Showing posts with label Human Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Rights. Show all posts

Wednesday, 11 September 2013

So I took cake to a police station last Saturday

It was going to be a good Saturday. I've had a very stressful summer, and I've been ill and had to miss a lot of things, but I was on the mend. That day I was going to have to myself. I was going to play games and perhaps do a bit of cooking and cleaning, but nothing major. I was going to be lazy and I was not going to worry. Well, I might be a little tense for a few hours: a few of my friends were going on a demonstration, but they'd said they were going to be careful and move away from anywhere that looked like trouble. They'd text me when it was over and they were safe. It was going to be fine.

I love old-fashioned games like Theme Hospital and Roller Coaster Tycoon. Roller Coaster Tycoon 2 has some pretty high targets to win the levels - "Have 3,500 guests in your park by the end of year 5" - so sadly you don't get time to enjoy the levels and build roller coasters bit by bit; there is, however, a tool to design them in advance. So I was playing around with types of roller coaster I don't usually build. Excitement rating this, intensity rating that, nausea rating the other. Oh, a text. From a close friend. "Kettled at Tower Hill approach. S with me. Arrest looks likely."

My insides shrank and everything around me seemed to fall away for a moment. My heart began to pound painfully. It was hard to breathe. There was nothing I could do. I could only send a supportive reply back, trying not to sound too scared, and attempt to carry on playing, but it was hopeless. I went onto Twitter to see what was happening. My hands were shaking so much I could hardly type. My phone, which is old and unreliable, kept saying "Message sending failed". I couldn't even send words of hope.

Twitter was well aware of the kettle. A picture began going round - the best description I saw of it was "Overkill much?" As you see, the people in it are very much outnumbered by police. I had no idea if that was where my friends were or whether there were other kettles too.

I soon found out that only a few of my friends had gone on the demo and that most, like me, were awaiting news. For a while things seemed to look up. The next text said: "Still kettled in a group of 50 people at Tower Hill Approach. Maybe won't be mass arrested because I can't see any arrest buses, only lots of cops, police horses and about 5 vans. I think they are just keeping us here."

It's true - you do breathe a loud sigh of relief. I felt a bit weak. But my brain was racing. They might be in the kettle for a very long time. Should I take some food there, to greet them with as they got out? Would that put me in danger too? Where were they - and why? What had they done to get kettled? What was going on? I knew my friends wouldn't do anything stupid like be violent . . . but I have heard some horrible stories of police accusing people of being violent - "Stop kicking me, stop punching me" - while they are standing still. You don't believe this kind of thing when you first hear it. But when you hear it from many sources . . . and when incidents such as Ian Tomlinson, Jody McIntyre, Alfie Meadows and Jean Charles de Menezes seem to be increasingly common; when you've been to Taking Liberties and seen the footage of police attacks on a road you used to walk up every day in Brighton; when your own close relatives have been shoved around, trampled on by a horse and forbidden to walk up the street they live on because they live near a football ground - well, those safe certainties start feeling cornered, and wherever they try to run, there's nowhere to go.

I asked my friends what I should do if they were arrested. I was told to tell another friend, and to call Green and Black Cross. They joked nervously about waving from the kettle picture and assured me that even if they were arrested, they would be OK. Messages were getting through very slowly - possibly, I panicked a few times, the network had been blocked, or more likely there was just a high volume of texts going back and forth. Then I heard that another friend had been injured. She has a long term spinal injury and is often in a lot of pain. She tried to explain this to the police, but a policewoman hit her with her baton so hard that she fell to the ground. Several of us tweeted to the @MetPoliceEvents account to ask that she be let out as she needed an ambulance. It was a long time before they let her go. One other friend was allowed to accompany her. It turned out it was a blessing in disguise, because as they got into the ambulance, several unmarked buses arrived and the mass arrests began.

Talking to another friend who'd stayed at home, I learned of a lovely activity called "arrestee support", where you go and wait outside police stations to help activists as they are released. They are often very hungry or thirsty, released into an area they don't know, and if they're especially unlucky they've had their possessions confiscated so are unable to buy bus or train tickets home. I had been sitting still in a fizz of adrenaline for the last few hours, and doing something positive would make me feel better, so I went to bake some little chocolate cakes. I'd bought a jar of Nutella only to find out I didn't like it much, so I spooned the chocolate cake mixture into the tins, put a teaspoon of Nutella on top of it, and then another teaspoonful of cake mix on top of that. I ended up with 28 little cakes, and ran back upstairs to hear of any news - had the police followed my friends into the ambulance, or had they been let go? - where should I take the cakes? - did anyone know?

It wasn't yet certain where the arrestees were being taken. I tweeted out to ask if anyone would need the cakes and initially got no reply. However, I heard from my friend who had been hurt. Her injury might well have been inflamed and she was in a lot of pain and keeping very still, but she didn't need to go to hospital. She was going to give it a few hours and then three of them were going to do arrestee support. A fourth friend and I asked if we could join.

I got a reply to my cake tweet advising me to ask Green and Black Cross. I was under the impression that they provided legal support, not cake delivery, but they promptly sent me a number to call. It felt most silly and surreal. "Hello, this is @PenguinGalaxy . . ." "Ah, are you the baking lady? Can I give you a call back in just a moment?" "Yeah, sure!" It was late afternoon now. Over two hundred people had been arrested. Twitter was bickering and the last few cakes were refusing to rise because they'd had to go in the bottom of the oven and had cooked too slowly. It was a mundane day. But I just felt I had to do something.

Green and Black Cross called me back and told me that people were being taken to four police stations: Colindale, Sutton, Lewisham and Croydon. I hadn't even heard of the first two and the line was bad, so I had to get them to repeat it. I told them my friends and I would like to help out. They gave me another number to call "to coordinate arrestee support". I said I would pass this on to a friend who has better connections than I do. I'm not very political, I'm not in any activist group - I currently don't call myself an antifascist or anything like that - and I would be a useless coordinator. I could simply see that a lot of people had been arrested for not very much and would need some help - and I wanted to learn more about what went on.

I passed on the information, waited a little while, and soon heard back that they'd decided which station to go to and that they'd meet me there. What with Green and Black Cross calling me "the baking lady", and there being ten times as many people arrested as there were cakes, I added some more supplies - tissues, some Pepsi given free with a pizza, plasters - and went via the supermarket where I bought crisps, chocolate, fruit juice and disposable cups. Money is very tight, but I found all the special offers.

It was a long journey to the police station, and it was in an area out of my pocket A-Z, so I had to rely on a pencil drawing I'd done using Google Maps earlier (my phone is too old to cope with maps). It was almost dark by the time I arrived. Finding the police station was easy, but none of my friends were there. I stood in the deepening blue air and looked around for them, then got out my phone - and saw one of them emerge from the building. I was astonished. What were they doing in there? Was it safe? Turned out, it was. They were all inside - details were not taken on the spot. The ones who'd been kettled apologised again and again for my worry earlier, even though they'd hardly asked for it to happen and had suffered much worse than I. I hugged them all emotionally - my injured friend very carefully - feeling a great rush of gladness that they were safe. Except one, who was very busy with a notebook, talking to a man I didn't know. He was shaking and visibly on edge; he was one of the arrestees, the first to be let out. He'd come on one of two large buses full of people. It seemed that Green and Black Cross had set my friend to collecting information for them - what people were arrested for, their bail conditions, when they'd have to go back, and did they have a solicitor or anyone who could give them legal advice?

It was a small waiting room in a super-modern building, looking rather like the leisure centre of a university campus or similar, and it was full of people. Several clearly spoke little or no English and seemed to be anxious relatives of arrestees. There were six seats, not enough for us all, and naturally much pacing about. The door kept opening automatically and each time its metal handles clanged loudly on the metal railings outside. I didn't really know what I could usefully do, so I opened up some of the bags and boxes of food. Most people didn't want anything, but the cake slowly began to disappear. I remembered the "peace" cake that got Mark Thomas's friend ordered to leave Parliament Square. (I keep meaning to take a cake with "peace" iced on it to Parliament Square just to see what will happen, but I haven't yet got round to it!) Bit by bit, I talked with my friends and began to learn what had happened.

I have not yet heard any reports of violence. It seemed that people were being arrested for "breaching sections 12 and 14" - all they knew was that they were walking up an empty street, some with banners, some without, and hadn't even met the EDL, when they saw police coming at them from all sides and were unable to escape. It seemed that certain areas had been designated as out of bounds without warning. Figures of arrests were between two and three hundred. The EDL (English Defence League, one of the two main far-right organisations in the UK, which has links to Anders Breivik) had chosen Tower Hamlets as their marching point - specifically Altab Ali Park - because of its large population of ethnic minorities and their apparent belief that it is "under Sharia law". (They do have some rather odd beliefs, such as that Brighton Pavilion is a mosque.) As far as we knew then, two EDL members had been arrested (I have since heard fourteen), including Tommy Robinson again. I had seen a tweet earlier that they were extremely drunk and were escorted by many police across London Bridge, but I don't know if it was true, or, if it was, whether this "escort" was protecting or restricting them or both.

