Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News

Anti-choice group Abort67 targets UK universities

Posted: 12 Nov 2012 09:18 AM PST

The anti-choice group Abort67 have been staging graphic demonstrations at several UK universities in the last few weeks.

The group, which publically displays pictures of aborted human embryos and foetuses, has so far protested at the Universities of Sussex, Cambridge, Nottingham, Manchester, Bristol and Liverpool.

These protests appear to be part of a systematic campaign targeting university students in particular.

Abort67 employee Kathryn Atwood told the student's newspaper at the University of Nottingham, where the group demonstrated on Wednesday, that they will "visit the university in each city we attend."

She also commented on Nottingham's high proportion of students studying medicine, nursing and midwifery, saying it was important to "encourage debate amongst these students about the issue of abortion."

Quite how intimidating students with graphic images, some of which compare abortion to slavery and the Holocaust, encourages rational debate is unclear.

At Nottingham, the Student Union's Women's Society organised a counter protest that attempted to cover the images with pro-choice placards.

Students at Cambridge University did the same when Abort67 demonstrated there last Monday.

That protest ended when police ordered the demonstrators to remove the images, following a complaint.

Abort67 is part of CBR Worldwide, which began in the United States in 1990.

The UK group is most notorious for demonstrating outside Wistons Clinic in Brighton. They confront, harass, intimidate and film women entering the abortion clinic.

Their tactics have not resulted in a decrease in abortions at the clinic, but women are now having them later – at greater emotional and physical implications.

When speaking to students at Nottingham University, Kathryn Atwood claimed that she and the other protestors were "following in the footsteps of slave trade abolitionists."

She also mentioned accounts of women who saw continuing the pregnancy as a way of "overcoming" being raped because "it brought life out of a deathly situation."

That comment echoes statements made by prominent anti-choice politicians in the USA.

Defeated Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan referred to rape as "a method of conception," while Rick Santorum, who lost the nomination for the Republican Party presidential candidate, said on national television that rape victims should accept their babies as gifts from God.

That such extreme positions are being taken in the UK and now aimed at young female students in particular is deeply concerning.

On its website, the group states that "we believe in order for more women not to be damaged by killing their sons and daughters they need to come to terms with the horror of abortion."

This implies that women do not understand what abortion is and, worse, need to be protected from "damaging" themselves by having one.

The NUS Women's Campaign has released a statement condemning the demonstrations.

It states that "Student Unions should be aware that this group may come to their campus and that it is important women feel safe in their learning environment."

The campaign recommends that students against Abort67 plan "peaceful counter demonstrations or other actions, and talk to College and University authorities about having the group removed from campuses if they trespass on campus property."

Some Student Unions, such as Nottingham's, have pro-choice policies.

At universities where the Student Union does not, the Women's Campaign recommends that concerned students put forward a motion to adopt one.

Student Rights, a non-partisan group dedicated to supporting equality, democracy and freedom from extremism on university campuses, also expressed concern at Abort67's tactics.

"Students should never feel that they cannot express pro-life views, but the presence of an aggressive, intolerant, external anti-abortion organisation on campuses should be opposed," it said.

Calls for Nobel Peace Prize for Malala

Posted: 12 Nov 2012 09:05 AM PST

And Malala’s bravery has sparked a global movement supporting the education of girls.

More than one million people across the world have called for Malala Yousafzai, the schoolgirl shot by the Taliban, to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Malala, aged 15, is currently recovering in a Birmingham hospital after being shot in the head in October for campaigning for girls’ education in the Swat Valley, Pakistan, near to the Afghanistan border where the Taliban has destroyed schools.

The shooting provoked outrage throughout the country and the rest of the world.

The British petition was set up by Shahida Choudry, of Birmingham, who wrote: "In the face of terror Malala risked her life to speak out for the rights of girls everywhere.

“Malala’s bravery has sparked a global movement and we believe the Nobel Foundation should give her the Nobel Peace Prize."

Choudry goes on to explain that she herself was born in the UK but taken out of school aged 16 and sent to Pakistan and forced into marriage. She was finally able to escape and get back to Britain and education when she was 28.

