News & Campaigns

All the latest from HER-itage and our affiliates

3 July 2017 12:00 ~ Women, Peace And Security – Two-day Intensive Course – London – deadline for subsidised place application

Course dates: Thursday 21 – Friday 22 September 2017
Register now

This original expert-led course will provide a critical examination of peace and security issues affecting women. Through lectures, case studies and discussion sessions, participants will explore the international legal and policy framework aimed at promoting justice, human rights and participation for women in conflict-affected situations. Participants will examine women’s lived experiences and learn from academic experts, leading activists and advocates, and each other.

The course is designed for mid-career professionals from any sector who are working in a relevant area. We particularly welcome participants from military policy and operations, peace and security governance, post conflict reconstruction, WPS and PSVI development and implementation, gender mainstreaming, and advocacy and activism in women’s human rights.

Core content 

  • The social, political and economic context
  • The global ‘Women, Peace and Security’ agenda
  • The international legal framework
  • Participation, Protection, Prevention, Relief and Recovery

Participants will consider key questions: What is different about what happens to women and girls in conflict? What do we understand by gender-based violence? Who commits the violence and against whom? What is being done about men and boys, as survivors, perpetrators and agents of change? Are women more peaceful than men? What can women bring to peace processes? Who is responsible for protection? What is the role and impact of civil society in implementing global and national initiatives? Why does sexual violence occur in conflict? More about the content

Speakers

The course will be led, and most sessions taught by Professor Christine Chinkin FBA and Dr Marsha Henry, with specific sessions by members of the Centre for Women, Peace and Security and guest practitioners.

Course fees

There are a limited number of places available at each rate. These places are allocated on a first come, first served basis. Places will be confirmed on receipt of the full fee.

The Centre is offering up to five subsidised places, at £500, in support of those who would otherwise be unable to take the course. To apply for a subsidised place, complete the application form and submit it to Women.Peace.Security@lse.ac.uk by 12 noon, Monday 3 July 2017. Places will be awarded on the basis of merit and financial need.

More information and answers to some common questions

http://www.lse.ac.uk/WomenPeaceSecurity/study/Intensive.aspx

June 5, 2017

Cross examination of abused wife a ‘stain’ on justice system says judge

A High Court judge has said he will refuse to allow alleged domestic abusers to cross examine their victims in any future hearings he oversees.

Mr Justice Hayden said he found it ‘extremely disturbing’ that a father appearing in person was able to question his former partner and mother to their 11-year-old son. The father was said to have threatened to kill his wife and prone to violent outbursts of temper in which he would frequently slap and push her.

Nevertheless, Hayden said it was necessary to allow the father to conduct cross examination of the mother directly. She was not present in the courtroom but cross examined by video link: the judge granted her permission to sit with her back to the video screen.

The judge said the mother, whom he described as articulate, educated and highly motivated to provide a decent life for herself and her son, faced an ‘invidious choice’ to submit to personal cross examination to order for the case to be concluded.

Despite efforts to ease her predicament, Hayden said nothing had masked the impact of the ordeal of the cross examination, and she looked at times ‘exhausted and extremely distressed’.

He added: ‘It is a stain on the reputation of our family justice system that a judge can still not prevent a victim being cross examined by an alleged perpetrator. This may not have been the worst or most extreme example but it serves only to underscore that the process is inherently and profoundly unfair. I would go further it is, in itself, abusive.

‘For my part, I am simply not prepared to hear a case in this way again. I cannot regard it as consistent with my judicial oath and my responsibility to ensure fairness between the parties.’

Hayden noted that calls to end cross examination of abused witnesses have been made for more than a decade, and he stressed that any disagreement to the notion was ‘redundant of any coherent contrary argument’.

The judgment itself was an analysis of preliminary legal and jurisdictional issues regarding the father’s application for a return order for rehearing. Hayden said the father might have much to offer his son if he was able to address some of the violence issues, and CAFCASS had indicated a willingness to help both parents by making a referral for a child contact intervention. The judge hoped this suggestion would be pursued.

Source https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/cross-examination-of-abused-wife-a-stain-on-justice-system-judge/5061305.article

June 5, 2017

A new Journal of Gender-Based Violence – free to read online until 30 June 2017

Introduction to the new Journal of Gender-Based Violence, an international journal committed to social justice and to lending a voice to those who work in or have experienced gender-based violence in their lives. 

