facebook page – and Tweet him on @scrabbmp

Do not send long messages (short and sharp is best!) and do not expect any response.

Make your voice heard – they will get to see or be told about whatever you do.

You may also wish to send emails and tweets to your local media: newspapers, regional/local radio and TV.

To have maximum impact, please do all or any of the above on the demo day itself – not before or after – and be part of the WASPI women swarm!

Create a step change – demand 50:50

Posted: 27 Jun 2016 09:29 AM PDT

what if powerful institutions demanded 50:50, UCL, What if powerful institutions started to demand 50:50?

For decades the numbers of women in science and engineering professions have remained depressingly stagnant, with percentages hovering limply in the single figures.

Despite significant investment in media campaigns, outreach activities, and educational programmes aimed at women – many are still scratching their head as to why nothing is changing.

Although the reasons for under-representation are complex, the solution might be incredibly simple. What if powerful institutions started to demand 50:50?

The Engineering department at UCL (University College London) identified in 2014 that they had the power to dictate the gender representation of the students that attended their education programmes.

They saw that they could set the rules by demanding teachers to bring girls and boys in equal numbers. In a matter of months something unprecedented happened: the number of female applicants to their engineering courses started to outstrip the male.

By demanding 50:50, UCL were able to create a step change in the representation of female students on their courses- and it happened almost overnight. This shift has been extraordinarily effective but change is never easy. Demand 50:50 has required a resilience and dedication from the team delivering the new policy.

Here is a guest post from Dr Elpida Makrygianni, head of pre-19 Engineering Education and Engagement, which explains more about UCL's story:

In 1878 UCL became the first university in England to admit women on equal terms with men. Today, UCL is the only UK University to hold both a Silver Athena SWAN Award and a Race Equality Charter Bronze Award. So, I guess it is in our DNA, in our values and our founding ethos to take issues around diversity and equality very seriously and propose quite radical ideas and strategies to tackle them. Widening diversity in every sense and increasing gender equality has been a key priority for me since first joining UCL Faculty of Engineering more than two years ago.

Pre 19 engineering programmes

Engineering is about being passionate in changing the world for the better. It is and always had been about people. As engineers, this is what excites us about engineering, improving, protecting and even saving lives of others. So we created outreach activities based on cutting edge research occurring in our labs with a strong social context or environmental mission. We designed programmes that provided a real experience with memories of making things for the first time, failing and trying again and then succeeding, feeling pride or feeling part of a team, making friends while working on authentic projects to solve real-world challenge.

We wanted to take young people on a learning journey that would show them what engineers actually do while developing their problem-solving skills, knowledge and self-confidence. We wanted to ensure that girls and boys from a very early age received an equal opportunity to experience engineering so we also developed programmes for children as young as 5 years old.

Within a few days of advertising the pre-19 courses hundreds of applications reached us. We received numerous calls and emails everyday about our activities, but there was one problem, the request on the other side of the phone… "I have some lovely boys that would really enjoy your activities"… "my boys would love this"… "my son is going to study engineering and it would be a great opportunity for him"…and so on, for months, again and again.

My heart sank. It became clear that girls were not being told about the choices that are out there for them; they were not been given real choice and so they are not in the position to make informed subject and career choices. Their extraordinary potential was being limited by unconscious bias, stereotype threat and what society sees fit for them at a personal and professional level.

The 50:50 strategy

This is when the 50:50 strategy came to life. Our faculty would be insisting and ensuring 50 per cent of girls participating across all our pre-19 engagement programmes.

50:50 is our commitment to sending a clear message to break down the stereotypical messages that have created invisible barriers and are holding back young girls, affecting their confidence, lowering their expectations of themselves and their career choices.

We advertised as widely as possible through school networks, organisations, institutions, industry partners and anyone who would care to listen. The first six months were challenging. Some people could not understand why we put in place such a strategy, they thought we were discriminating, favouring girls. "If the girls were not interested, why did we care?" "Just let the boys do engineering, they are better at it." That is what they said. But how can you know you are good at something if you haven't been given the opportunity to try it first?

Fairness, not discrimination

Let's make something absolutely clear; 50:50 is about fairness. From start to finish it has been about including groups who would otherwise be excluded from engineering due to invisible social structures. We considered the diversity of young people and catered for a broad range of abilities and levels of understanding to ensure inclusiveness, equality and accessibility. We ensured good gender and racial representation of staff and students in our engagement programmes with young people. We actively encourage our students to become mentors, tutors and volunteer their time to engage with children and young people.

