Women's Views on News |
- ‘It is like being raped by the state’
- Profiting from violence against women
- Healthcare for victims of rape in conflict
| ‘It is like being raped by the state’ Posted: 27 Jun 2013 08:25 AM PDT
Alison lived with the man she knew as Mark Cassidy for five years before he vanished and discovered that in his true identity he apparently had a wife and children. He was an undercover police officer. Five years. Another undercover police officer, Bob Lambert, adopted a false identity to infiltrate leftwing and animal rights groups. He said he had an 18-month relationship with a woman who was not herself involved in political activism as part of his cover story. And one woman had a child with Bob Lambert – when he was in fact spying on her. He was, she says, supportive when she became pregnant with their son in 1985, and wanted to have the child. But he later vanished from her life, claiming to be on the run. “I was not consenting to sleeping with Bob Lambert," she pointed out in an interview with the Guardian recently; "I didn’t know who Bob Lambert was. I had a spy living with me, sleeping with me, making a family with me, and I didn’t do anything to deserve that.” At the time, Lambert was posing as “Bob Robinson”, an animal rights activist, on behalf of the then secret police unit known as the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). One of several women bringing a legal action against the UK’s Metropolitan Police for the trauma caused by long-term relationships with undercover police, she said: “We [the women bringing cases] are psychologically damaged; it is like being raped by the state. We feel that we were sexually abused because none of us gave consent.” She added: “I’ve had apologies from Bob himself but I want an apology from the organisation that paid him and gave him the orders.” In December 2011 eight women launched legal action against the Metropolitan Police for the harm caused by undercover officers deceiving them into long term intimate relationships. The women assert that the actions of the Metropolitan police officers breached their human rights, subjecting them to inhumane and degrading treatment, and disrespecting their private and family life and their right to form relationships without unjustified interference by the state. The women are also bringing claims for deceit, assault, misfeasance in public office and negligence. And they seek to highlight and prevent the continuation of psychological, emotional and sexual abuse of campaigners and others by undercover police officers. The women who are bringing this case, and their many supporters, believe that there are no circumstances in which it would be acceptable for an undercover police officer to engage in intimate relationships with either targets or members of the public under the guise of their undercover identity. The fact that this has taken place repeatedly, despite being morally wrong and unjustifiable, shows that within the police forces in the UK there exists institutional sexism and institutional prejudice. Institutional sexism, since women have been used to shore up undercover identities without regard for those women's right to a private life: while men have been affected, evidence so far shows that it is primarily women's lives that have been abused in this way. And institutional prejudice against members of the public who engage in social justice and environmental campaigning. Both these forms of institutional prejudice must be challenged and stopped; each has reinforced the other. The women are calling for a clear and unambiguous statement that the abuse has ceased, and will never, in any circumstances, be permitted; for the past to be thoroughly and openly investigated, so that the damage may be acknowledged, and those responsible held to account, and so we can be confident that the practice has ceased; and for action and change to prevent these human rights abuses from ever happening again. And they are calling for stronger support for whistle-blowers and greater protection for rights of association and expression. Until these things happen, we have no reason to believe that these shocking and abhorrent abuses have stopped. Or that the police acknowledge their actions are wrong and that they must change. The women who are bringing this case, and their many supporters come from different backgrounds and have a range of political beliefs and interests, but they are united in believing that every woman, and every person, has a right to participate in the struggle for social and environmental justice, without fear of persecution, objectification, or interference in their lives. And the eight women bringing this legal action are doing so to highlight and prevent the continuation of psychological, emotional and sexual abuse of campaigners and others by undercover police officers. What you can do: Sign up to – and share – the ‘Where We Stand’ statement Engage: write, create, reflect, discuss, propose, analyse, critique Discuss the ‘Where We Stand’ statement with your friends and family; share it on social media; raise it with your colleagues and friends; add your group or your organisation’s name; publicise the statement through your networks Or you can contact local councillors. Your local council should be holding your local police force to account via the local Police Authority. The undercover unit responsible for the abuses is known to co-operate with many of the police forces across the UK and internationally. Make it clear that this isn't policing, it's abuse. And you could contact your Police and Crime Commissioner. Make it clear that you are expecting strong statements from all sections of the UK police condemning the abuse of private lives and recognising that institutional sexism and institutional prejudice must be challenged. Make it clear that this isn't policing, it's abuse.  |