It is an honour to launch the first issue of Journal of Gender-Based Violence and share what it means to us, and to our international colleagues – activists, policy-makers, front line staff, and academics. We have made the first issue free to access online until 30 June and hope it will be widely shared and read.

The driving force behind the journal is Professor Marianne Hester, who has contemplated what this journal might look like for some time. As she highlights in the editorial of the first issue, the launch begs the question ‘why now?’. Increasingly over recent years those working in this field have had the opportunity to reflect on both progress and success. But we are also aware of threats to the legal and social advances which have been hard won, and concerned about how protections can be rolled back – under the guise of ideology or economics.

So this journal, at this time, offers an opportunity to share knowledge and insights and to resist those threats. The journal has been organised to reflect the different voices of those working in and living with – gender-based violence. It also seeks to share knowledge across a range of divides.

The journal has internationally-based regional editors to encourage the submission of papers from across the world. We welcome submissions from those for whom English is not their first language and will work with those authors to provide a broader platform for that work. Too often the knowledge and expertise of our international and European colleagues is overlooked and we hope to address that. We therefore invite country and region wide networks to contribute to the journal and engage in that very debate.

By recognising the broad spectrum of knowledge which is out there, we hope this journal is a place for all of us to take the field further and learn from one another, not just in terms of academic papers, but in relation to policy, practice, and activism.

At the heart of the journal is a commitment to social justice and the tackling of gender-based violence within the wider context of inequality and disadvantage. With that in mind we envisage the Policy and Practice and Open Space sections being used to report on campaigns, new interventions, and good practice.

We also invite readers to reflect on work which has inspired them and to share with other readers why such works are still important today. We hope this will inspire new researchers to rediscover authors whose work laid the foundations for the current field and to add to current debate. So if you have a book or author whose work you think others should know about, please do consider writing a reflection piece for the Open Space section. Similarly if you wrote something years ago and want to revisit it – please get in touch!

Finally, the first issue ends with a piece offering memories of Jill Saward, activist and campaigner. Again, we are proud that this journal can recognise the breadth of knowledge that the field of Gender-Based Violence draws upon, recognising the work of campaigners and the knowledge they contribute.

As such, we dedicate this first issue to all those who have experienced Gender-Based Violence, and those who continue to fight for ‘justice’.

Part of a longer post at https://policypress.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/celebrating-the-new-journal-of-gender-based-violence/

June 5, 2017

New rules prohibiting the sexualisation of under-18s in advertising – ASA

Following public consultation, CAP and BCAP are introducing stricter rules prohibiting the sexual portrayal or sexual representation of under-18s, and those who appear to be under 18, in advertising.

We consider that the new rules represent a necessary and proportionate strengthening of existing rules to protect the welfare of under-18s taking into account links between premature sexualisation and harm, alongside national and international measures prohibiting certain types of sexual depiction of under-18s.

Currently the BCAP Code, which applies to broadcast media, has a specific rule prohibiting the portrayal of children in a sexual way. The CAP Code, which applies to non-broadcast media, has no specific rule, although the ASA Council is able to uphold, and has upheld, complaints on this issue under the social responsibility rules.

The new rules being introduced will bring the CAP Code into line with the BCAP Code, and will go even further by protecting all those under-18, as opposed to just children under-16.

We believe our action will address the potential for some adults to view under-18s in general as sexual beings and for some under-18s to be pressurised to view themselves in this way. The new rules will also provide further protection for individual models featured in advertising.

Under the new rules, any sexualised depiction of under-18s will be prohibited, unless the principal function of the ad is to promote the welfare of under-18s or to prevent harm (for example, in ads to promote safe sex).

The rules, which take effect from 2 January 2018, are as follows:

  • New CAP Code rule:
    4.6 Marketing communications must not portray or represent anyone who is, or seems to be, under 18 in a sexual way. However, this rule does not apply to marketing communications whose principal function is to promote the welfare of, or to prevent harm to, under-18s, provided any sexual portrayal or representation is not excessive.
  • New BCAP Code rule to replace rule 5.5:
    4.4 Advertisements must not portray or represent anyone who is, or seems to be, under 18 in a sexual way. However, this rule does not apply to advertisements whose principal function is to promote the welfare of, or to prevent harm to, under-18s, provided any sexual portrayal or representation is not excessive.