Getting the best young people through our programmes irrespective of gender, race or social backgrounds was never negotiable. Spaces would always go to the most deserving person, the best applicants according to knowledge, ability and selection criteria.

We never lowered our standards to meet our strategic requirements. We wouldn't do it and we didn't have to. Funnily enough, practically every single application we received from girls over the past couple of years ranged from very good to excellent.

Soon after adopting 50:50 something awesome happened. Schools partnering with us on programmes would email me saying that they had a record of applications or interest for our activities. The examples are endless! From a London school where more than 200 girls from that school applied for our programme, a network of schools that saw an increase in applications from 14 per cent to 42 per cent from girls, to partner programmes where girls' applications were 3 times as many as boys. And I could just go on.

Requiring 50 per cent participation of girls across all our programmes, activities and events was never just about getting a 50:50 gender balanced ratio. It was and still is about sending a clear, strong, consistent message in the classroom, at home and to society. Show all your children real choice. Show young girls and boys real choice not just in engineering, for all subjects, do not unconsciously sabotage their fascinating potential. 50:50 was and is about what type of society we want. This was not just about getting more women in engineering or STEM, it is about the female voice and female perspective being heard across all areas and fields as is the male perspective.

This is just the start

We are not under any illusion here. We have a long way to go before we meet any of the gender equality or diversity challenges in science and engineering. Recognising systemic gender bias is important, language and imagery is also crucial but sustained meaningful action and commitment to a strong consistent message in our everyday actions is what will bring change.

UCL cannot do it on our own If we keep on working in silos, even our best efforts will be piecemeal, abstract and short-lived. If we allow some of our brightest minds to be left behind because of unconscious biases that society has put in place for them it is our collective failure. We take this message very seriously and want to work in partnership across the sector to maximize our impact.

This is an open call to join us in our mission! Demand 50:50!

A version of this post first appeared on the Science Grrl site in May 2016.

How to achieve gender equality

Posted: 27 Jun 2016 09:27 AM PDT

EDD2016, European Development Days 2016, One key solution to ensuring we understand what girls and women face and need is to let them have a say.

Win-win partnerships are key to achieving women's and girls' economic empowerment and will lead the way towards sustainable development, according to Plan International, UNIDO, UN Women and the World Bank.

Women's and girls' economic empowerment sets a direct path towards achieving gender equality and is a critical element of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Achieving this will require all actors, whether governments, international institutions, civil society organisations or the private sector, to move beyond 'business as usual' and employ new ways of thinking and acting.

That was the message delivered at this year's European Development Days, Europe’s leading forum on development and international cooperation, during the high-level panel on "Building win-win partnerships for women's and girls' economic empowerment" on 16 June.

"Women's and girls' empowerment is probably the most important part of sustainability as they are half the world's population," Arup Banerji, Regional Director for EU Countries, Europe and Central Asia at The World Bank Group, said.

Girls and women remain disproportionately affected by poverty, discrimination and exploitation.

Gender discrimination often means that girls and women end up in insecure, unprotected and low-wage jobs; it curtails their access to financial resources and control and ownership of property; it limits their participation in shaping economic and social policies.

And because girls and women perform the bulk of household work, they often have little time left to pursue economic or educational opportunities.

"We have been addressing symptoms for years but not root causes," Anne-Birgitte Albrectsen, CEO of child rights and humanitarian organization Plan International said.

"We must tackle basic discriminatory social norms that create barriers to girls' and women's economic empowerment."

Drawing on approaches captured by the UN High-Level Panel on Women's Economic Empowerment, strategies from the World Bank, UNIDO, UN Women, and Plan International and the EU Action Plan on Gender Equality in External Relations, participants on the panel explored how to create such win-win partnerships and realise targets pertaining to girls and women's economic empowerment in the 2030 Agenda.

"Gender inequality has many facets and the causes are historically embedded within laws and cultures, so we need a variety of different actors and partnerships from across the board to get involved in challenging the multiple discriminations faced by women and girls around the world," UN Women's executive director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka explained.

The private sector, accounting for 90 per cent of jobs in developing countries, will have a particularly important role to play in achieving economic empowerment for women and girls.

In this context, it is crucial for non-profit organisations to understand the criteria needed for an effective and mutually beneficial partnership.

Under the title "Sustainable Development Goals in Action," this year's European Development Days were all about implementation, and as was highlighted by the participants during the panel, women's and girls' economic empowerment is a prerequisite for achieving sustainable development.

"When we talk about leaving no one behind, the one group that is easy to identify in every country is women and girls," Mlambo-Ngcuka pointed out.

"In order to fully achieve the goals set out in the 2030 Agenda, we must start by addressing gender inequality and the challenges faced by women and girls."