| Profiting from violence against women Posted: 27 Jun 2013 04:23 AM PDT
After the calamitous fiasco of failing to secure the Olympics, British outsourcing giant G4S has hit the headlines again recently with the announcement that it has been awarded a contract to run two Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs) in the West Midlands. SARCs offer support services to victims of rape and sexual assault without requiring them to go to the police. The decision to award the contract to G4S was made by the local NHS commissioning board, and introduced as part of the government's broader localism agenda. It brings G4S further into the delivery of public services, including prisons, immigration detention centres, policing and welfare to work programmes. Resistance to the decision to award G4S with the SARCs contract has been widespread, and comes from within the women's sector and trade unions. In the Guardian, Unison's Kate Jennings said, "It is shocking that a private, profit-making company with such a chequered record should be put in charge of these highly sensitive and intimate support services. “A woman at her most vulnerable must be treated with the ultimate respect, dignity and sensitivity by trained professionals who she feels confident about placing her trust in.” Aurora New Dawn, a frontline service in Hampshire where I am Writer in Residence, works with victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence, and recently created a petition calling for the decision to be overturned. The Chief Executive of Aurora New Dawn, Shonagh Dillon, said, "There are so many reasons why this decision is worrying. “Firstly, awarding this contract to G4S has knocked out the service provision from the specialist voluntary sector. This means an instant loss of specialist expertise from the sector. "Given this is happening on a local as well as a national scale, we're particularly concerned about the cumulative, long term impact that the privatisation of our public services will have on the national skills base addressing sexual and domestic violence. “The voluntary sector simply can't compete with the likes of G4S in a climate where local authorities and commissioning boards are seeking above all to cut costs – but it will be victims and survivors who really pay the price.” A recent report to the Home Affairs Select Committee on asylum from social enterprise, Kazuri, which works with female asylum seekers, highlights some serious concerns over a current G4S contract providing services to female asylum seekers. Not least of these concerns is the lack of specialist expertise to be found in the security firm, particularly in relation to an understanding of the gendered violence frequently suffered by women seeking asylum. In addition, Kazuri have identified a large number of serious concerns in G4S services so far. These include housing for asylum seekers deemed unfit for human habitation; allegations that G4S has 'ignored' housing problems, despite complaints from residents; and complaints of intimidation and sexual harassment One asylum seeker told Kazuri: "We are living in a property in Coventry being run by G4S, we are family of 4… We had so far got rid of 20 mice in our house…my 2 young children are so scared…we asked him for treatment of mice…he came one day and gave us one gluetrap…" Kazuri's concerns are echoed by others, including the South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group which is quoted in the report saying: "We maintain our view that G4S are prison guards not landlords. Their record is one of abuse towards asylum seekers in this country and elsewhere." This particular contract has seen £374 million awarded to G4S to house asylum seekers, and the allegations against the corporate giant, Kazuri maintains, is therefore a matter of the public interest. In their report to Parliament, Kazuri appeal for improved oversight of G4S and their many contracts, saying that "Small social enterprises cannot possibly police the criminal actions of multinational companies." Whether Kazuri is right in this or not, we should all be very glad they are trying. Recent reports highlight that government contracts awarded to the security firm have soared by over £65m in a year, giving rise to allegations from Huddersfield MP Barry Sheerman that G4S is becoming a 'private army' of the state. With their increasing popularity with government seeming to far outweigh their actual ability to deliver decent services for vulnerable people, increased oversight of G4S should be a real priority.  |
| Healthcare for victims of rape in conflict Posted: 27 Jun 2013 01:09 AM PDT
