2014 and what will the new year have in store for us?

Allot more of the same I should imagine. With a general election being many political thinking peoples main source of interest for me it is completely not. A period of sustained bullshit being pumped out from all sides and angles. Where party leaders are analysis in all different ways does their hair look good? Are their prime ministerial whatever that means and so on? I can’t wait as you can clearly tell. For me I am asked who do I want to win the election and would either side winning make any difference. Whilst I think it might change the land we fight on if it’s a Tory or labour headed up government it would be different we can’t ignore that. But the programmes both are signed up to are not different at all. "In the UK, I don’t think there have been many big, definitive moments that sum up the year as a whole: just like in 2013, life for most people has mostly continued gradually getting worse, and my real pay, just like yours, is probably worth less now than it was 12 months ago. Still, there have been moments of really inspiring resistance: in particular, the emerging movement against police brutality and white supremacy in the US has been amazing to see, and the amount of organising that seems to be happening around housing in London at the moment is also very encouraging. 2014 in feminism, gender and misogyny (content warning for discussion related to sexual violence):" "Just like in previous years, when thinking about themes that run through a lot of the year’s big stories, sexism and patriarchy have come up again and again. On the left, there’s not been anything to rival the SWP’s rape coverup and subsequent messy split, although Russell Brand’s continued interest in radical politics has, once again, raised the question of prominent lefty men with dodgy attitudes, most recently with the discovery that he endorsed pick-up artist Neil Strauss’s book. To his credit, Brand himself seems able to accept that his behaviour has been sexist and he needs to work on changing it; as I don’t know the man personally, I can’t judge his sincerity very well, but I do think that, when Brand is discussed, his sexist record needs to be part of the conversation. While I can’t say how much I do or don’t trust Brand as a person, what I do know is that, after all we’ve learnt about Great Men and their defenders, after Healy and Galloway and Assange and Sheridan and Smith and Hedley, anyone who’s still so desperate for an idol to look up to that they try to shut Brand’s problematic gender politics out of the conversation is definitely not to be trusted." "More generally, I feel like, compared to a lot of other movements for progressive change, feminism seems to be doing quite well; it’s hard to measure, but feminist voices certainly seem quite prominent in pop culture, and it feels like an encouraging number of people are growing up with feminist ideas as part of their “common sense” worldview. It’s always tricky trying to draw direct comparisons between one struggle and another, but I do think it is at least worth asking what other movements could learn from the progress that feminists have made in the culture wars. But while some progress has been made, there’s a long way still to go. This year hasn’t seen much in the way of big, high-profile national disputes. For my money, probably the most significant workplace action of the year was the 90 days of strike action taken by care workers in Doncaster, but the Care UK strike never really managed to break out of its isolation – Unison, let alone other unions representing care workers like the GMB, never wanted to treat the dispute as worth national attention, the left groups who got involved just pushed a strategy of calling on Unison to deliver solidarity, and other, more rank-and-file tendencies who might have been able to suggest a more practical strategy for relating directly to other care workers never really got involved. Now that it’s ended with the strikers accepting a deal that’s a tiny bit less bad than Care UK’s original offer, but far less than the wage they’d been on previously – roughly speaking, a cut of 30% rather than 35% – a worrying precedent has been set for care workers across the country: if the Doncaster strikers could display such exceptional determination, but still end up being ground down and picked off in isolation, what hope is there for any less militant groups of care workers?" "On the fringes of the workers’ movement, some progress has been made with organising in non-unionised workplaces: the cinema workers who’ve been organising at places like the Ritzy, Curzon Cinema and Everyman Cinemas, the hospitality workers who’ve been organising in Brighton and Norwich and Sheffield, and the ongoing organising effort among warehouse workers in West London. These efforts are mainly very small-scale, but they’re still a welcome step in the right direction." It is hard to not feel depressed at all is going on in the world and the lack of any meaningful fightback but there is always stuff going on which doesn’t get the attention they deserve. The highpoint of class struggle in the UK this year has probably been the steady growth of a self-organised movement over housing. Two particular highlights from the start and end of the year were the effective scrapping of the Bedroom Tax in Scotland in February and the victory won by New Era tenants who forced Westbrook Partners to pull out of their estate – a temporary victory, but a victory nonetheless - but there’s been a lot of other important action around housing throughout the year: the Carpenters’ Estate occupation, tenants in Bristol pushing landlords into making repairs and reducing rents, Glasgow tenants winning refunds from rip-off letting agents, the Poor Doors campaign pushing Redrow into pulling out of 1 Commercial Street, and, perhaps most impressively, direct action preventing evictions in a lot of different places – Nottingham, Newcastle, Liverpool, Southwark & Lambeth, Newham, Salford, Queens Park and beyond. Eviction resistance has to be one of the most powerful forms of (relatively) small-scale direct action. In a better society, of course, it wouldn’t be needed at all, but while evictions continue to happen, it’s good to see so many people willing to turn out to block them. In particular, it’s worth comparing the results of ground-level eviction resistance to the attempt to ban revenge evictions, which was sabotaged by two Tory MPs, both landlords, just talking the bill out. This shows the difference between top-down and grassroots solutions: trying to change the law ultimately depends on relying on the property-owning class, and even actual landlords, to act in our interests. Tenant-led action like eviction resistance allows us to act for ourselves, without relying on anyone else. The New Era and Focus E15 campaigns have been hugely inspirational, but what’s most important is that they aren’t just isolated outliers, but just the most visible tip of a movement that includes many other, less well-publicised groups, like Housing Action Southwark & Lambeth. While a lot of the most impressive anti-austerity action this year has been about housing, worthwhile action has taken place on a lot of other fronts as well. Near the start of the year, there was the wave of claimant protest that led to Atos pulling out of the Work Capacity Assessment contract, while the direct action campaign led by pensioners and disabled people in South Yorkshire has won full reinstatement of disabled travel passes, partial reinstatement of elderly travel passes, and beaten attempts to break the campaign by using the law against key activists. They now intend to continue until the cuts to travel passes are completely reversed. Recent months have also seen a partial revival of the student movement, with a large and unruly demonstration not sanctioned by the NUS as well as a number of occupations, and more marches for free education planned at the end of January. The long-running campaign against workfare has also continued to make steady, small-scale progress, with a number of workfare users pulling out after being targeted. Meanwhile, over in Ireland this year has seen an impressive campaign of resistance to water charges, with huge demos just being the most visible point of a campaign that’s also included widespread direct action to stop water meters from being installed. Elsewhere, there have been other important struggles against repression: in just the last few months, there’s been huge protests in Mexico after the police-linked kidnapping of 43 students, along with the shooting of several others, and Greek anarchist prisoner Nikos Romanos has won the right to education after a hunger strike backed by a massive solidarity movement across the country. Meanwhile, the Operation Pandora crackdown on anarchists in Spain has triggered an angry response, and Operation Pandora is just part of a larger repressive trend that’s also seen a new “gagging law” with the introduction fines of 100-600 euros for offences such as filming police, lack of respect for the police, and unauthorised gatherings in public places, as well as heftier fines of 601-30,000 euros for preventing an eviction, resisting authority, or refusing to dissolve a protest, and incredibly high fines of 30,000-600,000 euros for “organisation of events or recreational activities despite prohibition by the authorities”. In the UK, we’ve seen survivors of a number of historical cases of repression continuing long-running fights for justice: from blacklisted construction workers like Dave Smith, and the surviving members of the Shrewsbury 24 still continuing their fight against the state that fitted them up, to the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign and the women tricked into long-term relationships with undercover cops. In all these cases, their persistence and determination has been admirable, and I wish them all the best for the New Year. Looking to the future: The next few months will be very difficult for anyone committed to independent working-class politics. As much as I dislike the various political parties, it’s still the case that a lot of good, committed activists are drawn to one party or another, and it’s often possible to work productively with individual party members on a local level. If you’re involved in an organising project alongside party-affiliated activists, then get ready to take on a disproportionate amount of responsibility or else put the whole thing on hold for the next few months, as the odds are that they’ll suddenly find their union or community commitments are completely eclipsed by the need to go out door-knocking to spread the good word about their favored candidate. Conventional political wisdom has it that elections are an important opportunity for activists to “get their issues on the agenda”, but, to take an example that’s so obvious it’s practically a cliche, students did a pretty good job of getting tuition fees on the Lib Dem electoral agenda last time around, and it didn’t do them a whole lot of good. We might be able to get politicians to talk about the issues that matter to us in the weeks leading up to the election, but once it’s over that still doesn’t leave us with the power to actually make them do anything. The challenge is not to try and influence politicians – a strategy that inevitably ends up with our schedules and priorities being set by the politicians we want to try and appeal to, rather than worked out collectively from below – but to work out our own agenda, and stick to it – not to push a particular electoral candidate, or even to push an anti-electoral message as such, but to push the same issues and problems that mattered to us six months ago, and will still matter to us in a year’s time. To take housing as an example – if we can “put housing on the agenda” for politicians this election season, we’ll get some fine-sounding rhetoric out of it, and a few more politicians posing for photo-ops with New Era tenants and Focus E15 Mums, but that in itself doesn’t mean anything in terms of policy changes. In contrast, if we organise together with our neighbours, then we can apply our energies right now to preventing evictions, or pressuring crappy landlords into making overdue repairs, or getting unfair fees back from rip-off letting agents. And the best bit is, because our power to do this is something we create together, not dependent on any outside source, we’ll still have the same collective power to do these things long after the electoral circus has packed up and gone home. Whatever your main priority is, that lesson is worth bearing in mind through the weeks and months of electoral distractions that are coming up ahead. with extracts and quotes from the excellent blog over at Cautiously pessimistic http://nothingiseverlost.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/12-months-that-mostly-didnt-really-shake-the-world-that-much-2014-in-review/