But how can we ensure that all the actors keep their promises to the world's women and girls?

Panellists agreed that collecting more and better data on issues affecting women and girls around the world would play a crucial role in ensuring that the 2030 Agenda delivers for them.

"What we don't know, we can't solve," Banerji pointed out.

One key solution to ensuring we understand what girls and women face and need is to let them have a say.

Ayesha Durrani, a young leader and business owner from Pakistan, said: "If women and girls don't have a say, progress won't happen."

"We need to give girls themselves a voice to challenge basic social norms and we need to stand by them," Albrectsen added.

To listen to the talks and pane discussions, click here.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News


Message from Feminism in London

Posted: 23 Jun 2016 02:09 PM PDT

Feminism in London, FiLiaOur intention: to continue the work of our foremothers to create a better world for our daughters.

For a number of years Feminism in London (FiL) has held a conference bringing together many women from all over the world to share their work; growing the movement and creating a space for us to gather, celebrate, raise our collective consciousness and plan for effective action.

With no previous experience of doing so, a dedicated team of women pulled together to develop what became a two-day international event, and based on our hard work and success we gained charitable status at the end of 2015.

We have made the decision to take a break from conference organising just for this year, allowing us to rest and recharge and to do the groundwork necessary to build our new organisation.

The success of FiL has given us the opportunity to move beyond simply hosting the conference and enables us to participate in further reaching work.

Our new organisation will be called FiLia, a word meaning 'daughter' and which is evocative of our intention to steadfastly continue the work of our foremothers to create a better world for our daughters.

Thanks go to Alisa Lockwood for our new name which she used for the 2013 FiL art exhibition.

Over the coming months we will be building the organisation, deciding what our strategy looks like and which projects we want to pursue as well as thinking about how we can be as effective as possible.

And as part of this process, we are delighted to announce that Resist Porn Culture will become a part of FiLia.

FiLia will:

stand in sisterhood and solidarity with women and girls throughout the world in our collective struggle for economic, political and social liberation;

contribute to growing and strengthening the Women's Liberation Movement; and

work tirelessly and effectively to analyse, understand and dismantle patriarchy in all its forms everywhere.

'Failure is impossible' – the last words spoken in public by Susan B Anthony.

Votes for all women

Posted: 23 Jun 2016 01:02 PM PDT

Votes For Women everywhere, safe houses, petition, electoral commissionPetitioning the Electoral Commission to give everyone in safe houses the right to vote.

Ensure all survivors of domestic abuse who live in refuges and other safe houses can register to vote and use their Human Right to “vote in elections and have a say in the choice of government” (European Convention of Human Rights, Protocol 1, Article 3).

Why is this important?

I have found it impossible to register to vote as I live in a Safe House in Bristol.

I’m left without a vote, without a voice, without a say on local Councillor appointment, City Mayor, the Police Crime Commissioner position or whether we stay in or out of the EU.

My struggle to register made me realise this is a huge issue that no one even realises.

As I live in a safe house it is vital for my safety that my name and address do not appear on the electoral register.

The current system does provide an ‘anonymous registration’ process designed to protect vulnerable or at risk people who can’t disclose their residential address.

However this form requires evidenced approval through proven Court Injunction, written signature from a Police Superintendent or Adult Social Services management.

For many in my situation, (estimated at 70 per cent of all residents in Bristol safe houses by support staff here) their registration would not be eligible for sign off.

Taking away the civil right, human right that was fought so hard for back in 1918 that introduced the ‘Representation of the People Act’ allowing women the right to vote.

Across England there are over 250 independent refuges providing safe emergency accommodation for people fleeing domestic abuse. Thousands of people living in secure residential accommodation where location secrecy is of utmost importance.

Thousands of people who will not be able to register to vote.

That is a huge number of women being denied basic Human Rights.

The Human Rights Act (1998) states “it is unlawful for public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with European Convention right”.

Safe houses and refuges by their very nature ensure all residents staying with them are in need of safety and security after leaving abuse.

Therefore having management level able to sign the anonymous registration form is more than enough evidence for each residents need for anonymity.

Such a simple solution for such an important change that needs to be made.

Please sign and share this petition so we can no longer be kept in silence.

Thank you.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News


Call for Deepcut public inquiry

Posted: 21 Jun 2016 12:04 PM PDT

Deepcut, inquest results, public inquiryBereaved families, victims and Liberty call for Deepcut public inquiry.

The human rights organisation Liberty has written to Defence Secretary Michael Fallon to request a public inquiry into physical and sexual abuse at the Deepcut barracks in Surrey.