It was a long time before anyone else was released. The next person out was a quiet girl who'd come in from outside London by herself. She hadn't been charged, but bailed and told to return in late October. She was extremely thirsty. The policeman with her directed her to the nearest train station, but by this time it was too late for her to get home. My note-taking friend told us how she'd felt to be arrested at a demonstration and then released in Basildon, which is way out of London, with no means of contacting anyone or getting home, but how she'd been helped by arrestee support.

Suddenly another bus arrived. It was a red, unmarked single decker, and it was full of people sitting very still. I learned later that they were all handcuffed. The kettling had begun some eight hours before now. I had never seen so many people with such miserable expressions. My friends ran outside and shouted greetings to them. I followed and tried to give them a supportive smile, wondering what they were all thinking, how much longer it would be before we saw them again. A policeman told us to move away and that we could be "arrested for obstruction". We were standing on the pavement, well out of anybody's way! "Are you proud of yourself, supporting fascists?" one of my friends asked him as we went back inside.

Gradually it got darker. The windows suddenly became mirror-like instead of transparent. A few more people were released. Their bail conditions forbade them to "engage in demonstration within the M25 where the English Defence League, English Volunteer Forces or British National Party are present". In other words, the far-right organisations may protest, but those who protest against them may not.


Some people released had heard of Green and Black Cross; others had not. One was in a state of shock because his solicitor had told him that his flat in the North of England may have been raided by the police - it was uncertain whether it had or not.

A couple with limited English arrived and waited a long time at the counter to be seen. I tried to work out whether they were more worried relatives or here for something else, but I wasn't sure. In the end, I just offered them cake. The woman took one with a huge smile and then began to cry. She didn't have any tissues, so I went and got her some as discreetly as I could. She managed to say "It gets better!" and soon after that, they were called through a door. I never saw them come out. Other relatives had less luck. Some were there from when I arrived to when I left three hours later. One woman who had initially refused any of our supplies changed her mind. Eventually a policewoman called four or five of them forward and told them that only one would be allowed to come inside to speak to them. I heard her say "Do you speak English?" and "I don't care" several times in quite an aggressive voice. It was a stark contrast to how wonderful the police had been the day I called 999 when a man had been attempting suicide at Leytonstone station. I felt bewildered and sad.

One of our group offered the girl who couldn't get home a place to stay. Two of us had nasty colds and badly needed hot drinks; my friend who'd texted me went off in search for anywhere still selling them. There was a toilet, but it had no lock and no paper; I made a mental note to bring lots of tissues next time I did arrestee support.

I went off in search of my coffee-bearing friend and when we got back, two more buses of arrestees had arrived. I went to the gates, unable to believe my ears - I had already heard that all the cells were full. There was a double decker and a single decker bus, and they were parked behind the building, the engines and lights still on, and nobody was coming out of them. Evidently the buses themselves were being used as holding cells. It was then that one of the recently released people - a remarkably cheerful person who'd come from the South of England and refused a cake due to being a vegan - told us that nobody was allowed to talk on the bus. "Sounds like school!" I said. He laughed. "Yes, exactly that!" We could only laugh and try to remain upbeat and strong. We were in shock, but would keep our spirits up for each other.

How could the figure be only up to three hundred, I wondered? It looked like nearly that many were at this police station alone. And people were only being released every half hour or so. How long would it take to release them all?

We all talked, a little. One of the arrestees rolled up his trouser leg. The worried relatives were intrigued to see it was covered with heavily inked telephone numbers. He explained that it's a standard activist tactic: pieces of paper and mobile phones can be removed, but your limbs cannot. My limited experience has taught me that you should use a thicker pen than a biro - upper arms are very soft.

I went home at elevenish, so as not to miss the last trains. I later learned that three of my friends stayed until 2am, when a new shift of support workers took over. Between some time before 8pm, and 2am, my friends helped fifteen people. (A couple more hadn't wanted to talk to us - understandably, since we could have been anyone.) Of these fifteen, three were simply members of the public who had had nothing to do with the demonstration, but had simply been walking up the street and then driven into the kettle. By about 9am the next day, Green and Black Cross tweeted that everyone was out of that police station. My estimates of how many had arrived were too high; "only" 286 people had been arrested - the largest number in one go since at least the student protests of 2010.

It was a slightly shattering experience. One assumes that you're safe from arrest until you break the law. I've yet to hear any evidence that the people arrested were even disruptive - none of the people that I saw released were charged with anything. That's not to say that I think antifascists are all completely peaceful. I don't. Actually, I don't call myself one because I know they include some very unpleasant people. I'd tagged along on one demonstration before and overheard some sexist and ableist remarks being made, as well as a lot of showing off. But the notion of antifascists being a screaming, violent, uncontrollable mob - the picture we get many times through the media and through other people's remarks - was utterly at odds with the calmness I'd seen on Saturday, the support and care people showed each other, the quiet and controlled behaviour. One would have thought that for 286 arrests, there must have been some kind of riot. But I have heard (only through rumours; sadly, when there is no trust, most information comes via rumour, so we can never be certain of anything) that mass arrests were planned that day. And one senses from the bail conditions that the aim is to put people off demonstrating.

Demonstrating is a fundamental human right. The EDL have the right to speak their minds, and so do antifascists. I have seen the sentiment that antifascists are removing the EDL's right to peaceful assembly by demonstrating and using phrases such as "they shall not pass". I have also heard the contrary sentiment that fascism and racism are illegal, so why should the EDL get to march at all? My personal take is the least "controlled" of all: that the EDL do have the right to demonstrate, and the rest of us have the right to tell the EDL that they are neither right nor welcome. To deny anyone the right to say what they think, no matter how horrible it is, opens up too many doorways to abuse (I wrote more about this here). But since the antifascists are not law-makers, they cannot forbid the EDL to assemble; they can, however, disrupt such assemblies - disruption often being a very peaceful and effective tool. But let's face it, choosing to march in Tower Hamlets is not abstract debate or a polite message to Parliament. If it's not a deliberate attempt to intimidate and inflame, I don't know what it is.

One of the arrestees told me that she was sure the police dislike the EDL and the antifascists equally. I have heard others claim that the police favour the EDL. I don't know. I only know that, last Saturday, I witnessed a very heavy-handed official response to people's expression of their views. And I know that since the ghastly Woolwich murder, some of my non-white friends are afraid whenever they are out in public. One has been stopped and held up for a long time arriving at Glasgow airport, while white people who were being loud and disruptive were waved through without question. The atmosphere is fairly easygoing here in Ilford, with its large Asian population - indeed, people in shops especially seem to be going out of their way to be extra nice. But when I go to other places, I feel the tension.

I have not named which police station I went to and have avoided revealing any details of my friends or anyone else there or marching. If you were there and would like to reveal yourself, please by all means do so, but please respect others' privacy.

And I hope you got some of my cake.

Thursday, 18 April 2013

In sleep a king

. . . as a dream doth flatter, 
In sleep a king, but, waking, no such matter.
Ten years ago I would have hailed this as exactly what I wanted to say. This piece has been judged excellent, well thought out and a breath of fresh air by many people I like and respect. It claims that it is impossible to write fluently without someone jumping on you and accusing you of oppressing people who may be female, disabled, trans, gay, non-white, etc. That language itself is being ruined by attempts to be "correct". That what people says is being lost in accusations of oppressing someone, while in fact far more people who genuinely don't know what "correct" language is are being alienated and left behind.

When I was young, I hated political correctness. I hated racism even more, and made a point of spending as much time as possible with the international students. In fact, political correctness seemed to me to be racism, but with a shiny veneer: "Oh, I won't say 'black coffee', because it is a problem to be black, but I'm too polite to say so. I won't use any word which refers to your colour, positive or negative or neutral; aren't I nice?" To be fair, I did know some people a bit like that. I was also once publicly held up as a racist in front of a hundred-odd other people because I'd fallen into a deliberately set trap. I was distraught (especially when one of the people praised for their "correct" attitude then went on to say "that Paki" the very next day).

It makes me shrink to say this, but it's true: I was particularly upset that my friends would repeatedly talk about how unacceptable it was ever to even mention the word "Jew" or "Jewish" because that was not only racist, but pro-Holocaust. My family had been ostracised by some Jewish people - a very small minority, I didn't doubt then and don't doubt now - who had refused to speak to us, even to give us directions when we were lost, because we weren't Jewish. (At school, my dad had been in a football team of mostly Jewish boys, who had named themselves "The Smelly Yids"!) I was sympathetic in speech but irritated in private when a friend complained that the university campus made it hard for her mother to walk as she had weak ankles: did she want the whole place knocked down? (It was a campus largely made of steps and pyramids and walkways. An amazing place. But definitely designed without disabled people in mind.)

