Women's Views on News |
- Machismo and women’s rights in Bolivia
- Should sex offenders have human rights?
- Anti-war veteran takes to the road again
| Machismo and women’s rights in Bolivia Posted: 17 May 2013 07:04 AM PDT
I have just spent two weeks working with Strengthening Families, a project of Aldeas Infantiles SOS, in La Paz. Gender inequality is unfortunately evident to most in Bolivia. It was even part of our in-country induction. As an example, one colleague told us how she had seen a husband beating his wife in the middle of a street. When she stepped in, telling the man to stop, the wife only affirmed her husband's right to beat her – and told her to mind her own business. Womankind's research found that 64.1 per cent of women in Bolivia are survivors of one form of emotional, physical, or sexual abuse. To make it worse, according to Aldeas, the wife who faces violence and oppression often inflicts the same on her children in frustration. It is not only violence that effects Bolivian women but a staggering lack of legal rights and education: 19.35 per cent of women are illiterate – as opposed to 6.95 per cent of men. This means women are less able to get work and gain financial independence. A more important factor in a lack of economic independence is a woman's role as a mother. Motherhood is integral to the image of a woman – with abortion illegal – yet maternal mortality is one of the highest in the world. Many women die as a result of illegal abortions in Bolivia, and of course, abortion is a class issue too. As Maria Galindo of Mujeres Creando, the biggest feminist movement in Bolivia, said, "White young women, if they have four hundred dollars they can get an abortion. “The indigenous, poor young women who don't have the money get an abortion with a big risk, and they die." Bolivia is seen by many to have a progressive leader in Evo Morales, its first indigenous president. And it is true that women's rights have progressed under his leadership. He appointed a government in which women are equally represented for the first time in the country's history. However, he is still very much apart of 'machismo' – he once said that eating chicken caused homosexuality. Women were central to bringing ‘Evo’ to power in 2006 – as a part of the demonstrations and road blocks that lead to big political change in the country. But though they've proved they can be as powerful as their male counterparts, they are still maligned and often powerless within their own families. There is still a very, traditional, patriarchal image of women in Bolivian society – even in its new laws. A form of child benefit for every expectant woman has been established by the state. Woman equals motherhood right? Even so, the law in itself would not be a problem, but the poorest mothers in Bolivia do not have the means (eg identity papers) to receive this money. Recently I attended a community meeting at one of Aldeas's children's centres. Although it was a packed room, I sighed as I counted only one man in attendance. Volunteering at the children's centres, I notice the girls playing with babies and even a dust pan and brush whereas the boys make guns from any inanimate object. When I catch myself 'feministing', I remind myself it will be a long process to change long established gender roles. And in the UK, too. It's the abuse that it is harder to ignore, however. Aldeas Infantiles tells us charities often struggle to help women because of a certain degree of community justice. Shockingly, a man who rapes a women can often pay a sum to her family to clear him of guilt. Aldeas's project Strengthening Families aims to raise awareness about sexual health, HIV and smear tests. A British charity, International Service, helps implement this. Sexual health may not strike you immediately as a way to empower women. But machismo often means men make the decisions about contraception. They may even prevent their wives from seeing gynaecologists because they are likely to be male. By taking good care of their children in nurseries, we get a rare opportunity to provide women with information that is important for their own lives and bodies. It's a tough task in a predominantly Catholic country. There are other groups too who are looking out for Bolivian women. Most importantly, there are groups of Bolivian women who are empowering themselves. And that surely is the only way change can come in Bolivia. Not from Evo, but from women themselves. Ten women now sit in government. Pro-choice movements are becoming more common. And Mujures Creando promotes feminism through a range of often cultural methods, a radio show and a documentary about violence against women. This week I begin working on a community greenhouse project in El Alto. The project means mothers can feed their children healthy food, cheaply. And it is also possible that by selling vegetables they will be able to gain some degree of economic independence. This could go a long way – giving the women self-worth, not to mention a better chance of leaving their husbands if they are faced with violence. A chance to empower women in Bolivia. Before I arrived in Bolivia, I had heard of another means of empowering Bolivian women. This was 'cholita' wrestling'. Cholitas are women in traditional dress, usually wearing long skirts and even longer plaits in their hair. Recently I watched as glamorous wrestlers entered the ring – but cholita wrestling was not empowering. The women took on men alright, but they lost – to cheers from the crowd. And one woman's comeback only occurred when the referee stepped in to protect her. Although it was a staged fight, I can't help but think this says something deeper. That Bolivian women cannot wait for a saviour. As Mujures Creando have scribbled on a Coachabamba wall: "Neither God, nor master, nor husband nor party". Machismo in Bolivia should be fought by the women themselves.  |
| Should sex offenders have human rights? Posted: 17 May 2013 04:20 AM PDT
Imagine if you or a member of your family or your best friend was a victim of rape, how would you feel if the perpetrator was allowed to apply to come off the sex offenders register? This has now been possible since 1 September 2012, after the Supreme Court ruled that a life-long inclusion on the register breached the Human Rights Act 1998. Shocked? So was Prime Minister David Cameron. He appealed the decision, but the appeal was rejected. Suffolk police received and approved four requests from sex offenders asking to be removed from the register. The names of these ex-offenders have not been released because of privacy laws. Detective Superintendent Alan Caton of Suffolk Constabulary said said of these particular decisions: "Members of the public should be reassured that sex offenders who we believe continue to pose a risk will remain on the register." So, now, it is possible there are convicted sex offenders walking around UK streets, maybe a street near you, under no restrictions or with no supervision whatsoever. Is that so bad? The law in the UK currently requires anyone jailed for 30 months or more for a sex offence to be automatically placed on the sex offenders' register for an indefinite period. This means that their names, addresses, date of birth and national insurance number are recorded. They must notify the police of any changes in personal details, such as their name or address. If they wish to leave the country they must inform the police in person. In some respects the decision