reblogged via @stavvers: Sheffield Utd need to listen up: rape is not acceptable

with thanks to @stavvers on twitter for this reblog : stavvers Content note: this post discusses rape and rape apologism At the time of writing, Sheffield United are still refusing to make a definitive statement on whether they will re-sign the rapist Ched Evans to the club. This decision is looking more bizarre by the day, as a scramble to disassociate from the enterprise begins. It started with patron Charlie Webster, and then two others followed. Shirt sponsors soon joined, and now Jessica Ennis-Hall, who has a stand named after her at Bramall Lane, wants her name removed if the rapist is re-signed. It seems bizarre, therefore, that United haven't come out and distanced themselves to a different country than Evans. There is likely a certain level of cynicism, at least among some of those pulling away from Sheffield United: a fear of negative publicity for their brand rather than a genuine commitment to ending rape culture. No business wants to be known as "that rape company" upon their logo being proudly displayed on the shirt of a convicted rapist. However, some seem to be putting across good messages, like Charlie Webster, who explained: There can be no doubt that Evans is influencing a young generation of men who are still developing their opinions on how to treat women. They develop these opinions and morals based on the role models they see around them, the role models that we give them. I cannot publicly support a club that presents a convicted rapist as a role model. These young men are standing by their hero, showing him unwavering solidarity and support, without actually understanding or really thinking about what Evans has done. But we are the ones who set Evans up an influencer. We are the ones presenting a convicted rapist a role model to our young people. Is that ok? This is the crux of the matter. Every second United delay sending a clear message that they have no intention of re-signing Evans allows yet more young men think that they can rape someone, and, on the very unlikely chance they get caught, it will present little more than a small blip in an otherwise glamorous career. Given that on the current landscape, signing a convicted rapist makes terrible business sense, one can only assume that this is exactly the game Sheffield United are playing. It's becoming abundantly clear that this is what they want, to nurture the next generation of young rapists into comfortable , well-paid lives. A common myth among rape apologists is that an accusation of rape can ruin a man's life. Nowhere is this shown more obviously to be false than when we look to Ched Evans. This man is a convicted rapist, and his club have bent over backwards to accommodate him, against the forces of general business acumen. Evans still enjoys an army of loyal defenders of rape, willing to trumpet that even though he was convicted of rape it wasn't really rape. I do not think this whole affair has taught Ched Evans nothing. It's taught him and the men that he influences that yes, you really can get away with it. Fortunately, there are enough people out there who don't want this to happen, and can see these ramifications as clear as day. Our voices are growing louder, and it looks as though this time, it might just be winnable. Surely Sheffield United must know by now that if they don't kick that convicted rapist soon, they'll go down with him? If they haven't realised it by now, I'll gladly watch them burn. stavvers | November 13, 2014 at 9:41 pm | Categories: rape | URL: http://wp.me/p1pLiJ-FJ