I look back on my younger self with mortification. Did I ever say terrible things about anyone just because I felt My Right to do so trumped political correctness? Did I make things worse for anybody? It haunts me. Which, of course, doesn't help anyone.

I think, now, that what I was seeing and hating was a caricature. Much like the caricature tabloids write of health and safety policies, which stop people buying cheese and saying "Christmas", rather than are enforced to save lives. Or of immigrants, who are here to take all our jobs and live off all our benefits (you know, in right-wing minds they can do both at once).

Caricatures can distract from reality. They divide and rule.


As Deborah put it in a talk she gave recently to Hackney Skeptics, it was common in medieval times for women to accuse other women of witchcraft because that was pretty much the only social leverage they had. If you're at the bottom and unable to confront those at the top, it's all too easy to turn on those also at the bottom with you. I'm pretty sure this is exactly what the government and tabloids want the working classes to do - to spit at disabled people and call each other scroungers, rather than take our grievances to the government and to large-scale tax avoiders.

Another problem was that I was very ill at the time. It was an invisible illness. No allowances could be made for me. As far as I know, there's no special insult for "person with a major intestinal disorder who suffers from nausea and pain and anxiety" (as there is for many mental conditions or loss of mobility, for example) that could be not used. There were no physical adaptations that could be made. There was nothing to help me. I was jealous of those who could be helped and were.

Looking back, those who forbade mentions of various races or colours were invariably white. The girl who told me not to swear in her presence because she was a Christian also boasted about how she had destroyed her mobile's sim card to get a new phone on insurance. My Ghanian housemate was happy to talk about being black - but that was years later; he was not party to such discussions. I never heard what Jewish people thought of anyone mentioning the word "Jewish" or "Jew".

Well-meaning people wanted to speak in their support. Other well-meaning people disagreed with how to speak in their support.

The voices that should have been loudest were not even there.

So there I was, full of my own problems and without awareness of those I didn't understand - that I had no way of understanding. Until circumstance made me understand.

Three years ago I found work in a charity that provided information and hired out mobility equipment to disabled people. It was "run by the disabled for the disabled". I was the only person without a physical or mental disability. It was the most supportive place I'd ever known. My physical problems (the pain and nausea and weakness) and my mental problems (my depression, anxiety, workplace phobia as a result of bullying, and lack of confidence) were accepted and no big deal, but my colleagues were always there to listen and support me. I found myself doing the same for them. And a new part of me began to blossom.

I was appalled by the rage I saw in some of the newsletters, such as Disability Today. They seemed to personally loathe anyone whose legs worked properly. But I was equally appalled by the slurs levelled at disabled people not only in the newspapers, but from a random man who took it upon himself to walk into the office and berate me for handing out blue badges to his neighbour who he was certain didn't need it. And I began to realise that slurs were spoken, judgments were made, policies were drawn up, without the involvement of the people they affected.

Perhaps one problem with knowing that others are disadvantaged is that decent people have an immediate instinct to speak up for such people. The trouble with that is that it gives those who don't actually have much knowledge a false idea of how much they do know. There's a point when you just have to say: I don't know what it's like to be coloured, disabled, or trans. And I have to shut up and listen.

There are men who write in favour of feminism, who speak volubly and passionately about how much they care and how anyone who thinks them sexist is hateful and misunderstands - but who will then ignore women's voices as soon as they don't like them. I doubt they realise they're doing this. They want to do good. They already get stick from those who disrespect their feminist stance, and this hurts, but they keep going. They genuinely mean well. Just as I meant well to say that political correctness was racism made respectable.

There are men who simply retweet women's words without comment, who chase away harassers, who protect vulnerable women even after their friends have been shot doing so, who don't tell everybody else what to do. These men are much harder to see.

A few months ago, a new website for feminist writing opened, and they asked me to submit an article. I wrote about my two sides of what I consider feminist activism: women in science, and Galactic Orchids. They turned me down. They wanted their first article about female genital mutilation to be from someone involved in the relevant culture. I was hurt - rejection always hurts - but they were right. I should be quietly supporting and amplifying voices of those actually affected. Not leading the discussion.

It wouldn't be right for me to tell my trans friends how to survive, or my non-white friends when to consider someone racist and when not. I don't know what that's like and it's not for me to say.

This is a difficult post to write, because if you're on Twitter you probably know there's been a big blow-up between prominent feminists over the issue of language. I have friends on both sides of the platform. Passionately so. One side says: they attack you if you don't know the words "intersectionality" or "WoC"; you can't open your mouth without them jumping down your throat. The other side says: you can be polite and they ignore you; you can get angry and then get labelled a bully. One side says: there's a core group of trouble-makers who are making this space less safe for women. The other side says: they just don't want to listen, they don't want to learn, their only solution is to continue oppression and marginalise anyone who dares disagree.

It is heartbreaking to be told you've used an oppressive word, such as "cretin", when you only meant "someone who has done something very silly and very funny" - and when you've just spent a huge amount of time and energy supporting someone with mental health problems, listening to them, pointing them to places that can help, leaving yourself drained. It is all too easy to leap to the defensive. "You KNOW I didn't mean that. Why do you assume the default position is that I'm ableist when all the evidence points the other way? Who cares about words over actions?"

But why spend an awful lot of time and effort for a cause if you're then not willing to listen those you're supposed to be supporting? Over something that really won't hurt you in practice? Calling out someone actually doesn't have to mean "you're ableist scum, I hate you and I'm going to shame you before the entire world. You will never live this down" - even though it feels that way. When people have pointed out I've used a word I shouldn't, they've generally only meant, "Please don't do that. I know you don't mean to, but it hurts, and it adds to the problem."

That's all I've meant when I've asked men (especially on Facebook) not to keep posting pictures or jokes that objectify women - that discuss us as if we're pieces of meat, that rate us by our attractiveness, that tell us to accept it was our fault for dressing wrong if we were raped, that we are too emotional and illogical to be scientists. Many are resistant. They know what they mean. I should keep quiet and accept it, right?

"Do call me out if I screw up, as I'm sure I must do from time to time, being white," wrote Scattermoon on Twitter. A different approach from defensiveness: Teach me. I will see it as teaching. Not accusing. I will grow.

Joining Galaxy Zoo and Skeptics in the Pub meant that I had to be very ready to accept correction if I ever made a scientific mistake. Being a feminist - and one who includes women (and men, and transfolks, and etc etc) of all colours and abilities and backgrounds, which is my current understanding of the word "intersectional" - means I have to be ready to accept correction, too. In my family we never used "nut" to describe mental health problems - it was often an affectionate word, sometimes actively complimentary, in praise for a really silly joke. But just as I learned a new language when I moved to Spain back in 2003, I learned a new language when I left home.

It really hasn't hurt to watch how I use the word, and similar words, now. To adapt a little is a very small price to pay for knowing a vastly more diverse group of people than I used to - and knowing so much more as a result.

It's true that lots of people don't know what "intersectional" means and there's no point assuming they do. That doesn't mean the word has to be rejected out of hand, though. New words do spring up. "Cis", for instance, to describe "not trans". "Straight", for example, to mean "not gay". Yes, language is complicated, and frankly, columnists, you can't please everybody - it just isn't possible. Any read of any comment section will demonstrate that.

As I read on a blog yesterday which I now can't find (if you know the one I mean, please post it in the comments!), it is very easy for a campaign to seem whiny and unimportant if you don't know what it's about.

And the only way to learn what it's about is to listen.

Friday, 8 March 2013

International Women's Day 2013

On International Women's Day, there are numerous events, and there are continuities. Many people wish each other a happy International Women's Day, while others whine that there is no International Men's Day (here it is) or claim that in today's "honour", they have "put the washing machine on".

It's important to remember - as many women point out when we begin posts about feminism - just how far we've come in not very many years. Rape and violence including within marriage are no longer acceptable in many societies. Women can now be politicians, when a century ago we didn't even have the vote. In theory, at least, we're supposed to have equal pay, though this certainly doesn't happen in practice (two recent figures are 9.6% and 14%). And - by the way, this often makes me incredibly happy - most men I know are all for equality. Most treat me with as much respect as they treat men. Some, who are initially dismissive of feminism, change their minds when they learn more. Many comment on how the patriarchy damages men too - Puffles, for instance. And I hope most understand that when I mention sexism, I am not bashing men in general, or any specific man unless I say so - just a sheer cultural force of habit.