"I still think of the years I missed," she said. "I also think about all the other girls in our communities today who are in the same situation. I know that there are girls like Malala here in the UK."

And she said that a Nobel Peace Prize would send a message that the world is watching and supports gender equality and universal human rights, including the right to an education.

Only certain people, for example government ministers, can nominate a person to the Nobel Foundation for a prize.

In Canada at least three ministers have come out in support of Malala receiving it.

Tarek Fatah, who started the petition there, now wants all Canada’s federal leaders to back the nomination.

Soudah Rad, who is orchestrating the French petition, said: "I know the reality of discrimination. I was born in Iran … Recently the Iranian authorities have limited their access to universities, therefore the action of Malala is an inspiration to us all and should be welcomed."

In India, 18-year-old Hamidh Kaur has set up a petition, writing: "There are ‘Malalas’ all over the world, fighting and risking their lives every day, to make sure that people around the world get the justice and rights that they were denied.

“It’s time to support them and recognise them."

November 10 was designated as Malala Day, a global day of action for girls’ education (see WVoN  story) and  young people all over the world have been handing in petitions calling for education for girls to be a right.

Malala Day was set up at the behest of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, now a UN envoy for education, and he spent November 10 in Pakistan and spoke to two of Malala’s friends who were also injured when she was attacked.

He said: "The president of Pakistan has agreed to work with the United Nations to ensure urgent delivery of education for all and to get Pakistan’s five million out-of-school children into education for the first time.

“No bombs, bullets, threats or intimidation can deter the international community, working in partnership with Pakistan, to ensure we build the schools, train teachers, provide learning materials and ensure there is no discrimation against girls."

A fund for Malala was also launched on Malala Day to help her to fulfil her vision that all girls are offered an education. It is being co-ordinated by Vital Voices.

And as Megan Smith, the vice-president of Google, wrote in a Huffington Post blog: "We stand together as a world community to make it clear to those who would deny these fundamental rights for our children, all children, that we do not tolerate these actions and will diligently work together globally to make education universally available for all children everywhere.”

She said that the Malala Fund reflected the vision which Malala herself articulated before she was shot and which was reported on iamMalala:  ”…just a few weeks before her shooting she told her friends that her aim was to set up the Malala Foundation to campaign for the 32 million girls round the world who are not at school.”

Indian Bill not for unattractive women

Posted: 12 Nov 2012 09:03 AM PST

Opposition towards India’s Women Reservation Bill has taken a somewhat sexist turn.

Last week, Mulayam Singh Yadav, leader of the Samajwadi Party (SP), claimed that the bill would do little to help women from rural backgrounds because they were unattractive.

The remark brought outrage from numerous women right’s organisations across India, including the All India Women’s Democratic Association.

They demanded that he apologise for his ‘sexist’ remark, calling it both ‘disgusting’ and ‘ridiculous’.

Rival party, Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), took the opportunity of Yadav’s poor choice of words to release a press statement.

It said: “Such a remark simply reflects the utter contempt and disrespect that the SP chief has for women.”

The Women Reservation Bill aims to offer greater opportunities for women to seek higher ranking jobs across India.

This is through a reserved or preference that is given to women seeking out jobs in politics, education and business over men.

Certain law schools in India already work to a 30% female quota, and its hoped that more schools will follow suit.

The current bill opts for a reservation of 33% quota for women in legislative bodies, Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies.

Yadav has been opposed towards the bill since it was first proposed in 2010, where he made another defamatory remark against females.

He said: ”The Women Reservation Bill, if passed in present format, would provoke young men to whistle in parliament.”

Yadav attempted to justify last weeks remarks by saying that the current Bill was too limited to affluent and richer women.

Yadav claimed that rural and poorer women were less likely to win the support of the public, and therefore less likely to win votes and elections, because they were less attractive than their richer counterparts.

Yadav’s suggested a sub-quota solution to also be included that would specifically address women from rural backgrounds.