Combating violence against women: a Socialist party statement

A socialist perspective on fighting women’s oppression Below I publish a statement released by the socialist party today A statement ‘our movement must be a safe place for women’ by two UNISON activists, Marsha-Jane Thompson and Cath Ellis, has been posted online and has received the support of trade union activists, including leading figures. This is no surprise. The statement outlines a number of general points that all good trade union activists should support. It makes it clear that male violence against women is never acceptable. And it argues that the trade union and labour movement has a particular responsibility to confront and challenge male violence against women within our movement. The Socialist Party supports these and other points in the resolution, but, as we will go on to explain, we are not in favour of trade unionists signing this statement as it stands. The positive aspects of the statement are combined with political proposals which will be used a means to attack the left. This statement has been written against the background of a heightened mood in society against the violence, threats of violence and sexual harassment that women in particular frequently face in capitalist society. The Savile paedophilia scandal, followed by various other revelations, has led to a generalised outpouring of anger on these issues. A whole number of people have come forward to talk about the abuse they have faced during their lives, sometimes as children. This is positive and is likely to have beneficial consequences, making victims of sexual violence more likely to speak out and demand justice in the future. However, the deep-rooted anger at the Savile scandal is not just due to the terrible behaviour of individuals, but has been caused by the systematic cover up of that behaviour by different capitalist institutions over a period of decades. All the attempts of individuals, including individual police officers, to take action against Savile were blocked because he was an ‘important’ person close to the Royal family and Margaret Thatcher. Like the MPs’ expenses scandal, this has further fuelled the feeling that the rich and powerful can get away with anything, while the majority are used and abused. In the weeks and months following the Savile scandal there has been an attempt by the representatives of capitalism to divert this mood into concentrating on dealing with individual predators like Savile, while emphasising that they are rare aberrations. Unfortunately, while the scale of Savile’s abuse may have been exceptional, it reflects a deep-rooted problem in capitalist society. One UK study, by Child & Women Abuse Studies, estimated that one in twenty women and one in fifty men have experienced childhood sexual abuse. Capitalist commentators have had no choice but to recognise the all-pervasive character of sexual harassment of women at the time when Savile’s abuse began. However, it has been suggested that this is a historical problem, no longer relevant today. The facts, and women’s experience, do not bear this out. An estimated one in four women experience domestic violence in the course of their lives, while one in five suffer sexual assault. Women’s growing confidence to speak out against abuse is positive, but by diverting attention away from the role of capitalist institutions to solely identifying individual perpetrators, the capitalists have created a negative aspect to the post-Savile mood. As the false accusation of the Tory Lord McAlpine illustrated, this febrile atmosphere will also inevitably lead to witch-hunts with cases of mistaken identity and false accusations lumped together with those that are guilty of sexual crimes. As has already been demonstrated, the capitalist class can attempt to use this as a means to witch-hunt the left. The role of the workers’ movement The workers’ movement is not exempt from general processes in society. As we will go on to explain, the statement ‘our movement must be a safe place for women’ correctly reflects the positive aspects of the current mood, but it also is in danger of reflecting its negative aspects. If this is not corrected, regardless of the authors’ intentions, the statement can be used as a tool by the right-wing of the trade union movement, to try and deflect attention from their own failure to effectively oppose capitalist austerity and to fight for a socialist alternative to this rotten exploitative system which condemns women to second-class status. For socialists the approach workers’ organisations take to issues relating to sexism is not secondary, but is, in a sense, the most important aspect of the struggle against sexual oppression, because the working class is the agent capable of overthrowing capitalism and thereby opening the door to building a society with real equality for all, including between the sexes. In arguing that the working class is the only force capable of fundamentally changing society, we are not in any way blind to the prejudices, including racism, sexism and homophobia, which are widespread among all classes including the working class, and which we have a proud record of combating. The oppression which women experience today has not always existed but is rooted in the rise of societies based on private property and divided into classes. Male dominance, both in its origin and in its current form, is intrinsically linked to the structures and inequalities of class society. The struggle for women’s liberation is at root therefore part of the class struggle, in which the struggles by women against their own specific oppression dovetail with those of the working class in general for a fundamental restructuring of society to end all inequality and oppression. We disagree with bourgeois and petit-bourgeois feminism because it does not take a class approach to the struggle for women’s liberation. To put it simply, working-class women have more in common with working-class men than they do with Margaret Thatcher or Teresa May. This does not of course mean that only working class women are oppressed. Women from all sections of society suffer oppression as a result of their sex, including domestic violence and sexual harassment. However, at root, to win real sexual equality for women, including women from the elite of society, a complete overturn of the existing order is necessary in every sphere: economic, social, family and domestic. The necessary starting point for such an overturn is ending capitalism and bringing the major companies into public ownership in order to allow the development of a democratic socialist plan of production. Working class women are ‘doubly-oppressed’, both for their class and gender, notwithstanding the claims of the ‘post-feminists’ that women’s equality is imminent. Without doubt gains have been made, partly driven by workers’ struggles such as the Ford strike for equal pay immortalised in ‘Made in Dagenham’. However, the right-wing trade union leaders failed to follow through on this and other heroic struggles, leaving change primarily at a legal level. Legal change – formal equality – is of course welcome, but it requires far more deep-seated changes to win real equality. The Russian revolutionary, Leon Trotsky, explained how the revolution of 1917 was immediately able to give women political and legal equality but that actual equality in social relations required a far more “deep-going plough” capable of firstly providing real economic equality and lifting the domestic burden from women, and secondly transforming social attitudes ingrained over millennia. The degeneration of the young Russian workers’ state, as a result of its poverty and isolation, meant that real equality was never achieved. Nonetheless, the legal changes made were many decades ahead of the capitalist countries and included suffrage, civil marriage and divorce when requested by either partner, equal pay, paid maternity leave and the legalisation of homosexuality. In addition the free childcare, communal restaurants and public laundries, while never fully implemented, gave a glimpse of how the domestic burden could be lifted. The steps to legal equality won in Britain and other economically-advanced capitalist countries, more than half a century after the Russian revolution, have not led to economic or social equality for the majority of women. In 2011 the World Bank reported that women globally still earn 10 – 30% less than men, and the gap is no smaller in richer countries than in poor ones. Progress, they conclude, is “glacial” because of the “multiple barriers that exist.” The capitalist crisis and government austerity is now reversing many gains previously made. It is only a narrow stratum of women that have enjoyed significant improvements. A recent survey by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) declared that feminism has ‘failed working class women’ in Britain (Independent 31 March, 2013). The survey describes the “decoy” effect of a tiny minority of high-achieving, high-profile women who give the impression that the “glass ceiling” has been shattered. For the majority of women, however, the story the IPPR gives is very different. Professional women earn 198% more than unskilled women, compared to a much smaller gap of 45% between professional and unskilled men. Women today make up a majority of the workforce. One Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) report pointed out that 78% of the growth in the wealth of low and middle-income families from 1968 to 2011 came from women, largely as a result of the far greater numbers of them that now work. Today most families can only make ends meet if both parents earn a wage. Increased participation in the workforce is the biggest factor in women’s increased confidence and unwillingness to accept sexual discrimination. Nonetheless, despite improvements, women in general still shoulder the majority of the burden of domestic chores and caring for children. Upper class, and to some extent middle class, families can largely avoid this by paying for usually female domestic help, but working class families, mainly women, have to carry the whole burden themselves. Some feminists argue that individual men are the main beneficiaries of the uneven division of labour between the sexes, but while many men may get a few more hours leisure time, this is nothing in comparison with the enormous economic benefits for the capitalist class. The current government’s savage public sector cuts aim to increase the capitalists’ profits, partly by putting more of the burden of caring for society onto women. It is not a coincidence that support for the Tories is dramatically lower among women compared to men, a reversal of the historic position. One recent opinion poll showed Labour having a seven-point overall lead over the Tories, but a 26-point lead among women. However, women will be very disappointed by a future Labour government, which has not committed to reversing a single Con-Dem cut, including the 31% cut in domestic violence services that have already taken place. Violence against women