Recently some of the most moving pieces I've read involve horrific behaviour going unchallenged and the permanent fear in which this leaves women (note: this last site has posts for over-18s only - not including that one). Yesterday there was a hilarious NewsBiscuit take on how differently males and females were represented in the media, which prompted the #thingspeopledontsayaboutmen hashtag ("He's a bit hormonal today"; "Can career men have it all?"; etc.). It may sound trivial to those who have not experienced such things, but this entry on Everyday Sexism pretty much sums it up (click to enlarge):


In other words, just the fact that we are openly talking about sexism is a major stepping stone to victory. Projects such as Everyday Sexism are vital to this sort of thing. The method of a bully is to make the victim feel powerless and alone. This bully might be a schoolkid who tells their victim nobody likes them, a (male or female) domestic abuser, or a dictatorship that makes all its citizens terrified their neighbours will report them, or anyone big or small - and as any woman who's called out sexist remarks can probably attest, she will be accused of overreacting, being a bitch, ugly, frigid, paranoid, a man-hater, etc etc, which has just this isolating effect. But it's a lot harder to say this when 20,000 people tell similar stories!

So, what am I doing for International Women's Day, other than ranting? Probably not much, as I'm unwell - though I hope to go along and see the Daughters of Eve stall here. I should probably write my presentation for Wednesday: it'll be the March Galactic Orchids talk, "Many Mysterious Moons".

Our own Moon has some decidedly odd characteristics. Some of them are intrinsically odd; some are perfectly unremarkable but make you stop and think. For instance, its gravity is only one-sixth of Earth's. But its mass is 1/80th. How can that be? That is because, when we stand on the Moon, we are comparatively nearer its centre, so more strongly affected - you need Newton's laws for that. And then there's the fact that our Moon is much, much bigger than every other planet's moon in comparison to the size of its planet. And then there are other moons: some destined to crash into their home planet one day, some that make gaps in the planet's rings, others that actually create the rings, a few that are hopeful candidates in the search for extraterrestrial life . . . I'll write more about these when I've done my talk. I hope you'll be able to come! 7pm this Wednesday, Newington Green Unitarian Church, 39A Newington Green, Stoke Newington, London N16 9PR - a talk followed by questions and answers, then tea, coffee, biscuits and quite possibly cake. The nearest train stations are Dalston Kingsland and Canonbury on the Overground line.


Galactic Orchids hasn't exactly been my life's smashing success: 13 has been my largest audience so far. I advertise on Twitter and Facebook, contact local news outlets etc - though the latter seems to draw nobody in. (Oddly, when I lived in Wales and travelled to give talks at other places, I'd often have audiences of 50 or more. Now I'm in London, it's very rare for people to come to my talks. Perhaps everything's just higher quality here? Or perhaps I'm really just not very good at advertising.) Recently, suffering from depression and low confidence, I've ended up rushing my presentations a little - and then of course feeling disheartened that they're just not as good as I wanted them to be.

On the other hand, people tell me earnestly that they learn a lot and enjoy the evenings, and I have a small but lovely "hard core" who keep coming back, which is the best possible sign. A couple of especially wonderful people can be relied on to help with the setting up and then clearing up after we've drunk our tea, and some have brought space-themed food! We've had some great chatty evenings as a result. We've been able to donate over £100 each to Daughters of Eve and the Orchid Project, plus some minor expenses for me and a donation to New Unity, which gives me their venue for free. A friend kindly lent me a projector, then said I could keep it! One of my aims with Galactic Orchids is not so much to make people experts in female genital mutilation - the more I learn about that, as with astronomy, the less I feel I know; even campaigners don't agree on everything - but simply to make it, like sexism, more acceptable to talk about. I mean, it's not exactly easy to trample into the subject of private parts permanently injured in a cultural practice believed (incorrectly) to be required by religion, is it?

The resulting ignorance about female genital mutilation is heartbreaking. Take this story of an 11-year-old two years ago, whose 12-year-old sister was cut in Africa without even her parents' knowledge. They only found out when she cried watching a television program about it back in the UK. The 11-year-old was terrified that the same would happen to her when they next visited extended family, and sought help from a teacher. The teacher did not know to contact police, or even a specialised charity.

Things are progressing, though. A journalist recently took on the subject in Liberia which broke a major taboo - putting herself and a lady she interviewed in danger, but both say it was worth it. After Nimko Ali from Daughters of Eve got into the Evening Standard (for which she received death threats, accusations of "hating being a Somali" and so on), £35 million was pledged to battle the problem! It's not going to be an easy task, but at least it's now an open, acknowledged problem. And it's a problem that is part of a wider culture of violence and subjugation of women, which affects us all, men and women, of every country. My tiny part to play is raising a small amount of money and what little awareness I can for people who can help much better than I can alone, I guess. There are events and there are tiny, inching steps.

Incidentally, there's a long but fascinating podcast about female genital mutilation here.

Sunday, 16 September 2012

And, Therefore . . . Part II: Proofs that women shouldn't mention sexism!

A couple of years ago, after the Ten23 overdose, I read more comments on newspaper and social networking sites than usual and became rather overly well versed in pro-homeopathy logic. The result was startling - it ended up on various Spanish websites, a German one, and even as part of a university course.

Since my rant about sexual harassment, the wonderful website EverydaySexism launched, and one or two instances of misogyny coming up among the (depressingly fragmented this year) skeptical movement*, the same has started to happen with feminism. The more I read of feminist issues, the more people I see trying to cover them up, and the more annoyed I'm getting!

To be clear, most men I know are nice, fair, un-sexist, and upset when they see sexism occurring. And I have come across some who have genuinely been astonished and distressed to discover a behaviour they thought normal (groping, for example) is damaging and horrible, and changed their perception. So this probably rather unpleasant rant is only directed at** a small - but vocal - minority, which is highly offended at sexism's ever being pointed out or discussed. In the spirit of my homeopathy proofs, I thought it was time to make a note of their logic . . .

*For "movement", if you wish, please read "community" or "unherded cats" or whatever takes your fancy. That is seriously not something I can be bothered to have an argument about.

** For "directed at", please read "actually, not directed at them at all. Rather, directed at those who have attempted to engage with them, and need a laugh as an alternative to banging their head against a brick wall!"

THE AESTHETICS ARGUMENT
1) Feminists are always ugly.
2) Aren't they?
3) Look around. Yeah, everyone's laughing in agreement with me. So that's all right then! Shut your face, you frigid bitch, and go and iron my shirt.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM CALMNESS
1) You're overreacting.
2) You're also doing women who are real victims of sexism a disservice by getting so hysterical. They won't get taken seriously next time they're assaulted, all because of you whining so much that nobody believes women any more.
3) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE PERSONAL PREFERENCE OF WORDS ARGUMENT
1) Somebody used the word "misogyny" incorrectly.
2) A LOT of people do that; that is proof that their understanding is incorrect.
3) Obviously my own interpretation of the word is correct. There is no argument about that.
4) Therefore, nobody should use that word in any context other than that which has my signed approval.
5) Therefore, that covers the entire issue.
6) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE REVERSE SEXISM ARGUMENT
1) But women can be sexist towards men too!
2) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE REVERSE SEXISM ARGUMENT (2)
1) Why are you only talking about sexism towards women in this particular instance? That's really sexist of you! You're the ones at fault here!
2) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE NO TRUE (SCOTS)MAN ARGUMENT
1) I've never catcalled a woman in the street.
2) Therefore, why are you moaning where I can see it? That's not fair on me.
3) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE HUMOROUS ARGUMENT
1) We didn't mean it seriously about how this woman needs a good rape and that one should be in the kitchen making sandwiches. We're really confused about why you should criticise such comments.
2) Therefore, you're too serious.
3) And also too emotional to have a rational discussion with.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM SMALL HOLES
1) You made a statement which I consider to be incorrect or misrepresentative, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the subject in question.
2) Therefore, the rest of your argument is also invalid.
3) Also, you're doing a great disservice to the people you misrepresented.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE CAUSATION ARGUMENT
1) I am not blaming women. I am just trying to analyse the causes of sexism.
2) That you have not covered every single one of my ideas and excuses in your blogpost or article is evidence that you do not care about the causes, you only want to blame men.
3) Like all feminists.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM MY POINT
1) This feminist has missed my point.
2) They always do that.
3) Yes, my point is much more important than all the opinions and experiences of all women in the world put together.
4) No, there is definitely no chance that she did understand your point, but disagreed with it.
5) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE COMPLI(E?)MENTARY ARGUMENT
1) But isn't it a compliment to be catcalled or groped?
2) You should be grateful men notice you. Fat or old or ugly women don't get this attention.
3) Yes, of course you live entirely to gain men's attention. Come on, you're a woman!
4) But it's not anyone's intention to scare, disgust, threaten, corner, embarrass or belittle you.
5) My interpretation is also valid while yours is not.
6) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE COUNTER ARGUMENT
1) It is also possible for men to be sexually assaulted by women.
2) This by definition negates the entire issue of sexual assault of women by men.
3) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE RAPE = THEFT ARGUMENT
1) Of course it's not right to say that a woman should dress modestly in order to avoid rape, there is no excuse for rape.
2) However, would you leave your house door unlocked?
3) That rape is violent assault on a living, moving being, whilst theft is of inanimate objects for a totally different purpose, is utterly irrelevant here.
4) Therefore, women should dress modestly in order to avoid rape. This is only common sense.
5) And it's illogical to complain about it.
6) And it is not insulting to men, because if it was, that would mean everyone thinks I'm a thief.
7) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism (or victim blaming, or rape).

ARGUMENT FROM BIOLOGY
1) We poor men just can't help it.
2) God/evolution/whatever made our eyes to be receptive to visual signals.
3) Therefore, it's your job to be modest.
4) We're only trying to help you here.
5) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
1) I'm not racist.
2) Therefore, I can't be sexist either.
3) Therefore, I shouldn't have to put up with this being discussed around me.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE LACK OF OFFENCE ARGUMENT
1) What's your problem? I'm not offended by what s/he did/said.
2) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT
1) You young things these days don't know how lucky you are!
2) When I was young, my mother was expected to do all the cooking and ironing. She didn't complain!
3) You young girls need to stop messing about on the career ladder and find yourselves a nice man!
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM THE VICTIM CARD
1) She's just playing the victim card.
2) Therefore, she can't be being honest.
3) Therefore, we don't welcome her opinion of sexism.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM THE VICTIM CARD (2)
1) But this woman was really horrible to me once.
2) Therefore, all women are horrible.
3) Therefore, any accusations of sexism are just part of their dishonesty and nastiness.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM THE VICTIM CARD (3)
1) Men only catcall and harass women to impress other men.
2) They are insecure. They need to look big in front of their mates.
3) Therefore, their perpetuation of a toxic culture and the effect it has on the victims and bystanders is irrelevant.
4) Also, you should be blaming society for feeding men sexist images like Page 3.
5) NB the above is valid whether you have suggested a cause or not. If you mention sexism, you're attacking men and avoiding analysis.
6) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM THE VICTIM CARD (4)
1) A woman once mentioned me in her blogpost about sexism.
2) That was horrible of her and you are stupid to agree with anything else she's ever said.
3) Therefore, everything you and she say is wrong.
4) And this is all about me.
5) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE SOPHISTICATED ARGUMENT
1) Will you stop pretending things are as black and white as that!
2) It's not as simple as you make out!
3) For example, what if a man has already started shagging a woman by the time she says no? Is it rape then?
4) Therefore, everything is complicated.
5) Therefore, it is better not discussed.
6) Also, you're dumb.
7) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM INTERNETTIQUETTE
1) Don't feed the trolls.
2) If you mention sexism, you're only going to be feeding the trolls.
3) That is unpleasant for other people.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM LANGUAGE
1) It's not misogyny to use misogynistic language in an ad hominem attack on a woman.
2) It's merely that I disagree with her views.
3) The fact that I attacked her in this manner, rather than state why I disagree with those views, is evidence of your obsession and paranoia.
4) Therefore, you can't tell the difference between misogyny and the good argument I made.
5) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE GOOD OLD DAYS ARGUMENT
1) Well I was brought up to be a gentleman, me.
2) I was taught to offer my seat to ladies and to hold doors open for other people.
3) These young girls go around wearing less* clothes than I go to bed wearing!
4) And then they blame other people when they notice that!
5) What do they expect? No sense of responsibility, these young things today.
6) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.
*The appropriate word here is "fewer". Yes, I am a pain in the arse.

ARGUMENT FROM A WELL-KNOWN CONCERN TROLL
1) She looks like junk.
2) Therefore, she can't be telling the truth about being sexually harassed.
3) Also, I agree with my friend that most people's views on this kind of thing are highly suspect.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.
(Can't provide the source, sorry - I've blocked her, so no longer have access!)

ARGUMENT FROM THE ECHO CHAMBER
1) You have been caught speaking to other feminists.
2) Therefore, you are just shouting to an echo chamber.
3) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM DISTRACTION
1) But other nasty things happen too.
2) Therefore, you should be writing about those instead.
3) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.
(Source)

THE DAWKINS ARGUMENT
1) Women are better off in Britain/America/wherever the woman is than in some other countries, where oppression is worse.
2) It is not possible that sexism has varying degrees, and that a "mild" incidence of sexism could possibly be compared to a less mild one.
3) Also, mentioning one issue means, by default, that all other issues in the world must be being ignored.
4) Therefore, it is exceedingly damaging to women who are being oppressed worse if a woman mentions sexism.
5) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE ELEVATORGATE ARGUMENT
1) Elevatorgate.
2) Well, you know.
3) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM GETTING ANNOYED WITH SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET
1) But this woman who was talking about this the other day really annoyed me.
2) She treats women like poor little flowers, all this "trigger warning" business.
3) She was only insulted, stalked, had her address published and threatened with rape because she was so annoying.
4) That's nothing to do with sexism.
5) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE PROVOCATIVE ARGUMENT
1) If you're sexually harassed, it's your own fault for what you were wearing.
2) What has the fact that you weren't wearing anything provocative to do with my argument?
3) It's all evidence-based.
4) It's your own fault, you're just whinging and avoiding responsibility for your behaviour.
5) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM CONFUSION
1) Sexism is treating the opposite sex badly.
2) Assault is assault.
3) No, the two can never possibly be related.
4) This article "seeks to blur the lines between the two."
5) Therefore, this article is wrong.
6) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism (in relation to sexual assault).
(Source: some of the comments. I don't recommend a read!)

THE APATHY ARGUMENT
1) I don't see what the big deal is.
2) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

Feel free to add your own.

Update, April 2013:
THE I DON'T LIKE LAURA BATES ARGUMENT
1) I never noticed this was a problem until Laura Bates pointed it out.
2) Therefore, it wasn't a problem before.
3) But now it is a problem.
4) That makes life worse for women.
5) That means Laura Bates is creating problems.
6) Or maybe I just don't like Everyday Sexism having a newspaper column.
7) Therefore, it shouldn't.
8) Everything would go so much better if you just stopped talking about these things!
9) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.
(Has anyone else noticed this argument in the comments of a lot of Everyday Sexism columns? I have, and it's driving me nuts!)

Tuesday, 7 August 2012

Astronomy talks for the Orchid Project

I'm in the process of setting up a new project, which hopefully should have its own website soon, though I'm still looking for a name. I will soon be giving a series of astronomy talks, aimed at the general public, to fundraise for the Orchid Project which works with communities to bring an end to female genital mutilation.

I love giving astronomy talks, and have several left over from Tea with the Stars, plus ideas for many more. Hopefully, this autumn, I'll be starting talks at the Newington Green Unitarian Church, who with amazing kindness have offered me their building for free! (The talks will have absolutely no religious affiliation; they're open to anyone who likes astronomy.) You can find the place here; it's incredibly friendly. It looks like we'll be able to have tea, coffee, biscuits etc. too.

The talks look as if they are going to be once a month, probably on a Wednesday evening. A lot remains to be decided, such as the exact price and length. A few expenses will be involved, such as steward fees, but the rest will go to the Orchid Project. (I will of course provide spreadsheets of all the money that comes in and where it went, though I know nothing about accountancy.) There are so many human rights violations I want to help stop, and it's impossible to "pick one", but I choose to concentrate, for now, on female genital mutilation.

Female genital mutilation is the cutting off - often with scissors and unsterelized equipment, with no anaesthetic - a girl's external genitals. It is a very painful and dangerous practice. The Orchid Project explains in graphic language here. It may be part or all of her clitoris, clitoral hood or labia. At worst, the wounds left are sewn very tight shut, leaving only a tiny hole for menstrual blood and urine. She will then have to be cut open again for sexual intercourse and for labour, and may even be sewn up again - so she will have to be re-cut later - after birth.

This is not something unique to a few isolated African tribes, or insert stereotype of choice here. It happens in 28 countries across the world. And one of them is the United Kingdom. 

This was recently highlighted by programs such as Newsnight, and there was a spate of articles in the press. It was the beginning of summer - when girls as young as five may be taken to their parents' or grandparents' countries to be cut, or even to have it done right here in a British town. 

The Orchid Project have a success rate of over 70% of encouraging communities in Africa to give up FGM - and to publicly announce that they are doing so. In 2011, two thousand communities rejected the practice. This means not just passing laws, but informing all local people that you are doing so - to raise awareness of why, to point out that the practice is not required by any holy book, and to let your neighbours know that any girls they marry from your town will not be cut and why. 