The call comes in the wake of the inquest into the death of Private Cheryl James, who died at Deepcut in 1995, which exposed to public scrutiny the toxic, violent and sexualised environment in which Cheryl and other young soldiers lived.

The inquest and two BBC documentaries that followed the verdict have brought to light the accounts of many current and former soldiers who claim to have suffered physical violence and/or sexual abuse at the camp.

Liberty has written to Fallon on behalf of the families of Privates Cheryl James, Sean Benton and James Collinson – three of the four young soldiers who died at Deepcut between 1995 and 2002 – who all support a public inquiry into the experiences of those who suffered and survived their time there.

The Benton and Collinson families continue to press for thorough, independent inquests into the deaths of Sean and James.

On 14 June it was announced that the Attorney General had sent the case of Sean Benton back to the High Court following an application by Liberty acting for the family that the original inquest be quashed and a fresh inquest ordered.

The request is also made on behalf of former Deepcut recruits Mark Harrison, who was the victim of sexual assault and rape while serving at the barracks, and Daniel Griffiths, who alleges that he suffered a serious physical assault at the hands of a superior.

The families and victims wish to see a thorough and independent investigation into:

The large number of allegations made by servicemen and women about their treatment at Deepcut between 1993 and 2002;

The sexualised culture at the barracks:

Serious deficiencies in current legislation covering the Armed Forces, which mean members of the military are still not guaranteed a fair and independent investigation, should they report being the victim of crime;

The toxic environment at Deepcut:

Following its 2002-2003 investigation into the four deaths at Deepcut, Surrey Police presented the Army with a dossier of 118 separate "duty of care and bullying issues".

The vast majority were alleged to have taken place at Deepcut, and many consisted of multiple incidents of abuse or witnessed abuse. Very few appear to have been tested or investigated.

Delivering his verdict in the inquest into the death of Cheryl James on 3 June 2016, His Honour Judge Brian Barker CBE QC severely criticised many aspects of life at Deepcut in the mid-1990s.

The inquest exposed that:

There was little or no welfare provision;

There were far too few staff to deliver training and meet their duty of care obligations towards young trainees, many of whom were vulnerable and living away from home for the first time;

Many trainees had little to occupy them, and there was excessive, unsupervised access to alcohol even when underage;

The chain of command appeared to have no training in dealing with issues affecting teenagers and young adults; and

The environment was sexualised and language and attitudes were misogynistic.

The Coroner emphasised that his inquest was not a public inquiry and that he could not investigate the physical and sexual violence individual recruits claimed to have experienced.

Lessons are still to be learnt, as recent evidence revealed an ongoing, pervasive and deeply damaging culture of sexualised behaviour and harassment in the Armed Forces.

Emma Norton, lawyer for Liberty and solicitor for the families of Cheryl James, Sean Benton and James Collinson, said: "The fact that these allegations were never properly investigated continues to cast a long and shameful shadow over the British Army and undermines genuine attempts at reform.

"Without a public inquiry, those who describe serious assaults and other abuse at Deepcut will not have any chance to speak out about those experiences.

"They deserve to have them acknowledged, see those responsible held to account and know that lessons really are being learnt so other young recruits do not suffer in this way again."

And Mark Harrison, a victim of rape at Deepcut, said: "I was the victim of sexual assault and rape at Deepcut.

"The man who did this to me was known by the Army to be a risk to young people because he had committed sexual offences before he came to Deepcut. Yet, even knowing this, the Army placed him in a position of trust where he was able to abuse me and others.

"His actions changed my life forever and I still struggle deeply today as a consequence. As a soldier, when something like this happens to you, it is not just the terrible assault itself that you have to try and recover from – it is the knowledge that the Army, which you were prepared to devote your life to if necessary, put you in that position and abandoned you.

"I want to be heard and I want to be assured that this could never happen again. A public inquiry is the only way this can happen."

And Des James, Cheryl James's father, pointed out that the MoD had wasted many years avoiding a public inquiry into Deepcut and even denying that an abusive culture existed until very recently.

"These are years that could have been used to reassure parents of future recruits, and years that could have been used compassionately to listen to and offer comfort to those recruits whose young lives have been so dreadfully affected," he said.

"A public inquiry may finally draw a line under this dark stain on the reputation of the British Army."

Ministry of Justice survey for legal aid

Posted: 21 Jun 2016 11:52 AM PDT

Ministry of Justice, survey, domestic abuse, legal aid, evidenceReview of domestic abuse evidence required for access to legal aid in private family cases.

