Women's Views on News |
| Thirty metres of government shame Posted: 29 Jul 2014 04:05 AM PDT
By Sue Marsh. I hate this fight and everything it says about my country. But I dearly love the remarkable characters who’ve stepped up (or hobbled in many cases) to face it. We are often unlikely warriors, with our limps and our oxygen tanks and our feeding tubes. But perhaps there was something the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) didn’t realise. Far from being easy victims, weak and helpless, it turned out (as we argued all along) that we were unbreakable. Doctors hadn’t broken us, endless hospital stays hadn’t broken us, misdiagnoses, constant forms and judgement and unnecessary bureaucracy hadn’t broken us. “Suffering” or “Hunger” or “Terror” might be abstract terms for most, but we had triumphed over them all. Some of us for decades in an endless Groundhog Day loop. How ironic that the DWP thought they had picked the most vulnerable targets of all, but found, in fact, that no elite crack squad of Royal Marines fight as hard as a group of sickies faced with destitution. And so it is with Steve Sumpter and the “20 Metre Rule” “Latent Existence” to many through his blog and twitter accounts. The government decided that they were going to scrap Disability Living Allowance (DLA), the main benefit (for some 3.2 million people, in OR out of work) that covers the extra cost of being disabled. There wasn’t a hint of it in their manifesto. The new benefit (Personal Independence Payments or PIP) aimed to cut 20 per cent from the existing “caseload”. Whether it had any aims other than cost cutting is unclear. The first Spartacus Report exposed that the new scheme was almost unanimously opposed and that the case they were making for why it needed cutting at all was dishonest. Undeterred, they marched on, ignoring all advice and overturning every sensible amendment made to the changes in the Lords. Just as the details of the new benefit were being finalised, with no consultation or prior warning, the government announced that the qualifying distance you were able to walk to qualify for full mobility support would be slashed by an inconceivable 60 per cent. From 50 metres to just 20 metres. The government estimated that a whopping 600,000 disabled people would lose their support from this measure alone – to give you some idea, 20 metres won’t get most people to their car or even to their own bathroom. We took the government to court, arguing that the lack of consultation was unlawful and we won. We forced them to consult properly before they could go ahead. A new Spartacus report showed that over 30,000 people would no longer be able to get to work if the changes went ahead directly contradicting claims the coalition have always made that these changes were about helping sick and disabled people INTO work. From the new consultation, of 1,142 responses just FIVE supported cutting the distance to qualify for mobility support from 50 metres to 20 metres. The government ignored the consultation and went ahead with the change anyway. That, is not illegal. So we took them to court again. With the unfailing support of Leigh Day Solicitors and Public Law Solicitors, we challenged the 20 metre rule itself. That sounds easy doesn’t it? But I think we forget that one brave individual has to be the “test case”. One person has to stand up and say “OK, I’ll put myself through all of this on your behalf.” Going to court is unpleasant in every way – it’s stressful, intimidating, frightening and physically demanding. Your life is exposed along with every last one of your insecurities. And you, small, insignificant, you must take an entire government to Judicial Review. If ever David and Goliath fitted modern allegory it is this. To top it all, Steve has ME along with other congenital conditions that make this fight more demanding than most will ever know. The fact that he will detest this post and chastise me for writing it says everything about the man and his tirelessly supportive partner – who incidentally has given up her own successful career to be his carer. Let’s not forget that all around the country people make this decision every day and get almost no support for doing so, saving the government £119 BILLION in the process. As with so many of the cases, the court have ruled that the change itself was not unlawful. But as with every other case we have bought, they listed a litany of criticism and rebuke over both the way and the means they have used to push changes through. But you can’t challenge policy. How about that? I had no idea before I started all of this. A government can pretty much do anything they like and you cannot challenge their right to do so except in very rare and specific cases. All you can do is challenge the way they’ve bought changes in. BUT. And here is the big but. In the course of the case, this quote came from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), presided over with tenacious if incompetent zeal by Iain Duncan-Smith. “This was recognised from the outset. “In developing the PIP assessment we were aware that the vast majority of recipients of DLA were individuals with genuine health conditions and disabilities and genuine need, and that removing or reducing that benefit may affect their daily lives. “However, we believe that these impacts can be justified as being a logical result of distributing limited resources in a different and more sustainable way…”. DWP (Paragraph 80). As Steve says, let’s say that again: “In developing the PIP assessment we were aware that the vast majority of recipients of DLA were individuals with genuine health conditions and disabilities and genuine need, and that removing or reducing that benefit may affect their daily lives. ” DWP So Steve has fought and some will say he lost – though it may be that there are still other avenues to follow. But from today, we can all say with utter certainty, that this government knew that PIP would cause harm to genuine people in need. But they justified it through austerity. They took support from sick and disabled people that needed it to get to work or to get dressed or to buy special treatments, to pay for the risk-taking excesses of out of control financiers we apparently dare not make pay. So people like Steve are paying, and fighting with everything they have – and very much they don’t have. They’re fighting for 3.2 million sick and disabled people to continue to live lives many take for granted every day in a million ways they aren’t even aware of. I hope they never become aware of the kind of struggle Steve has faced through all of this. But if you ever do, if you ever find yourself sick and frightened, if life ever turns upside down for you when you thought you were the very last person it could happen to, maybe people like Steve will have saved the very thing you don’t even know you’re losing. Sue Marsh, a sufferer of severe Crohn’s Disease for nearly three decades, campaigns to raise awareness of hidden disabilities and long-term illness. A version of this post appeared on her blog ‘Diary of a Benefit Scrounger’ recently.  |
