Disabled people slam ‘hypocrisy’ of Paralympics sponsor

Story published on Women's Views on News, August 31, 2012

This week disabled people have been protesting against ATOS, one of the Paralymics’ main sponsors.

WVoN spoke to Ellen Clifford from Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) to find out why.

ATOS, a giant IT company, which holds £3bn worth of contracts with the UK Government, has been carrying out assessments on disabled people who claim Incapacity Benefit.

DPAC say ATOS have wrongly assessed up to 100,000 people as ‘fit for work’. Those wrongly assessed have subsequently been put under pressure to work when they can’t.

This week DPAC has been hosting the ATOS Games, to expose what they see as the hypocrisy of its sponsorship of the Paralympics and to challenge public perception of disabled people as benefit scroungers.

“Focus groups show the public believe benefit fraud amongst disabled people to be 70 per cent, when in reality it is 0.5 per cent.

“The Government is taking benefits away from genuinely disabled people.  It is taking the means of survival from disabled people.

“That’s why numbers of disabled people have taken their own lives in desperation,” said Clifford.

On Wednesday DPAC held a vigil for the dead.

A coffin, filled with over 100 messages from both disabled people who have had work capability assessments and found them traumatic, and families and loved ones of disabled people who have died after being declared ‘fit for work’, was delivered to ATOS’ London offices.

On Monday, DPAC hosted a ‘medal ceremony’ outside London’s City Hall.  Former paralympian Tara Flood had her medals and car keys taken from her and declared no longer disabled by ‘assessors’.

The campaigners are concerned that ATOS has been given a further £400m contract to assess claimants of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), a benefit paid to help disabled people in the UK meet additional living costs.

“The Government wants to reduce the number of DLA claimants by 20 per cent.

“It is arguing that this is about austerity, but there is an economic case for independence,” said Clifford.

Clifford points to a review by the Office of Disability issues, which found that if independent, disabled people could contribute to the economy, pay taxes and employ personal assistants.

“This is an attack on the welfare state and anyone who requires state intervention,” says Clifford.

Clifford is unsure whether the Paralympics will help people understand the daily struggles faced by disabled people.

“It’s always helpful for the movement to have representatives who can break the glass ceiling, showing what people can do physically.

“But it might worsen attitudes towards disabled people who can’t do that, as there is not an understanding of the barriers (the athletes) faced to get there.

“There’s this rhetoric of disabled people as scroungers, and there’s a danger the public won’t connect the two.

“They won’t understand we are actually talking about the same group of people,” she said.

And DPAC is not interested in working in isolation.  On Friday, they will join forces with UK Uncut for an ATOS Closing Ceremony.

“We are linking with other campaigns, unions and the left, which is something we have not done before,” said Clifford.

After the Games, DPAC will host a Pauper’s Picnic and a lobby of Parliament on September 13, in defence of the Independent Living Fund (ILF), which the Government is proposing to close.

The ILF helps 16,000 disabled people meet the costs of personal assistants so they can stay in their own homes and out of residential care.

Another concern for DPAC is education. Clifford believes the Government green paper on Special Educational Needs will increase segregation.

“The emphasis on academies is detrimental to disabled people.  They are notorious for discriminating against disabled people.

“Special schools mean non-disabled people grow up without being around disabled people,” she said.

Chemotherapy may be safe in pregnancy, study reveals

Story published on Women's Views on News, August 16, 2012


Women with breast cancer should not ease up on their chemotherapy treatment while pregnant, a new study has found.

The results of the German research, published in the Lancet, found little or no evidence that undergoing a course of chemotherapy for breast cancer when pregnant led to health defects in babies.

Professor Sibylle Loibl, of the German Breast Group which led the study, said:

“If our findings are confirmed by other studies, breast cancer during pregnancy could be treated as it is in non-pregnant women without putting fetal and maternal outcomes at substantially increased risk.”

The researchers are advising the one in a thousand women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer when pregnant, to proceed with the treatment as normal after the first trimester and not opt for an early delivery.

“Ideally, you would avoid chemotherapy in the first trimester of pregnancy.

“The thought is that the fetus is really developing at that stage and the organs are being developed,” Dr. Stephanie Bernik, chief of surgical oncology at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York told ABC News.

The study followed 400 women, 197 of whom underwent chemotherapy. Whilst babies whose mothers received chemotherapy were lighter, they were no more at risk of birth defects, blood disorders or loss of hair.

And while babies of mothers receiving chemotherapy had more complications, the group with the highest rate of complications were those born premature.

Cases of pregnant women with breast cancer are on the increase, this is thought to be because women are choosing to have children later.