One in four women in Britain will suffer domestic violence in the course of their lives. Violence against women exists across every class, and flows from the deeply ingrained idea that women ‘belong’ to men, that women need to be loyal and obedient to their partners, and that men have the right to use violence and coercion to try and enforce this. These ideas have been embedded in society over centuries. It was only in 1991 that marital rape was made illegal in Britain. The Socialist Party (previously Militant Labour) has always campaigned for the trade union movement to take a clear, principled stand on these issues. We launched the Campaign Against Domestic Violence (CADV) in the early 1990s, which campaigned for domestic violence to be considered a trade union and workplace issue. This position was not generally accepted at that time. Unfortunately, even some on the left, including the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP), initially reacted by arguing that raising male violence against women in the trade unions was divisive. This flowed from their mistaken theoretical position on how the workers’ movement should deal with women’s oppression. In his book ‘Class struggle & Women’s Liberation’ Tony Cliff, founder of the SWP, argued that the women’s liberation movement was wrong to focus “consistently on areas where men and women are at odds – rape, battered women, wages for housework – while ignoring or playing down the important struggles in which women are more likely to win the support of men: strikes, opposition to welfare cuts, equal pay, unionisation, abortion”. We countered this narrow approach. Of course it is vital for the workers’ movement to take up economic issues such as opposition to welfare cuts and equal pay. In fact these issues are also central to a campaign against domestic violence. CADV campaigned, as the Socialist Party does today, in opposition to all cuts in sexual and domestic violence services, for a huge expansion in the number of women’s refuges, and for a mass council house building programme in order to make it possible for women to leave violent partners. But we fight for the maximum unity of the working class, not by trying to brush issues relating to the specific oppression of women under the carpet, but by campaigning to convince the whole workers’ movement it is necessary to take these issues seriously. CADV played a vital role in convincing every major trade union in Britain to adopt a national policy against domestic violence. This demonstrates, contrary to Cliff’s views, that the big majority of working class men can be won to a position of opposition to domestic violence. Of course, the passing of good policy, and even effective campaigning, cannot eliminate violence against women within the labour movement. As long as capitalism exists every organisation, even those like the Socialist Party that are fighting for capitalism to be overthrown, cannot fail to be effected by the sexism in society. The organisations of the working class therefore have a duty to take up incidents of sexual assault and harassment whenever they occur within the labour movement. ‘Our movement must be a safe place for women’ Unfortunately, we do not think that the ‘our movement must be a safe place for women’ statement as it stands will take the struggle to prevent violence against women forward, whatever the good intentions of the authors. On the contrary, although its movers stand on the left of UNISON this motion is likely to be taken up by the right in an attempt to divert attention from the central issues facing UNISON members. It is not insignificant that Heather Wakefield, head of UNISON local government, has signed it, one of those responsible for accepting a major assault on women UNISON members’ pension rights, including accepting that UNISON members in the future will have to work until they are 68 or even older, which will particularly impact on women. The dangers were demonstrated at this year’s UNISON women’s conference. A motion written by one of the authors, Cath Elliott, arguing for a ‘no platform’ position for ‘rape deniers’, was overwhelmingly backed by the women’s conference, including the right wing. The author had originally written the resolution in response to George Galloway’s offensive comments on rape, but had then also used the conference speech to attack the SWP for their handling of an allegation of rape against a leading member. As the author of the resolution explained, she was moving the motion “in solidarity with NUS [National Union of Students]” after they had passed a motion “denying [George Galloway] a platform at future NUS events”. Unfortunately, this was bringing the worst aspects of the student movement into the trade unions. The phrase ‘no platform’ originates in the student movement, during the battle against the neo-fascist National Front in Britain in the 1970s. It is correct to argue that fascist organisations should not be allowed to organise without opposition by the labour movement because they aim to destroy all the elements of democracy that exist under capitalism – the right to vote, to join a trade union, to strike and so on. However, in practise, even with fascists it is a tactical issue, not a principle, whether or not you debate with them. We argue against neo-fascist grouplets like the BNP being invited, for example onto Question Time, but for trade unionists to refuse to debate with them when they have been is self-defeating. In the student movement, but up until now not in the trade union movement, the idea of ‘no-platforming’ was also applied to non-fascists – including those putting forward racist and sexist ideas. It was never viable to implement this policy seriously, it would have meant ‘no platforming’ representatives of mass political parties including the Tory Party. Nor is such a policy an effective means to counter racism and sexism. It is far better to defeat such ideas in debate than to attempt to ‘ban’ them. Moreover, in practise the policy has been repeatedly used by leaders of NUS to avoid debate on serious issues. This was the case at this year’s NUS conference. Outrageously Labour Students voted against support for restoration of EMA for FE students, whilst at the same time trying to whip up opposition to the left by organising walk-outs against the SWP. Unfortunately, the SWP have not always been above these kinds of undemocratic methods themselves, including shouting down political opponents and excluding them from platforms. The potential for the UNISON leadership to behave similarly to Labour Students using the resolution passed at UNISON women’s conference is clear. The resolution explicitly agrees: “To liaise with the NEC, Labour Link, and other UNISON bodies to try and ensure that UNISON never offers a platform to any speakers who are rape deniers, and who blame and undermine rape victims, and that it never officially supports any event that does.” Labour Link were called on to act against ‘rape deniers’ yet Labour in government invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, resulting, as in all wars, in the rape of thousands of women. Today Labour councils are carrying out savage cuts in domestic violence and rape support services - surely this is, at the very least, ‘undermining’ rape victims? Yet it was clear from the speeches at the women’s conference that is was specifically Galloway and the SWP who were to be denied a platform. It is correct, as we do, to argue against mistaken ideas put forward by Galloway or the SWP, but to ‘no platform’ them means to take away their right to speak on all issues, and is a gift to the right wing leadership of the union to potentially prevent hundreds of left activists taking part in the union’s democratic debates. After all UNISON’s leadership have a clear record on this, in the way they tried and failed to use false accusations of racism to witch-hunt the Socialist Party UNISON Four. The leadership of UNISON was prepared to spend over £100,000 of members’ money and spend five and a half years, longer than the First World War, unsuccessfully pursuing a false charge of racism against left activists, who in fact had a long history of fighting racism. That is not to imply the authors of the motion have the same motives, both of whom have opposed the witch-hunt. Nonetheless, it is likely that the UNISON leadership will use this new statement ‘our movement must be a safe place for women’ in a similar way at the national UNISON conference. If we agreed with the wording of the new statement, we would support it regardless of how the right wing might attempt to use it. However, in saying “We therefore believe that, when women complain of male violence within our movement, our trade unions and political organisations should start from a position of believing women” the statement bends the stick too far, effectively arguing that the workers’ movement begins by concluding the man is guilty, regardless of the evidence, or lack of it. Instead the statement should say that trade unions and political organisations should start from a position of taking all claims of violence made by women very seriously, and carrying out a thorough investigation, in a way that is sympathetic to the woman making the accusation. We understand the reasons that the statement is put in the terms it is. Millions of women hesitate to come forward and complain about violence against them because of pressure not to do so, and an unfortunately often justified fear that they will not be believed. It is estimated that only 15% of rapes are reported to the police. And of those only 7% result in conviction - much lower than the average for crime in general. It is therefore vital that the labour movement makes it clear that it will take all accusations of violence against women seriously. Nonetheless, we can’t start from the premise that all aspects of a woman’s allegation are automatically right. Some feminists argue that false accusations of male violence against women never take place, or are so infrequent that they can be discounted. There is no doubt that the oppression of women under capitalism is reflected in an ingrained tendency by capitalist institutions to dismiss women’s claims. It is much, much more common for women to not report incidents of violence against them than it is for false accusations to be made. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, recently published a survey looking at data on false accusation over seventeen months in 2011 and 2012. In the period of the survey there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 111,891 for domestic violence in England and Wales. By comparison, over the same timespan, there were only 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape, six for false allegations of domestic violence and three that involved false allegations of both rape and domestic violence. These figures are limited to prosecutions rather than including the larger number of allegations which do not result in any prosecution, but they give some indication of how rare false accusations are. Nonetheless, they also indicate false accusations do happen, for any number of reasons. Dealing with false allegations can be a difficult problem which comes up in different contexts. The teaching union NASUWT in Wales, for example, recently reported that a majority of allegations made against teachers were found to be “false, malicious or unfounded”. Clearly the union movement has to support the protection of children in schools, but not at the expense of allowing witch-hunts against falsely accused teachers. Capitalism distorts all human relations and this affects both sexes. To conclude that we live in a society where women and children are oppressed does not mean that you can conclude that individual women or children are never guilty of wrong-doing including making false accusations of violence against them. How to deal with accusations of violence against women? How should the workers’ movement respond when an accusation of violence against a woman within the movement is made? Clearly support and backing should be given to the women if she wishes to go to the police and other relevant authorities. However, given the ordeal that women often face when they go to the police, and the low level of successful prosecutions, it would be wrong to insist that a woman must go to the police. Nor is it always sufficient for a workers’ organisation to take no other action because a woman has gone to the police. Given the police’s record on dealing with such cases it would often be remiss of a workers’ organisation if did not also carry out an independent internal investigation, particularly when the woman has requested it. Incidentally, this is also considered good practise in workplaces, where the Equal Opportunities commission specifically says to managers faced with an allegation of sexual assault which has also been reported to the police: “You should still conduct your own objective investigations without delay…The police may not press charges, for whatever reason. This does not necessarily mean that the alleged incident did not occur.” Following recent events in the SWP, some, including many in the SWP opposition, have attempted to argue that it is wrong in principle for a workers’ organisation, particularly a party on the revolutionary left, to carry out such an investigation, especially if it relates to a serious crime. We do not have sufficient information to be able to judge the specifics of the case inside the SWP, although it seems likely there were mistakes made in way its Disputes Committee functioned, particularly the inclusion of members of the Central Committee in the panel. We have long criticised the top-down – ‘bureaucratic centralist’ – approach of the SWP (see Socialism and Left Unity: a critique of the SWP, Peter Taaffe 2008), and it is unsurprising that these were demonstrated again in the way they dealt with an investigation into a leading member accused of rape, and the splits in their party that have developed in its wake. The Socialist Party’s approach bears no resemblance to the undemocratic methods of the SWP. As we have explained elsewhere, our party has a tradition of open discussion of political differences up to and including the right to form factions, not just for the three months in the run up to the Congress, but for as long as necessary. Both the Socialist Party and the international to which we are affiliated, the Committee for a Workers’ International, has never resorted to expulsions for political differences but only for gross violations of our organisational norms, such as cases of, albeit rarely, of corruption, and of sexual harassment or assault. However, we defend the right of any party to investigate charges made against members and, where necessary, propose disciplinary action. If a party does not have that right it means it is limited to taking no action against a member who is accused of such behaviour unless a successful prosecution is brought by the police, or, alternatively, that a member against whom an accusation is made is automatically assumed to be guilty. Clearly neither is acceptable. We have an Appeals Committee that can conduct such investigations. It is elected by the national congress and is made up of longstanding members of the party who are not full-time workers for the party or members of any of its leading bodies. Over the years it has had to occasionally propose disciplinary action, including sometimes expulsion, of members for different offences, including domestic violence. One of the objections that have been made to such a disciplinary procedure is that it is not always possible to form a certain judgement of what happened. Of course, this is true, but the answer is not to refuse to investigate. It has to be within the remit of a working-class organisation to take a decision to carry out disciplinary action on the basis of the balance of probability, in order to protect the organisation and is members. Incidentally this is also the advice given to employers by the Equal Opportunities Commission. This of course does not preclude the individual disciplined later having the disciplinary measure lifted if they are able to prove their innocence. A socialist party exists within capitalism. It is not the model for a new society, but a tool to aid the struggle to create one. This is not an excuse for avoiding dealing firmly with all cases of sexual harassment and abuse, but rather a recognition that such cases will sometimes occur. It is utopian to imagine it is possible to create a model of a socialist society within capitalism. To some extent the Occupy camps were an attempt to create an alternative and better way of living within this society. The camps’ anti-capitalist slogans inspired millions and brought anti-capitalist ideas to a new layer. However, like all previous experiments of this kind, they showed that it is not possible to create an impermeable barrier between a new model and the surrounding society. As Paul Mason, who is sympathetic to Occupy and has counterposed it to allegedly ‘hierarchal’ socialist parties, reports in his book, ‘Why it’s still kicking off everywhere’, rapes and sexual assaults took place in a whole number of Occupy camps. The men and women who join the Socialist Party are among the most thinking class-conscious elements of the working class, but they are nonetheless products of capitalism with all of the distortions of the human personality that creates. Our aim is to raise the understanding of members on all issues over time – including the oppression of women. We do not tolerate any instances of sexual harassment and abuse. Sometimes dealing with this will require formal disciplinary action. Whether this is the case, and how severe that action needs to be, depends on a whole range of factors. Primarily, of course the severity of the offence, but also the wishes of the victim, the perpetrators willingness to apologise and agree not to act in a similar way in the future, and other factors. The balance of power in the situation is also an important consideration. An inappropriate remark from one new member to another of a similar age would often be considered less serious than a similar inappropriate remark made by a longstanding older member to a young, new member. The capitalist press has attempted to use events in the SWP to discredit the whole of the revolutionary left. The charge has been led by journalists and commentators who consider themselves on the left, but these have been followed by articles in the Mail and Sunday Times. This is incredible hypocrisy from newspapers like the Mail, with its long history as a mouthpiece for reaction, most recently using the tragic death of six children for a front-page headline trying to whip up anger against ‘welfare scroungers’. In fact, of course, a key aspect of the tragedy in Derby was not that the main perpetrator claimed benefits, but had a long history of violence against women. It is no surprise that newspapers like the Mail have used events in the SWP to try and carry out a crude attempt to discredit the whole revolutionary left, masquerading as standing for women’s rights. This stems from a correct fear by sections of the ruling class that, given the profound crisis of capitalism, the socialist movement will be able to become a mass force in the coming years. This will not succeed. Seeing the way the right-wing press has used her attack on the SWP, left commentator Laurie Penny, unlike the likes of Nick Cohen, has attempted to draw back. Nonetheless, it is necessary to answer the smear made by her and others that there is a link between attempting to build a revolutionary party and sexism. Laurie Penny, writing in the New Statesman, said that, “there is a stubborn refusal to accept and deal with rape culture that is unique to the left and to progressives more broadly, by virtue of fighting for equality and justice, by virtue of, well, virtue, we are somehow above being held personally accountable when it comes to issues of race, gender and sexual violence.” Laurie goes on to quote Tom Walker, who has recently resigned from the SWP, saying: “The issues of democracy and sexism are not separate but inextricably linked. Lack of the first creates room for the second to grow, and makes it all the more difficult to root out when it does.” Laurie concludes, “He is talking about the SWP, but he could be talking about any part of the left right now, in its struggle to divest itself of generations of misogynist baggage.” We completely reject the assertion that our party is undemocratic or has that we, or the left as a whole, has “generations of misogynist baggage”. On the contrary, as Penny herself says, the left has generally been at the forefront of the struggle for equality and justice for women. In Britain, Marxists played an important role in all the major struggles for women’s rights in the last century, including the fight for women’s suffrage, for safe and effective contraception, for the right to choose, and to combat violence against women. But the Socialist Party has never concluded that we are therefore exempt from being personally accountable on issues of race, gender and sexual violence, and has always been prepared to take disciplinary actions on this issue when necessary. Nor is the Socialist Party male dominated, half of our Executive Committee is women, probably the only political party in Britain able to claim this. We strive to achieve the same, or better, at all levels of the party. However, this cannot be achieved artificially but requires putting conscious effort into developing the political confidence of women members. We will intervene energetically in the debates that are likely to take place at this year’s trade union conferences on how the workers’ movement can most effectively oppose violence against women. As we have always done, we will support all measures that will assist in developing a clear trade union campaign to oppose violence against women, but not those that are a tool, albeit unwittingly, for the right-wing trade union leaders to divide our movement and distract us from an effective struggle against capitalist austerity, inequality and prejudice. Hannah Sell

