WAFE held its first meeting of 2010 on March 8th, International Women’s Day

Courtesy of our Patron, Baroness Angela Harris of Richmond, we met again in the House of Lords. Baroness Harris took the Chair, in spite of having just returned from a visit to Dublin on party business. WAFE owes a great deal to her and we are truly grateful.

Not surprisingly, given our programme, the meeting was over-booked in advance, but of course not everybody who had booked actually came. Many thanks to those who let us know they wouldn’t be able to come so that we could offer their place to someone else.

WAFE Chair, Elizabeth Sidney, welcomed participants and introduced WAFE’s theme for the year: Equality. With a UK election looming, our first meeting would ask what could be done to improve women’s representation, which was far from equal in all national parliaments?

Speakers:

Peter Facey
Director, Unlock Democracy (formerly Charter 88)

'Democratic reform and women - making politics more representative'

Peter pointed to the general disaffection with politics, regardless of party.
• Political membership has been dropping for decades, so that in the UK 2.5 people belonged to the RSPCB for every one member of a political party.
• The present UK Parliament is unrepresentative of the population either demographically or in terms of the views expressed.
• The electoral system is highly conservative, with a tendency to appoint a familiar figure, or one with a similar background to the existing incumbent.
• Women receive little help with funding or childcare. The House of Commons has a shooting gallery, but no crèche, and is only now considering child-care vouchers. There is no maternity cover for female MPs. The danger is therefore that women candidates are predominantly rich and childless.
• Women are better represented in Scotland and Wales (47% in Wales) where there are proportional representation systems.
• Gordon Brown has suggested a referendum on electoral systems but is favouring the Alternative Vote. Unfortunately this will not improve women’s representation.

Peter recommends the the Speakers Conference report on making parliament more representative. Among the suggestions are improving childcare and issuing grants for PPCs, which will help to break the cycle of wealthy MPs. But as things are, he fears there is little chance of improvement in women’s representation in the up-coming election – perhaps as little as up from 19.5% to 20.5%
 
Professor Monique Auguste
Vice-Chair WAFE

'Gender Equality in Canadian Politics'

Monique explained that the problems in Canada are similar to elsewhere.
• In 2008, 18.2% of Canadian MPs were women and 8% of the Cabinet. Now the figure is 22%, (with Quebec doing slightly better with 28%).
• The exclusion of such a large section of the population is the greatest failure of the electoral system. The aim must be top reach 30%, when women’s voice becomes significant.
• The Liberal and the New Democratic Party are committed to putting forward 33% women candidates.
• The commitment of the International Community is shown by CEDAW (1979) and the Beijing Platform for Action (1995), but everywhere women are still handicapped by responsibility for childcare, the confrontational nature of politics and media stereotyping.
• Very few countries have reached the 30% mark – the Nordic countries and some Post-conflict societies such as Rwanda (56% female representatives).
• A major hurdle is getting nominated – in some areas of Canada, such as the Prairies, there are fewer women standing than previously.
Monique suggested that women candidates need:
• Proportional representation, now being campaigned for by women’s groups
• Funding for women at all stages of the selection process
• Regional recruiting with a list of potential women candidates in all regions
• A mentoring system
• An overseeing commission responsible for checking on equality
Above all, we should promote the acceptance of universal human rights.

Kate Groucutt
Former Secretary of the Young Fabians and member of the Fabian Society’s Executive Committee

'Political Representation in the UK'

Kate spoke from her own practical  experience.
• Women are grossly under-represented not only at Westminster but also among prospective candidates. Labour is doing better than the other parties with 27.5% of PPCs being women, but that is far from good enough. Also, in 2009, only 21% of local government candidates were women.
• The voter isn’t the problem – there is actually a higher turnout when a women stands. There are not enough women coming forward in the selection process, and those that do are often not selected. It is still often a matter of ‘who you know’
• Better representation of women would bring different subjects to the fore, such as pensions, childcare and family support. Labour has improved recognition of the contribution of child rearing and elder caring as work which should count towards pensions, but more needs to be done.
• Women’s ability to participate in politics is determined by the four C’s – Culture, Childcare, Cash and Confidence (Fawcett Society).
• Culture is a problem in parliament but also in society. The media’s trivialising of women is a real handicap.
• Childcare is an issue of both money and time. Realistically, women (and men) can combine a career in local politics with either full-time work or with responsibility for a family, but not both.
• Cash – should councillors be paid? Councillors in Islington, where Kate is standing, are given a £10,000 allowance The Labour Party has ‘Emily’s list’, a fund for women parliamentary candidates, but it is inadequate. Expenses Reforms could, ironically,  negatively affect women.
• Confidence is still a problem as women have so few role-models.
Kate believes that all-women shortlists should be part of the solution. We should use them for as long as we need to.  ‘Pairing ‘is also an option, as practiced by the Welsh Assembly.

