Forsaken?

Did anyone else see Nadine Dorries’s parliamentary adjournment debate last night on the information that’s provided to women seeking abortions, or as she’s disingenuously taken to calling it, on a “woman’s right to informed consent”?

If you didn’t, and you’re now regretting having missed it, fear not, you can watch it by clicking here

Likewise, you can catch up on what she said by reading the transcript here.

Now I’m not planning to examine in detail everything that Dorries said during her speech (feel free to have at it in the comments though), firstly because I’m liable to get too ranty for my own and indeed anyone else’s good, and secondly because I’d hate to be accused of stalking her, as so many others who’ve gone before me have .

There’s one thing she talked about however that I do want to examine a bit more closely, and that’s this:

“I shall finish by mentioning a book which is to be launched this month. It is published by the charity Forsaken, which is neither pro-life nor pro-choice: it is pro-women. For two years, the charity has put together the stories of women suffering from post-abortion syndrome. Reading the book is so heart-wrenching that we just want to reach out and take their pain away, but we cannot. There is no going back. We cannot make it better; abortion is a procedure to end life-it is final.”

“Hmmm, Forsaken”, I thought when I heard her mention the charity last night, “I’ll have to look them up tomorrow”.

Of course I didn’t think to write it down, and when I got up this morning I’d completely forgotten the bloody name of the organisation, so I had to wait a bit for the Hansard stuff to go up. But then, after a fairly fruitless online search for Forsaken I logged on to Twitter this afternoon and discovered I wasn’t the only one trying to find our more about this mysterious, hitherto unheard of charity.

So now,  thanks to medavep‘s sterling detective work, it can be revealed that this is the organisation Dorries was referring to last night.

Is it just me, or is there a bit of a disconnect between Dorries’s statement that Forsaken is “neither pro-life nor pro-choice: it is pro-women“, and the organisation’s website, which not only parps on incessantly about the unproven, designed-to-guilt-trip-women-even-more, made up ailment, “post abortion syndrome,” but which links through to both Care Confidential (“run by the charity Christian Action Research and Education (Care), whose charitable aims, as listed with the Charity Commission, are: “The advancement and propagation of the Christian Gospel and in particular Christian teachings as it bears on or affects national and individual morality and ethics.”) and ARCH (who run the Silent No More campaign, one of whose stated goals is to “Educate the public that abortion is harmful emotionally, physically and spiritually with lasting consequences“)

I suspect that once more Dorries is being slightly less than straight with the truth here, because that really doesn’t look much like a non-aligned organisation to me, in fact it looks decidedly pro-life. Whatever, I’m sure all will be revealed soon enough.

Another thing that did strike me about Dorries’s speech though was this little snippet:

“Reading the book is so heart-wrenching that we just want to reach out and take their pain away, but we cannot.”

And from the Forsaken website:

“It is heart-wrenching, and you may feel an overwhelming desire to hold them and take away their pain.”

Lol. Still, originality’s never exactly been Dorries’s forté has it?

A tendency to “over-react”

*Trigger Warning*

Chanelle Sasha Jones was stabbed to death by her father, Gary Fisher*, in the passenger seat of his car on August 2nd 2009. Quite rightly Fisher is now serving a life sentence for Sasha’s murder.

On Monday of this week however, the IPCC reported the results of its investigation into Dyfed-Powys Police’s handling of the case. And while the police were found to have “acted correctly in how it searched for 17-year-old Chanelle SASHA Jones after she was reported missing on 2 August 2009″, the IPCC press release also has this to say:

“The IPCC investigation also looked into previous contact the force had with Fisher as Sasha’s mother had previously contacted the police on 102 occasions. The investigation found that four officers had not taken appropriate action in dealing with some of her numerous reports of concerns to the force.

The four police constables will be subject of management intervention for the way they dealt with some of these reports.”

The press release goes on:

“IPCC Commissioner for Wales Tom Davies said: I would like to offer my condolences to Sasha’s family and friends for their tragic loss. Our investigation found that the police acted correctly in how they responded to the report from Sasha’s mother that she was missing. As the apparent threat grew the police acted accordingly and managed to trace and stop Fisher’s car.

