Jane Fae2013-05-24T20:51:36-04:00Jane Faehttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=jane-faeCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Jane FaeGood old fashioned elbow grease.Naive Activism: Abuse of Women Is Always, Everywhere, Abusetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27232022013-02-21T12:40:22-05:002013-04-23T05:12:01-04:00Jane Faehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-fae/
There are horrors there. Still, a friend who, in her younger days, worked with the UN on issues of trafficking and violence against women will pull me up from time to time. However hard we think things are in the UK - the cuts, the stripping away of work protections, police indifference over domestic violence - it is nothing by comparison to what goes on elsewhere in the world.
That's a difficult debate. I understand her point of view. But its not reason for giving up the fight here. An individual who has been subject to rape, to violence, to exploitation in work is deserving of our help wherever she may be located: we cannot always pick our causes according to some grand scheme of "worthiness": we do what we can, when we can.
Even so, there are times when a report lands in front of me and I have to stop and read twice to get the sheer cruelty of what has been done. So it is with a short story passed on through another friend, now working with survivors of genocide in Sudan and elsewhere in Africa.
The public order court in Al-Kalaklah [a neighbourhood in Khartoum State] has recently sentenced a girl to receive a flogging of over 100 lashes for an "illegal pregnancy".
The girl, who is described as having special needs and deaf, told an interpreter that a young man, her neighbour and father of her child, had promised to marry her and asked her to go with him to his home. There, they "committed fornication" until she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby.
He denied this and following a statement from the girl, she was sentenced.
That's it. No names. No more detail. The story emerges through the BBC's monitoring service, which is itself providing a translation of a story that appeared in Alwan, a privately-owned pro-Islamist Sudanese newspaper on 18 February this year.
Is it naïve to mention this? At the back of my mind I am constantly aware that such stuff goes on: that in a world where some religious groups will oppose a woman's right even to education with violence and murder, 100 lashes for "promiscuity" is far from exceptional: read this report from 2010, which highlights some 43,000 allegations for similar public order offences made against women in one state (Khartoum) in just one year.
And in the grand scheme of things, what's one public flogging against mass murder and genocide?
Its tempting to buy this hierarchy of oppression: to argue that until one has tackled the worst, one has no business intervening in respect of the less bad. Tempting - and inhuman.
The Sudan is way, way outside my sphere of understanding. I don't know the history of the region, its politics or the particular flavour of its religion. I'm not going to derail other work I do in order to plunge into issues I don't fully understand.
So instead, I'll do the one thing I can: set out this story for others to read so those who want to get involved can do so (if you're interested, take a look at the work of Waging Peace and Article 1) ; and I'll excuse my focusing on it today as simple humanity. Somewhere in the world, a young girl has made a mistake, as others have before her, in trusting the blandishments of a lover.
Unlike the UK, where what follows is personal decision, largely supported by the state, she must now pay for that mistake through a punishment that is cruel beyond words: both in itself; and in the very fact that it should be deemed proper response to her actions.
My heart goes out to her.]]>How to stay safe while banking: the double standard for womentag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25517452013-01-25T13:32:18-05:002013-03-27T05:12:01-04:00Jane Faehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-fae/
New risk
This is safety advice, pure and simple, and something you just can't get enough of in this day and age. Safety advice for bankers. Not to mention politicians. Media tycoons. Senior policemen. Pretty much every individual who has, how shall I put this, lost the confidence of the public due to their extravagant, exploitative, self-interested, mendacious ways. Am I singling out any old Tom, Dick, Harry - let alone Bob or Fred? Absolutely not.
I am merely noticing that following a wide range of scandals, from Hillsborough to Libor, Leveson to parliamentary expenses, there is a good deal more public anger directed towards these pillars of our society than once was. This, in turn, is probably best summed by the man on the Clapham omnibus expressing a desire to punch them, one and all, on their collective snout. Figuratively speaking, of course.
Though there is perhaps a special warning here for media types thinking of attending public inquiries any time soon: beware strangers bearing custard pies!
Safety basics
What, though, must these important peeps do to ensure nothing bad happens to them. Well, first up, "have a plan!" Always. Don't just head out for your lunchtime coffee and quails egg sandwiches WITHOUT being ready to repel nose-punchers at all times, or, if repelling isn't quite your style, knowing where you're going to escape to.
Although, as you stride along in your Gucci suit and shoes, you're probably already doing some of the other stuff likely to keep yourself safe: is your head up? Are you swinging your arms and standing straight? Are you looking, acting, BEING confident?
That's good: you, my son, are already looking far less like a nose-punch victim.
Except - oh dear! - is someone coming towards you menacingly? Then - and I know this sounds awfully silly - find an obstacle, a parked car, for instance , and run round and round it. It's a bit of a fag - especially if you've just finished one of those tedious business lunches that you may be forced to eat in the course of your working day. But it could yet save your nose.
If that fails, just get UNDER the car. Sorry about the suit: but its that or your nose, and to be honest, if you can afford one Gucci, you can probably afford several more. Hang on to some of those nasty dirty pipes under the chassis: that will make it extra difficult to pull you out. Remember, too: members of the public can rarely be bothered to come under the car to get at you.
Don't park next to vans. Or cars with other peeps already sat in them. Don't give out your name on the phone - just say "hello". Change your route to and from work, regularly. Don't walk alone in the dark - ever! Mark out safe houses to run to along your route.
Don't blame the banker!
Have you, dearest banker, done all of the above? Are you prepared to face a full-on nasal assault? Or is it possible, being one of the lads, that you've never in your life given the least thought to such matters.
No, of course I'm not saying its YOUR fault if someone just walks up to you in the street and bloodies your hooter. Still, you knew the risks. I'm not blaming you at all. But you didn't have a plan and, and, and...
A double standard for women
Alright. Here's the point at which not even the densest of readers can have failed to notice that I'm spoofing. The advice above, plus plenty more, comes from the crime-stoppers website. Its all about being safe and staying safe. Outwardly, its not directed at women: the headings are gender neutral. We are spared the patronising "Safety tips for women"tag.
Still, it is pretty clear from internal clues - whether its mentions of sitting in your car doing your make-up, or carrying your bag with the clasp facing inwards - who this advice is for. Not worked it out yet? "Ladies, you are naturally more sympathetic than men."
Oh. OK. He means us.
And I know its meant well. I know that the chances of a woman being attacked on her way home from work is greater than anything remotely violent happening to a random banker. Still, there is something both humiliating and belittling about this sort of advice. Not just the content, but the tone, too.
Which is why I shifted it sideways onto bankers, in this instance stand-in and cipher for every recently diminished figure of male privilege.
Can you see the police stopping off in the City, calmly advising bankers on how to stay safe by crawling under their car? Or running round and round it Benny Hill-style? No: they'd be laughed at, not least because what they are asking bankers to do is accept that staying safe requires them to surrender their dignity.
Then, too, no matter how this is framed, there is the implicit blaming. In the end, I lost count of the techniques women are supposed to know in order to stay safe. Though I can imagine commentators tutting knowingly and judging victims according to how many they put into practice. OK. You walked confidently: but did you vary your route? No? Well, I'm not blaming you, but...
There it is. The very existence of these facile checklists makes it plain. Women are complicit in the violence they suffer, in ways that men are not.
Only joking: never having to say you're sorry
Last up is something even more interesting: possibly, even, the reason you won't be reading all of this article. Am I, by poking fun at poking bankers proboscally, being just a teensy bit too clever? By warning, no matter how ironically, jokily, of the possibility, am I inciting the action?
Certainly not, I'd say. Though here, too, there is an interesting parallel. Joke about bombing an airport - the #twitterjoke incident - and the police will pull out all the stops to have you convicted. Run a website, as one angry resident in Canterbury did a decade or so back, identifying parking attendants and referencing them as clowns and expect the police to request that you desist, lest you incite violence against those patrolling the local yellow lines.
Oddly, the fact that they themselves wore uniforms that were a bit of a giveaway as to what they did during the day never entered the debate.
But joke about rape, or vioence against women.: use such jokes as a means to harass and intimidate survivors online; and the chances are that no action will be taken. Cos you are, indeed, considered to be "only joking" - and while police will happily get the link between joke and incitement in respect of public officials, for some reason they are far slower on the uptake where women are concerned.]]>That Monstrous Regiment of Hacks: Why 'Regulation' of the Press Is a Red Herringtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22099292012-11-29T05:47:36-05:002013-01-29T05:12:02-05:00Jane Faehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-fae/
No. Leveson, the months of evidence taking and the protracted deliberations that followed were not, are not some convoluted plot got up by the enemies of freedom to shackle the troublesome and truth-seeking. The Leveson inquiry owes its existence to some bad behaviour - some very bad behaviour, indeed - on the part of the press. Phones hacked, on an industrial scale. Privacy trashed. Criminal investigations interfered with. Bribery. That's just for starters.