Dr Julie Smith
Deputy Director of the Centre of International Studies, Cambridge University and Chair of East of England Liberal Democrats

'Why are there so many middle-class white men in parliament?'

Julie began with a point made by a former soldier, that 'If you look the part, you feel the part; if you feel the part you are the part.' This is clearly rather difficult if you are female or from an ethnic minority.
• Age, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, disability – people from all these minorities, as well as women, are under-represented in parliament.
• We also need diversity in a variety of ways – not just young women, but older retired women too.
• In the Liberal Democrats, 50% of our ethnic minority parliamentarians are female............. but there are only two!"
• Politics looks unattractive to many women – they have ‘better things to do’ and dislike the adversarial style of parliamentary debates.
• It would help if political parties emphasised the importance of community - many women want to work for their own communities and this is, in fact, a large part of an MP’s job.
• We lack role models.Many female leaders were born to it, like our own Queen, or they married into politics. Exceptions, such as Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir and Angela Merkel have tended to adopted masculine behaviour.

Julie agreed that parliamentary reform is certainly needed, but fears that the UK parliament is by nature patriarchal and conservative.

A lively discussion ensued and was continued later in the pub. 

WAFE Meeting October 28th

The Limits of Tolerance: The Media

Many thanks to our patron, Baroness Angela Harris, who chaired the meeting with her usual aplomb despite being in a wheelchair.

Our first speaker was Peter Cave, Associate Lecturer in Philosophy at The Open University, UK and Chair of the British Humanist Association’s Humanist Philosophers’ Group:

Two Cheers for Toleration? – a Muddle, a Paradox and the Impotent

Peter made it clear in his talk that he would not be providing us with answers – only questions.

The dangers of toleration include:
• Causing offence – but being offended may be good for us.
• Permitting a platform to commercial or media power to disseminate falsehoods, such as rape statistics or the dangers of vaccinations. This is certainly bad for us. Were the media serious about informing the public, minimally they would give the same prominence to corrections as to the original reports.
• Dissemination of prejudices which are accepted uncritically, such as the usefulness of bizarre diets or women totally en-veiled (freely so?)
• Having an effect on our treatment of others – severe case should be dealt with under the laws against ‘incitement’, but this is hard to define.
• Encouraging the myth of a public debate, which rarely takes place in any meaningful sense.

Nonetheless, toleration, with some limits, is better than the alternative. There exists no great guiding principle as what should or should not be tolerated, such that the principle determines the right position for all sayings and all contexts. Toleration is a therefore a way of ‘muddling through’.

The philosophy behind Peter’s talk was infused with John Stuart Mill who, in his On Liberty, promoted a free press as a means of debate and discussion, yet also propounded the Liberty Principle that recognized that in living our lives, in our experiments in living, harm to others often justifies restrictions.

Two cheers for Democracy, wrote E. M. Forster, one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism. Peter suggested that we could follow this line with toleration.  Two cheers for Toleration: one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.

Toleration is neither indifference, nor is it a commitment to ‘all is relative’ nor is it a commitment to respect. Not all views should be respected – nor should people, when they wittingly hold horrendous views. But perhaps the expression of those views should be tolerated. Although not at all times nor in all places.

Peter suggested that, toleration is, paradoxically, required of the intolerable, if required at all. This is because it is easy to tolerate the ineffectual or the impotent. Toleration starts to bite when we are required to tolerate something which we not only find intolerable, but which is powerful enough to have a real effect on people’s lives.

Our second speaker was Professor Bob Pinker CBE who served as a member, Privacy Commissioner or Acting Chairman of the UK Press Complaints Commission from 1991 to 2004.

Is the Press Complaints Commission getting the balance right?

