Latest news with #Suffragettes
The Guardian
02-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
We fought and beat the government in the courts because every Briton has the right to protest
When we beat the Conservative government over its anti-democratic protest laws in court last year, we thought that would be the end of the story. Judges in the high court had made it very clear that laws that gave the police almost unlimited powers to crack down on any protest that caused 'more than minor' disruption were unlawful. It ordered that the laws should be scrapped. We celebrated. Given that the incoming Labour government had voted down these very same laws a year earlier, we believed that protest would be taken out of the culture wars arena and put back into the sacred space of fundamental rights. Yet Labour dragged us back to court, in a misguided attempt to be seen to look tough on public order. And now today, on a day of much Labour soul-searching, we've won again. A unanimous court of appeal victory that, alongside chastening election results, must now trigger a total Labour rethink on how we treat protesters in this country. Five different judges over two separate hearings have made it clear: these anti-protest laws were a flagrant abuse of power and quite simply should never have existed. Ministers cannot step outside the law to do whatever they want to shut down causes they don't agree with. These laws we defeated today were introduced in a toxic climate. The previous government made it its mission to stifle protest movements it didn't like. Even when this regulation itself was created, the Conservative government specifically named climate protesters as those they were targeting, even though the change in law impacted everybody. This is a dangerous way to do politics, and has led to hundreds of protesters being wrongly arrested under a law that should never have been created in the first place. Whether or not you agree with a protest cause – environmental justice, Palestine solidarity, farmers' inheritance tax, the closure of your local library – laws that chip away at protest do damage to them all. The 'more than minor' regulations are just one of many laws the last Conservative government created that narrowed the space for protest in this country. In the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, laws were created that were so broad that a protest could be shut down for simply being too 'noisy'. In 2023, the Conservative government's Public Order Act went even further, and brought in powers that have led to arrests for carrying any material that might be used to lock on, a common tactic used throughout history (such as by the Suffragettes), even if an act of protest has not happened yet. Things have shifted so much that we're now in the farcical situation in which protesters in many cases are now unable to tell a judge about why they protested in the first place. These laws are far reaching and have real consequences. A record number of protesters spent last Christmas in prison because of anti-protest laws. Journalists have been wrongly caught up covering protests and wrongfully held in custody because police assumed they were protesters. This is unsustainable, and is damaging the basic principles of our free speech and democracy in this country. And the assault continues. Going through parliament right now is a proposal to ban the use of face coverings at protests – a plan Labour has copied almost word for word from a bill the Conservatives introduced last year. What message does this send to those who rely on face masks to protest safely, such as Hong Kong dissidents who want to protest outside the Chinese embassy, or disabled activists protesting cuts in their benefits? Today's ruling shows that the previous government's approach was wrong – and now the Labour government must learn from its predecessors' mistakes and change tack. This should serve as a wake-up call for Labour. It must accept this ruling and scrap the laws for good. We now urgently need a review of all the hundreds of arrests that happened under this law. And we need a complete review of all protest legislation that was made over the past few years. Quite simply, we need a new approach. Protesting brought us votes for women, the right to a weekend and Pride. Surely, that alone is reason enough to stop playing politics with the right to protest, and get back to being a country that is serious about protecting democratic freedoms. Akiko Hart is the director of the human rights organisation Liberty
Telegraph
01-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
When society erases the male voice, a toxic backlash is the inevitable result
If anything signals the dawn of a dystopian age, it's surely the launch this week of Britain's first male-only publisher. Conduit Books is planning to tackle the marginalisation of male writers in the female-dominated industry. Predictably, its launch has been met with liberal derision. But in truth it is a serious warning sign that something has gone deeply wrong. While the movement for female equality has made great strides since the Suffragettes, we should admit it is now going too far – and is feeding male resentment. After a series of momentous victories – from securing the vote to abortion rights and the outlaw of marital rape – the feminist movement is now overcorrecting. And it is becoming grotesquely hypocritical in the process. While the worlds of finance, tech and science are lambasted for their failure to recruit more women, it is customary to openly fete the purging of men in the creative arts. In publishing insiders admit 'the word is out that there are agents who just don't bother taking on men'. The theatre director Kate Gilchrist's proposal for a year-long ban on staging the works of white male writers at the Soho Theatre captures the zeitgeist. Nobody complains on hearing women are dominating a particular industry. Nobody questions when high-flying female executives promote other women, while male counterparts are heavily scrutinised by their HR overseers if there is the faintest whiff of unconscious bias. Too often women are speedily elevated at the expense of equally competent male colleagues. But what we might term 'toxic femininity' is proving bad for business. Gripped by groupthink, the top publishing houses have lost their edge. It is the smaller independents which are snapping up the talented male writers who go on to win prizes like the Booker and the Pulitzer. Fixated with identity politics, the world of literature has almost completely ceased to produce works that have mass appeal. While the British 'state of the nation' novel has died a death, bookstores are cluttered with woke pulp that is lucky to sell a few hundred copies. Publishing is not the only female-dominated industry that is failing. As male teachers flee the sector, boys are underperforming. Social care is in crisis, with dire shortage of male staff meaning elderly men suffer the indignity of being washed and dressed by caregivers of the opposite sex. The HR industry has an excessive focus on fighting culture wars through staff networks rather than tackling the flatlining of worker productivity. As one care industry expert confessed to me: 'If you google social care then you basically get women in lilac uniforms delivering cups of tea to old men.' Then there's the female-dominated marketing industry, which is failing to target men in ways that resonate with their experience. As Fernando Desouches, the managing director of ad agency BBD Perfect Storm told me: 'We have made huge progress with how we advertise to women. But our approach to men is still quite narrow and materialistic. The way we build male aspiration is adding pressure to men in the same way female beauty was (and maybe still is) hurting women's confidence. The data shows that the way we are portraying men doesn't resonate with them. They are an underexploited growth opportunity for brands.' Toxic femininity is not only bad for industry but society. 19th-century feminist pushed for a more equal world, in which people are judged by their character, not biology. But the movement has gone far beyond its original purpose, and now actively pits the sexes against each other. Too many women believe they must engage in zero-sum wars for resources, status and respect. But a backlash against the war on men is now underway. Polling shows that more than half of men think the promotion of women's equality has 'gone too far'. Women might be tempted to retort that these men are surely hallucinating, for it is still a man's world. Thanks to the motherhood penalty men still earn more than women. They still dominate board rooms. Yet the men who increasingly feel they're living in a woman's world do have a point. Women aged 22-39 are paid more than men, and girls outperform them in school on almost every metric. Female-only fiefdoms are allowing women to subtly build the world in their own image. The pro-female slant to publishing means that the most promoted, and thus powerful, writers are increasingly likely to be women. With women dominating HR, all workplaces are becoming increasingly feminised. The push towards hybrid working, for instance, seems to be shaped by female preferences, with some research suggesting that men fear its impact on their promotion prospects. According to the ONS, men who work part-time are paid less per hour than women. Resentment is building up most notably among Gen Z males. It is hardly surprising that young men are getting sucked into incel societies when you consider how mainstream society mocks and marginalises them. It is little wonder that teenage boys become enraptured with online misogynists inspired by Andrew Tate, given the dearth of male role models and authors writing intelligently about the trials of coming of age, J D Salinger style. It is no great shock that adolescent men are embracing these nastily sexist archetypes, when the male caricatures that they are bombarded with by advertisers are nastily misandrist – by the own admission of industry insiders, oscillating between 'the comedy buffoon who doesn't know how to turn on the washing machine or the Stoic provider'. And it is little wonder that men from working class backgrounds feel like they have no prospects, when the biggest sources of mass employment in the post-industrial era, such as social care, are again hyper feminised. There are many who are keen to interpret the growing tensions between the sexes as a problem of 'toxic masculinity'. When the crisis is framed in this way, the temptation is to simply double down on the feminist cause while demanding ever more robust safeguards to protect women from male anger. Labour's latest calls for a teacher in every school to 'tackle violence against girls' is typical of this attitude. Perhaps worst of all, the relentless negativity towards men is distracting us from the real issues still facing women in Britain today: the rise in domestic violence, the reported increase in FGM. By broadening the 'problem' to encompass all men, we are not confronting the truly menacing few. Feminism has overreached. The consequences are proving dangerous and divisive. We ignore this at our peril.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