And for all the squeaks of high-pitched outrage at the very idea of regulation, a fair few of these activities are already pretty stringently regulated, as those same squeakers have been keen, inconsistently, to point out. That is why a number of Fleet St's finest will shortly find themselves in the dock.
That is also why the Press Complaints Commission, which in theory already regulates on the basis of principles so injurious to free speech as encouraging accuracy and discouraging overt racism, listened carefully to the early stages of the Inquiry - and then spectacularly imploded, re-inventing itself as a transitional body with much the same people, principles and premises long before the good Lord delivered his verdict.
Leveson: the real issues
So what are the real issues?For me, I guess the focus of this inquiry has never been about the great and the good: at least not insofar as they find themselves on the victim side of the equation. Phone hacked? Lies printed about you in the Daily Beast? Well, if you happen to be Lord McAlpine or Hugh Grant, you have a remedy to hand. Libel suits are an expensive luxury and not one that the average citizen is ever sensibly likely to risk. But if you happen to have a spare million or two stashed away in the bank, the possibilities are endless.
But if you're Mr or Mrs Average? Or worse, a member of a minority community struggling to gain the respect and understanding of the wider world? No chance!
As a journalist myself, I am sympathetic to the idea of press freedom: I like free speech. At the same time, I am a campaigner, an activist and - this makes a difference - more of a news analyst and features writer than out-and-out news reporter. Which is not to say I haven't, don't still, pick up on and report the occasional hot news topic.
I tend to take time: I go behind the instant news story, get back to sources. I try to establish what really happened in a given instance and not simply opt for the easy journalistic way out: "standing up" a story on the basis that some well-placed source has gone on record to confirm it, or provided a juicy quote that gives it legs. Often - too often - I find that the story that is already half way round the world is not for real. Or only partly real.
Truth: the first casualty
For instance? The recent fuss over HMV banning blokes from wearing long hair at work? I rang their press office, in the process eliciting a mild compliment from their press officer as having been almost the only journalist to do so. The result? Not true. This was a health and safety rule, applied to all staff working in the packing area (where complex machinery and long hair really don't mix).
Or there was the Brighton Council "plan" to abolish the titles of "Mr" and "Mrs". Also not true. The issue - of gendered titles on online forms - came up in a survey. Brighton intended to discuss it: to look at a range of possible responses. The only evidence for the shock-horror story that followed was condemnation from a Tory councillor after being fed a leading question by a local journalist, who asked her what she thought of "the plan". Hmmmm!
The point is that the press regularly mis-reports or distorts. Very often, that distortion is not about some high profile public figure: the back office lawyers mostly make sure of that. Rather, it is about communities, minorities and the like who happen to be easy targets. People that the public don't quite understand: and therefore people about whom it is easy to tell stories that connect to a populist mis-leading and discriminatory narrative.
Minorities under fire
The two groups that have come in for some of the worst treatment over the last few years are the transgender and travellers. The better organised of the two, at least as far as the media are concerned, is the first, which is why Lord Leveson took evidence not once, but twice, from Trans Media Watch.
Harrowing stuff, not just in terms of the vileness of some of the coverage: but also the outcomes for those door-stepped, "exposed", mostly for just living their lives and trashed. Truly. For after the press moves on, what is left behind is very often damage. Abuse and violence directed towards the object of their mis-reporting. Lost jobs. Broken relationships.
Process: the press way of righting wrongs
Yet they don't care. Nor are they especially bothered with righting wrongs. Or inaccuracies. Take the cost of gender re-assignment surgery, which is a topic I have written about at length. The MtF surgery does not cost - as most of the national press reported a year or so back - £60,000. Nowhere near.
So I raised the matter with a number of newsdesks and was stonewalled. There was process to go through to check errors. It took time. It was possibly a matter of opinion. If I factored in other costs. ..
No, no and no. An institution which, to its credit, can have coverage of major global events live online within minutes of them happening is virtually brain-dead when it comes to dealing with its own mistakes.
Corrections must follow process. Process involves arguing with serpentine sophistry what was meant, what the public might understand by a particular wording. To which the answer is simple: if research suggests the public widely understood something inaccurate from a piece, the piece was misleading. Period. No need for clever literary analysis.
Regulation? Twas ever thus...
Which brings us back to where we began. The press is already regulated. By law. By code. One must assume no-one is arguing for a rolling back of the law. Though one must wonder whether those arguing so strenuously against regulation really mean that as far as they are concerned, the PCC editors' code, to which they are supposedly signed, is equally despicable.
We need mechanisms that put errors right quickly, without fuss, and without need to resort to the nuclear option in legal terms. We need the press to "get" that misleading is not what some clever scribbler elite say it is: it is something easily checked. Just ask the public: read the comments!
We also need, as shadow media minister Helen Goodman, MP made clear, the possibility of "third party complaints", because "negative stereotyping is rife and damaging". Yet all too often, such stereotyping may damn entire communities with impunity, because the current PCC code restricts most complaints to articles that identify clear individuals.
These are simple principles, not a million miles away from what we already have. Regulation may take many forms. A particular form of direct state intervention is odious, not to mention dangerous.
But this is red herring. There are ways in which the press can be regulated that do not require speech chilling measures. Once more: we are here, as we have been so often in the past half century because over and over and over, no matter what promises the press gives, no matter what undertakings, it has not cleaned up its act. It has conceded, time and time again, that there are principles it can happily sign up to without the sky falling in.
Yet in the end, it is constitutionally incapable of doing so. Existing mechanisms don't work. It is time to update those mechanisms - give them teeth. Some might like to represent that as a complete break with the past.
It isn't.]]>Policing Students: Mistakes Get Madetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21672102012-11-21T11:04:35-05:002013-01-21T05:12:01-05:00Jane Faehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-fae/
But should we? Believe, that is, the sensationalist one-sided version we have been fed in the two years since? Or is it possible that events on the day - 9 December 2010 - were not quite the absolute Manichaean struggle between Good (Police) and Evil (students), claimed loudly by some politicians, some commentators.
Is it possible that the real story includes a dash of cock-up on both sides. Or that senior police and establishment figures, rather than own to their failings, would rather demonise many who were no more than innocent victims of an afternoon of chaos?
A good start
Let's start with expectations. Following clashes between students and police throughout Autumn 2010, these included a heady mix of optimism and concern. Ominously, The Met's superintendent Julia Pendry is quoted in contemporary Guardian coverage of the day warning beforehand that: " there is evidence to suggest a number of people will come to London intent on causing violence and disorder."
Still, the early stages were good natured, with an estimated 40,000 student protesters expected. At 2.08 pm, again according to the Guardian narrative, the atmosphere remained "for the most part, good-natured if slightly chaotic".
At 3.10pm, after the protest had swamped Parliament Square, police officers were still telling students that they were free to leave.
By 3.45pm, the mood had changed utterly. Those in Parliament Square had been kettled, according to police "because of the level of violence directed at police officers". Mounted police had charged into the crowd. It was a case, as the prophets of doom had expected all along, of "rioting as usual". What went wrong?
The march (see diagram 1) was originally supposed to come down Great George Street, down the side of Parliament Square and turn left into Whitehall.
Chaotic continuation
In the event, it stopped a little way down Whitehall. Many students believed the police had stopped them but in a letter to the Chair of the Human Rights Joint Committee, assistant commissioner Allinson states that the march stopped because those at the front were waiting for a banner to arrive. Police asked stewards to "restart the march" to prevent harm being caused to people in the crowd. However, Allinson continues, the organisers were "uncooperative".
What followed was fairly predictable. As the march stood still - for over 20 minutes - crowd pressure began to build. Students present wrongly assumed this to be the start of some form of police containment or 'kettle', used on previous occasions, according to point of view, to maintain public order, or to punish demonstrators. Temperatures were rising, and at this point, the police decided to give the students Parliament Square.
The police line blocking entry into Parliament Square wheeled back (diagram 2) allowing students access. This move was not, as several media reported at the time, because demonstrators had gone off route, but because the police had taken the wholly sensible decision to make use of a pre-designated 'pressure relief' area to avoid a crush situation. According to observers at a later trial, a superintendent Woods gave evidence stated that if the students had not followed the police into the Square "they would have been made to".
Still, to an outsider, subsequent events may have appeared rather more alarming than they actually were. As students poured into Parliament Square (at around 2.37pm), they pulled down the barriers blocking off the central grassy area. Vandalism? Or actually quite sensible. A few students started to make bonfires to keep warm, setting fire to their placards.