Why, then, does it still happen in the UK? Orchid Project point out that when populations emigrate - become "diaspora" - they may try to retain their cultural identity even after their original countries have moved on. At the beginning of the 20th century, most women in China still had their feet bound. Within twenty years, the practice abruptly dried up. It was clung to for longer, however, in populations in California.

The other reason it happens in the UK is worry about intruding on other cultures. I have to tackle with my own private voice - "Who are you, an unaffected white girl, to tell people you don't know how to bring up their children?" The best answer I can give is that I believe religious rights end when human rights are violated. France and the UK made the same laws at the same time, but France enforces them while we do not. Despite an estimated over 20,000 girls being mutilated, here or abroad, the Crown Prosecution Service has not prosecuted a single person. People in France - and, most significantly, ladies from the ethnic minorities in question - ask why.

Makumi McCrum, a policy advisor to the Scottish government, remarks that FGM is "a violation so intrusive and personal that many people adopt a culture of silence as it is humiliating and embarrassing to talk about." More worryingly, Nick Cohen writes: "Anti-colonialism is no longer an opposition to foreign occupation but opposition to the ‘inappropriate’ imposition of ‘western’ values on the formerly colonised. Fear plays its part in the silence. I know doctors who worry they will be accused of racism if they protest about the mistreatment of girls. They suspect that their employers will not report protesting parents to the police but punish them instead."

A woman named Muna, who left Somalia and now lives in Glasgow, told the BBC: "They are so terrified and they are using cultural sensitivity as a barrier to stop them from really doing anything. What would you do if the girl had blue eyes and blonde hair? Would FGM still be carrying on in the UK?"

On a similar note, Iram Ramzan tells us, "It is not politically correct to continue to ignore the plight of ethnic minority women." As with "honour killings" (which rather than simply being called "murder", which it is, have their own special sensitive name), this is violence, and should be treated as such. This is not some delicate or essential religious practice. It is about the control and subjugation of women. There are no benefits, and there are terrible physical and psychological consequences. (If of course an adult woman wants it done, that's a different matter altogether.)

There's a place for cultural sensitivity, and that is not allowing children to be wounded and women to be put in agony and danger.

So what am I doing about it? At the moment, I'm not directly getting involved. I don't know how and I don't feel I know enough yet. Instead I'm doing something I love doing, and that can bring people a bit more knowledge and enjoyment. Hopefully, that will not only help Orchid Project and women in danger, but also raise awareness among people in London.

I expect the talks will aim to last 40 minutes or so, and be followed with question and answer sessions. Subjects will probably include: Galaxy Zoo; the Cassini mission; relativity and black holes; the life of a star; astrochemistry; spectra; various aspects of astronomical history and women in science. And probably more as I think them up. What I can't do is practical astronomy. The only thing I can do with telescopes is break them. Of course, if anyone wants to bring a telescope along . . . Hopefully someone from the Orchid Project will come along to at least one of them, too. And if any other charities or organisations fighting FGM would also like to come and spread the word, or even just post me along some leaflets to hand out, please do.

You can also sign the petition to allocate more funds to enforce the law banning FGM. (Not make more laws. We already have them.)

Nothing's finalised yet. But I've been in enough communication with the Orchid Project and with NGUC that it's time to announce what I'm up to! If you have any ideas, or would like to come along, please let me know. And most importantly . . . 

I need a name for this project. It's likely to run for a few months and I want it to be special. I want it to include something to do with women, stars and/or astronomy, and perhaps even orchids. But I'm open to other suggestions! Please do leave a comment or tweet me with yours. 

A galaxy we call "The Rose" at Galaxy Zoo; from SDSS.

Maybe I'll see you there.

Wednesday, 20 June 2012

Leave us alone!

It is probably not good form to resurrect this blog after 4 months' silence whilst in a towering rage. Me in a towering rage is not a pretty sight. It's a good way to get writing, though. And both men and women need to read about this.

I love London. It's my home. I hope to spend much of my life here. But there's one thing I hate, that I've never had to deal with so much of before, and that's the repeated street harrassment. Nearly every time I leave the house to go to the shops, or get on the bus or train, you can guarantee that some man is going to yell something across the street at me, or come right up close to me and behave as if I owe it to him to be intimate. It's a matter of celebration when I can leave the house and come back without this happening.

It's not just London, of course. Trains in Wales are particularly irksome. On my way back here, a couple of guys sitting near me started asking me perfectly friendly questions - about how long it was to various stations,  what book I was reading, what I thought about the Big Bang etc. - all of which was fine; great, in fact. Then one of them sprang up, sat next to me, snatched my book, and started reading it out in a twelve-year-old school bully sort of voice. It promptly descended to the pair of them chanting at me and generally behaving like schoolchildren who know they're going to get away with poking and hitting me all the way through Assembly, because I can't move and nobody's going to stop them. I ended up carrying all my stuff to a different seat and telling the conductor, who just said "they're getting off at the next stop" and went away. I felt so mortified and self-conscious - there was another big chatty group of people nearby, who I think knew what was going on and certainly stared at me when I moved and spoke to the conductor - but hadn't a word to say. I wanted so desperately to hide. It was me who got stared at, me who had to take the action, me on whom all the responsibility fell.

That wasn't the worst incident, though. On another journey a few years ago to see my then boyfriend, a huge crowd of drunken rugby fans got on, and one man sat next to me. He kept asking me where I was going, did I have a boyfriend etc. I told him yes I did and kept my answers monosyllabic, because his manner made me uncomfortable. My looking out of the window, reading a book, etc., did nothing to deter his questions and reinforced his demanding, hurt tone. Finally I pretended to go to sleep. When I opened my eyes a few minutes later I jumped out of my skin to find he had angled his body so his mouth was right in front of mine ready to kiss me. (My face was pointed downwards before you ask.) There was nothing I could do. My voice had gone. No conductor could get through the crowds. If I yelled, his rugby mates would be the first witnesses. I just sprang to my feet (and had to climb over him) and got off the train as soon as I could.

In London, what usually happens is that two guys walking in the street, or standing on a doorstep, will call "hello darling" or "come here, girlie" or "Oi! Blondie!" at me. This is annoying, but I can ignore them and hope they don't follow me. Sometimes it'll be someone alone. One frightening incident was where another large man ran up to me while I was walking up the street, fell into step with me, told me off for walking too fast for him, boasted to me for a while about how he earned £50,000 a year, and then asked me out for a drink with him. When I said thank you very much, but no thanks, he followed me into the train station (which I hadn't been planning to go to) and asked me why not in the most expectant manner. Panicking, I lied that I had a boyfriend, and dashed through the ticket barriers and went a couple of stops away. It wasn't his words that bothered me, but his taking for granted that I simply had to say yes. I thought he'd drag me along and do what he liked to me. The other day, I was walking home, carrying a couple of shopping bags, looking at the ground and having a bit of a happy giggle to myself about an earlier conversation that day (do you ever notice people doing that? I love it when someone in the street spontaneously smiles or giggles, and I know they're thinking about something nice). Suddenly someone's face appeared about three inches in front of mine and he hissed "HELLO SWEETHEART!". As with all the other incidents, I was just startled into complete silence. I had no answer ready. The happiness was knocked out of me. I went home angry and frightened, feeling like I was at school again where I had no right to be safe from the bullies, keeping my head low but wondering if anyone knew where I lived or was following me home.

Fair enough, none of these incidences led to me actually being assaulted. They're nothing compared to what some of my friends have gone through. I used to get worse in horrible school discos where being groped and boys getting angry not to be kissed was part of the package. But they're a crap way to live your life. They make me wary and angry. They make me feel that because I'm female, I'm collective property and automatically available. The way a lot of them look at me - as if I do them wrong - suggests that they hold me personally responsible for their feelings, and that I owe them something. I just never know what they might do. They seem to think they have the automatic right to say what they like to me - what else do they think they have the right to do?

It gave me a sudden memory of when my sister and I were very small, too young to understand about these things, and our mum explaining such an incident to us. All we saw was that she suddenly stopped to talk to someone in the street, as boring grown-ups do. When we walked on, she calmly told us: "He tried to cuddle up to me, so I made him tell me where [something, I forget what] was, and then I made him leave me alone." Her voice, echoing in my brain, sounded sad and resigned. She had had to talk to him, she had had to be touched by him with two toddlers in tow, and she was putting a brave face on it.

The worst part is that I can't think of anything to do to improve the situation. I could yell at them, but that takes more guts than I've got and would just draw more attention to me and doubtless get me blamed - I doubt any members of the public would leap to my rescue. I can keep my head down and run away, which is what I generally do, but that indicates to them that they can get away with it and will keep doing it. There's no teacher on playground duty in the adult world.