The Ministry of Justice is currently reviewing the domestic abuse evidence requirements for accessing legal aid in private family cases.

The Ministry has issued a survey aiming ‘to capture the views of key stakeholders who come into contact with survivors of domestic abuse, and particularly those with experience of the process by which survivors can access legal aid in private family cases.’

The survey closes on 1 July and can be completed here.

The Ministry wants to be confident that victims, or those at risk of domestic violence, are able to access legal aid and that the process for doing so is as straightforward as possible.

Legal aid is available for victims, or potential victims, of domestic violence in private family cases, such as those concerning child or financial arrangements following a relationship breakdown.

To qualify for legal aid, applicants must prove they have been, or are at risk of being, a victim of domestic violence by submitting at least one form of evidence from a prescribed list set out in legislation.

The evidence must come from some point during the period five years before the application for legal aid (increased from two years in April 2016).

A few examples of the types of evidence accepted are as follows: a relevant unspent conviction for a domestic violence offence; a letter from a health professional who has examined the person and is satisfied that they had injuries or a condition consistent with being a victim of domestic violence; a Domestic Violence Protection Order.

Please note that, for the purpose of this survey, "domestic violence" means any incident, or pattern of incidents, of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (whether psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between individuals who are associated with each other.

A victim of domestic violence is someone who is currently being abused, or someone who has been abused in the past, whether or not they are currently being abused.

A person at risk of experiencing domestic violence is someone who has never experienced domestic violence but is at risk of being abused at some point in the future.

This survey intends to capture the views of key stakeholders who come into contact with victims of domestic violence, and particularly those with experience of the process by which victims can access legal aid in private family cases.

This survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete and covers the following:

Your organisation's experience of working with victims of domestic violence and any experience you have of the legal aid evidence requirements;

Your sense of the potential number of victims of domestic violence requiring legal representation to resolve private family matters;

Your view on the most straightforward way for victims to evidence their violence; and/or

Your thoughts on the current arrangements for obtaining legal aid in cases of domestic violence and whether there are obstacles that prevent individuals from fulfilling the evidence requirements.

Participation in this survey is voluntary and all responses will be anonymised. Your responses will also be treated as confidential, and no organisation will be identifiable from the results.

The Ministry would greatly appreciate receiving responses to this survey by 1 July 2016.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News


Stand with refugees

Posted: 20 Jun 2016 08:36 AM PDT

#withrefugees, world refugee day, UNHCR, Liberty, PetitionWe can, we must and we are fighting back against the tide of division.

By Rachel Robinson.

Today, 20 June 2016, is World Refugee Day.

To mark it, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) launched a petition. It demands that national governments ensure every refugee child gets an education, every refugee family has somewhere safe to live and every refugee can work or learn new skills to make a positive contribution to their community.

Amid a collective failure of compassion that has seen barriers – both physical and legal – erected across Europe, and a wave of xenophobia sweeping the continent, the call couldn't be more urgent.

And its message will ring true for many of us in Britain.

The nasty and divisive rhetoric surrounding the EU referendum campaign plumbed new depths last week as UKIP released a poster channelling the dehumanising hatred of Enoch Powell and his rivers of blood.

But we can, we must and we are fighting back against this tide of division.

At Liberty's AGM on Saturday, a motion was passed recalling the UK's proud history of offering sanctuary to refugees – a legacy which we must now urgently reclaim. Liberty members helped to bring this issue home by sharing the experiences of their own families, who – fleeing war and persecution – had been offered a home in the UK.

Whilst no country can solve this human tragedy alone, there is so much more that the UK can do.

Just last week, a UNICEF report revealed the sexual violence, abuse and exploitation facing children stranded in the refugee camps of northern France, just 20 miles from Dover.

Many of these children have family members in the UK ready to care for them.

Our government can and must work to ensure that their claims to join loved ones are processed as quickly as possible.

In May, thanks to the tireless efforts of Lord Alf Dubs – himself a child of the Kindertransport – the government further committed to put in place a scheme to resettle lone children across Europe in the UK.

Consultation is now underway with local authorities and service providers.

The Dubs scheme is just the beginning of a more humane and responsible approach by our Government – but it offers an opportunity for the UK to show leadership in a world where borders are closing and hatred is building.

The government has the chance to offer safety and a future to thousands of children in grave danger. It must act quickly to implement the most meaningful scheme possible.

It must also work to ensure that local authorities have the resources they need to promote the welfare of each child placed in their care.

The regional infrastructure must be built to make sure that children – wherever in the country they are placed – are able to access urgently needed support and services.

As the UNHCR reminded us today, these children need not just a safe place to live, but an education and the chance of a brighter future.