When society erases the male voice, a toxic backlash is the inevitable result
If anything signals the dawn of a dystopian age, it's surely the launch this week of Britain's first male-only publisher. Conduit Books is planning to tackle the marginalisation of male writers in the female-dominated industry. Predictably, its launch has been met with liberal derision. But in truth it is a serious warning sign that something has gone deeply wrong. While the movement for female equality has made great strides since the Suffragettes, we should admit it is now going too far – and is feeding male resentment. After a series of momentous victories – from securing the vote to abortion rights and the outlaw of marital rape – the feminist movement is now overcorrecting. And it is becoming grotesquely hypocritical in the process. While the worlds of finance, tech and science are lambasted for their failure to recruit more women, it is customary to openly fete the purging of men in the creative arts. In publishing insiders admit 'the word is out that there are agents who just don't bother taking on men'. The theatre director Kate Gilchrist's proposal for a year-long ban on staging the works of white male writers at the Soho Theatre captures the zeitgeist. Nobody complains on hearing women are dominating a particular industry. Nobody questions when high-flying female executives promote other women, while male counterparts are heavily scrutinised by their HR overseers if there is the faintest whiff of unconscious bias. Too often women are speedily elevated at the expense of equally competent male colleagues. But what we might term 'toxic femininity' is proving bad for business. Gripped by groupthink, the top publishing houses have lost their edge. It is the smaller independents which are snapping up the talented male writers who go on to win prizes like the Booker and the Pulitzer. Fixated with identity politics, the world of literature has almost completely ceased to produce works that have mass appeal. While the British 'state of the nation' novel has died a death, bookstores are cluttered with woke pulp that is lucky to sell a few hundred copies. Publishing is not the only female-dominated industry that is failing. As male teachers flee the sector, boys are underperforming. Social care is in crisis, with dire shortage of male staff meaning elderly men suffer the indignity of being washed and dressed by caregivers of the opposite sex. The HR industry has an excessive focus on fighting culture wars through staff networks rather than tackling the flatlining of worker productivity. As one care industry expert confessed to me: 'If you google social care then you basically get women in lilac uniforms delivering cups of tea to old men.' Then there's the female-dominated marketing industry, which is failing to target men in ways that resonate with their experience. As Fernando Desouches, the managing director of ad agency BBD Perfect Storm told me: 'We have made huge progress with how we advertise to women. But our approach to men is still quite narrow and materialistic. The way we build male aspiration is adding pressure to men in the same way female beauty was (and maybe still is) hurting women's confidence. The data shows that the way we are portraying men doesn't resonate with them. They are an underexploited growth opportunity for brands.' Toxic femininity is not only bad for industry but society. 19th-century feminist pushed for a more equal world, in which people are judged by their character, not biology. But the movement has gone far beyond its original purpose, and now actively pits the sexes against each other. Too many women believe they must engage in zero-sum wars for resources, status and respect. But a backlash against the war on men is now underway. Polling shows that more than half of men think the promotion of women's equality has 'gone too far'. Women might be tempted to retort that these men are surely hallucinating, for it is still a man's world. Thanks to the motherhood penalty men still earn more than women. They still dominate board rooms. Yet the men who increasingly feel they're living in a woman's world do have a point. Women aged 22-39 are paid more than men, and girls outperform them in school on almost every metric. Female-only fiefdoms are allowing women to subtly build the world in their own image. The pro-female slant to publishing means that the most promoted, and thus powerful, writers are increasingly likely to be women. With women dominating HR, all workplaces are becoming increasingly feminised. The push towards hybrid working, for instance, seems to be shaped by female preferences, with some research suggesting that men fear its impact on their promotion prospects. According to the ONS, men who work part-time are paid less per hour than women. Resentment is building up most notably among Gen Z males. It is hardly surprising that young men are getting sucked into incel societies when you consider how mainstream society mocks and marginalises them. It is little wonder that teenage boys become enraptured with online misogynists inspired by Andrew Tate, given the dearth of male role models and authors writing intelligently about the trials of coming of age, J D Salinger style. It is no great shock that adolescent men are embracing these nastily sexist archetypes, when the male caricatures that they are bombarded with by advertisers are nastily misandrist – by the own admission of industry insiders, oscillating between 'the comedy buffoon who doesn't know how to turn on the washing machine or the Stoic provider'. And it is little wonder that men from working class backgrounds feel like they have no prospects, when the biggest sources of mass employment in the post-industrial era, such as social care, are again hyper feminised. There are many who are keen to interpret the growing tensions between the sexes as a problem of 'toxic masculinity'. When the crisis is framed in this way, the temptation is to simply double down on the feminist cause while demanding ever more robust safeguards to protect women from male anger. Labour's latest calls for a teacher in every school to 'tackle violence against girls' is typical of this attitude. Perhaps worst of all, the relentless negativity towards men is distracting us from the real issues still facing women in Britain today: the rise in domestic violence, the reported increase in FGM. By broadening the 'problem' to encompass all men, we are not confronting the truly menacing few. Feminism has overreached. The consequences are proving dangerous and divisive. We ignore this at our peril. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Watch: House of Lords hit by leaflet protest
Protesters campaigning for the abolition of the House of Lords forced a temporary shutdown of the upper chamber on Thursday and disrupted proceedings by throwing leaflets. Peers were interrupted just before noon as a group of six people in the public gallery started shouting: 'Lords out, people in.' They threw leaflets into the air and down into the chamber. The sitting was suspended for just under five minutes as they were escorted out and calm was restored. Peers had been discussing the 80th anniversaries of Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan when they were disrupted. The leaflets thrown by the small group said: 'Never mind the Lords here's the House of People.' The other side of the leaflets said: ' Aristocrats and oligarchs: Out. Posties, mums, nurses and neighbours: In. Replace the House of Lords to save the UK.' The protesters said they were acting on behalf of Assemble, an organisation that campaigns for the House of Lords to be abolished and replaced by a citizens' assembly. Citizens' assemblies are selected by sortition, which means members of the public are picked at random via a lottery. Supporters of this mechanism argue it means a more representative sample of the population are able to come together and debate important issues. Protester Lucy Porter, 50, a primary school teacher from Leeds, said she was 'campaigning for a House of the people'. On the Lords, she said: 'It's a symbol of everything that's outdated. We don't have a functioning democracy in this country.' One protester, who wished to be known only as Christina, said: 'We did this action on behalf of Assemble and the ask is that, instead of a House of Lords, which is a house of unelected wealthy elites, we have a house of the people. 'So, we have citizens' assemblies where people can participate in real democracy, instead of having everything handed to them from up high.' A spokesman for Assemble said: 'Today's action has been taken in support of the abolition of the House of Lords in favour of a House of the People – a new institution where any adult in the UK may be selected to serve, like a jury, to set the political agenda and balance the House of Commons. 'This action mirrors one undertaken by Suffragettes on October 28th 1908, where they took direct action by raining handbills onto the House of Commons, demanding suffrage for women in the UK.'
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Will AI pit the oligarchs against the people?
Simon Steyne argues that modern democracy is rooted in the working-class militancy which was made possible by the Industrial Revolution, and that in replacing human labour, artificial intelligence (AI) could undermine democracy (Letters, 19 January). Although such labour militancy was certainly important in this respect in Europe, it hardly accounts for the revolutions in the US in the 18th century, France in 1830 or the largely peasant‑based movements in countries such India. Neither does it explain the success of movements such as that of the Suffragettes. As it is, democratic revolutions are invariably rooted in coalitions of different classes coming together in a common cause, as has been seen in numerous successful non‑violent protests – for example, the Otpor movement against Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia in 2000 or the pro‑democracy movements in Ukraine in 2004 and 2014. A would-be autocracy of billionaires championing AI is likely to be countered by a coalition of dissenters ranging across classes whose livelihood is thus imperilled. And, we may note, time and again even the most oppressive autocrats have fallen to such coalitions engaging in non‑violent HardimanEmeritus professor, University of Warwick