But that's the thing. I am female and as such I am, by many, held responsible. (Check this if you don't believe this happens.)It's supposedly up to me to find some way to deal with this stuff. Never mind that it's nothing to do with being in the wrong place at the wrong time - that all these incidents occurred in public in broad daylight, not down some dark alley where respectable girls don't go. Never mind that they all occurred when I was thoroughly covered in jeans and coat and scruffy flat shoes - one time in the pouring rain with my hood up covering my hair and most of my face. Never mind that I don't wear make-up, or that the one time I did walk through London in a short dress, I was terrified the whole time and wished I hadn't worn it, but apart from a random tourist striking up an annoyingly long chat, I was left alone. Never mind that it also happens to a lady I know who is over fifty and exceedingly modest - even while she's riding her bicycle. There are many perceptions that it's down to how a woman looks or dresses, that it must be her fault.

I've written about blaming the victim before. It's a problem. It's a similar problem in cases of domestic violence, where it's very common to find bizarre ways to blame the woman or to somehow absolve the man (usually, though certainly not always, the perpetrator) of responsibility - "he just needs to feel better about himself", for example, when in fact his problem is that he does not see his partner as having the same rights as he does. (I strongly recommend my friend Natalie's posts about this issue. She's on Twitter as @God_Loves_Women. I'm not remotely religious but I really admire her and recommend you follow her!) It's all part of thinking that because someone's female, you can treat her how you like - and this gets woven into law, and her rights seen as incompatible with other people's, where such attitudes prevail.

All this is so sad for men as well as women. Most men I know are angry and upset to hear of me and other women being catcalled or otherwise harrassed. They worry about this happening to their female relatives and friends. They know it's not civilised and they would never do such a thing. (In fact, one man said he finds men who do such things intimidating, too.) Nobody's said so directly, but I suspect some men may worry about asking out a woman they like, for fear of being thought of one of the catcallers. They feel guilty on behalf of their own sex, which is awful. (Incidentally, both Rhys and Lee are currently fundraising for charities that work to improve things for women!) It's similar to the men who came along to the She is an Astronomer conference and are only too keen for more women to rise high in science. I hope nobody reading this thinks this blog is to criticise men!

I have a bad habit, by the way. I quite often explode on Twitter. Actually, Twitter's an excellent place to explode, because it moves so fast, the subject can move on when you've calmed down. And far more often than not people will check in and see if you're OK rather than put you down about it, and it's relatively anonymous. When I exploded recently about the man who hissed straight into my face, I got I think it must have been dozens of supportive messages. But when I came back home yesterday and tweeted "Something LOVELY happened today. I went into town and was not catcalled once!!! :-)" the point was, shall we say, not well understood.

One guy asked me: "What? Are you a supermodel?" and a couple more replied to the effect that this must mean I'm beautiful. I thanked them, I hope graciously and modestly, but assured them that I am not and that this was nothing to do with it. Being catcalled is nothing to do with appearance, and it is not a compliment. Unfortunately, I was not believed by all . . .

These are the nicer exchanges that took place. (Update: I had some screenshots here, with name, avatar and Twitter handle blanked out, but on reflection decided that was cruel. This person doesn't seem angry with me despite earning some furious replies from my followers. Please don't look for him. It took a long time to convince him that what was going on was not flattering or harmless, but it turned out to be genuine ignorance on his part. He deleted a lot of his tweets which were to the effect that it doesn't happen to ugly girls, so it should be seen as a "morale booster". These made me so angry - I am not Samantha Brick, I do not feel better if some random man thinks of me as better quality prey than another woman - that I unkindly retweeted him, and he got a LOT of stick. If you're reading this, Anon, I felt I should apologise for you getting all that stick, but I was stubborn and didn't want to go back on my point. And by the way, I'm sure you're not ugly.)

When asked if it was a good thing that I wasn't catcalled, and I said that it usually happens is bad and that it didn't happen today is good, his reaction was that "as an ugly bloke" he'd love to have such an obvious indicator that he was attractive, and that it was surely a good thing to happen to you. He felt that he couldn't relate to it since no women have pounced on him this way, and that not being a roadworker or builder, he wasn't a catcaller, and couldn't speak for them. (This was only a small part of the exchange.) The perception was that catcalling is something that a burly, practical, rather stupid class of males do, and that it constitutes shouting "you're beautiful" to beautiful girls, who prink and preen gleefully, and probably just continue on their way, feeling superior to other women and thus happy.

To give him his due, he admitted he had had no idea what it's really like and had learnt something new! And it definitely isn't like that. We get called intimate things by strangers, and are spoken to as if we are their property and should follow their orders. They violate our privacy and our space and our feeling of being able to leave the house safely. We look hysterical if we get upset, and everything we do makes it worse, and then it's our own fault for how we look or dress or just for being there among the world of men. We feel angry, helpless, humiliated, and alone.

Stellar, who was honked at six times within one minute when venturing into town last week (and has also had to put up with such things as men following her, and a bus driver saying "nice tits" when she was just a young teenager), joined the conversation, pointing out at the right time that it's not what a woman wears that causes the harrassment . . .

Then this person came along, who a) has had their account suspended, and b) whose anonymity I will make absolutely no effort to preserve:


 She replied calmly, as did NathanielBB. He wasn't having any . . .


I lost it.


I had actually tweeted this guy a few examples of very modestly dressed women who'd been harrassed, so as you can see, his attitude was "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with facts".

He may have just been a troll, but sadly what he says is hideously representative of what needs explaining. Again and again and again. Happily, it was cause for much celebration from several people when his account was suspended (it turned out it wasn't just me he was arguing with!).

I had the good fortune to be sent some excellent links by fellow Twitterers. "ihollaback", a site all about street harrassment in London, was tweeted to me by Becky (whose work I hope to write about in a later blogpost). Mike sent me this post he wrote about what "consent" means and is often taken to mean, which attracted some bizarre comments. Speaking of consent, this "Driver's Ed" on sexual consent, at Scarleteen, is excellent! Sent by Lee.) And Esther reminded me of @mencanstoprape, found at "Men Can Stop Rape", which is not the same thing I know (part of the same attitude, though, just a lot worse), which contains this delightful picture with which I shall leave you . . .


To fellow women this happens to, I support you. To fellow women free of it, it should always be this way. To men who disapprove and support us, and equally to men who did not know it was a problem but are open to finding out it is, thank you - you are not the problem but the solution, you shouldn't feel bad, and we need you all.

Friday, 14 October 2011

Cults, laws, and free speech

Cardiff Skeptics in the Pub turned a year old on 20th September. The day before - it also being a Monday - we held its birthday party, with crisps, cakes, balloons and two very special guests: David Allen Green and John Dixon to revisit #Stupidscientology.

Thank you @wmjohn for this photo. Are there any more?

It was a good time to be all insane and swoony over the astonishing fact that our baby group had launched a whole year ago - that had been a pretty good day too. Thanks to all the speakers who've been so far: Simon Perry, Ash Pryce, Andrew Holding, Simon Singh, Hayley Stevens, Deborah Hyde, Jon Ronson, Trystan Swale, James Onen, obviously David and John, Rhys Morgan who's every so often had another news snippet for us, and the great comedy cast of July, whose names for which my memory is embarrassingly incomplete. And the people who've helped with lifts and chair stacking and spreading the word, generally being enthusiastic and supportive, and the audience for keeping us going, and the lady who brought along some profiteroles!

Appreciation expressed, to I hope the smiles of those receiving it and not too much boredom from everyone else (Skeptics leaders love it when you visited one of their events!) - we visited the subject that had got John famous. It may look like an idiotic piece of red tape, political correctness gone mad etc on the surface, but the implications were surprisingly sinister.

David has written a brilliantly detailed blog post about it here; I recommend a read. In short, John, in between tweets about what he was up to in London, had tweeted that he was hurrying past a Church of Scientology so the stupid didn't rub off. A while later, a scientology Twitter account began following him. Well over six months after this, someone complained to the council about the tweet, mentioning, I might add, that they thought there might have been two other tweets they objected to but they could now no longer find them on Google. It was a great many months more before his fellow councillors could make the decision what to do. In the end, they did not take it to court, though John gave us the impression that he might rather have enjoyed himself if they had.

John defended himself with great humour and sense: someone having attempted to make him look a bigot, he was able to raise awareness of quite a lot of unsavoury information (links provided by me, not him) about the Church of Scientology that made "stupid" look like the kindest possible description. You might enjoy this video of him standing up to Kirsty Wark, and being much politer than she was in her attempt to make him appear rude. David's knowledge of law gave him expertise in tackling this issue of free speech defense versus "bigotry" accusation, with weapons I would never have thought of - for example, in his criticism of the document by the Ombudsman, he did not mention the author, because "you can't defame a document". John actually skyrocketed to fame whilst in a tedious two-hour meeting. His mobile was switched off, and he had no knowledge that David had brought the case to the country's awareness. When he switched it on, he had 700-odd new followers and umpteen tweets and voicemails waiting for him.