Meanwhile the Met's Silver Command (providing overall direction to officers on the ground) had cordoned off all exits from Parliament Square except into Whitehall. In theory, marchers wishing to continue must now parade round three sides of the square before exiting. In practice, this merely added to the confusion and raised the temperature further, as those trying to get out of the square were passed from one cordon to another, with no clear understanding of why.
Police on the front line did not appear to know what was happening, either. Matters were not helped by the fact, revealed by video footage, that Silver was, at times, having to rely on contacting Bronze commanders by mobile phones as they could not be reached by radio.
Ending in tears
Footage also suggests that the level of violence on both sides was now escalating, with police officers using their batons against individual demonstrators and some demonstrators, in turn, retaliating.
Still, between 3pm and 3.10pm at least one police officer stationed behind the police lines in front of Parliament Square is telling the protesters, via megaphone, that this "is not a containment" and "if you wish to leave, leave by the rear".
Unfortunately, as later accepted by superintendent Woods, 'the rear' would suggest to most students that they should leave via Broad Sanctuary/Victoria Street. He also stated that if the students were being sent in that direction, it should be a "filter cordon" as marchers should never be directed to a full cordon.
However, a second officer, inspector Donaldson, giving evidence at the same trial, confirmed that the cordon in place across Broad Sanctuary/Victoria Street was a full one and added that he'd be very surprised if any officer was sending the marchers to his line.
It is clear from video footage that those in the square turn rapidly toward Broad Sanctuary, at the time blocked by a single police line. The police quickly pull the line back and reinforce it: as they do so, students follow apparently believing that, as happened in Great George St, they are being lead out of Parliament Square. This appears to be the critical misunderstanding that turned a demonstration that until that point had been mostly peaceful into a major incident.
From the police perspective the marchers were attacking their line and putting it under severe pressure. From the marcher's perspective they were simply doing what they have been told to do. At 3.23pm the order was given to implement a complete containment of Parliament Square: minutes later, mounted officers charged into the crowd in Broad Sanctuary further inflaming the situation. What followed is now tabloid history.
Questions to answer
Still, this raises real questions, not just about the alleged 'badness' of the demonstrators, but also about police tactics on the day. The first is summed up in a series of iconic images, not least of which is that of a police officer being dragged along the ground after allegedly being pulled from his horse by students. We know this because the next day the prime minister, David Cameron, spoke publically to condemn such outrageous behaviour.
Scarcely mentioned in the press is the trial verdict some 18 months later, clearing the alleged villains and placing the blame for the officer's downfall squarely on his own shoulders. Sadly, neither the PM nor his press office felt moved to make any public apology for earlier remarks.
Meanwhile, there are further questions to be asked: about police communication on the day; and whether 'containing' large numbers of people in one area and then charging horses into the resulting crowd is really the best way to defuse a situation?
Over all, though, the central question is whether the police have learnt anything or whether they are prepared to concede in the least that they have anything to learn or whether, as happened at Hillsborough, it is considered sufficient to blame those on the receiving end and, publically at least, to refuse to acknowledge that anything the Met did was in any way other than 100% perfect?
Note: the key points above have been put to the Met Police, who, when contacted 20 November. declined to comment at this time because "the circumstances of 9th December remain the subject of court proceedings". They added: "We do have a proportionate policing plan in place for tomorrow"]]>Anti-Social Networkingtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20828432012-11-06T13:11:03-05:002013-03-19T06:51:00-04:00Jane Faehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-fae/TheWomensRoomUK been pulled because it got up the noses of a US organisation with a similar name?
Or is it just the same old, same old SNAFU that bites when any remotely progressive issue collides with the Masters of the Universe hereinafter known as Facebook and Twitter?
Despite the odd suspicion that it could have been "one of the lads", and the odd tweet hashtagged #sexism, there is no obvious evidence that this was male sabotage. No-one, so far, has claimed responsibility - and bitter experience with the bitter, bitter boys is that they do like you to know when you've been got. If it was a bloke with a bee in his bonnet about "wimmin", there is, no doubt, an e-mail or a tweet somewhere crowing responsibility.
So who else is in the frame? Well, there is a US organisation that goes by the name TheWomensRoom. They have been around for approximately four years, and were set up by Amanda and Jane, a couple of British women working stateside, who "met while working for the global fashion trend forecasting website, WGSN."
As their now well-established blog informs: "Both over 40 at the time, we lamented the lack of inspiring fashion and style publications available on and offline, for women our age."
Thus was born TheWomensRoom, whose daily posts "aim to inspire, inform and celebrate growing older in a positive, witty and stylish way."
So far, so positive. However, at around 8am (GMT) a series of tweets from their organisation began to appear expressing disapproval of the UK initiative.
According to A (presumably Amanda): "dear http://womensroom.org , we're right behind your excellent idea about promoting more women experts, but slightly sad you didn't... do a bit more research about our blog The Women's Room. We too are shouting about other invisible women in the media..the 40plus ones!
"Perhaps think about getting another name so we can all shout together and make more noise? #justsathought #wearethewomensroomblog.com".
A number of tweeters inquired about the confusion, with one suggesting: "they clearly didn't google the name before they picked it!"
A replies: "Indeed, or did and thought we were not important 'sputters with puffy indignation!'"
So did they complain? They say not. Categorically not. They e-mail to say: "We very definitely did not complain to Twitter, but we did mention ON Twitter how sad we were that someone was in our space". They are supportive of the "other guys" and wish them well.
The UK WomensRoom are not so sure. But with no smoking gun to hand, it would be unfair to point fingers. Maybe one of the (US) supporters complained: but again, there is no evidence of same - so, for now, let's pass on that theory.
Which leaves as most likely culprit the somewhat Byzantine and heteronormative moderation processes that seem to be increasingly the norm on social networking sites originating in the US. I've written before - many times! - about a certain sort of hegemonic cultural bias over at Facebook that sees pages on women's health, breast feeding and modern art taken down (family values, doncha know!), while soft porn featuring the usual scantily clad young women survives largely unscathed.
The evidence against Twitter, the organisation, is largely circumstantial. They're a big US corporation and therefore one of the usual suspects when it comes to failing to support anything that does not support the established way of life, the universe and everything. On the other hand, there is no evidence one way or another. A quick line to their press office, was annoyingly face-palmed: Twitter does not, apparently, comment on individual accounts.
Inadvertent spamming, and "aggressive promotion" are just two - though since Twitter are not exactly forthcoming when asked what you have transgressed, it is not altogether easy to divine what one has done wrong - if indeed one has done ANYTHING wrong at all.
For now, therefore, the facts are straightforward and sad. For the last eight hours, the twitter account relating to the Women's Room UK has been suspended (in fact, suspended three times in a single hour). No-one can quite say why: the site's owners are grappling with Twitter.
If nothing else, this highlights the dangers, possibly unavoidable, of an internet culture that, more and more, requires anyone with an important message to get out there to conform, in every sense of the word, to the diktats of a very limited range of social offerings.
As for Twitter: come on, get your act together!]]>A Rose by Any Other Name: The Nature of Expertisetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20765692012-11-05T10:24:45-05:002013-01-05T05:12:01-05:00Jane Faehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-fae/fairly furious reaction from women not at all impressed by Radio 4's apparent inability to find female "experts" to discuss breast cancer on the Today programme.
Quite. It took women all of about five minutes on twitter to identify a range of experts who could have presented a female perspective on what is generally regarded as an issue that affects women rather more directly than men. Some of these suggestions undoubtedly had letters after their name and learned titles beforehand.
The unexpected expert
Yet it wasn't that debate that had me, initially, pondering the nature of expertise. Quite co-incidentally, writing about Ria Cooper, last week, I found myself wondering about the nature of expertise, what role "experts" play in public debate on high profile subjects - and how the press determine such-and-such person is, or isn't, an expert worthy of citing.
No. This isn't another delve into the issues surrounding transition - beyond the fact that I probably count as something of a transgender expert myself. A single par from the original story quite jarred. This was the bit where they quoted the views of "child psychologist Karen Sherr".
Karen, who is also, according to the Mirror, "formerly of Great Ormond Street Hospital" seemed broadly opposed to what Ria had done. Though it's not entirely clear whether Karen herself was reacting to the reality of Ria's situation - on hormones, deciding not to go forward with surgery - or to some potted Mirror version of same (as I wrote last week, the story was severely bowdlerised in the popular press).
That's important. Following up another story last week, I spoke to a disgusted Tory Councillor about Brighton's supposed plans to "ban" the use of "Mr & Mrs". Expecting rabid unreasonableness, I ended the conversation feeling a tad sorry for her: the local paper had phoned telling her that plans and proposals were afoot (not true!) and she had reacted to what she was told - thereby creating the very story she was reacting against.