Bob agreed with many of Peter’s principles, but explained how they have been applied in a particular context. He first explained that the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) is an independent self-regulatory body that deals with complaints from individuals and organizations about the editorial content of UK newspapers and magazines.  It administers and enforces a Code of Practice which provides the ethical framework within which the Commission has to work. The code has 12 clauses relating to crime or ‘serious impropriety’, protecting public health and safety and preventing the public from ‘being misled’. The arbiter of what these criteria mean is ‘what a reasonable person would think’. The meeting was surprised to learn that the Commission does not adjudicate on matters of ‘taste and decency’ – rightly so, in Bob’s view, as this would amount to censorship.

The main focus of Bob’s talk was the balancing act which has to be achieved between the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. These are both fundamental human rights but in practice they frequently come into conflict with each other.  In seeking to reconcile these conflicts, the Commission – like the Courts – must also give due consideration to the claims of the public interest and the requirements of the UK Human Rights Act and articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The recent case of Stephen Gateley had generated  21,000 complaints to the PCC - an exceptional number. Bob explained that the PCC cannot act unless requested to do so by a member of the family and so far no such request had been forthcoming.

Discussion
The Stephen Gately case and the appearance of BMP leader Neil Griffin on Question Time both arose in the lively discussion which followed. Several people felt that the PCC should have stronger powers, but Bob felt that in the UK we have the balance about right – although he agreed with Peter that at the end of the day all we can do is ‘muddle through.’

Peter expressed the wish that the apologies which the press sometimes has to print should be equal in length and prominence as the original article. There should also be a clearer distinction in the press between comment, conjecture and fact.

The different situations in other countries was also raised, particularly by Iranian members of the audience. Peter stressed that we should not accord respect to views of which we passionately disapprove, and that we should oppose them vigorously, even while we tolerate the expression of those views.

WAFE Board member Dr Jocelynne Scutt felt that it was good that the PCC does not adjudicate on taste, but that the laws on incitement should be stronger. In Australia it is illegal to incite hatred for people on grounds of race or sexual orientation, (although not on grounds of gender). She felt that the Daily Mail article on Stephen Gately was incitement to homophobia.

Another Board member, Maria Hagberg, said that in Sweden a dangerous ‘cultural relativism’ is gaining ground. Peter agreed that it is important, sometimes, to say ‘That’s wrong’.

Bob spoke about the length of time it takes for a democracy to mature sufficiently for a body such as the PCC to work there. The Press must be free, but it should not be totally unregulated. Regulation by the State is unacceptable, so an independent body, relying on the ‘views of reasonable people’ is the best we can do. But it can only work in a mature democracy such as ours.

WAFE Chair, Elizabeth Sidney, wrapped up the meeting with a review of WAFE’s programme in 2009, in which we explored the Limits of Tolerance in relation to religion, women’s dress and the media. She outlined a provisional programme for 2010 on the theme of Equality.

WAFE Meeting June 10th

The Limits of Tolerance: Women's Dress           

Despite the tube strike, a good number of people made it to the meeting for an interesting and controversial meeting. As usual, our patron, Baroness Angela Harris was keeoing us in order in the Chair.

Our first speaker was Baroness Haleh Afshar OBE, a British academic and cross-bench peer in the House of Lords who describes herself as a Socialist and a Muslim feminist.

Baroness Afshar spoke on dress codes and Muslim women in the west.  She began by referring to Jack Straw’s complaint that a female constituent had met him in a veil which covered her face - but pointed out that she heard him do this on radio, but still understood him with no difficulty. She said that through the ages women all over the world have always been defined by what they chose to wear. However, her comment that British women who cover themselves or wear the hijab (scarf) do so from choice was contested by several women.  Ms Ahlam Akram said it was easy to say women had a choice in the UK, when a legal framework was in place that protected their rights. Diana Nmmi from The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Organisation said that women living under Sharia law had little choice and few of their rights were protected. Women and children are the first victims of Sharia law.

Drawing on her researches, Baroness Afshar said many young Muslim women living in the UK told her they wore the hijab as a symbol of pride. Restrictions such as those in France make the situation worse for young women because “When so much is made of it in the media and elsewhere, it is hard for them to change, to get out of it."  The Baroness pointed out that feminism is nothing new to Iran and that women have fought continually for their rights there and have made some headway. Fourteen centuries ago, she said, Islam gave women rights that were unheard of in the West, such as property inheritance.  "It has taken a long time for feminists to understand that one size does not fit all. What is currently going on amongst young Muslim women in the UK is about empowerment.”