“If Dalits, Muslims and backward class are taken care of in it,” Yadav said, “we can consider supporting it.”

Yadav later added, “We always feel that men and women should work shoulder to shoulder but women are still suppressed in the society.”

“We need to support and provide quota to women in educational institutions and jobs to help them stand on their feet and demand rights,” he said.

As the Bill currently stands, SP, BSP, Rashtriya Janata Dal Party, and the Janta Dal (United) are all opposed to it.

Media noise drowns out victims’ voices

Posted: 12 Nov 2012 08:15 AM PST

From Another Angry Woman.

How the mainstream media derailed addressing child abuse.

The two recent child abuse scandals have both found themselves derailed by exactly the same method: a protracted session of the mainstream media navel-gazing and taking pops at one another. The Jimmy Savile case turned into a study of why Newsnight didn't report on the story. Meanwhile, the re-examination of the North Wales abuse scandal turned into a study of why Newsnight did report on the story.

In the noise of the quarrelling over who should resign and why, and squabbles about the quality of journalism, the real story got lost.

Children were raped and abused. There were cover-ups and failures to fully investigate the systemic instances of abuse which occurred. People were denied justice for the horrific things that happened to them.

On 10th November, the Guardian ran nine separate stories and a liveblog about the crisis at the BBC; on the 11th eight stories on the front page alone. It's a similar state of affairs in the other major news sources, except for the BBC, who are running with a third arrest in the Savile piece. Where mentioned within the BBC stories, the child abuse is thrown in as an afterthought.

There are many important questions remaining regarding the child abuse that happened, yet these questions are lost in the media circlejerk; the problem of which is perhaps exemplified by this Observer editorial which manages to make the issue about everything from journalistic standards to austerity, tacking child abuse on as an afterthought. These are questions which ought to form the crux of the issue, yet they are drowned out in favour of discussion of the internal politics at the BBC and who is reporting what best.

1) Who did abuse children? It seems certain now, that Lord McAlpine was not one of the men who raped Stephen Messham, the man who told his story on Newsnight. By focusing on who did not rape Messham–to the point where Messham himself, a survivor of rape and sexual abuse, was forced to apologise–the media have lost sight of the fact that these rapes happened and were perpetrated by some people. Who were they, and will they be brought to justice?

In a way, it's not really the names of the abusers that matter. The answer may be neither high-profile nor particularly newsworthy, considering sexual abuse and rape are frighteningly common. However, as a matter of urgency, we should turn our focus on this: in the interest of justice, it matters not who did not abuse these people, but who did.

2) Why are there so many systematic failures to investigate abuse allegations? While there was some emphasis on the BBC's failure to investigate–and perhaps cover up–the allegations against Jimmy Savile, little has been made of failures in other areas, particularly that of the police. The police failed to investigate allegations against Savile, yet are not facing a public investigation in the same vein as that for the BBC. Likewise, Lord McAlpine was misidentified due to a police officer erroneously telling a survivor that the man in a photograph he had positively identified as his abuser was McAlpine. How did this happen and will the police officer involved be held to account?

Likewise, criticisms of the Waterhouse inquiry into the North Wales abuse scandal still stand. That Lord McAlpine was not involved changes absolutely nothing about the fact that the inquiry failed to investigate the abuse that happened outside the homes. Why are we not talking about how these survivors of abuse have their hands tied in seeking justice due to a systematic failure to investigate what happened to them?

3) How can we create a climate where it is safer for survivors of abuse to come forward? In both the North Wales and Savile cases, the picture of what happened only came to light years later. We do not live in a world where it is safe for survivors to come forward. When a person in a position of power rapes and abuses, there will be an army of people willing to cover it up and cast an aura of disbelief on the survivor. Take a look at Stephen Messham being dragged through the mud for what happened to him.

Rape and abuse happen, and too often they happen in silence. These are not things which happened in the past, but continue to happen today.