Socialists, our organisations and women

As socialists we know under a capitalist society we and our organisations can never be fully immune from the pressures and horrors of the capitalist society we are made up of working class people full of the strains and pains of a day to day exploitative system. The recent allegations and the subsequent crisis in the SWP has largely not been talked about by my organisation I’m a member of the socialist party I’m disappointed by this as keeping quiet on the matter only adds to the suspicion around our own party which has lead some to say well what have they got to hide too why are they not coming out with a statement firmly opposing the methods and roots of the crisis in the SWP. Not for cheap political point scoring but to reaffirm our commitment to fighting women’s oppression day to day. I personally felt we should have produced a strong statement on our own terms not the terms set by other organisations or media establishments but reaffirming the socialist party’s position on rape and sexual assault. The thing is any organisation in this world, whether it is a business or a party, a union or a think-tank, should enough members pass through its ranks, is going to throw up cases of sexual assault by one member against another. Short of subjecting every potential recruit to rigorous psychometric tests, this is quite inevitable. There are only two things we have any control over: minimising the risk, and maximising our ability to deal with such offences as and when they occur. Marxists explain women’s oppression and exploitation in terms of determinate historical forces - economic, political, and ideological - in which it is materially rooted. It is neither an inevitable consequence of the division of humanity into sexes nor possible to wish away by fiat; it is necessary both to fight most energetically for women’s liberation, and to accept that the fight will not be won, not even in our own ranks, until our whole project is complete. Fighting sexism, racism and other forms of oppression is not something we can eliminate before over throwing capitalism and defeating exploitation but it is something we should be looking to take up day to day not brushing it under the carpet as though its something we can deal with at a later day. I personally feel making our meetings accessible to all is key to building a movement to change society. Having women’s sections in our organisation with strong minded women who fight everyday in their workplaces to change society bit by bit but realising that division and oppression will exist for as long as a system exists putting the need to make profit above anything else. As we know women are affected far more by the austerity cuts raining down on us and are far likely to become more politicised than men in this period a reawakening of feminism and trends of women not willing to sit quiet any longer on matters that have always affected them is a positive thing in my mind. Why should women keep quiet for the good of the organisation they area part of? Challenging sexism and women’s oppression wherever and whenever we can and keeping on our guard about it is key to providing a necessary arena for women to join the fight to change society. Being opposed to sexism, rape and other forms of discrimination is not just something we can put on our materials we must look to challenge it within our own ranks too whenever it rears its ugly head. Interestingly a new allegation of a leading trade unionist Steve Hedley of the RMT has come to light of domestic violence he has been alleged to have conducted. As Steve joined the socialist party last year at socialism 2012 claiming a lot of differences with our organisation but thinking we were good class fighters decided to join us its been very quiet on his joining from our party and now this recent allegation has come to light perhaps we can understand why now. Steve has now resigned from the party with the following statement. The Socialist Party has received a message from Steve Hedley, assistant general secretary of the RMT, resigning from the Socialist Party. Steve feels it is necessary to resign in order to concentrate on dealing with an allegation of domestic violence which has been made against him. Steve refutes this allegation, which is currently being investigated by the RMT. Steve wrote: "Regarding our conversation earlier the police have dropped the case and I'm currently awaiting the outcome of the RMT investigation. "I am not in control of when the decision will be made and have been strongly advised against issuing a public statement whilst investigations are ongoing. "I know this puts the Socialist Party in a difficult position and is therefore resigning my membership. "I will continue to support TUSC and the NSSN and work constructively with SP comrades." I personally feel we should have added our own comments reaffirming our absolute seriousness in challenging domestic violence and giving our position on domestic violence mentioning the campaigns we’ve been involved in including In the 1990s the socialist party’s forerunner, Militant, founded the Campaign Against Domestic Violence, which fought “for better resources …, to promote awareness …, to campaign for legal change and to raise domestic violence as a workplace issue” Something like that should be highlighted and held up about how seriously we do take things of this matter. Maybe we will after the RMT investigation has concluded. But one thing is for sure socialist parties must be vigilant at all times and aware of what is going on in the wider world and to combat them at all times.