| UN criticises Ireland on women’s human rights Posted: 29 Jul 2014 01:25 AM PDT
A United Nations report, following the fifth periodic review of Ireland's compliance with international human rights law, made recommendations for change in nineteen areas of concern, many of which relate to the treatment of women. In one area of concern, the UN Human Rights Committee, which monitors member states' compliance with human rights, argued that Ireland's abortion laws need to be revised to fall in line with the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Following the death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012 – a woman who died of septicaemia after three days of enduring a miscarriage which doctors refused to speed up as long as a foetal heartbeat could be felt – Ireland has been under pressure to change its laws, and in 2013 it issued the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act. This Act allows for an abortion to be carried out with the permission of two medical practitioners where there is 'real and substantial risk of loss of the woman's life from physical illness' and to be carried out with the permission of an obstetrician and two psychiatrists where there is 'real and substantial risk of loss of the woman's life by way of suicide'. It offers no other circumstances under which abortion is lawful. The Ireland rapporteur on the UN Committee, Yuval Shany, said that the stipulation to have a woman assessed by three separate practitioners to be certified as at risk of suicide could arguably amount to mental torture, and highlighted that the restrictive law "adversely affects vulnerable groups of women" who cannot afford to travel to another country and pay for an abortion privately. "While the 2013 Act represents some improvement on the previous situation it does not address many of the committee's concerns and has left in place the criminalisation of abortion even in circumstances in which we deem (member) states to be under an obligation to allow safe and legal abortion," he said. The UN report said that Ireland should '[r]evise its legislation on abortion, including its Constitution, to provide for additional exceptions in cases of rape, incest, serious risks to the health of the mother, or fatal foetal abnormality'. In addition, it recommended issuing a 'Guidance Document to clarify what constitutes a "real and substantive risk" to the life of the pregnant woman'; considering making more crisis pregnancy options available through a variety of channels; and ensuring healthcare providers who give out information on safe abortion services overseas are not criminally sanctioned. Amnesty International (AI) said the report acts as a clear warning that Ireland's abortion legislation is out of kilter with international human rights law. The executive director of Amnesty International Ireland, Colm O’Gorman, said: “Ireland can no longer get away with criminalising abortion and relying on the fact that some women and girls can travel abroad to access their lawful right to an abortion." “This amounts to shirking its obligation to ensure access to safe and legal abortions.” The UN report also criticised the Irish government's handling of abuse allegations surrounding the infamous Magdalene laundries and state-run mother and baby homes, highlighting the failure to conduct 'prompt, independent, thorough and effective investigations'. The report also called for an investigation to 'prosecute and punish the perpetrators' of symphysiotomy – the breaking of the pelvis during obstructed labour – which was performed on at least 1,500 women up until the 1980s without their consent. It also criticised the government's attitude towards providing redress for sufferers of the procedure. Responding to this, Marie O’Connor, from the campaign group Survivors of Symphysiotomy (SoS), said, “This [report] is very much a vindication of a campaign that we have been running since 2002 when we first looked for an independent inquiry into the surgery and it’s good to see that the United Nations actually believes that such an investigation is warranted.” Other areas of concern highlighted in the report include: the slow pace of reform of the constitution including article 41.2 which discusses the role of women in the home; the underrepresentation of women in both public and private sector jobs; the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence; the administrative and financial obstacles facing marginalised women when accessing essential support services; the treatment of victims of human trafficking; and gender recognition reforms which require married transgender people to dissolve an existing marriage if they wish to have their preferred gender formally recognised. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has called for a full parliamentary debate on the UN report. The ICCL’s director, Mark Kelly, said the recommendations showed “the ongoing failure in our law, policy and practice to respect the human rights, autonomy and bodily integrity of women.” In a statement, Betty Purcell, spokesperson for the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Designate, said: "[t]he UN Human Rights Committee is very clear on what needs to be done by Ireland to meet its civil and political rights obligations." "Now it is time for the State to act."  |
| 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 | |