There was a narrow window of opportunity for survivors of abuse in the past to come forward and tell their stories, which has been effectively closed by derailing what could be a discussion of the ugly realities of a culture which facilitates abuse into talk about the BBC. It makes it harder still for current survivors to come forward when they are effectively told this is secondary to a debate about journalistic standards.

Please let us not lose sight of the real issues, the crux of the matter. Let us not contribute further to the culture of silencing survivors. Let us keep what happened to these people at the front of our minds and challenge ourselves to ensure that this can never happen again rather than allowing ourselves the easy route of the well-rehearsed examination of media practice.

Rape and abuse happens. It happens a lot. How can we stop that?

Find Another Angry Woman here.

Lest we forget: Elsie Inglis

Posted: 12 Nov 2012 03:30 AM PST

There were over 37 million military and civilian casualties during World War I.

And disease caused about one third of all the military deaths.

This was a change from the wars of the 19th century, when the majority of deaths had been due to disease.

Improvements in medicine as well as the increasingly lethal military weaponry are both seen as factors in this development.

Another factor, less widely known, was the work done during the war by Scottish woman, Dr. Elsie Inglis.

Inglis was instrumental in setting up the Scottish Women’s Hospitals, an organisation whose work during the conflict undoubtedly helped save the lives of many.

Some of the text below is taken from Project Gutenberg’s ebook version of Eva Shaw McLaren’s book about Dr Inglis.

In November 1915, Serbia was overrun by Germans, Austrians, and Bulgarians.

“All her big Allies failed her, so when her bitter hour of trial came, Serbia stood alone.

“The Scottish Women’s Hospitals at Mladanovatz, Lazaravatz, and Valjevo had to be evacuated in an incredibly short time.

“The women from Mladanovatz and Lazaravatz came down to Kraguevatz, where Dr Elsie Inglis was. After a few days they had again to move further south to Krushevatz.

“From here they broke into two parties, some joining the great retreat and coming home through Albania. The rest stayed behind with Dr Inglis and Dr Hollway to nurse the Serbian wounded and prisoners in Krushevatz.

“It was here they were taken prisoners by the Germans in November, and were sent north under an Austrian guard with fixed bayonets to the American Embassy in Vienna and thence home to Scotland.”

Dr Inglis left Britain again in 1916.

“Our Unit left Liverpool for Russia on August 31, 1916; like the Israelites of old, we went out not knowing exactly where we were bound for. We knew only that we had to join the Serbian division of the Russian Army, but where that Division was or how we were to get there we could not tell. We were seventy-five all told, with 50 tons of equipment and sixteen automobiles. We had a special transport, and after nine days over the North Sea we arrived at Archangel.

“From Archangel we were entrained for Russia, and sent down via Moscow to Odessa, receiving there further instructions to proceed to the Roumanian front, where our Serbs were in action."

Throughout the summer months of 1917, Dr Inglis worked to get the Serbian division to which her unit was attached out of Russia.

“The Serbs were in an unenviable position. The disorganization of the Russian Army made the authorities anxious to keep the Serbian division there “to stiffen the Russians.”

“The Serb Command realized, on the other hand, that no effective stand at that time would be made by the Russians, and that to send the Serbs into action would be to expose them to another disaster such as had overtaken them in the Dobrudja.

“In the battle of the Dobrudja the Serb division had gone into the fight 14,000 strong; they were in the centre, with the Roumanians on the left and the Russians on the right. The Roumanians and Russians broke, and the Serbs, who had fought for twenty-four hours on two fronts, came out with only 4,000 men.”

There were fears that there would be further, similar, slaughter if the Serbian division stayed in Russia.

“At the end of the month of August the unit, leaving Reni, rejoined the Serb division at Hadji-Abdul, a little village midway between Reni and Belgrade.

“When at last the release of the Serbian division was effected, on November 14 a cable was received by the Committee from Dr Inglis from Archangel announcing her departure:

“‘On our way home. Everything satisfactory, and all well except me’.”

She landed at Newcastle on November 25, 1917, bringing her unit and the Serbian division with her – and 'landed on the shores of England, to die'.

Elsie Maude Inglis was born in India in 1864.