This is of course far from the first time David has got involved with an issue like this. Not scientology, but a case where the law is being treated as a weapon, rather than a means to get justice.

"The Church of Scientology has as much right as anyone else to assert and protect their ultimate legal rights," he writes. "But it is misconceived and illiberal for litigation (or the threat of litigation) to be used by itself as a weapon."

L. Ron Hubbard, who founded Scientology, is quoted as saying:
"The purpose of the [law] suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."
In other words, the point is not winning or losing. As Simon Singh found out, even if you win, you have lost thousands, sometimes tens or hundreds of thousands, and years of your life. Very few people in their right mind would take that on if there was any way out. The way out is to back down, to apologise, to retract all your statements, to make out that the individual or organisation suing you has nothing to be ashamed of - and your peers will self-censor their own work, too.

I had something like this happen to me 11 years ago, albeit on a much smaller scale. A boss in whose employment I had been extremely unhappy (the guy I describe at the end of this post, if you're interested) took it upon himself to tell the company treasurer I had said I didn't want to be paid for my last two weeks of employment at his firm - at least, that is what she told me when I telephoned to enquire. When I wrote to the firm to challenge this, I was fobbed off for 3 months (the 3 months in which an employee must begin an industrial tribunal), then suddenly accused of theft on the grounds that I had sent an e-mail to a friend with verbal permission. I was informed that there were 4 logged occasions on which I had been forbidden to use the Internet, and that two other employees had wasted four man-hours searching for any viruses I might have allowed into the company's computers, time I was being charged for.

The charges were blatantly ridiculous, since other employees had routinely used e-mails and often sent them to me, one of my duties was using the Internet, the boss was famous for never logging anything or even being able to use a computer, and he had even claimed that each man-hour cost the company £65 after I had spent the best part of a year daily logging man-hours which were £45. And, as Acas told him, it is illegal to deduct pay from an employee under such circumstances; you have to bring a case against them first. If anyone tried this nonsense on me now, I would laugh in their face. But I was only eighteen, I was extremely poorly, I was inexperienced, and I had spent months being bullied and humiliated by him and had had about as much as I could stand. Now obliged to fight for myself when I was least able to do so, I went to the Citizens Advice Bureau (now being cut all over the place), and although I did not win any compensation I was given back most - not all - of the money I was owed. But it took five months, by which time my sickness had become long-term. He never did drop his threat of suing me. My sickness and the worry that he might do it went on to ruin university for me and whenever I start any new employment I still have an undercurrent of alarm that something like this might happen again. Frankly, if I could have foregone my lost wages and allowed the wrong thing to happen, in exchange for having my health and confidence back, I know which I'd have chosen.

(I would love to name the individual and company that did this - and I bet I'm not their only victim - but sadly, I do not dare do so . . .)

The mere threat of litigation is a massive weapon. For me it was merely "civil action", minor but bad enough. For someone like Simon Singh, or Hardeep Singh, or anyone who someone with as much money as Hubbard had to use the law as a weapon as much as he pleased, the consequences could be much, much worse.

The law, there in principle to do a good and essential thing, can also ruin the innocent. That's why I admire David. He dedicates huge amounts of time and energy, often free, to fighting against that, and defending those to whom it happens.

But that's not the only way the law can be used for personal benefit rather than as it is intended.

A few days ago, Steve Jobs lost his battle with cancer. I've never been able to afford any kind of Apple product, but the effect they've had has really changed things - there's an app for Galaxy Zoo, for instance. The Curious Astronomer and the mother of a special needs child whose life was transformed by Apple have written about that. Sadly, certain people affiliated with Westboro Baptist Church were not so graceful.


This piece of utterly hateful loser-ness circulated the Internet quite a lot shortly after Steve Jobs's death. (She then claimed that God created the iPhone purely so she could insult its founder . . .)

Even though I didn't know much about Steve Jobs, and I'm certainly not an uncritical fan of Apple, I exploded with indignation when I read this. Death hurts. How can anyone use the occasion of someone's death to pick on their relatives? As I've just described, to be kicked when down makes you feel desperate. Why do Jobs's relatives deserve to be made to feel desperate when they're saying goodbye, already knowing the world is watching them?

How, I tweeted, was this kind of harrassment even legal?

I was then immediately challenged by someone I hadn't come across before: Donalbaion, a mature student in Physics. He pointed out that I was arguing against free speech. Simple as that. To deny Westboro Baptist Church the right to harrass the grieving was anti-free speech.

Initially, of course, I was even angrier. Honestly, who would be suffering from a deprivation of their rights more: the bullies, who would be told "No you can't upset these people", or, say, someone who might have to hold a funeral in secret (and therefore deny many others the chance to mourn) if they didn't want to be psychologically attacked? What kind of freedom is it when you can't even have a funeral in peace?

But of course, anger alone isn't much of an argument. What would be the consequence if Westboro Baptist Church was not allowed to exercise its freedom of speech by picking on grieving people?

Donalbaion tweeted me this review of the book "When the Nazis Came to Skokie". In summary: in 1977, Skokie was an area in which a sixth of the residents were Holocaust survivors and their near families. In this very area, a neo-Nazi group wished to demonstrate. The residents fought against this, citing not only the worry that violence might erupt from the demonstration, but their right to live without intimidation from a group who presumably supported the horrors they'd gone through. But on the other hand, to refuse the neo-Nazis a right to protest would violate freedom of speech. The review concludes: "Strum's book shows that freedom of speech must be defended even when the beneficiaries of that defense are far from admirable individuals."

In other words, once someone (say) took out an injunction against Westboro Baptist Church, who else might lose free speech as a consequence? It could be anyone, for any reason. It's just too dangerous.

But that's not the end of the story. All that agonising over human rights, knowing that people are going to be bullied and degraded - that is, according to this piece of writing, precisely what they want us to do. Go and read it now.

Apparently, this is not about beliefs at all. Whether or not they honestly think God agrees with all their statements about who is going to Hell, their aim is that someone else will get angry enough to try and violate their rights somehow. And then they can sue them.

As "El_Camino_SS" has written:
I saw that he was way too calm and collected for what he looked like in the media. I noticed that he never made personal statements against a person, which is verbal assault, and an out against a lawsuit. Also, for a religious fanatic, a group of people who pride themselves on personal attacks, he was running a protest so terribly by the books that I was impressed by it. He will not bait a person, ever. He will not make personal attacks. He will make blanket statements. He will look at a person in the crowd that he thinks is gay, walk over to his stack of signs, pull out the appropriate, well designed, easily read, laminated bright board, and hold it up and loudly proclaim that "gays are going to hell" or some such nonsense, and make eye contact, but he will never cross the line of telling that person that they're going to hell. That would be the part that would screw up the lawsuit. He just wants to get them after him, but wants to appear utterly blameless for damages.

. . . They run too tight of a ship to slip up, and at that point, I realized that the objective of the group was not anything religious at all.
Assuming the above is true - and here I do not claim to know for sure - this seems to me another misuse of law, and it's even more cynical than the type of misuse about which Skeptics here in the UK have heard so much. It's not even, strictly speaking, misusing the law. It's not using archaic silly laws that are set up to benefit the already rich and powerful. It's using a hallmark of civilisation simply to try and get money out of people.

And frankly, I'm not sure if there's anything we can do. With the first type, we can sign the petition to change the UK's outdated and embarrassing libel laws. With this type? We can't change that law, because that way almost everybody would lose their rights, rather than in the above case, where so many would gain them. After all, a civilised society does not remove its welfare state because a handful of people abuse it. And Donalbaion was right to point out that we cannot put free speech to a majority at risk because a handful of people abuse that.

I suppose, in this case, that if anything can be done, it could be a grassroots, done-by-the-people effect. For example, stronger people are less bothered by banners which display the words "God" and "Hate" in the same breath - so a campaign to give people strength in some way. Perhaps similar banners could be waved, saying something like "Civilised people don't target the grieving" - using the Phelps' tactics of blanket statements and never coming across as personal. Just showing solidarity. Bringing a society to a point where it no longer cares. Of course, you good folks in the States may already be doing that; I honestly don't know. My post is about law and free speech, not about any particular church.

And there are things that to some extent make up for the worst. For instance, according to that journalist's post, at least the grieving cannot be verbally attacked, and that these folks only stay for a maximum of 30 minutes. And, more importantly, they are a tiny minority. Take a peep at this Apple store in Chicago (photo taken by Arfon from the Zooniverse). We may not all be Steve Jobs, but if your rights have been violated, in most cases in civilised countries it will only be a few people who've done it, rather than an entire society. Often, most people are on your side.