But back to Karen. My instant reaction was mild surprise. As someone who writes about trans issues regularly, I thought I knew most of the experts in the field. Who she?
I dug a bit. She runs a group for babies and small children - Musical Minis - that focuses on child development through music. She has a degree in psychology, obtained from Warwick University back in 1984 with a special focus on child psychology. After this she was a play specialist, her role again based on child psychology, on the cardiac unit at Great Ormond Street hospital until around 1988, when she set up Musical Minis. All of the above is easily obtainable through the interweb: and I was pleased also to make contact with Karen who happily confirmed this.
Protected expertise
Does this make her a child psychologist? Well, yes, no, maybe. What on earth IS a "child psychologist" anyway?
It is not, intriguingly, one of those titles "protected" in law. As a spokesperson for the British Psychological Society helpfully confirmed: "With only nine titles protected under the regulatory legislation this permits widespread use of the term 'psychologist'. Not only is there a real risk that services may be offered under similar but non-protected titles, leading to public confusion, but this also provides limited protection of the public. The Society remains concerned regarding this loophole and the absence of tighter control of the use of the title 'psychologist' and other related titles".
Ye-es. I know what they're getting at - and consumer programmes regularly make a great song and dance about self-styled "therapists" of one kind or another who mislead the public into spending vast sums of money on flaky "treatments" with no proven efficacy. On the other hand, "Rip-off Britain", presented by Angela Rippon - geddit! - recently highlighted the perils of protected designation in the food area, asking an "expert" Cornish pasty maker to make two pasties in the middle of a bridge between Devon and Cornwall.
Yep - you guessed it: the pasty made from inferior ingredients was allowed to call itself Cornish; the better of the two was not.
Thus, on what little I know of Karen, which may be more than the Mirror, I have no reason at all to diss her qualifications, experience or expertise. I'd quibble slightly with the Great Ormond Street reference: accurate, but maybe there to add weight it doesn't merit. But anyone who has spent almost thirty years working with children possesses expertise that outranks mere academicism.
She is happy her views weren't misrepresented: the Mirror, all credit, gave her readback. She genuinely feels that the pathway travelled by Ria is broadly wrong.
Expertise over experience: which to value?
How did they find her? She appears on "Expert Sources", a perfectly respectable site (I am on it myself), which allows journalists in need of expertise to do a quick and dirty search for individuals with knowledge of a topic.
Is that acceptable? Again: yes, no, maybe. In matters of psychology there is a difficulty when it comes to obtaining views: the psychologist responsible for a patient may not hold forth in public (confidentiality); but nor may a colleague practising in the same area (unprofessional).
Besides, papers as respectable as the Times have happily quoted as an "expert" on trans matters a certain Ken Zucker. That's problematic: because in terms of lifetime's work, focus and involvement, he undoubtedly has an expert voice. Its just, from the perspective of the trans community, asking Zucker for insight is on a par with asking Joseph Goebbels for insight into matters of Jewish etiquette.
But back to the Mirror and Ms Sherr? Did either of them do anything wrong? Not really. Certainly not Ms Sherr, who appears to have received a mild publicity boost from a slightly off the wall request. But she answered honestly: at no time misrepresented herself.
As a journalist myself, I can sense the desperation of the reporter pulling the story together. Its there - and then the editor bounces back with a demand for "expert input". But its Friday: and all the experts are abed (or out at posh soirees).
The real problem, which takes us back, I think, to Radio 4, is an apparently insatiable social demand for "expertise", when mere humanity would do. Were the Mirror asking detailed questions about hormone regimes, Ms Sherr would have been a wholly inappropriate interviewee: but they weren't. Rather, they were asking for a view on the entire package, which she gave.
So, it's bad that Radio 4 could not find female experts to talk on the subject they did. At the end of the day, though, the real issue seems more basic: a world view, across the media, that sees expertise as necessary, when sometimes experience would do just as well. Worse, a world view that holds expertise as somehow superior, even when dealing with the day to day, to experience.]]>Misleading Journalism on Trans Coststag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20439422012-10-31T19:00:00-04:002012-12-31T05:12:01-05:00Jane Faehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-fae/
Ria Cooper - a tragedy in the making
As appears to be happening right now with the story of Ria Cooper, the trans woman - or maybe not - once billed as the "youngest sex change patient" in the UK. Have the tabloids really forgotten their outrage earlier this year when they reported on pre-teens beginning treatment with puberty blockers? Ria, as reported at some length in the Mirror and the Mail is now apparently backing off from that misleading title, complaining about the difficulties of functioning as a woman and the side effects of hormones.
Along the way, it is clear that she is also suffering greatly from a lack of support. She talks openly of being rejected by her family: of suicide attempts and alcohol problems; of resorting to sex work as her only means to find love and happiness. This is an individual who, by her own admission, is very mixed-up and, whatever choice she makes now, it is to be hoped that she begins to sort out her life.
The situation is not helped in the slightest by the fact that since being picked up by a Channel 4 documentary and awarded that ridiculous tag of "youngest sex change patient", she is effectively 'fair game' for the sensation-seekers. I have no doubt that she is talking freely and of her own volition: that, of course, is part of the pathology: she needs help, support - and anyone prepared to listen is likely to be welcome.
So what are my problems with this piece, these pieces, which have appeared like a rash across the tabloids in the past few days? First, I guess is the simple human dimension. Ria, or Brad as she now identifies, needs calm, needs support, needs help. Hanging her out in the full glare of publicity does not do that: and while hers is a fascinating story and one I'd like to read when she has arrived a little, I cannot help but feel right now that the press are breaking a supposed cardinal rule of journalism: they are becoming part of the story.
Because these pieces are likely to have direct impact on their subject, on her community, and potentially on her down some dark alley at the weekend.
The long difficult road to transition
But what about the public interest? Surely 'we all' have a right to know about money being spent fruitlessly on assisting individuals to transition? Which I'd agree with, if there was some attempt at context.
Transition is a long and difficult road. Not everyone goes all the way down it (for which, read: progresses to full surgical intervention): not everyone WANTS to go all the way. So there is a beginning, during which individuals receive hormone treatment and must live as their identified gender. Then there is a decision point. Then - and only then - is there surgery.
The process is designed to flush out two issues. First off, whether the individual genuinely wishes to go to the end of the transition road, or whether partial treatment is, in the end, all they need. Second, it is about finding out whether individuals can cope. Not with the transition: but with the abuse and general hostility that follows.
On that score, Ria is a perfect example. Is she de-transitioning because it is wrong for her? Or because she appears to have received next to no support for her decision: has ended up jobless and sleeping on a friend's floor. Who knows? Certainly, none of us. Pretty certainly, too, none of the journalists now retelling the story on the basis of a short original, rehashing, retwisting as they go.
According to one group that works with teen transitioners, there is nothing whatsoever unusual about this: many young people start off on the trans road, back off and then a fair proportion of those return to it five, ten years later, when their life is a little more stable, when they have garnered a little support of their own.
The real question here, of course, is whether the care professionals to whom Ria entrusted her life took sufficient note of the hostile environment into which she was transitioning. But without seeing case notes, that, too, is speculation.
Speculative journalism - and public hostility
Still, all this is par for the sensational course. What is unforgiveable, no doubt justified by one hostage to fortune quote from the subject herself is the idea that de-transitioning will cost (the public) money. It's implicit in the Mirror piece, which talks about her treatment to date costing thousands. Explicit in the original Mail piece.
Or rather, not in the piece, which has no reference to costs at all, but in the misleading, possibly false "'I was born a boy, became a girl, and now I want to be a boy again': Britain's youngest sex swap patient to reverse her sex change treatment - at our expense!"
Er, no. The Mirror claim is decidedly shaky, as the cost to date of transitioning could be no more than a few hundred. It depends on what course has been followed, and whether you factor in any therapy or psychiatric treatment dished out along the way. Still, basic feminising hormones cost a few pounds a month: certainly under a tenner. Anti-androgens, which could also be part of the mix, might cost as much as £500 a year and, it is understood, may have been administered for two years.
But to reverse the process? Simple, really. Just stop taking the hormones. Much of the body development that has taken place will reverse itself over time. In the extreme case where Ria is left with unwanted boobs, an operation could be required. Time will tell.
Yet that simple headline was enough to set the haters off: the haters and the sceptics and those who just don't get it and don't see why THEIR money is being spent on treating a condition that for some really is life-threatening.
They understood that surgery has already taken place: that surgery is needed to reverse the surgery; and that such surgery will automatically happen, automatically be picked up by the public purse. Inaccurate? Misleading? Of course, as is more than clear from the comments.