The symptoms can sometimes be confused with pregnancy symptoms, making the disease complex to treat.
Scientists have also found that high hormone levels during pregnancy do not cause the recurrence of hormone-sensitive breast cancer strains.

We should be valuing pregnant women and new mothers, not sacking them

Story published on Women's Views on News, August 16, 2012

A few years ago I attended a friend’s baby shower.

My friend told the group that one of her husband’s colleagues had been made redundant because she had a young child and was unable to work until 8pm like her male colleagues.

She worked for a large City bank in the UK and received a big pay-off. Some of the women said that they would be delighted to be made redundant.

Now one of the women has herself lost her job because of pregnancy. She is among 30,000 each year who are sacked or forced to leave their work because they are pregnant or looking after a young child.

A further 200,000 are treated less favourably because of pregnancy or maternity, according to a study by the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission in 2005.

Valuing Maternity is a new campaign set up in the UK to fight maternity discrimination and improve services, information and support for pregnant women and new mothers.

Supported by the Maternity Alliance, unions like the National Union of Journalists and UNITE and advice groups like the Citizens Advice Bureau, it is encouraging women to tell their story.  Trudy’s is typical.

Before she became pregnant, Trudy’s boss said she was an excellent worker.  Her company was entering her work for national awards, and during her pregnancy her manager assured her that she would be able to return part-time.

As her maternity leave came to an end the boss changed tack and insisted that Trudy would not be able to fulfil the travel commitments of the job and suggested that a freelancer, who had been covering her role, should be retained with the same job title and equal responsibilities.

“My life was made absolute hell.  I was constantly undermined by the person I was sharing a job title with,” Trudy says.

“Meetings were held without me being there – even when I was in the office. I wasn’t included in conversations essential to the running of the business.”

Her work was often changed by her colleague at the behest of her boss.
“In short, I was seen to be no longer the trusted, respected employee I was previous to having a baby,” says Trudy.

It all came to a head when her manager suggested that the freelance colleague should be promoted to a position above her, taking on Trudy’s responsibilities and leaving her with the less important work.

Trudy saw this as an attempt to demote her and launched an appeal with the support of her union.

While this was happening Trudy continued to work to the best of her ability. She did not take time off, even when she or her child was ill.

“My confidence was shattered.

“On a personal level, it affected my home life with my partner and child, and I would often be depressed and weepy on my days off.”

Eventually Trudy took a job in a less prestigious department.

“I did feel that I had to compromise my career and I strongly feel that I could have continued in my previous role and excelled,” she says.

After nine months working at the new job, she became pregnant again and is now on maternity leave. Her current manager is also a mum and extremely supportive.

“I have no doubt that after my previous maternity leave, my manager was actively trying to get rid of me and she was uncomfortable with employing mothers.

“I strongly believe that it was viewed by my managers that in becoming pregnant, I had decided to sacrifice my career; that as soon as I was a parent it somehow changed my commitment to work and my ability to do my job. I couldn’t disagree more!” she concludes.

Louise Taft, a solicitor at Prolegal, says she has seen a rise in maternity discrimination cases since the onset of the recession in 2008.

“When the economy goes bad, the number of unfair dismissal cases as a whole goes up, but the proportion of pregnancy discrimination cases is about the same.

“We find many women are discriminated against when they have pregnancy related illnesses,” she says.

Ros Bragg, director of Maternity Action, says the number of women seeking advice from her organisation has more than doubled in the last year.

“The redundancy process is used as a way of shifting pregnant women and new mothers out of their jobs.

“The processes can be complex and this can make it difficult for women to prove they lost their jobs due to pregnancy discrimination.”

Bragg says that the law offers women relatively good protection against discrimination.  The problem is with compliance.

“Many women are not aware of their rights. Few are able to access advice when they need it particularly in light of cuts in advice services.

“Few have the personal or financial resources to pursue a case in late pregnancy or when looking after a new baby.”

Bragg says the Government should send a clear message to employers that they must comply with their legal obligations to pregnant women and new mothers.

“Unfortunately we are seeing messages from Government that pregnant women are a burden,” she says.

Well funded advice and information to enable women to exercise their rights and research into the effects of pregnancy discrimination in different industry sectors with targeted intervention to address this is also vital.

Bragg says in the absence of up to date research it is difficult to say which sectors are the worst offenders, but believes that women in the care industry may face particular problems.

“A lot of women are care workers and there is very poor practice in relation to manual handling in these jobs, leaving pregnant women having to choose either to leave their jobs or move and lift people or heavy equipment,” she says.

“Women are often very anxious that they are perceived as trouble makers when they are merely asserting the rights assigned to them in legislation. This reflects very negative attitudes towards pregnant women in the workplace at the moment.”