In 1878, when her father, who was employed in the Indian Civil Service, retired, the family, including 14 year-old Elsie, returned to their former home in Edinburgh.

She went on to study medicine at the Edinburgh School of Medicine for Women under Dr Sophia Jex Blake, and after three years went on to study at the University of Glasgow, where she first developed her interest in surgery.

Qualifying as a licentiate of both the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Edinburgh, and the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow in 1892 she obtained a post at Elizabeth Garrett Anderson’s pioneering New Hospital for Women in London, and then at the Rotunda in Dublin, a leading maternity hospital.

Returning to Edinburgh in 1894, she set up a medical practice with Jessie MacGregor, who had been a fellow student, and opened a maternity hospital for poor women.

Her dissatisfaction with the standard of medical care available to women led to her becoming politically active and playing an important role in the early years of the Scottish Federation of Women’s Suffrage Societies.

And then war broke out in 1914.

Inglis then set up the Scottish Women’s Hospitals for Foreign Service Committee, despite opposition from the British War Office and rejection by both the Red Cross and the Royal Army Medical Corps.

The organisation was funded by the women’s suffrage movement with the express aim of providing all female staffed relief hospitals for the Allied war effort.

Among other feminists who helped set it up were Violet Douglas-Pennant and playwright Cicely Hamilton, Ishbel Ross and Evelina Haverfield, founder of the Women’s Emergency Corps (1914) who, with Flora Sandes, among other things, in 1918 set up canteens that served thousands of Serbian soldiers.

The French Government was less negative than the British and the Red Cross, and by December 1914, Dr Inglis’s first medical unit staffed wholly by women was setting up the 200-bed Abbaye de Royaumont hospital.

The Scottish Women’s Hospitals Committee organisation sent teams to France, Serbia and Russia; over 1000 women doctors, nurses, orderlies and drivers went to war zones throughout Europe.

Inglis herself went with the teams sent to Serbia, and their work in improving hygiene reduced typhus and other epidemics that had been raging there.

In 1915, she was captured and repatriated, but upon reaching home she began organising funds for a Scottish Women’s Hospital team in Russia.

She headed the team when it left for Odessa, Russia, in 1916, but after only a year she returned to the United Kingdom on November 25 1917, suffering from cancer. She died the following day.

Her legacy lived on, however. Scottish Women’s Hospitals continued its work on the front lines, before being disbanded in 1922.

The organisation’s remaining funds were used to build the Elsie Inglis Memorial Maternity Hospital in Edinburgh.

At Coventry Women’s Question Time…

Posted: 12 Nov 2012 12:17 AM PST

…while others were trick-or-treating, voters grilled the PCC candidates for the West Midlands.

This Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) hustings event was organised by Coventry Women’s Voices (CWV) to give voters in Coventry the opportunity to find out where their candidates stood on key issues affecting women in the city.

I attended the event, which took place on 31st October, as a member of CWV, to live blog for WVoN.

The event was very well attended, both by those who came along to ask the questions and those who were there to answer them: only five candidates were expected, but all seven turned up.

The seven candidates for the West Midlands are: Matt Bennett – Conservative; Bill Etheridge – UKIP; Cath Hannon – Independent; Bob Jones – Labour; Ayoub Khan – Liberal Democrat; Mike Rumble – Independent and Bishop Derek Webley – Independent.

Extra chairs were arranged and the evening got underway.

Initially all the candidates were asked to give a three-minute introduction about themselves and their policies.

Less than ten minutes in we had the first, mildly entertaining, faux pas from the UKIP candidate Bill Etheridge, who informed the room  – mostly full of politically engaged and concerned women - that many of the issues he would be addressing particularly affect us ‘ladies’.

You could feel the room cringe.

Not sure if he picked up on that though.

Over the course of the evening questions were asked about child trafficking/grooming rings, domestic violence, youth centres, police stop and search powers and the Nuneaton SARC. You can see a full list of all the questions submitted prior to the event here.

For me, and it appears for many others, there was one question which ended up sticking out in my mind.