Solidarity on International Womens day

Around the world millions of women from all walks of life will celebrate International Womens day. This is a chance for us to take stock and realise how far we still have to go in liberating women. sexism, violence against girls and women, and abuse. To mark International Women's Day, which takes place on 8 March, the Socialist outlines why violence against women exists and how it can be tackled. By Eleanor Donne, Socialist Women committee The 'Slutwalk' protests have been an 'in your face' challenge to the reactionary idea that how women dress and behave can 'invite' rape. The idea that men rape because of uncontrolled sexual urges - that they 'can't stop themselves', is still widely held. In fact three quarters of rapes are pre-planned not 'spontaneous'. Safety campaigns urge women not to indulge in 'risky behaviour' like drinking and walking home in the dark. Yet nearly half of rape survivors are attacked in their own home, usually by their partner or ex-partner. In 2005 an Amnesty International poll found that a third of people in Britain think women who behave 'flirtatiously' or are drunk are partly to blame if they are raped. A quarter felt the same if the woman is wearing 'sexy' or revealing clothes and 20% if she has had a lot of sexual partners. These findings (which apparently showed that women and men held roughly equal views) revealed the extent of prejudice and double standards where men and women's sexuality are concerned. However, the fact that large numbers of young women and men took to the streets to protest against 'victim blaming' on the Slutwalk demonstrations in the last two years reflects and reinforces a growing understanding of the need to challenge such prejudice. Violence, including sexual violence, at the hands of a partner or ex-partner is not something that only happens in a few 'dysfunctional' couples or families. One in five women and one in 20 men will face sexual assault at some time in their life. At least one in four women experience intimate partner violence (IPV). Home Office statistics show that two women a week are killed by their partner. IPV accounts for a quarter of all violent crime and (according to Amnesty International research) costs £5.8 billion a year to the criminal justice system, health and social services, local authority housing and loss to the economy through time off work. Why does it happen? London slutwalk June 2011, photo Sarah Wrack (Click to enlarge) There have been some headlines recently about a rise in IPV, linking this to the effects of economic recession. Any statistics on crime need to be treated with caution as sometimes cause and effect are not always clear. Cuts in support services, benefits cuts and a housing shortage are likely to force more women to remain in violent relationships when they otherwise may leave. Money worries, the loss of a job and the status that goes with it can increase pressures in any relationship. However, the idea that unemployment, poverty and bad housing in themselves cause domestic violence is not true. There is ample evidence to show that perpetrators and survivors come from many different economic backgrounds. Perpetrators of domestic violence give lots of reasons for their abusive behaviour; financial difficulties, jealousy, alcohol, 'nagging', pressure of work. Any of these or something else could be a 'trigger' but fundamentally the purpose of the violence or threats is to exert power over a partner and control what they do. The feeling that such power is legitimate is rooted in ideas about men being at the head of the family, and reinforced by material inequality. Most of us think of our family in terms of personal relationships, our loved ones. For the capitalist system, however, the family is first and foremost an economic unit. Big business shareholders and their apologists in government maximise profits by keeping wages low. But they also keep to a minimum the 'social wage' - the costs of feeding, clothing, housing and educating a new generation of workers, caring for those too young, old or sick to work, by offloading this from the state onto individual families. The family is also used as a means of social control - reinforcing the hierarchy in society. This is much more blatant in societies with semi-feudal social relations such as Pakistan, India and some Middle Eastern and African countries where men's authority often has the full weight of the law and religious authorities behind it. This helps to explain the horrifying levels of rape and violence against women in much of the ex-colonial world. Tory and New Labour governments alike have upheld the traditional idea that a key role of the family is to teach discipline, blaming 'family breakdown' for social problems such as crime or rioting. In Britain we are generally free to choose our partners and to end relationships. Women can no longer be imprisoned for adultery. However, it was only just over 20 years ago that law lords finally ruled that marital rape was illegal. The idea of 'conjugal rights' can still give many men a sense of entitlement to sex - hence the level of rape by partners or ex-partners (around one third of attacks). So-called 'date rape' is still often posed as less serious than stranger rape - scandalously, even by former Tory justice secretary Ken Clarke. The legal right of husbands to beat their wives was removed 150 years ago, but domestic violence continued to be downplayed by the police as a private matter. Some organisations claiming to represent father's rights have argued that IPV is no longer a gender-based crime and that men are now 'equal victims'. This argument is based on some discredited statistics and is refuted by many others which show that women make up by far the majority of those suffering more serious assaults, choking, strangling, and repeated violence. This is not to say that men do not get abused by their partners, male or female, and when this happens they should have access to appropriate support. Human nature? The fact that sexual coercion and violence against women is still so widespread in countries which outlaw such behaviour, has led to a pessimistic view that it must be 'natural' rather than socially constructed - a kind of 'universal male behaviour'. Violence and rape are the most extreme and deeply rooted expressions of women's oppression, but there is nothing 'natural' about them, any more than there is about war and inequality. Some evolutionary biologists speculate that rape is a 'by-product' of early man's primeval need to procreate - they argue that aggressive and sexually promiscuous males passed more of their genes on. Rape, they say, is a 'side effect' of an evolutionary advantage. If this is the case, why is it that anthropologists studying early human societies which existed for tens of thousands of years and surviving hunter gatherer societies, find very little, if any, evidence of aggression, still less sexual coercion? In fact, it was much later 'civilisation' (class society) founded on exploitative relations outside and inside the home that, over time, imposed severe restrictions on women's sexuality, and removed them from their previously vital public role in tribal societies. Scope for change As socialists we are optimistic about the potential for developing a society which does not rely on exploitation of one class by another and allows us the opportunity to develop personal relationships free from the pressures not just of poverty and overwork but of gender inequality. Violence against women and the cuts • 31% cut to funding for sexual and domestic violence services • 230 women were turned away by Women's Aid on the average day in 2011 because of lack of space in shelters • The legal aid budget is being cut by £350 million a year - it is estimated 54% of women suffering from domestic violence would not qualify for legal aid • The number of Independent Domestic Violence Advisors has been reduced: in 2011 among 8 major IDVA service providers, 2 faced funding cuts of 100%, 3 cuts of 50%, 3 of 40% and 2 of 25% • 2 out of 6 specialist refuges for women from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups closed and 2 others suffered significant funding cuts • Respect services, working to reform male perpetrators of domestic violence, suffered budget cuts leading to a 78% reduction in the number of clients they were able to assist • Statutory provision, including those police and court services that involve specialised expertise, has also been reduced following funding cuts. This includes cuts in the operating levels of Domestic Abuse Officers, a unit on female genital mutilation and domestic violence courts What do socialists do? Campaigning can make a difference Claire Laker-Mansfield Alongside the gloom of statistics and stories about rape and IPV, there has been another side to the past year. From Delhi, to Europe and America, huge anger at rape and sexual violence has spilled onto the streets in the form of protests. In India, rage against the enormous prevalence of rape and sexual violence resulted in a mass movement that shook the establishment. While more modest in scale, protests such as Slutwalk, which have been organised closer to home, have challenged many of the myths surrounding rape, and a culture that blames victims. So what do socialists say about challenging violence against women? Can campaigning make any difference? Or is the problem too ingrained for anything to be done? Fight for change now Socialists argue that the root cause of women's oppression, and its often violent expressions, is the existence of a society based on class division, hierarchy and exploitation. Therefore an end to sexism would require some quite fundamental changes. In fact ultimately, it would require an end to capitalism, which profits from women's secondary position in society, if we are to begin the work of making abuse a thing of the past. Saying this, however, does not exclude winning improvements for women in the here and now. In fact, as with all issues, it is through working class people getting organised and fighting to make things better, that we can begin to build a movement that can win victories and develop the confidence to change things more fundamentally. That's why socialists not only participate in protests and movements like those mentioned above, we actively set out to develop and lead campaigns on these issues. In the 1990s, it was members of the Socialist Party's forerunner, Militant, who initiated the Campaign Against Domestic Violence (CADV) with others. It was set up in response to a number of appalling stories of abuse, as well as of women being given life sentences for killing extremely violent partners in acts of huge desperation. The campaign began with a series of aims, which included raising awareness of domestic violence, winning changes to the law to improve the position of abused women, fighting for decent provision of refuges and other women's services and for the trade unions to take this up as a workplace issue. The campaign was political - not aimed just at helping individuals (important as that is), but at setting what is sometimes seen as a personal matter in the context of its causes and possible solutions within society. One of the campaign's biggest successes was to help ensure that almost every trade union in the country had a clear policy on domestic violence, making it a workplace issue. CADV was able to win other important victories, including legal changes. Rape Is No Joke In 2013, socialists continue to fight on these issues. The recent launch of Rape is No Joke by Socialist Students is an example of how we are doing this. This campaign is particularly focussed on challenging some of the sexist attitudes and culture that help increase the acceptability, and indeed the prevalence, of rape and violence against women. In particular it is targeting misogyny in comedy and the rape jokes which are now prevalent in some parts of the scene. While these jokes are of course symptoms of wider trends in society, they also reinforce reactionary ideas which can impact on lives. Around this year's International Women's Day, Rape is No Joke has organised a week of action. Rape joke-free comedy nights, stunts and meetings are all planned to coincide with this important date for the workers' movement. Socialists aim to unite working class people to fight sexism and oppression and for an end to the rotten capitalist system which creates them. The Socialist Party has a proud tradition of fighting violence against women, one which is being continued and developed in the present. If you want to help fight sexism and argue for a socialist society - one free of the brutality of women's oppression - then join the Socialist Party today. The Socialist Party's demands: • An end to victim blaming! Decent education in schools, workplaces and trade unions about the myths and facts of rape • Decent support - including legal, emotional and where necessary practical - for survivors of sexual assault, rape and domestic violence • No to closure of domestic violence support services! Increase and improve the services to help those women affected by domestic violence • A mass building programme of decent, affordable social housing to make sure women have somewhere to go should they choose to leave a violent relationship • No cuts to legal aid. Increase threshold for legal aid so that all women can access it for divorce cases. No to enforced mediation • The right for all women to have full control over when and whether they have children. Protect and improve abortion services • A united mass campaign against all the cuts, including a 24-hour general strike • A socialist alternative to class and sex inequality. Join the Socialist Party! The Rape Is No Joke campaign is organising a week of action 4-10 March. Meetings, comedy nights and protests will be taking place around the country, including this event in London on International Women's Day. See rapeisnojoke.com for details of what's happening near you, to get involved and to download the week of action campaign pack to help you make plans. with extracts taken from http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/755/16279/07-03-2013/stop-violence-against-women