Unfortunately, Sasha was already dead and it is likely that she had already been murdered when her mother called the police.

The many times that the force dealt with Sasha’s mother with previous interactions were not all carried out in accordance with best practice and policy for dealing with reports of possible domestic abuse.

This is one of those cases where the force was called out on numerous occasions and there was a tendency for some officers to characterise some of Sasha’s mother’s concerns and allegations as her ‘tending to over-react.’”

Yep, you read that right. A mother contacted the police on 102 separate occasions to raise concerns about her daughter’s safety while in her ex-husband’s care, and the police dismissed her because they decided in their infinite wisdom that her calls were nothing more than an indication of her “tending to over-react.”

And now Jane Jones’s daughter is dead. The daughter whose safety she was so concerned about she rang the police 102 different times.

I wonder what “management intervention” the four constables are going to be subjected to…

*For those not familiar with this case – when Fisher was arrested he claimed he had killed Sasha “to end her suffering,” following her rape by a local man a few years previously. Fisher tried to make out that he brutally murdered his daughter as an act of compassion, but thankfully the jury saw straight through that heartless, unmitigated shite.

Guest post: Up in the air

This is a guest post by Polly.

I bought a t shirt on the way home from work the other night.  A £15 t shirt, which I could just about afford a week from payday but still I felt a bit – guilty- even though it’s hardly a £750 dress

The reason I felt a bit iffy about a £15 t shirt is that – like about half the country I’m wondering how much longer I’ll have a job. We have already had the first redundancy in our office,  thanks to the extremely smackable George Osborne and his  comprehensive spending review.

The image of Osborne, being slapped on the back by Cameron in congratulation for ruining millions of lives, sorry delivering the comprehensive spending review, with a smug expression on his face reminiscent of a proud toddler who’s just done an enormous pooh right in the potty will sadly stay seared on my memory for quite a while. Not only does he not give a flying fuck, he looks positively pleased with himself, rather like the local squire’s son having ravaged the village maidens and left them impregnated and bound for the workhouse.

Private Eye covers and gallows humour aside, last week was fairly grim, and this week promises more of the same. Including oh joy, a visit from the big boss, accompanied by HR. I wonder what they’re going to tell us. We are obviously not going to have the privilege of being specially dragged down to London like my first in the firing  line colleague,  but instead delivered (potentially) the bad news by either the deranged, supposedly senior HR woman who reminds me of Violet Elizabeth Bott, or her annoyingly upbeat eminently smackable junior operative who used to work in retail? Can I have George Clooney instead please? And nobody has any clue what this bad news could be. Maybe the whole regional office is going, speculation is rife.

Continue reading

Too much information?

*TRIGGER WARNING*

For those who haven’t been following the case of Colonel Russell Williams which is being heard in an Ontario court this week, and who are therefore wondering what on earth a picture of women’s underwear is doing on my blog, the picture on the left is one of the evidence photos that the court has opted to release to the press. And I’ll be honest, I thought long and hard about the appropriateness of using this photo here, but given the fact that this is probably one of the least shocking images that’s been published by those covering this story, and being as this piece is about the sheer amount of information and imagery that’s been allowed into the public domain about this case,  I decided to go ahead and use it.

But I won’t pretend that the question of whether or not to use the picture hasn’t caused a bit of a dilemma for me, as has the issue of how much of the information I’m discussing here I should actually link to. In fact I did consider not putting any links into this piece, but at the end of the day I’m a blogger, and it’s my belief, and it’s also written into the unwritten bloggers’ code of conduct, that all sources used should be acknowledged, and all quotes used should be attributable. So, to cut a long story short, there will be links. But please be aware, there isn’t a trigger warning in the world that’s big enough to stick on some of the information that’s available about the Williams case, and some of the links in this piece will take you to some of that stuff.

Now with all that out of the way: who the hell, you’re probably wondering, is Colonel Russell Williams.