Or rather, one answer, which caused a justifiably outraged response.

Coventry organisation KairosWWT - which offers safe spaces for women at risk of, or caught up in, prostitution – asked the candidates “What will you do to ensure that the policing of street prostitution does not criminalise women but recognises vulnerability and the need for support?”

As the first six answers were given there seemed to be a unanimous agreement that women caught up in prostitution should have access to help and support as needed.

Then we got to Derek Webley, an independent candidate.

His answer went something like this (from the live blog): “We must not overlook that prostitution is a choice too..people who have made the choice as a means of earning. We need to be honest about it. We don't criminalise them, but they are not all victims.”

As you may well imagine, the response to this comment from many attending the event was shock and outrage.

A commentator from the audience immediately challenged what Webley had said: “Choice is not the right word to use at all. It is not a choice for so many. There is no choice there at all.”

A tweet to WVoN from the event reflected this opinion:”Web[e]ley needs to try being a prostitute himself if he thinks it's so great and an empowerful "choice". #wanker”

For one attendee, this was a stand-out moment in the evening: “How on earth can the current incumbent chair of the WMP authority actually believe that most prostitutes are in this out of choice?! And be stupid enough, naive enough to say this at a women's event! Shocked and disgusted.”

Considering this was an event delivered by a women’s organisation, with a very clear remit to question the PCC candidates about issues that affect women in Coventry, they all showed a worrying lack of awareness of what those issues might be, and lack of understanding as to how such issues could be tackled.

Many attendees to the event came away feeling disappointed that the candidates had not spoken more about women.

“I was deeply unimpressed, none of the opening statements mentioned women or acknowledged that our issues were the focus of the event, and I left knowing who I wouldn't vote for and wishing that I didn't have to vote for any of them.” (Anon)

“The event was well planned and well attended, but I was taken aback by the lack of reference to women’s issues in each of the candidate’s statements, to be honest.  I did not feel that any of them really took on board the seriousness of violence against women, and so we got platitudes about consulting with women’s groups, rather than a sincere understanding of the problems.” (Anon)

This brilliant blog by another attendee puts it perfectly: “I watched seven individuals blunder and soundbite their way through a series of questions – questions it was searingly obvious they knew little about.

“The event was planned months in advance by Coventry Women's Voices and came attached to a manifesto (on issues affecting women and girls) that the organisers were lobbying candidates to sign up to. There are several clues in there as to the likely content and tone of the evening.

“You know? WOMEN? Issues affecting WOMEN? Coventry WOMEN'S Voices? I doubt even rampant capitalising and size 60 font would have alerted this lot to the necessity to perhaps engage in a little light research before attending.”

It is a shame that an event that was so brilliantly planned and executed was let down by the very people who should have taken advantage of the opportunity to win some votes.

Unfortunately, as these comments reflect, I came away with a good idea of who I would not be voting for, but still with no clear direction as to who had earned my vote.

However, the event did have one very positive outcome.

All the candidates pledged that if they were elected they would immediately address the situation preventing Coventry people who have suffered sexual assault accessing the planned Nuneaton Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC) a few miles down the road: instead having to attend a centre some 30 plus miles away.

CWV, “welcomed the unanimous commitment by all candidates to be Police and Crime Commissioner for the West Midlands that they would reverse the current police policy on referrals to the Coventry SARC.

“Five out of seven candidates also signed up to the Coventry Women's Voices 7 point plan for tackling violence against women. Matt Bennett, Bill Etheridge, Bob Jones, Ayoub Khan and Mike Rumble signed up to the plan. Cath Hannon and Derek Webley did not although both said they were sympathetic to the issues raised.”

With under a week until the elections on 15 November, and deep concerns about the election turnout, it seems like anyone who does want to vote is going to have to do most of the legwork themselves when it comes to making an informed decision.

The CWV event was a fantastic opportunity for us to meet and assess our candidates face to face, and it’s clear that many of us there care deeply about the decisions our new PCC will make.

It’s a shame that none of them demonstrated the same depth of concern.