Time to Defend abortion rights again

Shona McCulloch, Brighton Socialist Party
The 1967 Abortion Act legalised abortion in Britain and went a long way in freeing working class women from dangerous and often deadly 'backstreet' abortion techniques - but not in Northern Ireland where the act has never been implemented.

The 1967 Act, combined with other advances such as the introduction of the contraceptive pill, was a huge step forward for women, giving them some control over their own fertility for the first time. Unfortunately, just like all other victories won under capitalism, we have to fight to maintain them.

Recent weeks have seen an escalation of reactionary attacks on the gains won by women during the last century. The most visible of these has been the avalanche of deeply offensive rape-victim-blaming, with some politicians and police falling over each other to suggest that women (and even children) who have experienced sexual abuse were somehow 'asking for it'.

These same politicians, most notably reactionary Tory MP Nadine Dorries, have also been plotting policies to roll back the clock on women's rights. For example, Dorries is pushing for abstinence education for girls in schools and abortion rights are again under attack.

The Con-Dems' new Sex and Relationship Advisory council includes groups, some religious, which advocate abstinence-only sex education, are explicitly anti-choice, and discriminate against Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) people and single parents.

The new council includes the anti-choice group Life, which opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest. Notable in its exclusion from the council is the highly reputable British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPas), an independent organisation which provides both counselling (after which, 20% of women decide against termination) and abortion services.

In an attempt to destroy women's access to services like BPAS, Dorries has teamed up with Labour MP Frank Field and proposed an amendment to the government's now infamous Health and Social Care Bill (itself intended to tear up and privatise the NHS).

The proposals will make counselling compulsory rather than elective for any woman seeking a termination and also ensure that no provider of abortion services can provide counselling services.

This is an attempt to subject women to forced counselling from anti-choice organisations like Life before being granted access to abortion services. Right wing politicians have tried to justify the move as supposedly ensuring that no "conflict of interest" arose - this from a government who invited McDonalds and PepsiCo to advise on nutrition!

The Department of Health has recently issued an ambiguous statement implying that the Con-Dems may try to implement these anti-choice measures without a vote, stating "we do not believe it is necessary to set out this requirement in primary legislation". We must not stand for these attacks, even if a majority of MPs vote for them.

Unhindered access to abortion, free at the point of delivery, is a basic freedom for women which must be defended. However, freedom of choice depends in all cases on the material conditions an individual finds themselves in.

Even if we defeat Dorries and Field and secure free access to abortion, a woman in Britain today may not feel free to carry a pregnancy to term as she sees the NHS, pregnancy and child benefit, EMA, welfare, schools, jobs, housing and access to higher education being cut back viciously.

The choice over when and whether to have children will only be truly free when everyone can be confident that they and their children have secure access to a good standard of living and when high quality, evidence-based sex and relationships education is given from a young age.

To enable women to have a real choice in when and whether to have children we demand:
No cuts; scrap the Health and Social Care bill
Free abortion on request; end the need for two doctors' agreement
For a fully funded, democratically controlled National Health Service, no privatisation
Access to free fertility treatment on the NHS for all those who need it
Public ownership of the pharmaceutical industry
Access to free, safe contraception including emergency contraception; a reversal of the cuts in family planning services and a massive investment into sympathetic youth advisory centres
Improved sex education in all schools
Information campaigns on contraception
A decent living minimum wage and investment in job creation
A network of publicly funded, good quality, flexible childcare facilities
Maternity and child benefit to reflect the real cost of pregnancy, childbirth and bringing up a child
The right to adequate parental leave
A massive increase in spending on housing, education and other public services
A democratically run socialist society, planned to meet social needs rather than the profits of a few