To the Mail's credit, they have backed off from that headline, as they should. No-one knows if ANY cost at all will be incurred.
So while I remain ambivalent about my chosen profession, I am glad that on this occasion, my colleagues over at the Mail made the right call. Thank you.]]>While Politicians Tinker, Victims of Child Abuse Suffertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20178242012-10-29T19:00:00-04:002012-12-29T05:12:02-05:00Jane Faehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-fae/ Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) a failure to pursue low-level cases could mean that individuals committing actual physical abuse and their victims are not being identified.
Concerns were raised earlier this year by John Carr, OBE, a highly respected adviser to the UK government on internet safety policy for children at a forum organized by the Internet Watch Foundation. He confirmed this today, saying: "There are persistent rumours that because of the backlog in computer forensics, officers are being discouraged from seizing computer equipment or digital devices unless it is considered to be 'absolutely necessary'".
This is backed up by an expert source, who revealed how some police forces are reducing their reported backlog - and so improving their performance figures - by simply not seizing devices. He explained: "where, before, police might have seized six phones or three laptops, now they will only seize the one. This reduces backlog - but it means that vital evidence of crime may be missed."
According to CEOP, the impact on child protection cannot be under-stated. Research published by them this summer highlighted a significant correlation between possession of indecent images of children (non-contact offense) and contact offending (actual physical abuse). While further research is needed to establish the nature of this relationship, such findings clearly add weight to identifying those individuals who do commit non-contact offenses.
The problem is not new.
Back in 2009, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Janet Williams, then national lead on e-crime for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) warned of a forensic backlog arising because more and more detectives and officers were seizing computers. This was particularly relevant in child abuse cases, but "unfortunately, the capability to do that locally is limited, [which] has created a backlog."
Since then, there have been two key developments. First, and controversially, back in December 2010, the Home Office announced the closure of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) a government-owned company providing forensic science services to police forces and government agencies in England, Wales and internationally. The decision was justified on the grounds that the FSS was losing around £2m a month.
However, it aroused strong criticism from leading forensic scientists both nationally and internationally, and led Joseph Bono, president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, to warn Home Secretary Theresa May against moving proven expertise into an untested new system. In January 2011, he wrote: "Any new system 'might work'; the FSS 'does work'".
Diana Johnson MP, Labour Shadow Crime and Security Minister fought long and hard against that decision: she is still unimpressed. Responding to John Carr's remarks, she said: "The Forensic Science Service had world-leading knowledge in a range of fields, including IT. Despite this the government closed the Forensic Science Service without doing anything to retain these skills. In less than a year, 60% of the forensic science market had to be taken up by the private sector and they simply don't have the level of expertise."
It has been argued that the FSS was not the first port of call for many police forces when it came to computer forensics. Failure to build a significant reputation in this area meant that many forces were already outsourcing in 2010, and the FSS itself withdrew from this area some months before its eventual closure, in March 2012. On the other hand, that decision reflects a situation in which the FSS was already slated for termination: what it could have achieved with official backing, we will never know.
Second, without a national standard, it is left to individual police forces to decide how to resource computer investigations. Some outsource to companies and organisations with expertise in this area: others train officers internally - though this approach has been criticised on the grounds that it sets police officers the impossible task of gaining significant expertise in a highly technical area
One solution to cutting through the caseload, and piloted earlier this year across five forces in the East Midlands by the National Police Improvements Agency (NPIA) is the e-forensics project. This is based on a standardised examination model under which alleged offences are referred to force Hi-Tech Crime Units and prioritised according to a range of factors, including the threat posed by the offender,the seriousness of the crime and the risk to the victim.
In August, the NPIA expressed its hope that the project, which they claimed had led to a 90% increase in computer devices examined, would be quickly rolled out across the rest of the UK, perhaps as early as September. However, following reorganisation of the NPIA and the transfer of the e-forensics project to the Home Office, this has not happened.
Nor, to date, have officials at the Home Office been able to provide any explanation of why - or when e-forensics may now go live.
In the end, the police must set priorities. Computer crime has exploded. According to the NPIA, again: "the demand on technology experts in force Hi-Tech Crime Units (HTCUs) to examine electronic devices has grown nationally by 300 per cent over the past seven years". That places a significant burden on all forces - and the strain is likely to be increased as police are asked to play a growing role in dealing with the abuse of social media and new crimes such as cyber-bullying and cyber-stalking.
Still, talking with serving officers and experts in this field, the suspicion remains that what was once a Rolls Royce service has been reduced to something much more basic and while this cannot all be laid at the feet of politicians, constant tinkering hasn't helped. The consequences go way beyond simple bean-counting. Innocent individuals see their lives put on hold for months, years at a time, pending investigation.
At the same time, real criminals - real abusers - are evading justice because the resource simply isn't there to catch them.]]>Department of Work and Pensions Blunders, Exposes Dirty Washing in Publictag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19874142012-10-19T11:19:59-04:002012-12-19T05:12:01-05:00Jane Faehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-fae/
In this case, bungling officials appear to have given away the ATOS tender document for the new Personal Independence Payment, along with substantial amounts of sensitive information that they tried - and failed - to conceal.
This blunder gave rise to much amusement - and jubilation - amongst groups that have been campaigning against what they see as the heavy-handed and impersonal way in which ATOS have been testing claimants on out of work sickness and disability benefits.
While the release of detailed personal, financial and technical information may prove embarrassing for the DWP and ATOS, there may be further real consequences to follow.
According to blogger, the void: "Already the documents have been widely distributed to disability and welfare claimants and details from the tender are beginning to emerge - such as the fact ATOS are planning PIP assessments on the cheap by only hiring 1 doctor for every 50 physiotherapists."
The same blogger also reveals that direct action campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) may now be seeking to challenge ATOS in court over what they see as a direct lie contained in the tender. This relates to a claim by ATOS that they have a "successful record of engagement with Claimant Representative Groups", including DPAC.
This is refuted by DPAC themselves, whose principal engagement with ATOS to date has involved organising demonstrations outside their offices, and who write that they "are not and will never be involved with ATOS except as challengers to their process".
Following a period when government organisations were regularly hitting the news headlines by losing databases, this embarrassment would seem to be evidence of a new trend: departments giving away more than they intend while fulfilling their obligations to inform the public.
In this instance, a DWP official appears to have mistakenly believed that sticking blocks of colour over sensitive sections of the document would serve to keep them confidential. Unfortunately, as is well known in the IT world, this is not an effective way of redacting material. Activists interested in reading what the DWP did not want them to read had only to take the version of the document supplied in pdf format, resave it as a word document, and all trace of "redaction" disappears.
Shortly after news of this mistake became public, the DWP responded by removing the offending material from their site. Unfortunately, it is now too late for such face-saving efforts, as the original documents are still available by googling the original urls on which they were hosted and then clicking on Quick View.
The DWP was asked for a comment on how this happened and whether they are planning, as the CPS did following their blunder, to report themselves to the Information Commissioner. So far they have not responded.]]>Why Depathologization Matters to the Trans Communitytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19854182012-10-19T10:18:40-04:002012-12-19T05:12:01-05:00Jane Faehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-fae/ Depathologization day is here again - well, tomorrow, actually - and for once the world is looking in, listening, starting to take note.
Not before time!
Because while being trans in whatever form that takes is burden enough, it is made many times worse by the fact that those who desperately need help must first prostrate themselves before the gods of medicine before receiving treatment.
Not every condition is illness
"Ah, but", I hear you say. Surely "treatment" implies illness. And if its illness, then of course you need medical people to tell you what to do: to set boundaries; to make the diagnosis. I mean, heaven forfend if there wasn't a textbook somewhere to tell us all what's what. As there is in this instance: two in fact. There's the Diagnostic Standards Manual (DSM), closely guarded by the American Psychiatric Association, and the World Health Organisation guidelines, which owe not a little to the DSM.
To which there is a simple answer. Think pregnancy. Think disability. Most women don't need a GP to tell them they're pregnant. They're pretty good at working that out for themselves, either with or without a little over-the-counter assistance from Boots. Pregnant women aren't ill. They may sometimes need medical help to deal with complications.
Or disability, of which there are many and varied conditions. People have disabilities. Sometimes - not always - they need help from the rest of us to manage those disabilities. Complications, again, may require some medical support. But note, please, the language. This is about giving people the tools to enable them to play a full part in society. It's about providing a crutch - sometimes literal - on which to lean. It's not about illness. Or "disorder". Acknowledging that, giving respect, giving voice is perhaps the first and most important aspect of "treating disability".
Yet this is a mountain that trans folk have still to climb. Being trans is a condition, no more an illness than being gay (also, until recently, classified as mental disorder).