RapeInWar and the National Alliance of Women's Organisations (NAWO) are demanding the end of aid-based restrictions on abortion services in conflict zones for rape survivors and an increase in the health care available to all victims. It is extremely difficult to definitively outline the scale of rape in armed conflict due to the chaotic nature of war zones and the failure of states to prioritise this issue, however, as barrister Toby Cadman of Omnia Strategy LLP pointed out in a report produced by the website RapeInWarg: "Rape is being used more than all other prohibited weapons combined". These weapons include: "starvation, herbicides, biological or chemical warfare, [and] dum dum bullets". The United Nations (UN) estimates that 200,000 women have been raped in the Democratic Republic of Congo over the last 15 years from the period characterised by armed conflict onwards, with "1,100 rapes [...] reported each month" in recent years. In the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, UN figures place the amount of rape victims as between 250,000 and 500,000. Tahirih Danesh, human rights researcher and documenter, asserts in the RapeInWar report that despite the end of the conflict between the government and the Tamils, in Sri Lanka "at least 5 rapes a day and 6 cases of child abuse are reported". Danesh quoted a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report that highlights the use of rape in detention centers across Sri Lanka between 2006 and 2012. These assaults – which, please note, take place in state facilities – infer that the Sri Lankan government does not view rape prevention, healthcare for victims or prosecuting these crimes as important. On 20 May the National Alliance of Women's Organisations (NAWO) organised a meeting at the House of Lords on rape induced forced pregnancy, and in partnership with RapeInWar, produced a report on this issue with the title 'Rape Induced Pregnancy in International Conflict' which was published in early June. NAWO and RapeInWar aimed to demonstrate that rape and sexual assault in conflict occur on a large scale and as such are a serious global problem that must be discussed and eradicated. The provision of adequate healthcare, including, stressed Toby Cadman "Abortion services and counselling [which] constitute medically appropriate treatment for victims of rape who have become impregnated" is an inherent part of aiding victims and communities in recovery and thus ensuring lasting stability. For, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC pointed out, "Rape is […] a war crime under the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court". All of those quoted in the report agreed with this view and acknowledged rape in conflict as an extremely effective, morally reprehensible weapon of war that was and is utilised to systematically destroy communities and erode social cohesion. The social stigma attached to victims and to the children produced as a result of sexual crimes prevents the individual and the community from recovering and therefore prosecuting rape, this exacerbates the fallout of traumatic situations and the continuance of rape with impunity. Baroness Gould of Potternewton said that the United Nations Security Council described rape “as a tactic of war and a threat to international security, with women and girls being particularly targeted by the use of sexual violence". And this is exacerbated by the USA’s restrictions on abortion provision in the humanitarian funds the USA sends to states, a factor which is especially relevant as the USA is the largest provider of humanitarian aid in the world. The Global Justice Centre details the harm of the US blanket ban on abortions in states that accept aid, and laments the absence of any exceptions, for example for victims of rape or for women at risk of dying if they carry through to term. Kathryn Blair, solicitor and blogger at RapeInWar, advised attendees to encourage states to support the European Parliament’s ‘Resolution between Women and Men’ which recommends that "EU Member States […] segregate their funds from US funds so as to not subject them to the abortion restrictions imposed by the US". Lord Lester said that "The Committee against Torture, the UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have made it clear that to deny an abortion to a woman who has fallen pregnant as a result of rape is contrary to the Convention against Torture". Because of course there is the additional danger that women in conflict zones are then forced to seek unsafe abortions or attempt to self abort. NAWO trustee Zarin Hainsworth went on to urge attendees and interested parties to support the call for universal healthcare for all victims of rape in conflict and the introduction of abortion services as required by survivors. It is paramount, said the Netherland’s government ministers Frans Timmermans and Lilaane Ploumen, that victims are provided with the best care as soon as possible. In terms of further action, Zarin Hainsworth invited all interested parties to contact RapeInWar or NAWO for more information and to see what future steps can or will be taken. Hainsworth also encouraged UK residents to write to their MPs to ask them to raise this issue at Prime Minister’s Questions.  |
| 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 | |