It was pointed out from the audience that it might seem to be a woman’s choice to wear, for example, five inch heels, but it wasn’t really coming from her own free choice. The pressures of fashion and big business (run mainly by men) were the main deciding factor in what women wore. A WAFE member pointed out her great grandmother wore crinolines that were heavy and dangerous and she had to cover herself.  "Economic, education and social changes were the biggest forces for change. Women had to be freer in their clothes as they entered the work place and became more economically independent" she said.

WAFE Chair, Elizabeth Sidney OBE, then gave a presentation summarising evidence of the spread of religious extremism in many countries. It was fuelled by the economic downturn which increased the number of people feeling desperate and undervalued. With no apparent chance of improving their lives, they turned to the fundamentalist churches which offered simple solutions. Young men in particular were recruited into extremist Islamic sects, where they received warmth and recognition and learned to value their 'brothers' more than their families. Some from UK were sent abroad for military training, equipping them for acts of violence.

Extremist faiths offered little to women who were invariably reduced to second class status. They were told that if they submitted to the priests and to their husbands they would be doing the will of God. They would be relieved of all responsibility - and perhaps this had an appeal for very frightened people.

Elizabeth gave examples of the control exercised over women's minds and bodies by religious extremists of all faiths. They covered abortion, sex education, any education, age of marriage, the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship and participation in political life. It was important to remain aware of these dangers. In UK women needed to be particularly concerned by any encroachments on citizen's liberty and access to information and education. More women were needed in political decision-making positions, particularly in the House of Commons.

There was some discussion of the value of the word 'Fundamentalism' in the context of women's oppression. Baroness Afshar felt it can become a 'prescribed identity' for young men and can contribute to Islamophobia. Jo Christie Smith warned of the danger in always linking religious extremist with violence and oppression of women. “You can be an atheist and beat women up. This subjugation of women is happening everywhere. Violence against women cuts across all people.“

The last speaker, Linda Kaucher, pointed out the difficulties of living and working in a Tower Hamlets community where 33 out of 52 councillors are Muslim. The indigenous East End culture has been submerged, many feel alienated and many original inhabitants are moving out. “We are in an opportunistic patriarchy which has power translating into control of resources" she said. “Polygamy and serial divorce may be seen as fundamentalist but in fact it is all economic.”

What is occurring in Tower Hamlets is not multi cultural at all, but rather prioritises one culture over another. The government's agenda was cause for concern. “It seems to allow for a disproportionate amount of resources to go to certain communities which are a dominant patriarchy and oppress women. It has an effect on all women living in the borough.”

Ms Kaucher's talk also generated much discussion. One questioner asked whether anything was being done to build bridges within the community. Another saw a similarity with the past situation in Northern Ireland. There, Catholics didn't feel able to attend meeting which were held in Orange halls, whereas in Tower Hamlets non-muslims do not wish to attend them in mosques.

WAFE General Meetings are held every two years, to elect the Board and receive reports from the Officers. This meeting was postponed from November 2008.

In the Business Meeting the Chair and Vice Chair reviewed WAFE progress since 2006. WAFE Treasurer had resigned in July 2008 and the accounts were accordingly  presented by the Chair. They showed a serious deficit primarily due to failure to obtain a grant. The Chair outlined plans to improve finances and announced WAFE's programme for 2009. The theme would be: The Limits of Tolerance.

The new Board was elected.

Chair: Elizabeth Sidney OBE (due to stand down 2010)

Vice Chair: Professor Monique Auguste (due to stand down 2010)

Secretary General: Christine Aziz

Treasurer: Maria Scott-Wittenborn

Members: Ahlam Balazc (Canada)

                Professor Carole Fontaine (USA)

                Maria Hagberg (Sweden)

                Dr Jocelynne Scutt (Australia)

The Open Meeting which followed was oversubscribed. Lord Lester of Herne Hill was unfortunately unable to speak due to ill health. WAFE is grateful to Dr Evan Harris Liberal Democrat Shadow Minister for Innovation and  Science, for taking his place. Dr Harris spoke eloquently on the limits of tolerance regarding religion. Professor Auguste then spoke on Canada's response to the emergence of Sharia courts in her country.