Pathologisation means prizes
It's about being born into the wrong body, which for some is a matter of mild inconvenience, for others, an issue of permanent debilitating impossibility. That's a good start point, actually. Because being trans is NOT one thing, one set of circumstances with one all-encompassing treatment. It's about an issue that different individuals need to deal with differently, as opposed to having a one-size-fits-all diagnosis and treatment imposed from above.
For this is at the heart of the pathologisation process. Being charitable, I'd call it misunderstanding. Less charitably, I'd argue its about self-interest and career preservation by a small clique of middle-aged, middle-class, mostly white, mostly male specialists with an enormous self-interest in retaining their position as experts in some trans "illness" .
Their evidence? Well, they've written a lot of papers about what trans is and what the proper treatment of it is - often without a smidgeon of real engagement with those they treat. Trans is "suppressed homosexuality", despite the fact that trans men and women exhibit a wide range of sexual orientations and none. Or, ignoring the existence of trans men, it's about something called "autogynephilia" - an obsession with the female form.
Of course, such evidence is all rigorously checked on the peer review roundabout. One "expert" writes a paper which is favourably reviewed by other "experts", who then cite the original paper in further papers they write. It's a vicious circle of self-satisfaction and utter unscientificness. But these guys wear the suits, so they MUST be right!
Just as they were right about female masturbation, also, for some while, diagnosed as disorder: and homosexuality, which they only decided might not be disorder back in the 1980's. Though that decision has not stopped some of the same specialists who now write enthusiastically about "curing" trans-ness from continuing to advocate reparative therapy, aka the "gay cure".
Abuse naturally follows
But if this means that trans folk eventually get treated, what's the issue?
How long have you got? By categorising trans-ness as a mental illness, it opens the door to further abuse and indignity - from the street yob who makes some oh-so-witty crack about a trans woman being mad, to the GP whose permission is needed before any treatment is possible. Because if its illness, there are boxes to be ticked, hurdles to be jumped and receiving any sort of support if you are trans in the UK is a postcode lottery.
With the right GP, at least starting the process is a doddle. Wrong GP, and you could find yourself out in the cold for years. That matters. You know it so matters when you've had the awful experience of talking to trans individuals on the brink of suicide because they cannot get anyone to take them seriously or even consider them for treatment.
Pathologisation, medicalisation: that means, even when you're acknowledged as suitable candidate for treatment, you must endure all the indignities heaped upon you by pompous professionals. My one and only experience of this, before I waved goodbye to the NHS gender service was an uncouth consultant who, taking issue with my name, eventually conceded that "for the purposes of this interview we shall refer to you as Jane". I wish I'd smacked him then and there: but when one is totally dependent on the goodwill of others for treatment, what is one supposed to do?
Women, of course, know that there are many, many ways of "being a woman" - and neither dress nor hairstyle defines one's femaleness. Not so if you are trans. For then you must demonstrate to these male professionals that you fit THEIR ideal of feminity before treatment will follow. Stepford, anyone?
I hesitate to suggest that this imposition, this control-freakery by "gender experts" is responsible for other forms of abuse. There are hints that such may have taken place in the UK in the '80'sand '90's. Definite instances of gender specialists abusing their position in the US. But could anything of Savilian proportions ever take place now? I'd like to think not - though the very fact that vulnerable individuals are placed in a position where their welfare is wholly dependent on their ability to appease those in a position of power over them is not ideal.
But what about these operations and the like, which are dreadfully expensive and significant in terms of consequence? No-one is asking for all medical opinion to be excluded from the mix. Merely for it to be toned down. Where a major procedure is proposed, it is right, as with pregnancy, as with disability, to investigate: to ensure that the individual requesting it understands the issues and the consequences.
It is utterly wrong to treat the individual as merely a patient, a bystander in their own life - and in this respect, while the campaign for depathologisation is global in scope it is good to see that in at least one country far closer to home, the first faint stirrings of a new and respectful trans service are taking shape. Because if you'd like to see the direction of travel that those in the trans community would very much appreciate, you need look no further than Scotland.]]>A Star's Guide to Making Bigger Buckstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19728312012-10-17T06:00:05-04:002012-12-17T05:12:02-05:00Jane Faehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-fae/
But no more. For thanks to the example of such stars as Google, Amazon and Facebook, who last year paid between 0.23% and absolutely zilch in tax on UK profits totalling billions, I now see the error of my ways. And I shall forever be indebted to Kris Engskov, Managing director of Starbucks Coffee UK, which has paid not a bean in tax in the last three years, despite posting sales of £1.2bn, who yesterday blogged that "Starbucks pays and will continue to pay our share of taxes in the UK to the letter of the law. We always have and always will."
So. What must I do? Well, for starters, I now realise that I have been utterly failing in my duty to exploit the value of my brand. Those of you who know me, and for whom I have written over the last few years, may erroneously have gotten the impression that I am a slightly ditzy journalist with an expensive taste in shoes. Nothing could be further from the truth!
Jane Fae (me) is of course entirely separate from Jane Fae (the brand) which is what editors are buying. It takes work to maintain this level of street cred, not to mention the unceasing overhead, including but not limited to waxing, tanning, gelling, hair styling and microdermabrasion (that's scrubbing to the rest of you). On the vexed question of whether I have or have not succumbed to the lure of collagen, my lips are sealed.
Then there's the wardrobe. And make-up time, which at an hourly rate of £40 per hour or part thereof all costs a pretty penny!
In future therefore, all and every cost relating to brand maintenance will be charged out to Fae Pharma, based in the Pacific paradise and happily zero-tax regime of Vanuatu. On hiring the services of Jane Fae (me) who shall in future be trading as MeLtd and officially living in a small shed in Guernsey, a royalty of 15% will be deducted and transferred off in the general direction of Oceania.
This, though, is just a beginning. I must also consider running costs (food), energy management (the gas bill) and premises (chez moi).
I see now just how inefficiently I have been struggling to cope with this multiplicity of tasks on my own and henceforth shall be sub-contracting the entirety of these personal support services to Fae Facilities plc, which for variety and because I have never yet been able to afford a Caribbean holiday, will be based in the Cayman Islands. You could, of course, have knocked me down with a feather when I learned that here, too, the tax rate is a refreshingly round zero!
Sadly, such enhanced service does not come cheap. FF plc will need to employ the services of a book-keeper (me), an administrator (me) and a managing director (me) as well as a pest control manager (our domestic feline, Kitty, who for the purposes of this exercise is now re-constituted as a company limited by guarantee and continuing to inhabit the state of Catatonia where she has resided for the past dozen years or so).
The average cost of a cuppa, of which I will require some five per day, expertly prepared by our canteen manager-cum-tea lady (me), will be charged at £7.50. Trips to the local Tesco will now be governed by service agreement and subject to an annual rolling contract fee somewhere the region of £6,000. On the plus side, it is anticipated that the net effect of all this restructuring will be an annual loss of £10,000 which means that I will soon be able to afford a much nicer house.
As proof of my good intentions I shall, betweentimes, be offering myself as a guest speaker at the various party conferences, where I shall lecture delegates on how the country needs to do more to encourage and foster the sort of entrepreneurial wealth creating ingenuity that I have just stumbled across. And I shall be explaining to the Chancellor, Mr Osborne, in words of one syllable, how impossible it is to balance the books if he persists in holding down taxation on the workshy and idle that now constitute the majority of the UK population.
Its not hard to see why. Advance publicity makes it clear that it is a roistrous, respect-none vehicle for the talents of Australian drag artist Trevor Ashley, centring the struggle of a young trans woman for support in a comic narrative that includes sexual deviance, crime and paedophilia.
Not helpful. These are not abstract themes, but go to the heart of the nightmare that is everyday life for many in the trans community: because these slurs are commonplace to the trans-haters - much as myths about international banking conspiracy once fuelled attacks on Jews .
And "Tranny"! Often the last word some will hear before waking up in hospital - or never waking again.
The trans community, lashing out at what they see as yet another example of gay guys with no transsexual perspective, ask whether it would be acceptable for a straight writer to pen a similarly rowdy "comedy" about gay life and title it "Faggot".
Or since this is Australia, a laugh-a minute production with, as protagonist, an alcoholic incarnation of the indigenous population: let's call it "Abo". Though personally, I'd say the real comparison would be a jolly romp about a young girl selling her body because that's the only way to pay for her cancer treatment.
The problem - and here's where I get MY kicking - is that it just might be. Acceptable, that is. Because humour, if we allow it at all, involves the crossing of boundaries. Make fun of a dying girl? We laughed at that one in what has since been voted all-time best comedy film, "Airplane". Paedophile humour? That, too, is stock in trade for a fair few comics, from Jimmy Carr to Frankie Boyle.