Liberty is standing together #WithRefugees today as a proud signatory of UNHCR's petition, which is set to be presented to the UN's headquarters in New York this September.

Closer to home, Liberty will continue to push the UK government to step up to the mark and show the generosity of spirit and the commitment to basic rights and freedoms which is so desperately missing in the international response to the refugee crisis.

A version of this article appeared on Liberty’s website on 20 June 2016.

Take a look at the ‘blame game’

Posted: 20 Jun 2016 12:50 AM PDT

Jeremy Corbyn, Remain speech, South Yorkshire, 16 June 2016If you're blaming a scapegoat you're not blaming the people with the real power…

On the morning of 16 June 2016, just a few hours before Labour MP Jo Cox was brutally murdered, Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn gave a speech at the University of Sheffield Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC) in South Yorkshire where he attacked the “blame game” being played by the Right in the referendum campaign.

This is what he said:

Thank you for inviting me here to South Yorkshire. I appreciate the time of the workforce and the support from the management to enable this to go ahead.

Talking of the workers here, I'm guessing you were delighted when you heard you were going to get an extra hour's break from work. And so I can only imagine the disappointment when you then learned that hour was for listening to a politician talking about Europe.

But there is no doubt we all face a vital vote just a week away and I want to have a serious conversation about it and set out some of Labour's ideas about Europe, and how to reform it.

Not many people are grateful for the work politicians do. I don't have any difficulty understanding why, the political class has let our country down in so many ways, but today I want to try and restore a bit of faith in politics, and set out how politics done in a different way, can improve our lives and our communities.

The work you do here in developing the manufacturing base of the future is crucial to our economy. We need many more sites like this, backed up with a proper industrial strategy to use their innovations to build an economy of the future that can deliver for all.

The Chancellor George Osborne promised "a march of the makers" five years ago, but that has signally failed to materialise. Once again we've been given a soundbite, but very little action on the ground.

What this referendum campaign has shown, more than anything, is that politicians have failed, and are failing, to come up with solutions to the problems that people face across Britain.

The insecurity of work the lack of good well-paid jobs, the high cost of housing, whether to rent or to buy, how we adjust to, and pay for, an ageing society, the failure to ensure decent economic growth in all parts of the country and in which we all share.

That is the failure of politicians, not of the EU or of EU migrants for that matter.

Too many voices in this debate are only playing that old trick the blame game. And when politicians play the blame game, it's usually because they have nothing serious to offer themselves.

Those pushing us to leave the EU, Conservative MPs like Iain Duncan Smith, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, say that more money could be spent on the NHS if we left, they've also promised more money for farming, for fishing, for university research, for tax cuts. They've promised our EU contribution over and over again.

But does anyone really believe they're the saviours of our NHS? Hardly. They really are wolves in sheep's clothing:

These are the same Tory Ministers and MPs who voted to cut mental health budgets, scrap nurses' and midwives' bursaries, slash social care for the elderly and disabled, open up ever more of the NHS to private companies and private patients [and] pick damaging and unnecessary fights with junior doctors.

Now they want to use people's real concerns about the impact of EU migration to turn the campaign into a referendum on immigration.

It's easy to blame people who come to this country, to blame the outsider, to blame bureaucrats in Brussels.

It's also very convenient for politicians too.

If you're blaming a scapegoat you're not blaming the people with the real power, the corporate elite and the politicians in government who do its bidding.

Politicians certainly need to take responsibility, so let me make a start.

I mentioned the banking crash yes, that was the fault of bankers but the Conservative governments of Thatcher and Major scrapped financial regulations that would have prevented that crash and Labour failed to re-regulate. So blame our own governments, don't blame the EU or immigrants.

It was those same governments of the 1980s and early 90s that deregulated the labour market so that zero hours contracts could flourish and the share of wealth going to workers fell off a cliff.

It is unscrupulous employers and politicians who have allowed temporary contracts, agency and enforced part-time working, and bogus self-employment to mushroom.

So blame the politicians who opened the door to rampant job insecurity.

When people migrated here from the Caribbean in the 1950s and 1960s there was very little debate about migrants driving down wages and undercutting because then we had powerful employment protection and strong trade union rights.

The veteran Labour MP Dennis Skinner talked yesterday in Parliament about Shirebrook. For many years that site was a coal mine where Eastern European miners working alongside English colleagues doing the same job, earning the same pay and in the same union.

Today that same site is owned by Mike Ashley's Sports Direct, where he employs 200 full-time employees and 3,000 people, mainly East Europeans, on zero-hours contracts.