Bragg believes that discrimination faced by migrant women is often compounded when they become pregnant.  Maternity Action recently published an advice leaflet in Polish, as they are one of the largest groups of women from abroad having babies in the UK.

“Demand has been enormous. The number of downloads has been greater than the number of Polish women who had babies in the UK,” she says.
 
 

 

Independent Olympian wants own flag

Story published in Women's Views on News August 10, 2012


Philipine van Aanholt is an Olympian like no other.  She is the only woman to be competing in the Games without a country.

She is one of just four independent Olympic athletes, who are competing under the Olympic flag. If they win, the Olympic anthem is played.

van Aanholt comes from Curacao, which used to be part of the Dutch Antilles, a group of five islands in the Caribbean, until it voted for independence in 2010.  It has yet to be recognised as a separate state by the UN.

But, as van Aanholt qualified for the women’s laser radial sailing event, the International Olympic Committee allowed her to compete as an independent.

She said some of her friends had been confused by her independent status:

“It’s been quite hard because one of the special things about the Olympics is that you can compete for your country and do them proud.

“People are wearing their team colours. You don’t feel that team spirit.”

She didn’t even get to see the other independent athletes, as she was staying in the sailing village in Weymouth, three hours from London. She is now back in the main Olympic village in London.

For van Aanholt the best part of the Olympics was the opening ceremony.“That was the first time I realised what the Olympics are.

“It overwhelmed me. The reception from the crowd was amazing, with so many school kids waiting for the athletes and asking for autographs.

“We did a dance. We tried to act out our sports which I don’t think many people got.

“We wanted to remember this for the rest of our lives. Everyone was clapping and screaming, amazing,” she said.

She has also been to the Olympic Association and met inspirational athletes past and present, including an 84-year-old who competed in the 1948 games.

van Aanholt is now off to study business and economics in Holland.

“It’s important to have a study behind you. It makes you more well-rounded,” she said.

She plans to keep enjoying her sailing, and will take things slower for the next two years before building up for Rio in 2016, but she is not confident that her country will be recognised.

“I don’t think it will happen, I wish it would so I can compete under my own flag,” she said.

Domestic violence marches sweep across the West Bank

Story published on Women's Views on News, August 2, 2012


Demonstrations took place in the West Bank this week to demand tougher sanctions for men who kill their wives and daughters.

Yesterday several women marched through Bethlehem carrying placards saying ‘No to Murder Yes to Life’ and ‘Shame on us Palestinians who kill our women.’

The silent protest was organised by the National Union of Palestinian Women, after a man stabbed his wife several times in the chest and slashed her throat in broad daylight in a busy street in the town in front of horrified onlookers.

Police said the woman, 28-year-old Nancy Zeboun had filed for divorce.  The couple’s three children are now in foster care.

Khaula al-Azraq, a counsellor based in the West Bank, said Zeboun had been beaten and on several occasions hospitalised during her 10 year marriage.

Zeboun’s family initially refused to bury her unless her husband was put to death, but later agreed to the burial.  Her husband is now in police custody and is expected to be charged with murder.

This was the fourth murder of a woman in the West Bank this month.  Three other women were killed by their fathers in so-called honour killings.

A father allegedly killed his daughter, who was still in high school, in the West Bank town of Tulkarm, another  is accused of beating his daughter to death in the city of Hebron and a third allegedly killed a daughter in the Gaza Strip. All are in custody facing murder charges.

The demonstrators say the police are doing too little to protect women and call on President Mahmoud Abbas to order a full investigation into the killing in Bethlehem.

Stars demand release of members of Pussy Riot

Story published in Women's Views on News, August 2, 2012

Some of the world’s top musicians have signed a letter demanding the release of members of jailed Russian punk band Pussy Riot.

Corrine Bailey-Rae, Kate Nash and Martha Wainwright are among those who have signed the letter which said: ”Dissent is a right in any democracy and it is entirely disproportionate that [the punk band's members] face seven years in jail for what we consider a preposterous charge of ‘hooliganism motivated by religious hatred”
.
In February three members of Pussy Riot Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Mariya Alekhina and Yekaterina Samutsevich, were arrested after performing a ‘punk prayer’ in Moscow’s Christ the Saviour Cathedral blasting Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church (see WVoN coverage).

Since then they have been held in custody until the start of their trial this week when they pleaded not guilty. 
If convicted they could face up to seven years in jail.

“We believe firmly that it is the role of the artist to make legitimate political protest and fight for freedom of speech,” the letter read.

The supporters were also concerned “about recent reports that food is being withheld from them and that they have appeared in court in a cage.”

One of the women was given medical treatment in court on Wednesday.The letter was timed to co-incide with a visit to London by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“As he visits the United Kingdom this week, we ask President Putin to ensure these three women receive a fair hearing,” said the letter.