I Have A 13 Year Old Daughter-Hewson Can Get Lost

It's been 48 hours and I am still fuming over the article written by a barrister called Barbara Hewson in which she calls for the age of consent to be lowered to 13. While no politician or political party would ever dream of taking up her public utterances and parents need not worry about any of this becoming a reality Hewson's narrative is, nevertheless, disturbing.

There is a certain smugness in Hewson's words that smacks of one-upmanship and attention seeking verbal diarrhoea that would be far more suited in the plush dining rooms of upmarket homes on a Saturday night when high-flying intelligent types get together for a dinner party and indulge in too much alcohol. What spews forth isn't free speech, it's private talk. The right to free speech, surely, involves something more reasoned, especially from a human rights lawyer.

As a mother of a 13 year old I find her views particularly provocative because it lacks a monstrous recognition of the vulnerabilities of teenage girls and a huge disconnect between her views and the wider world of paedophilia which has been in the news just this week - the victims of Stuart Hall, April Jones, Tia Sharpe and the abduction of the young women while in their teens in Cleveland. There is only one thing that this week has shown us in these cases and it is that the issue of child protection is a human rights issue, not fodder for a public platform for gross opinion.

Hewson states that she does not 'support the persecution of old men. The manipulation of the rule of law by the Savile Inquisition-otherwise known as Operation Yewtree-and its attendant zealots poses a far graver threat to society than anything Jimmy Savile ever did'. 

This is muddled thinking. Is she accusing the police of age discrimination? If so, does that mean that old men are not capable of any crimes at all? The language used and thought displayed by Hewson is archaic. The reason that 'old men' are being brought to justice is because it is now, rightly, recognised that sexual acts against young girls is paedophilia. It is not 'old men' being 'old men' nor is it any form of persecution. It is time for the prosecution of those who took advantage of a bygone time and culture which allowed them to indulge their evil intentions.

Women like Hewson enjoy playing the patriarchal game which substitutes sentiment for substance. We saw this happen earlier this year when Shirley Williams defended Chris Rennard. Then there are other older women who think that men are being given a hard time because women don't like having doors opened for them anymore. Frankly, if these women cannot advance the cause of ordinary women and mothers like me who are bringing up children in a world where violence against female is on the increase then they should shut up. Not all women live in a cosseted worlds where 'men will be men' and women are there to indulge them.

A 13 year old girl is a vulnerable one because she still needs guidance while finding her way in the world. Education and harmless fun in equal measure ought to be the landscape of a 13 year old's life. There should not be a door opened to the vagaries of being a sexual conquest for a grown man. Hewson is a foolish woman who seems to enjoy using the language of legal jurisprudence to substantiate child abuse, for that is what it amounts to.

She cites the rule of law but I wonder if Tom Bingham would agree. In chapter 5 on page 55 of his book, The Rule of Law, Lord Bingham states that : "Children are, by definition, less mature than a normal adult, and should not be treated as a normal adult would expect to be treated".

This blog post is dedicated to the memory of Francis Andrade who killed herself at the age of 48 this year after having to relive the sexual abuse she suffered as a teenager. 

A female Freemason? I was one

A sense of disbelief always accompanies any statement that I make about being a Freemason. Infuriatingly, some especially macho men have refused to believe me despite the evidence that I possess of the apron and gloves. Long seen as a male bastion, it is a little known fact that women are able to be admitted into the order. In fact, this has been a practice since 1931.

I was admitted into the order of the Seton Challen lodge based in Central London in 2002. There is a tradition of freemasonry among the males in my family and I was strongly influenced by the camaraderie and sense of charitable giving that drove the movement. I let my membership lapse, sadly, because coping with a 2-year old, part-time work and everything else just made it impossible for me to keep up with the sessions. However, the ladies who welcomed me were model examples of the factors I describe above that attracted me to apply to the order. I have no regrets of joining, only of having to give it up.

My memories have been stirred by the press coverage this week of  how the International Order of Co-Freemasonry is trying to dispel an image of being an all male club that practises rituals which do not accord with modern day thinking. I went through my initiation 11 years ago and found it quite exciting. The warmth extended towards me when I passed was indicative of the strong union of friendship that exists in the Freemasonry. My father who died 17 years ago was a Lodge Master and his order still remembers to invite my mother to special events that they host.

I am a practising feminist Christian and nothing that went on in the meetings contradicted either of my beliefs. If anything, a traditional atheist female would probably find matters more offensive than someone like me. Feminists exist within different social groupings and the female freemasonry movement is one. I can't speak for the male order. According to an article in The Guardian this week the 'male masonry is peopled by old grey beards, the aristocracy, major generals of the army and they're nearly all male chauvinists'. Now, that is an outdated attitude in this day and age.

Lying, Thieving, Bastards? #ltb

When the Paralympics was being staged it seemed quite reasonable to expect that a golden moment had arrived given the accolades, excitement and enthusiasm shown towards the athletes. Disabled people, finally, could expect to be treated with respect and accepted as being 'one of everyone'.

It hasn't even been six months since the Paralympics ended. The Special Olympics are being held at the moment in Korea. Is change detected in the air? Not a bit as evidenced this week by Panorama which exposed how a company called Triage that is handling the Government's work programme refers to disabled people as 'lying, thieving, bastards'. So, rather than some sort of superb legacy coming out of all the efforts that went in last year to raising disability awareness the pendulum has swung back to the old fashioned channel of name calling.

'Lying, thieving, bastards' is now to be added to the list of horrendous adjectives already used to describe disabled people. One wonders what it will take for humankind to possess some sort of basic decency. 'Lying, thieving, bastards' are words that, for me, describe bootleggers and not honest citizens. 

"It's A Scary Dark Time for Disabled People"

Francesca Martinez is a stand up comedian, writer and actor. I had the privilege of watching her during the summer in 2012 when she did an act at the Southbank. Francesca suffers from cerebral palsy. Her act was funny. She was witty and after the first few awkward moments when people gasped softly and looked uncomfortable when she walked on stage they soon rolled about with laughter.

The politics of disability is something that affects me both professionally, as CEO of Powerhouse which is a charity for women with learning disabilities, and as a Christian. What intrigued me on that day I mention was how much people enjoyed her act after getting through the an obstacle of self-discomfort. It is the 'disability' versus 'the person with the disability' approach that many policy makers have ruminated on.

The attacks on disability benefits and the WCA judges the disability and not the person behind it. The 'Social Model' of disability attempted to change this mindset by attributing the disadvantage suffered by the disabled person to limitations in society, NOT the limitations within the person. However, the current policy has reversed this. Disabled people are being made to, as it seems, atone for their conditions by being made to go through WCA and being told that they are fit to work. The capitalist model of work is seeking to to level the playing field between an able bodied or disabled person without life inhibiting traits and a person with a disability who is having a life inhibiting condition. Institutional discrimination is targetting disabled people systematically and the outcome is, as As Francesca said: "It's a Scary Dark Time for Disabled People".

Many have already committed suicide, many have become even more ill because of WCA and many more will suffer. The most heart breaking story I read was on Michael Meacher's blog by a woman called Marilyn Sainsbury who left a moving tale about how a student of hers who is deaf and blind had to undergo WCA without fully understanding what was being asked of her. The student was so traumatised by the experience that she started to blame herself for being dependent on 'government handouts'.

There isn't a 'fault line' with disability. It disturbs me greatly when I hear disabled people blame themselves. This battle of the welfare state will carry on for sometime but I sincerely hope that eventually there will be a realisation that people's lives cannot be the political football in a quest for a small state government. Fault does not have a place in the politics of disability. 

Out with the old, in with the same?

It's THAT day of the year again when one wonders about what can be ditched to begin the new year with a spring in one's step. Out with the old tedious practices and mindsets that have proven to be life sapping leeches. In with a new life enhancing routine that will rocket one to great heights of self-fulfilment.  

Does it ever happen this way? I normally make a list of 10 resolutions but only ever manage to accomplish about half. My intentions disappear at mid-point through the list. This is probably because numbers 6 to 10 contain things that I should give up but don't want to. Willpower versus 'Oh, What the hell I will try next year'. Old habits die hard and I am mistrusting myself even before the clock strikes midnight.

Happy New Year and here's wishing you all the best with your resolutions.

The world is becoming a smaller place for women

Never have I known violence against women to be as rife and common place as it is now. The arrival of social media is often touted as a reason for the rise in awareness of global problems, citing the speed of the transfer of information as being the reason, rather than there being an actual rise in the crime being perpetrated. So it is with violence against women where the fact that it is a daily occurrence does not make the news so much as the level of violence and number of men involved which warrants the act of violence as being newsworthy.

Rape is the most common form of violence carried out and it is on the rise in Asia (witness the Delhi demonstrations), Africa and in the Middle East. Nothing much seems to have changed in Western countries either. It is a global problem. What unifies all of us as women regardless of our location on the world map is a right to feel secure and safe when going about normal life. I recently visited a country in Asia and was told that women were too afraid to even venture out to the local shops on foot for fear of being robbed or kidnapped. Sadly, the women I spoke to viewed their fear as a domestic situation rather than a social policy one.  

Taken on a continuum of extreme, placing women's fears for their own safety in the domestic arena leads to women then viewing their choice to not venture out as being a freely chosen option. The flip side of assuming that the home is the safest place for a women is the fact that domestic violence is on the rise too.At which point then do the authorities step in and implement safety intervention measures?  Perhaps it is time for women's security to be placed on a global high-ranking agenda like the World Economic Forum's annual meeting at Davos or at a G something or other conference. If women hold up half the sky then we need to be outside the home doing this. 

Patriarchy is Embedded in Indian Culture

Even though I left Asia 31 years ago to live in Britain I still feel a sudden gush of anger whenever I read or hear about how the Indian patriarchy culture has, yet again, enabled and perpetrated a gross act of violence against a women. I mention the length of time that I have been away from Asia to illustrate the point that time seems to have stood still in terms of gender equality for Asian women. If anything, the audacity and level of violence seems to have risen. Time seems to have enobled the Indian patriarchy system instead.

The trigger for this blog post is the gang rape of a poor woman on a bus in Delhi in the last week. Gang rapes seem to have become commonly committed incidents in India and when I delved further into it I discovered that gang rapes were taking place in institutions and open spaces where the public, whether man or woman, can reasonably expect their safety to be of paramount importance. What is happening here?

When I was growing up I witnessed the seeds of violence against Indian women rapidly being sown. I can pinpoint two reasons for this - women's rights were seen as non-existent and women's issues were seen as belonging to the private domestic sphere. In other words, Indian social culture placed a woman firmly in the home where she was to be subject to the domination of others. Young Indian girls left school at the age of 17 or 18 and were immediately married off before they could 'sully' themselves by having boyfriends. Once married she was deemed to be too 'westernised' if she did not cook, clean and submit herself to the authority of her in-laws. Any husband who dared to take his wife's side in disputes was told to 'behave like a man'. Being 'Westernised' meant that you were letting your family, in-laws, society, community and culture down by not being adhering to the patriarchy of the Indian culture.

After marriage the issues moved on to childbearing. Any mother who produced a girl was second best and her daughter soon followed suit in being second best too. A second best mother and daughter duo were scarred for life. If the daughter was darker skinned than an average Indian she would soon be pushed into third best position.

The Indian movies portrayed scenes of rape in abundance in the absence of being able to show romance through kissing or bedroom scenes. Sex was still part of the cinematic culture but it had to be accompanied by violence to be acceptable viewing. This may be a simplistic explanation but Indian movies did play a role in the causal link between the treatment of women and rape.

Indian patriarchy afflicts both men and women and this is where the danger lies by placing the issues of women firmly in the domestic arena rather than as an important subset of social policy. Boys are being brought up by women who tell them that their masculinity is defined by acquiring a wife who will obey them. Girls are being brought up with unreasonable burdens of expectation laced with the threat of shame and marginalisation should they bring shame to the family. 'Shame' is an umbrella term that covers every aspects of an Indian's woman's life.

The treatment of Indian women is a race to the bottom rather than an upward curve. While the class system exists, while the rich are protected the poor suffer which leads to prejudice being acceptable, while a woman's worth is judged according to who she marries and while her daughters are treated with embarrassment nothing will change.