Today we have a deregulated labour market that allows unscrupulous employers to undercut local pay by exploiting migrant workers and undercut good businesses by forcing a race to the bottom.

So migrants aren't driving down wages.

Unscrupulous employers are because the government allows them.

Actually by working with the European Union, Labour governments brought in the agency workers' directive the working time directive and a whole package of legislation that helped to protect workers across Europe.

Migrants that come here, work here, earn here and pay their taxes here.

But, do you know what? There are other forms of free movement that really anger me.

The free movement of money abroad to dodge the taxes that fund our public services, the free movement of our country's wealth and corporate profits into tax havens.

Does anyone here own an offshore trust? Do any of your family or friends own an offshore trust? So who was David Cameron standing up for when he wrote to the EU in November 2013 opposing proposals transparency into who owns these shady offshore trusts?

From cuts to disability benefits and cuts tax credits, to tax breaks for the super-rich and corporations. We have a Government making the wrong choices and sticking up for the wrong people.

Or take another example, a couple of years ago, the EU also came forward with a proposal to restrict bankers' bonuses and what did George Osborne do? Again he rushed to Brussels within an army of taxpayer-funded lawyers to oppose it and he lost.

But what about the positive solutions? I won the leadership of the Labour Party by a landslide because our campaign stood for something different, straight-talking, honest politics.

If there's a problem we will work to find a solution – not someone to blame.

Start with immigration the biggest issue for many people in this referendum campaign.

EU migrants pay in more in taxes than they take out in benefits. They contribute to our society and 52,000 of them work in our NHS saving our lives, caring for our loved ones.

But large increases in migration in particular areas can put a strain on our stretched public services, already hammered by government spending cuts – local schools, GPs surgeries and housing.

So we are calling for a Migrant Impact Fund to pump extra cash into local areas where large scale migration puts a strain on public services – on schools, GPs surgeries and housing.

Such a fund used to exist, Gordon Brown established it in 2008 but David Cameron abolished it two years later.

He was also the guy who pledged he would cut net migration below 100,000, if you remember. But today it's well over 300,000 far higher than at any point under Labour governments and local authorities and public services have had their budgets slashed at the same time.

And, as I raised with David Cameron yesterday in parliament, we can and we must act now to end the scandal of jobs here in Britain that are only advertised abroad.

As I said before, if you want someone to blame, blame politicians and some of the appalling employers they protect.

And if we want to stop insecurity at work and the exploitation of zero hours contracts that are being used to drive down pay and conditions, why don't we do what other European countries have done and simply ban them?

Zero hours contracts are not allowed in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. It seems we're the odd one out.

Our politicians now in power are choosing not to tackle exploitation, but we will.

We have to clamp down on exploitation as we've seen at Sports Direct in Shirebrook and hire many more workplace inspectors to enforce the minimum wage. I don't want to see workers here being exploited and driving down wages and conditions. We can stop this, and we must.

Many of you from this part of South Yorkshire will remember that miners used to get free coal. In Denmark, Portugal and Germany today communities are setting up energy companies which sell electricity back to them at discounted rates. But ridiculously, it's illegal to do that here.

We need to learn from the best in Europe.

Just down the road in Nottingham, Robin Hood Energy – a community energy scheme – has been established by the Labour council, no private shareholders, no director bonuses. Just low and competitive energy tariffs, but they could be lower still, and more councils would be doing the same if we had the same rules as elsewhere in Europe.

Labour is calling for a vote to remain in Europe at next week's referendum because we believe staying in the European Union offers our people a better future in terms of jobs, investment, rights at work and environmental protection.

But we are also campaigning for reform of the European Union because we are convinced Europe needs to change to work for all, to become more democratic, strengthen workers' rights, ditch austerity and end the pressure to privatise.

So we have a vision for Europe, and an agenda for change, I have been discussing with leaders and governments across Europe.

Because in our globalised world we cannot live in isolation, we achieve far more by cooperating and working together with other countries.

Think about pollution, we could have the best environmental protection in the world, but if our neighbours are pumping poisonous chemicals into the air, or dumping waste into the sea, that will damage us regardless. Pollution doesn't respect national borders.

Next year the UK will have the presidency of the European Union, if we vote to remain. That means Britain can lead, can push our agenda for change, our vision for Europe.

On tax avoidance, our Revenue and Customs estimates that there is a £34 billion tax gap. Little infuriates people more than the super-rich class and big business acting as if paying taxes is optional only for the little people.

There are proposals now in Europe for country-by-country tax reporting, which means that companies pay their taxes in the countries where they make their profits.