Comedy is difficult, asserting its right to tread on any toe, to go where not even the most incisive of critical commentators dare. Though a current UK campaign - rape is no joke - is trying to draw a line.
Absence of author
No. The difficulty for me, as forcibly reminded by one online friend, actress and producer, is that advocating an outright ban on any work is an extremely big line to cross. Not in respect of that work. But in respect of the bans that might follow. We allow the worst in order to firewall the best.
What I don't accept, which she also argued, is that involving a community in reviewing the script for such a work is quite such an assault on the sacred cow that is "free speech". Since writing my first piece, questioning our focus on absolute freedom, I've had a few comments along the lines of "how would you like it if YOU were censored?"
That helps put things into perspective. Because I am censored, daily. Of course, we call it editing. But the idea that the hundreds of thousands of words I turn out annually flow unadjusted from my keyboard on to the page is just ludicrous. As is the idea that any artist, writer, journalist working in the public arena is some sort of pristine "auteur", working in a vacuum of their own creativity.
Sometimes - often - the edit is helpful. Sometimes, it derails a bit: headlines often do that. On occasion it's a major derail, as one editor insisted on recasting an opening par a couple of weeks back to introduce a wording I felt wholly misleading.
Thus always. From my work on ad copy to very early days turning short sketches for the Beeb. The only place I come even close to being uncensored is on stage, where I perform my own creative writing. But there, too, I am censored: self-censored, as I adjust to the audience.
It is, of course, the raison d'etre behind bodies such as Trans Media Watch, who do not question the right of journalists to write about trans subjects: they merely ask that writers do so with respect and sensitivity, learn to change wording that is hurtful, violence-inciting and adds nothing.
Entitlement?
Which takes us back to Sydney and that awful trAnnie. The real crime here is that of ego. Before the panto, there's the advertising material for it - a masterpiece of disrespect: yet Sydney Opera House, a supposed cauldron of creativity has proven incapable of finding a way to communicate its message without giving great hurt.
And then there's the play-writing team, seeking to divert criticism by claiming empathy with a community they are not part of. Would it hurt to engage, to discuss, to listen?
I hesitate to ban. Hesitate enormously. Because the single narrative, however outwardly objectionable can also be turned to something else. "The taming of the shrew", for instance. Romantic comedy? A paean to domestic violence? A celebration of bdsm? Suitable for musical? Yes: all of these, and more. Just as "Romeo and Juliet" doubles as ultimate romance - and the darkest of dark tragedies.
There is, it seems to me, scarcely a story that has not been, cannot be reclaimed from the clutches of raw bigotry and turned to something positive for the community targeted.
As for that title, "trAnnie": I'd have no problem at all with requiring the author to bury it. Because what's in a title? Agatha Christie's "Ten little niggers", shifted first to "Ten Little Indians", before settling on "And then there were none", with no harm to its overall integrity. Nor did this stop it from becoming one of the world's biggest-selling detective novels. Is anyone nowadays seriously claiming that the book should reclaim its "true" title?
There is nothing sacred about a title - and while I'd say we must walk very carefully when it comes to challenging the right of writers to write, the "free speech" argument is far more illusion than we think.
Often its little more than the mewling of the spoilt child, who lacks the talent to communicate particular ideas with respect and without causing harm.]]>The Limits of Free Expressiontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19546312012-10-10T11:39:19-04:002012-12-10T05:12:02-05:00Jane Faehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-fae/posts about April Jones and Madeline McCann, and another receives a community service sentence for Facebook offense, I find myself not entirely in disagreement with the magistrates.
Not entirely in agreement either. Because, let's say this at the outset, I don't think three months in prison for parading a sick sense of humour in public is the right answer. But nor is the facile reach for free speech as the ultimate get out of jail card. As a result of which I find myself outwardly in agreement with lawyer and blogger David Allen Green (aka "Jack of Kent"), when he tweets: "In a way it is more 'grossly offensive' for the criminal law to be used to give a 12 week custodial sentence to an idiot like #MatthewWoods". But scratch the surface and, I suspect, that he and I are now on wildly divergent paths over this free speech thingummy.
Let's start with where, I am guessing, we might yet agree. That is down at the end where free speech is OK - but yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is not. The latter has long been recognised as a speech act, or speech with consequences. The fact that a bunch of people might get hurt, even killed, in the resulting pandemonium means the law does and should distinguish between speech which is about stuff and speech likely to make bad things happen. A similar distinction was drawn back in the early days of legislation around racist language. Speech that offended was to be deplored, but nonetheless remained lawful: that which incited to hatred - and action - needed to be within the remit of the law.
Somewhere up the other end, where I suspect I'd also still agree with David, is speech as pure idea. You should not, being Socrates, be condemned to death simply for discussing the merits of state governance. You should not even, appalling though I would consider the prospect, be criminalised for debating child abuse. As for explicit conversation between consenting adults, that, too, is no place for the law.
Where I begin to part from the old-fashioned 'free speech is the highest good' is when I consider the mundane chitchat that goes on all day, every day on social sites, blogs, Twitter and the like. People interacting with people: people expressing experience, telling of their lives, sharing, socialising and generally being good friends and communitarian. This is positive stuff: something I do over and above my regular journalism through my own blogs and random twitterings.
Only on more than one occasion over the last year I have downed tools for a while, overwhelmed by the sheer viciousness of people who take exception to me, to my politics and head over, sometimes en masse, to some space where I am engaged in debate to have a go. I must distinguish here. I don't object to intellectual challenge. I do dislike the vile, bullying stuff that is personally directed.
There isn't time in the day to lay out the full range of tactics. Though there are commonalities. People who KNOW my thoughts, my aims, my agenda on a matter, apparently better than I do. Disdain for anything that reeks of challenge: feminism, non-heteronormative sexuality, quirkiness. And a grinding, constant refusal to let anyone else express diverse opinion or to be last to post in a debate.
This is bad mannered. But its much more. An online friend and feminist blogger, Lorrie Hartshorn helped me, over a series of exchanges, to put this in perspective. We both value free expression. But we are also sick of being bullied out of our own virtual spaces just because someone else choses to shout over us. It's the online equivalent of someone wandering into our front room, drowning out anything we have to say by sticking fingers in their ears and intoning loudly and incessantly: "la-la-la".
A Father Jackian figure constantly interrupting conversation with a series of unconnected obscenities. Funny when carefully scripted and choreographed in comedy: simply annoying when its for real.
We wouldn't allow that to happen in our homes. We shouldn't allow it to happen online. Not least because, expanding the debate out to other bloggers, other friends, we found similar. People with interesting, insightful points of view drowned out, shouted down and eventually pushed offline by a certain sort of egocentric and insensitive poster.
It became clear that free speech, online is not some infinite resource - but can very much end up as zero sum game. Give it free rein, and expect a sort of unregulated speech market to form, within which the loudest quickly drown out everyone else.
It's more than that, though. When I looked at who was being bullied offline, it wasn't those with a voice. It was the usual suspects: individuals from minority groups, women, those just beginning to explore an LGBT identity, the vulnerable and those just beginning to find the confidence to assert themselves. As to who was being bullied, again a fair amount of usual suspectry: those with privilege, status, power, sometimes in society at large, sometimes within their own small community of admirers.
A recent advertising campaign by Expedia backing same-sex marriage has seen a backlash on Facebook and YouTube, with hundreds of posters putting up homophobic comment. Freedom of speech? For those commenting, perhaps. But as I dealt, only yesterday, with another individual in pieces, possibly even suicidal, as a result of online bullying, I don't think so.
In the end, a jail sentence for bad jokes is out of order - though those defending the perpetrator should factor in that his comments did stir up a mob and require police intervention, which shifts them squarely into the realms of speech act.
But free speech as trump card and excuse for every piece of online malice? No. The world is moving on. To be part of it today requires that we rely on freedom of speech to an extent never before imagined: and when one group's freedom is clearly limiting the freedom of another, it is time for the law to intervene.]]>Time for the CPS to Rediscover its Inner Humanity?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19189312012-09-27T09:37:59-04:002012-11-27T05:12:01-05:00Jane Faehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-fae/the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have blundered and let loose into the wild some highly personal data on almost 300 individuals - both the convicted and, far more alarmingly, the acquitted. Am I surprised? Not in the least, though it saddens me to have to say so.
Because behind this, all too sadly, lies a culture of disrespect for ordinary men and women and, worse, a bunch of highly-paid legal types who have forgotten the fundamental principle at the heart of English law: that you remain innocent until proven guilty.
The story of the story
When I first got wind of this story, about a month ago, I was sceptical. I've put a fair few FOI requests in to the forces of law 'n'order in my time, and the usual response is: no. Or more precisely, a polite letter repeating in tedious detail what I asked, and then explaining in slightly patronising terms why it is that my request fails is being denied on grounds of public interest. So there!
I found it hard to imagine what sort of request might have called forth this file: or indeed how it was that any such request would have got past first base at the CPS.
But I buried my scepticism, got on a train and, a couple of hours later found myself looking at exactly what my informant had told me I would see. A list of people arrested, some prosecuted, some not prosecuted. Some under 18. Most with charging details. A few with personal comments attached.
I mulled this around a bit, spoke to some editorial contacts and, on 13 September, asked the CPS some questions. This is the point at which, as the CPS themselves own, they became "aware" of the breach: I told them about it, taking care - lest anyone on the list is worried - also to explain that I had not taken a copy. It's not my business to be writing about people on that list, unless they approach me as individuals or there is something in their case that is newsworthy.
In the end, the story broke because, while I had been getting my version ready, the CPS turned themselves in, confessing all to the Information Commissioner, putting in hand an internal inquiry and, yesterday, sending out a letter of apology.
So all's well that ends well? Or is this just a cynical ploy to cover tracks and manage the inevitable fall-out from bad news. Somewhere, I'd guess, in the middle. On many issues I respect the CPS greatly: they perform a difficult task.
Dealing with criminals
But on one front I am seriously underwhelmed. This is the way in which it deals with people in the system. The way, frankly, they put on their jobsworth hat and act in ways that are frequently cruel, outwardly vindictive - though I suspect are no more than the habits of people who have become too wedded to performance statistics to the exclusion of humanity.
Writing, as I do, about the law and sexuality, I encounter a fair few people who are on the receiving end of criminal sanction. Some are probably guilty, some not. Some are creepy, some charming. All human life, as you would expect, is there. And given that I am dealing with people who have been accused, sometimes, of the most awful acts imaginable I have become quite cynical.
I can't pretend that I have never been taken in by a plausible liar - or that some of those who have given me heart-rending pitches about how police and the law have treated them are little more than career criminals.
Yet I do feel for some of these folk. Above all, I feel for those who seem least at home with the criminal system: who are chewed up and spat out, innocent, but broken. And that has a lot to do with the cruelty of the process.
The cruelty of the system...
Take possession of child abuse material. I have no problem at all with those guilty being punished to the full extent of the law. Yet what about those - and there are some - who are wrongly accused? I would expect that following due process they would be acquitted and pick up their lives once more. Except: cutbacks in forensic budgets mean that if you are accused your computing equipment may be seized, your life on hold for 6, 12, 18 months even before anyone takes a look at your hard drive. Not the CPS' fault, I'll grant, but an aspect of system cruelty.
Elsewhere, I have written about folk who are accused of the most heinous crimes, put through personal hell in the run-up to trial (which can take 12 months or more) and then exonerated within an hour of arriving in court. Often because the CPS really didn't have a leg to stand on, but they also did not have the grace to back down without going the full mile.
No heed, no respect paid to the fact that in the interim individuals may be excluded from contact with families or children: arrive at the edge of suicide; see marriage breakdown.
This is cruel, inhuman - though I guess the CPS might just have the excuse here that they are under-staffed, so briefs are picked up at the last minute.
Less so with these recent demonstrations. I have come across at least two cases where the first court appearance has magically been held off until the accused is over 18 - at which point the case can be reported in the press. That, I think, is nothing to do with resource, everything to do with cynical news management.
So do I blame the CPS for this list release? Not especially: unless overwhelming evidence to the contrary appears, I'll happily accept it was an error. But still, it was an error made by an organisation whose respect for individuals seems to be waning and whose humanity score, of late has been dipping dangerously low.
The point? People ARE innocent until proven guilty. It's about time the CPS remember that.]]>Slutwalk Excites the Men (and Not in a Good Way!)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19087252012-09-24T19:00:00-04:002012-11-24T05:12:01-05:00Jane Faehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-fae/Slutwalk. Reading the online commentariat on Sunday evening, I am overwhelmed by the onslaught of opinion that is negative, disapproving and, though I may be reading between the lines, frankly alienated by the very idea.
Is slutwalk getting it wrong? Or is all this hostility as much a measure of the mountain we have to climb as opposed to a genuine helpful response?
A day of solidarity, bravery...
To begin, there is, for me, little connect between the glossy images used to tart up (sic!) media coverage of the event - and the day itself. What I saw, on the march, in Trafalgar Square, were people from every walk of life, young, old, gay, straight, mostly modestly dressed. I loved the "Pensioner slut" placard, smiled at the one declaring "I only fuck feminists", and, more seriously, approved a line summing up the entire day :"Don't tell me how to dress: tell him not to rape".
In Trafalgar Square, individuals spoke, courageously, about their experience as survivors, or as mothers, daughters, sisters of survivors. Total respect to Emily, there talking not on behalf of any organisation, but simply laying out her own experience in public, for the first time, in front of an audience of thousands.
...and the real role of the state
Asked to speak about the experience of the trans community, I felt, that i have been lucky. After all, the 'worst' I have ever experienced, just going about my daily business, is fear, threat and intimidation - unlike the dozens, hundreds of trans women who every year in the UK are beaten, injured, hospitalised... just because...
But then, as a journalist, its not my job to experience, but to tell stories: other people's stories. This year I have written extensively about the plight of trans women in fear of their lives, seeking asylum.
So I talked about Lita, a Russian trans woman who fled to Sweden after being attacked, beaten, stripped and urinated on in broad daylight. She is now in hiding after the Swedish authorities suggested she had little to fear, returning to Russia - despite the fact that her assailant was a police officer: or her main fear, legal harassment by a state that will not recognise her trans status.
I spoke, too, of Fernanda Milan, a Guatemalan trans activist, who fled to Denmark where, being placed in the male transit camp, she was raped repeatedly, violently. The police, when finally they spoke to her, were interested only in her asylum claim, alternately ignoring and blaming her for her own rape.
Which, I realise, the more I listen to those who deal with rape on a regular basis, is the core of the problem: its not just that some men rape. It is the fact that across the globe, the authorities, the legal system itself is broken when it comes to rape. Even here, in the UK, where we like to self-congratulate on our legal process, the system is simply dismissive.
Which is why I think Lisa of Women Against Rape has a point when she refuses to join the easy calls for the extradition of Julian Assange: because whatever you think of the merits of that case, it is striking how different the attitude of authority is towards this one individual, compared to how they deal regularly with other rape allegations. Sadly, though, the point is missed: WAR are not asking for especial leniency for Assange; merely that others suspected of this crime receive similar attention.
Logic fail when it comes to comments
Back though to that hostile commentary. Take Sky, f'rinstance. (Beware: some comments may be seriously triggering).
Loads of blokes going online to express conditional solidarity. OF COURSE they don't support rape: but can't these deluded women just see how they provoke it! Associating "slut" with rape is just "thick". As is walking in underwear. Don't women realise they are putting out the "wrong signals"?
Its all about nature, doncha know?
So much hostility!
And creepiness, too: the commenter who singles out one of the women depicted as especially attractive (on a thread after last year's event). Really? On a rape demonstration?
Except the real message here lies in the dishonesty of the opinion expressed. Because if these guys meant what they write, then they'd be up in arms when some council estate youth is done for joy-riding a Ferrari. Because.. . it's a Ferrari. It looks so good, its practically asking to be nicked. I wait with bated breath for that argument to arrive in court.
Were they serious about women being "to blame" if they get drunk, they'd be enthusiastic supporters of increased penalties for men who rape while drunk (and drink is so often a factor), because presumably they just KNEW that they would be more likely to lose control when under the influence - so drink is not mitigating factor, but known precursor.
If they were serious about avoiding risk, they'd be campaigning to get young men off the street, because those most at risk of violent assault at night are male youth. So just going out for the evening, men are deliberately inviting violence.
Nah. The logic just isn't there
Nor in all the stuff about covering up "a bit". Because when was the last time that a man in a nightclub went up to a young woman and politely offered to pay her taxi home so she could change into something "less provoking"?
This is religious reactionary ranty stuff (of any denomination). Stop dressing LIKE THAT - and you'll be less at risk. Only then the standard will shift, and shift again, until veils and full-length dresses will be all that's acceptable.
They perpetuate a myth, that, all evidence to the contrary, it's what women do that "causes" rape. And it's the thinly disguised rage of some of those commenting that tells me that slutwalk is right to continue.
For it means that somehow, somewhere, the central message is getting through and worse, from the perspective of the whiners, the whingers, the "wot-about-t'menz-ers" it may just be hitting a very raw nerve indeed.]]>