Well, up until February of this year, Colonel Russell Williams was a highly respected and much decorated Colonel in the Canadian Air Force. He was the base commander at Canadian Forces Base Trenton, Canada’s largest and busiest airbase, a man who, during his distinguished career, had been entrusted amongst other things with flying the Queen, Prince Philip and other foreign dignitaries around when they’d visited the country.

On Monday of this week however, Colonel Russell Williams pleaded guilty to 82 counts of breaking and entering and attempted breaking and entering, two counts of forcible confinement and sexual assault, and to the murders of Cpl. Marie-France Comeau and Jessica Lloyd.

By the end of the week Williams will have been sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for 25 years.

Continue reading

“Not fulfilling the etiquettes”

From The Samosa: (hat-tip to Sunny at Pickled Politics)

“Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed is the president of the Islamic Sharia Council. A softly spoken elderly man with the manner of a kindly grandfather, he is far removed from a firebrand radical Islamic preacher – indeed, he is nothing of the sort.

But sitting in a small office at the al-Tawhid Mosque in East London, where the Council’s sessions had been relocated while its nearby headquarters were renovated (the Council has now moved back), I asked Sheikh Sayeed whether he considered non-consensual marital sex to be rape.

“No,” he replied. “Clearly there cannot be any ‘rape’ within the marriage. Maybe ‘aggression’, maybe ‘indecent activity’.”

He said it was “not Islamic” to classify non-consensual marital sex as rape and prosecute offenders, adding that “to make it exactly as the Western culture demands is as if we are compromising Islamic religion with secular non-Islamic values.”

Sheikh Sayeed went on to say:

“of course it is bad, one should not jump on his wife as and when he desires” – but he said that it was wrong to prosecute it as rape:

“It is not an aggression, it is not an assault, it is not some kind of jumping on somebody’s individual right. Because when they got married, the understanding was that sexual intercourse was part of the marriage, so there cannot be anything against sex in marriage. Of course, if it happened without her desire, that is no good, that is not desirable. But that man can be disciplined and can be reprimanded.”

And it gets even more depressing:

“By contrast, he said the prosecution of marital rape was due to misguided Western values: “Why it is happening in this society is because they have got this idea of so-called equality, equal rights. And they are misusing these equal rights in every single aspect of human conduct. That’s why. It is one aggression against another, and that is bigger aggression against minor one.

I asked Sheikh Sayeed what he considered to be the “bigger aggression”.

“To call it rape. Rape is a criminal offence in this country; man will end up in prison for three, five years or more.”

So the non-consensual sex is the minor aggression, and calling it rape is the major aggression?

“Yes”

Why is calling it rape a major aggression?

“Because within the marriage contract it is inherent there that man will have sexual intercourse with his wife. Of course, if he does something against her wish or in a bad time etc, then he is not fulfilling the etiquettes, not that he is breaching any code of sharia – he is not coming to that point. He may be disciplined, and he may be made to ask forgiveness. That should be enough.”

I’ve written here before about the nonsensical belief that a husband has any kind of “right” to expect sex from his wife, so I’m not going to repeat myself except to say: the marital rape exemption was done away with in this country in 1992 ffs! (Interestingly though, that post is currently the third most popular post on this blog, and it’s still getting plenty of hits, mainly from google searches such as “How do I say no to my husband?” and “Husband wants too much sex” – which suggests to me this is still a significant issue in many women’s lives.)

And I’ll also say this. The rape laws in this country apply to everyone, including to those who would prefer to live under Sharia. If your husband rapes you, whether he’s a Muslim, a Christian, a Sikh or a sodding Humanist, you have the right to report his crime, yes, his “crime”, not his “breach of “etiquette” or whatever other weasely worded expression rape apologists want to employ, to the appropriate authorities. It doesn’t matter what Sheikh Sayeed, or your Pastor, or your Imam, or your Priest, or your Rabbi says: UK law takes precedence over any other legal system in this country, and that includes over religious law.

Some useful sites:

Rights of Women

Rape Crisis – England and Wales

Rape Crisis Scotland

Southall Black Sisters

One Law for All. No Sharia Campaign