Labour members of the European parliament have backed this plan every time, while Conservatives ones oppose it, time and time again.

We also have a special obligation to tackle tax havens, since so many of Britain's overseas territories and crown dependencies are tax havens. So we must support an EU-wide blacklist of tax havens, to sanction them and back measures to eradicate them.

On workers' rights, we need far stronger action across Europe.

There is a little known EU directive, for example, called the Posting of Workers Directive. It allows companies that win contracts in another part of Europe to take workers to other countries. They can post their workers abroad temporarily, rather than go through new recruitment processes.

But legal judgements have opened up loopholes meaning that these companies are able to undercut the going rate in one country by paying the going rate in another.

In extreme cases it has meant workers not being paid the minimum wage of the country they're working in because it is above the rate of their home nation.

This loophole can and must be closed and there is a proposal on the table to do so. Labour would work to secure agreement from other countries to back it.

I mentioned the scandal of zero hours contracts earlier too. As well as outlawing these exploitative contracts in Britain, we should go further and work with our allies to establish a European minimum standard of rights at work to stop undercutting and give people the job security they need.

And now that Germany has introduced a minimum wage there is an opportunity to move towards a European-wide minimum wage – linked to average pay and the cost of living in each country to halt the race to the bottom in pay and conditions, and increase wages across Europe.

On the refugee crisis, Europe has had to respond to a crisis on our borders on an unprecedented scale. It is the biggest refugee crisis in global history.  We – as a continent, all of us – have made mistakes but now we have to learn the lessons.

If our union means anything, it means coming up with an agreed and united response that shares the responsibility.

On energy and the environment, under the Tories, the UK has slipped from 3rd to 13th in the world as the best place to invest in renewables.

Subsidies for renewables have been cut by this government, yet the European Investment Bank has invested nearly £1.5 billion since 2007 – a quarter of all its renewable funding. The European Investment Bank has been bailing out this government's failure to invest.

Across Europe, investment in renewable energy is coming from government and being supported properly, renewable energy is increasingly being owned by local communities, schools or workplaces. These decentralised energy grids are more efficient, less polluting and give us all more control.

So we need to learn from the best practice across Europe, and find a mechanism to promote and encourage socially-owned clean energy across our continent.

Our government has watered down our commitments under the EU energy efficiency directive, we would recommit to that because the technology is there to make every new building a near-zero energy building.

We must have the vision and the strategy to create a sustainable economy, both in Britain and across our continent.

On banking regulation, we need to throw our weight behind a Financial Transaction Tax, sometimes known as the Robin Hood Tax.

There are currently 10 countries in Europe working together to secure a financial transactions tax across the European Union. This is a small tax on specific financial transactions to help prevent the sort of banking crash we saw a few years back, that led to the deepest economic crisis since the 1930s.

What was the British Government's response to this proposal? To rush to Europe to oppose it, threatening legal action.

Labour wants to help drive this reform, to build support for an EU-wide tax as a step towards a global tax. We must reform our banking sector and discourage the dangerous practices that undermined the banks across Europe and globally.

The process is currently in a fragile state, despite the support of France and Germany, but imagine the impetus Britain's support could give to the campaign, both in Europe and among major economies around the world.

On migration, we should press at European level for a Migration Relief Fund available to local authorities all over Europe to assist in supporting and upgrading schools, hospitals and public services in areas of high migration within the EU.

On trade, we know that core purpose of the European single market scrapping trade tariffs and barriers between countries not just in Europe but dozens more has helped bring us jobs, investment and growth.

But EU legislation that pressures governments to privatise or deregulate public services, such as rail and communications, or restrict public ownership, needs to be reformed.

And we will not sign up to trade deals that are about privatising our public services weakening consumer protections, environmental standards or food safety standards.

That's why – like France – Labour would veto the TTIP transatlantic EU-US trade deal as it stands.

By taking this approach, setting out a positive vision of hope and progress, and a clear agenda of reform for Britain's EU presidency in 2017, I believe we can demonstrate that politics can make a difference. That we can improve lives and communities and show not only what the European Union is, but what it can become.

There is a warning for Europe here, whatever the outcome of next week's referendum, that the EU must demonstrate its continued relevance to its people or it will be rejected. But it's up to British politicians too, to lead that change.

I have tried to set out today some of Labour vision for Remain and Reform in the European Union.

More importantly I hope I've been able to restore a bit of faith in what politics can do. If you have a decent government committed to making our country and our world a better place.

I encourage you all to vote Remain on 23 June and then to support our campaign for the changes we want to see here in Britain and across Europe.

Things can and, with your help, they will change.