by the Supreme Court sounds worse than it is. While it is true that sex offenders can now apply to be removed from the register and if successful, to live their lives without scrutiny from the police, they are only able to apply to do so 15 years after their release from prison. During that time, they should have received rehabilitation both in custody and in the community on licence. For some this may take longer than fifteen years, for others it will be less. Factors taken into consideration in support of an application to be removed include the applicant’s age and whether or not they have re-offended during their time on the register. Police officers and representatives from partner agencies must be content that the applicants no longer pose a risk to the public. Figures released under freedom of information laws showed that sex offenders are already being successful at appealing their life-long inclusion on the register. Critics of this change include not only victims of sexual offences, but also the support agencies who work with rape victims. They argue the law is unfair, as victims are forced to serve a life sentence following the offence. They also say that the human rights of the victims have not been considered. Andrew Flanagan, chief executive of the NSPCC, said the NSPCC had “been told the legal ruling could not be overturned”. He is concerned that there is no proven or recognised ‘cure’ for adult sex offenders who abuse children and they must therefore always be considered a risk. “Physical and emotional harm caused by sexual abuse can damage children’s lives,” he said. “We will monitor the appeals process closely and will raise concerns if we believe the civil liberties of convicted sex offenders are being put before the protection of children.” Below is the view of a sex offender, writing anonymously, who feels that life-long registration impacts not only on his ability to rebuild his life but also impinges on his family's right to a private life. 'At each visit [to the police station each year] my photographs and other details like my National Insurance number and my car's registration number are also taken. 'Being on the register also means that every time I leave the country for work or holiday, for more than three days, I have to go to the police station and give them full details of my visit including the destination address and length of stay, also if I am to visit friends or family within the United Kingdom and my aggregate stay anywhere is more than seven days, again I have to register that address with the police. 'In other words you have to register the details of my friends and family as well who have not committed any crime.' You could argue that this is one of the repercussions of committing an offence of a sexual nature, and perhaps a consideration which should have been thought about by the offender before committing the offence. The other side of the coin is that if we deny sex offenders this right of appeal, we are labelling them and accepting the view that people are not capable of changing. And in reality, if a sex offender wants to re-offend, does registration on the sex offenders register prevent him from doing so? Does a list really protect the public? This is undoubtedly a contentious issue. Are we protecting the public and balancing the rights of the victim and of the offender? Is it a fair and just decision for those involved? We are yet to see the full affects of the Supreme Court's decision. For now, the jury remains out.  |
| Anti-war veteran takes to the road again Posted: 17 May 2013 01:09 AM PDT
Disarming Grandmothers is a web series looking at the lives of veteran peace campaigners Helen John and Sylvia Boyes. The series provided an insight into the UK’s peace movement through two extraordinary women, and shows their relationship with the authorities, the press and their families and their more recent actions – and trial for terrorism. Disarming Grandmothers was a very organic project, Claire Pope, documentary filmmaker, explained on her blog. 'It started with a camera and a newspaper article and ended 6 years later with 31 mini documentaries and the creation of this blog. 'Here were two grandmothers who in-between shopping, taking the dog for a walk and going to Quaker meetings, were writing graffiti on Government buildings, laying down in front of nuclear truck convoys and boarding US Military planes, oh and I almost forgot… being tried for terrorism.' But that was then. Helen John is now among those protesting about the new generation of unmanned armed drones that are operating from an RAF base in Lincolnshire. Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) which can be operated from the ground, as in the case with RAF Waddington, or be designed to follow a pre-programmed mission. They hover above chosen communities 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Kat Craig, legal director of human rights charity Reprieve, explained to the BBC. They present an aerial occupation, almost a form of collective punishment, and there is real concern about the accuracy of the targeting. With drones imposing no risk to the crew operating them they are becoming the preferred weapon of choice, but Helen John argues that they are illegal, murderous weapons that need to be stopped. "There is no chance of escaping these weapons, this is remote assassination, where are our moral standards?" It had been thought that America's 'notorious drone programme operations' in Iraq, which have been condemned by human rights groups as war crimes, were run solely by the US Air Force. But the Ministry of Defence (MoD) recently admitted for the first time that British personnel helped fly the drones from bases in the United States. The MoD conceded that these embedded missions ran from 2004 to 2009, but a spokesman was unable to provide further details. On 26 October last year a group of people – including Greenham Common veteran Helen John – gathered at the entrance to the base, RAF Waddington, near Lincoln, to protest against the growing use of drones. Inside, the RAF were ceremonially 'standing up' 13 Squadron, its new drone unit. And this year, on 27 April, about 600 demonstrators took part in a march from Lincoln out to a protest rally outside RAF Waddington shortly after British drone missions in Afghanistan actually started from there. The MoD admitted that Reaper drones, operated remotely and controlled from RAF Waddington, had for the first time flown missions in Afghanistan. The actual drones are all based in Afghanistan, launched from Kandahar air base, and can carry 500lb bombs and Hellfire missiles. The protesters are calling for the international community to emulate action taken against cluster munitions by outlawing armed drones. Helen John said she was disgusted the UK was using Reaper drones controlled from British soil. She said: ‘If you are going about your normal business without interfering with anyone else you should not be able to be targeted by a drone. ‘The opposition [to armed drones] is growing but it really has to speed up so that this type of weaponry is outlawed.’ Research from The Brookings Institute in 2009 showed that for every militant leader killed, 10 civilians also died, and 'women and children' are often included in news reports as being among those injured and killed in such strikes. And as Helen John said, it is quite horrifying how people are happy to accept this happening.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |