Category Archive:Latest News

ByWRDA Communications

The Abortion Pill, Women’s Rights and Policy Reform in Northern Ireland – A Summary

As part of the programme of events for International Women’s Day 2019 WRDA attended a conference on the 8^th March. The conference focussed on research into self-managed abortions in Northern Ireland using pills and how the proverbial genie is out of the bottle. It began with Professor Sally Sheldon from the Law School at the University of Kent introducing the law around abortion pills. She highlighted the criminal laws which currently operate in Northern Ireland; the Offences against the Person Act 1861, Rex v. Bourne 1938 and finally the DHSSPSNI Guidance for HSC professionals on termination of pregnancy in Northern Ireland 2016; all of which allow abortion only where the life of the mother is threatened.

Professor Sheldon discussed how self-managed abortions create challenges for existing legal frameworks and essentially ‘how can the state control swallowing?’ it was also argued that criminal prohibitions cannot be justified on the basis of women’s health. The supplying of abortion pills to women in Northern Ireland is more frequently coming from two online collectives with reputable suppliers and accurate information, which operate legally in their base countries. EU free movement provisions can be used as an argument to protect access to abortion pills. One of the collectives reported supplying pills to 1,748 women on the island of Ireland in 2016.

Abortion pills are effective, often easy to obtain and are unlikely to result in complications and therefore can be used without a third party. The criminal prohibitions associated with abortion are difficult to enforce in the case of pills because it is hard for prosecutors to confirm and prove pills have been taken. These prohibitions actually impede public health goals and ignore the evidence of the safety of telemedical abortion services. The current law creates conditions of isolation and secrecy which can be a deterrence from seeking professional healthcare. Prosecutions in NI are selective, indicative of the fact that the law in its current state is unenforceable.

There was also a focus on trends in abortion statistics and public attitudes. The trends show that the number of women accessing abortions in England and Wales has been steadily declining from 1343 in 2007 to peak at 919 in 2017 and of those travelling 66% underwent a surgical procedure rather than a medical one, probably due to the delay in planning and receiving care. The trends also demonstrate that for many women travelling abroad is simply not an option for many reasons e.g.) situations of domestic abuse or caring responsibilities.

The most robust survey of public attitudes to abortion in Northern Ireland is the NI life and times survey. The representative sample of 1200 revealed strong support for abortion reform overall, especially in cases of severe medical illness or threat to the mother’s physical or mental health. There was very little support for criminalisation, with 70% of participants believing abortion is a matter of regulation not criminal law. Those in support of criminalisation are statistically likely to be members of the Democratic Unionist Party, Attend church at least once per month, and are less likely to have a degree. There was similarity in the views of men and women and of Catholics and Protestants respectively.

The CEDAW Committee has previously challenged the UK government with state non-compliance regarding reproductive rights on several occasions (1999, 2008, and 2013) however in 2010, there was a submission to the CEDAW committee under CEDAW Optional Protocol to hold an inquiry into access to abortion in the jurisdiction.  It was granted and in 2018, the results were published. The inquiry stated that the ‘UK can’t invoke internal agreements e.g. Belfast agreement to justify its failure to revise NI laws that violate CEDAW’.

When Participants were asked why they had sought an abortion, 4 out of 5 participants gave at least one reason and 55% gave more than one reason. Another question involved the positives and negatives of seeking a self-managed abortion, these included: being at home, not having to travel, not having to take time off work or rearrange caring responsibilities. Negatives were; the fear of the unknown, the pain and the fact that it is illegal here.

Overall, the findings of this research were supportive of the calls to repeal sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Offences against the Person Act. They found that there is an urgent need for authorities here to ensure that all women know they can access medical assistance without fear of the police becoming involved. The illegality of abortion doesn’t act as a deterrent but is acutely damaging to women’s physical and mental health. Criminalisation is also not compatible with other social policy developments here e.g. lack of free childcare. The research also found that there will always be women who can’t travel for an abortion. As a result, the two online collectives previously mentioned are putting the power into the hands of the service user by providing more than just a pill (advice and support).

Article by Caitlín Miskimmon (WRDA Intern)

ByWRDA Communications

An Open Letter from a ‘Bossy’ Woman

Today, a friend sent me a screenshot of an Instagram story from a mutual acquaintance. It was a rambling tirade which detailed views on what it means to be ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’. It is a baffling, waffly account which seems to imply that women are ‘naturally designed’ to not take risks, instead we are undisciplined, weak, and lazy. It rails against the phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ as another attack on men designed to undermine them, to give them an excuse for laziness and to ‘attach [themselves] to feminine traits’.

So here is my open letter as a response, because I want to set a few things straight.

Dear Acquaintance,

Understandably, several of my female friends had a lot to say on the subject of your Instagram story, and the views which you obviously agree with. They

are an inspiring group of women, and each of them, in their own ways, is strong, successful, and extremely capable. All of us are breaking into industries that have historically been dominated by men. When I tried to come up with ways in which to describe these amazing women the words ‘inspiring’, ‘dedicated’, ‘intelligent’, ‘bold’, and ‘unwavering’ came to mind. These are not ‘gendered’ traits.

What even is a gendered trait? ‘Sassy’ and ‘bossy’ are words usually employed describe women. What is a bossy woman? Someone who takes charge? Someone who knows her own mind? Someone who is capable and strong? Why, in 2018, are we still using gendered terms to describe personality traits found in all genders? Why does ‘bossy’ seem to have a negative connotation?

Why are men supposed to be strong? Dedicated? Driven? Why are these supposedly ‘masculine traits’? Is a single mother, a female judge, a female academic, a female doctor, producer, costumer, activist, MP, businesswoman, retail employee, nurse, carer, or human rights lawyer not strong? Are they not dedicated, hard-working, or driven?

Toxic masculinity does exist and it is harmful for everyone. It is one of the reasons why, in the UK, suicide is the biggest killer of men under the age of 35. The phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ is not an attack on men. It is an attack on the stereotypes that society forces on to men. Why is it seen as feminine to cry? Why is the implication of this that showing your emotions is a sign of weakness? It is not a sign of weakness. It’s just being human.

I am continually baffled that some people, of any gender, seem to think that feminism is an inherent attack on men. Feminism, at least of the type to which I subscribe, is about gender equality. It’s about standing up for everyone. It’s about bodily autonomy, it’s about equal opportunities, and it’s about not being told you should be one way or another just because of your gender.

And the sad and frustrating fact is that people who identify as female do not have some basic human rights. In this country, if I become pregnant as a result of rape, and I terminate that pregnancy, I could face more time in jail than my rapist. This is, of course, if my case against him even goes to trial. I cannot make basic decisions about my own body. And I am called ‘bossy’, ‘hysterical’, or ‘feisty’ when I try to raise my voice and speak out against the injustices I face.

When I walk alone at night, I clutch my keys in my fist. I check over my shoulder every few meters. I pick up my pace when I hear people behind me, or see them on the other side of the street. I walk in well-lit areas, I park in well-lit areas and I lock my car doors as soon as I get in. I have even second-guessed the really cute skirt I’ve just put on.

I don’t make eye-contact with men on the street, because if I do I’ll sometimes be told to ‘smile’. Why do you think I’m so angry? Why do think that I don’t want to give him a smile? Why am I a street decoration? An ornamental flower pot. When men so regularly touch women without our permission is it any wonder we might not want to smile at them? Because if we do, they might see that as an invitation.

I am sick of pandering. I am sick of adding the caveat ‘not all men’. Of course it’s not all men. I am sick of having to say ‘no, I’m not a man-hater’.  I am sick of saying ‘I know people have it much worse than I do’. Of course they do. But why does that make my struggle, my walk home, my lack of bodily anatomy a ‘non-issue’. It’s a big issue because it’s a very common issue. I am sick of saying sorry.

I’m not sorry for raising my voice.  I am not sorry for taking to the streets to demand my rights. I am not sorry for not smiling, for feeling uncomfortable in situations where I do not feel safe, for not making eye-contact, for not striking up conversation on the street, for voicing my own bloody opinions.

I don’t understand why you would describe men as ‘naturally designed to be disciplined…and work hard’. What does that say about how you view women? You might see me a weak, lazy, undisciplined baby-factory. Who is supposed to give up a career, who should not being pursuing a PhD because one day I’ll be a mother. Why is that my life? Just because of some accident of birth that gave me a vagina rather than a penis? Why would you be naturally more dedicated, capable, and driven than my friends and I? You are not.

We are not weak. We are not lazy. We are not undisciplined.

Can we just stop with the whole ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ traits? Can we all just be people? Regardless of gender, or anything else? How can a set of traits define half the population of the world? It just does not make sense. If men strive to be more masculine because they see traditionally ‘feminine’ traits as inherently bad then this is toxic masculinity and it is as harmful to you as it is to me.

I ask you to open your eyes. Look around you. Really look. By perpetuating these ideas of what it means to be a man, you are also saying what you think it means to be a woman. Look at the women in your life and see if your argument stands up. I bet it won’t.

Yours,

A ‘bossy’, ‘feisty’ woman.

Blog by Lauren Rose Browne

ByWRDA Communications

#Ibelieveher and the Máiría Cahill case – A Response from the Women’s Movement

With the current international media focus on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and the accusations of sexual abuse made against him by 3 women, it is time to remind ourselves again of our obligation as feminists to step outside of party political agendas, wherever abuse occurs, and to offer our support to women survivors of all political stripes.

Máiría Cahill is a survivor, and we believe her.

In recent years our understanding of violence against women, such as sexual abuse and intimate partner violence (IPV), has expanded to include the concept of coercive control. Legislation that reflects this key dynamic in these abusive circumstances has been in force in Great Britain since 2015 but has been stalled in Northern Ireland due to the collapse of the Executive. Even in cases of sexual assault and rape where there is no intimate relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, it has long been understood that these crimes are primarily about control and an abuse of power.

When you consider then the community dynamics present here throughout the conflict and beyond into the ‘post-agreement’ era, issues of power and control take on a huge significance through the presence of political, state, paramilitary and social movement organisations that bore high levels of influence within communities and families. Ground-breaking research in 1992 undertaken by Monica McWilliams and colleagues at the University of Ulster looked in depth at the ways that violence against women has been shaped due to ‘the Troubles’. A recently updated version of the research was published just last week making comparisons between the data gathered in 1992 and data collected in 2016.

The 1992 study detailed how ‘membership of paramilitary/armed groups increased the level of power, control and impunity available to perpetrators of IPV; how the increased availability of legal and illegal firearms increased the risk to and threat felt by victims of IPV; and how the conflict affected police responsiveness to IPV.’ Despite it having been 2 decades since the official cessation of violence in Northern Ireland, 17% of participants in the 2016 study said that their partners had ‘used paramilitary connections or alleged paramilitary connections to threaten, control and/or abuse them.’

The study also highlights the use of paramilitary control to informally ‘police’ domestic violence by making threats to perpetrators. However, the 1992 data revealed how this often made things worse for women as they were concerned that ‘perpetrators were being recruited as police informers to avoid prosecution or enforcement orders for IPV’ thus ensuring women were even more alienated from being able to get protection from or justice for the crimes committed against them.

Anecdotal evidence from women involved in rape and sexual violence services throughout the troubles suggests that Máiría Cahill’s description of the ‘kangaroo court’ she was subjected to following her disclosure to leaders within her community, was something many women would have been familiar with.

It shouldn’t have to be said but the kind of process that Máiría was put through by members of the republican movement is a completely unacceptable course of action for any organisation or community to undertake when someone comes to them with a disclosure of sexual abuse. The fact that Máiría was a child at the time the abuse took place makes it even more abhorrent. Making someone face their abuser in this way, demanding she recount her experience in front of him and trying to judge the authenticity of her account is not only re-traumatising; it serves to add unnecessary new trauma and fear. This kind of practice leads to injustice and the silencing of women whose testimony deserves and needs to be heard. Every person who was involved in that process in the Máiría Cahill case should be ashamed of their actions.

The current dynamics of power and control in communities might not look like they did in the 1990s. The presence of firearms has greatly reduced on all sides and organisations might be more concerned with controlling their media messaging than anything more sinister. However, it is still extremely difficult for any woman to speak out about powerful or influential individuals who harmed them.

Máiría Cahill must be commended for the way she has fought for the truth. She has been vindicated by both the Starmer report into the failings of the Public Prosecution Service and more recently the Police Ombudsman’s report into the actions of the PSNI. The apologies she has received from the heads of both public organisations have satisfied her that they accept all the accusations levelled at them and understand that they let her down.

This response stands in stark contrast to that of the leadership of Sinn Fein, whose response has been widely criticised in the media and on social media, by journalists, commentators, activists and political representatives. Mary Lou MacDonald and Michelle O’Neill have stuck to a conservatively pitched apology stating that Sinn Fein now has robust mandatory reporting procedures and they are sorry the party ‘didn’t have those procedures in place’ at the time of Máiría Cahill’s disclosure. This seems woefully inadequate when you consider the level of harm that an interrogation by powerful leaders within your community is likely to cause any individual. We know too much about the mishandling of abuse from numerous institutions in the last decade to accept such a blasé dismissal of responsibility. What would be more appropriate would be a proactive commitment to examining everything that led people to believe such behaviour was an acceptable way to deal with a young woman in 2000 and ensuring that any trace of such attitudes has been completely eradicated.

When Michelle O’Neill made the statement ‘It’s not for me to say that I believe her’ in response to a question by a BBC journalist earlier in the week, the feminist movement here let out a collective gasp of disapproval. In the face of such conclusive evidence from both the Starmer report and the Ombudsman’s report that Máiría Cahill has been nothing but honest about what happened to her, it seems nonsensical for the leadership of Sinn Fein not to accept her accusations. It also seems extremely out of step with the post ‘me too’ era, at a time when the public is waking up to the fact that this kind of sexual abuse and harassment of women is extremely widespread, pervasive and for too long has not been believed. ‘I believe her’ has become a rallying call for women who won’t be silent anymore when we see this level of injustice and we watch with disappointment those who are reluctant to make this call on behalf of Máiría Cahill.

There are brilliant, committed feminists in all political parties in Northern Ireland and many passionate elected representatives of all political backgrounds that we in the women’s movement continuously work with on issues that affect women’s lives. We hope that those same people will have the freedom to speak up on behalf of themselves and women they know when power and inequality tells them they should stay quiet. We hope the women’s movement will be somewhere they will always know they can get support as they seek to do that. But most importantly, we will stand with victims and survivors of violence against women and strive to support, show solidarity and amplify their voices.

Kellie Turtle and Elaine Crory, Women’s Resource and Development Agency. Kellie and Elaine are also activists with grassroots feminist organisations Belfast Feminist Network, Alliance for Choice, Reclaim the Night, Rally for Choice and Reclaim the Agenda.

Bold Women Blogging is a public submission blog. Posts do not necessarily represent the views of WRDA but rather operates as a platform for open discussion to encourage women’s participation in social and political issues.