View the consultation and other supporting documents 

Press Release at https://www.asa.org.uk/news/new-rules-prohibiting-the-sexualisation-of-under-18s-in-advertising.html

June 5, 2017

Supreme Court rules the provision of approved premises for women discriminatory – Howard League for Penal Reform

The distribution of approved premises (APs) discriminates against women, the Supreme Court ruled (Wednesday 24 May) in a landmark case in which the Howard League for Penal Reform intervened and submitted expert evidence.

Living in APs may be made a condition of release on licence for certain prisoners. They are all single-sex establishments. There are 94 APs for men, located throughout England and Wales, with several in London. There are only six for women, in Bedford, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Preston and Reading, and none in London or in Wales.

This means that women are much more likely than men to be placed in APs that are far from their homes and families. They may suffer long-term disadvantages in terms of accommodation, rehabilitation and employment, as well as in re-establishing their relationships in their community after release.

The issue in this appeal was whether the current distribution of APs constitutes unlawful sex discrimination against women. The case was brought against the Secretary of State for Justice by Ms Coll, the appellant, a woman from London, who upon release from prison was forced to relocate to Bedford and resettle in Milton Keynes as a result of the lack of any APs for women in London.

The Howard League applied to intervene in the case and was granted permission to provide evidence and make written legal submissions to assist the Supreme Court.

In ruling for the appellant, Lady Hale found the question of direct discrimination in this case a simple one, stating that “being required to live in an AP a long way away from home is a detriment. A woman is much more likely to suffer this detriment than is a man, because of the geographical distribution of the small number of APs available for women. This is treating her less favourably than a man because of her sex.”

The Supreme Court noted that the Ministry of Justice has never properly addressed  the problem of providing sufficient and suitable places in APs for women which achieve, so far as practicable, the policy of placing them as close to home as possible.

In the absence of any attempt by the Ministry of Justice to address the possible impact upon women, assess whether there is a disadvantage, how significant it is and what might be done to mitigate it or to meet the particular circumstances of women, the Supreme Court found that the discrimination in the present system had not been justified.

The ruling comes 10 years after a ground-breaking report that recommended major reform of the criminal justice system to better meet the needs of women. The author of the report, Baroness Corston, found that women had been “marginalised within a system largely designed by men for men for far too long”.

Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “A decade has passed since Baroness Corston presented, with cross-party support, important proposals for an entirely different approach to supporting women in trouble with the law. In the intervening period, successive governments have done little to give effect to those recommendations.

“This judgment sends a strong message to the next government. It shows that if the criminal justice system continues to fail to assess, identify and meet the needs of women, our courts may rule this unlawful.”

In a witness statement, Frances Crook told the Supreme Court: “Women are a minority at every stage of the justice system. Women in conflict with the law have completely different needs from men. The combination of the small number of women and their strikingly different needs means they are routinely and severely disadvantaged throughout their experience in the criminal justice system, including their safe resettlement.”

A thematic inspection report, published last year by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation, found: “The small number of women’s approved premises has implications and challenges for effective resettlement. Women are more likely to be placed further away from their home areas than men, and those with caring responsibilities are likely to struggle to maintain links with their children and other family connections.”

Notes to editors

  1. The Howard League for Penal Reform is the oldest penal reform charity in the world. It is a national charity working for less crime, safer communities and fewer people in prison.
  2. The Howard League’s evidence in the case can be read online.
  3. The judgment and a press summary can be read on the Supreme Court website.
  4. The Howard League was represented by Henrietta Hill QC and Ruth Brander of Doughty Street Chambers and Sally Ireland of Garden Court Chambers, instructed by Clifford Chance LLP. Ms Coll was represented by Dinah Rose QC and Iain Steele of Blackstone Chambers, instructed by Lound, Mulrenan and Jefferies Solicitors.
  5. The Howard League for Penal Reform provides administrative assistance to the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Women in the Justice System, co-chaired by Baroness Corston. More information about the APPG’s work can be found online.
  6. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation’s report, A thematic inspection of the provision and quality of services in the community for women who offend, can be read online.

Press Release at http://howardleague.org/news/approvedpremises/

June 5, 2017