Community Women's Blog

We Stand for Equality, Secularism and Justice

Leave a comment

When Will Attitude towards Women Change?

By Piya Mayenin

Society-made, insurmountable obstacles hinder the progress of gender equality. With one step forward and leaps back the ugly mountain blocks our future unless some real changes are made worldwide. ..Quantitative actions are not turning into qualitative change because of insurmountable obstacles of society. 


Why do women have to bang on about Women’s right?  Well, firstly as women they would have experienced inequality and, at some time in their life, they would try to find a reason for those inequalities and solutions. Secondly, the status quo that is harming women, economically and socially has proved to be one that is almost impossible to shift inspite of achievements in equality by society.  Despite achievements of women, worldwide, the inequality mountain stands almost still. In the new era of ‘Trumpism  – when a Man like Donald Trump gets the Presidentship of in the US after making all the despicable comments about women – we need to put down our feet firmly for real quality changes!

Quantitative actions are not turning into qualitative change because of insurmountable obstacles of society. Quantitative changes mean that there are more women working today then say there were in the 1940’s. So does that mean that work around equality by our foremothers is really paying off? Comparators across indicators of qualitative change show that this is not the case. I have put that down, I am sure many many others have too, to a lack of respect for women. This lack of respect, globally, for women is simply from deep rooted ideas of women’s inferior place in society and the economy. This is seen, all over the world, where women are still usually working more and getting paid less than men irrespective of the major global women’s rights treaty that was ratified by the majority of the world’s nations a few decades ago.



Bangladeshi-British women, including the author of this piece, in East London hold placards against sexual violence against women in 2015. Situation has worsen since. Courtesy: P V Dudman

In the US and pretty much in other western countries, women begun to enter work for many reasons including the rise of wages that made couples see that it is more beneficial for them, deindustrialization and men moving offshore or getting out of work.  Women earned about 60-65 percent of what men earned from the 1950s to the 1980s. After 1980, this began to equalize so that by about 2000, women earned 76 percent of what men did. Since 2000 there hasn’t been much more progress toward equality.

Women still earn less than men for many reasons which are unbelievably discriminatory. One explanation is, for instance, that employers pay people when they have more years of experience, and women’s child rearing breaks make them unsuitable. A report by the Women and Equalities Select Committee concluded last year that responsibility for childcare and the concentration of women in low-paid sectors were key causes of the pay differential. This means that some employers discriminate against women when hiring in higher-paying jobs, leaving the women no choice but to seek lower-paying jobs.

The glass ceiling is broken by a very few women and some when they get there are not very appreciative of feminism. ‘Far from “smashing the glass ceiling“, she was the aberration, the one who got through and then pulled the ladder up right after her, noted the reporter correctly in the Guardian on 9 April 2013.

So women have been given access to enter into a man’s work world only to stretch and fit, and as a result there is no qualitative change. The numerical pointers are not necessarily the indicators of success, while substantive changes are.

A woman now has to juggle working all day in overarching sexist structures and environments and tackle the bulk of housework and childcare after, doubling the stresses she previously had. Here’s another reality: Inequality is glaring when one sees that with most well off couples, the woman having the worse car while the husband flashes the better one. These indicators are evidence that attitudes and mentality have not changed around women although the benefits of their income have been realized by many.

Another achievement globally is where more girls are entering education and even higher education. However appalling safety levels and poor resources of the schools and incidents against women in developing countries do not allow for a real difference for girls.

The Independent in January 2017 has reported that ‘Russian lawmakers are being urged to reject a “dangerous” law that could decriminalise all acts of domestic violence, with the exception of rape and serious bodily harm.’  Let’s not forget that a large percentage of the world refuses to recognise rape within marriage as a criminal offence. In Turkey , for example, a draft law stipulates that men who sexually abuse girls under 18 without “force, threat or any restriction on consent”, and who marry their victim could go free.

Bdnews24 in Bangladesh reported on 27 February this year that ‘Bangladesh Parliament passes law allowing child marriage in “special circumstances”. Prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, has defended the law by saying the critics “know nothing about Bangladesh’s social system” and that her government was “making the law considering the ‘realities’ of society”. In Explaining the “special circumstances, the prime minister in Bangladesh who is a woman herself, said:

We’ve fixed the minimum age for girls to marry at 18. But what if any of them becomes pregnant at 12-13 or 14-15 and abortion can’t be done? What will happen to the baby? Will society accept it?

She added then, the girl could go for marriage with her parents’ consent in such circumstances in order to give the baby a “legal status” in society.

New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) have responded correctly, “Accidental or unlawful pregnancy suggests the law could lead to a situation where girls who have been raped are forced to marry their rapists.”

The same Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, promised in the 2014 Girl summit that child marriage will be eradicated by 2024. Bangladesh reports the highest case of child marriage at 66% on girls under the age of 18 getting married and over one third getting married before the age of 15. The recent law has just given for child marriages to rise and also the unintended consent to abuse of children.

Here in the UK, the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimates that 8.2% of women and 4.0% of men reported experiencing any type of domestic abuse in the last year and 2.7% of women and 0.7% of men had experienced some form of sexual assault (including attempts) in the last year.  (2017). Two women are killed every week in England and Wales by a current or former partner (Office of National Statistics, 2015)

The Guardian on 5 January, 2016, reported that Women outnumber men in 112 of 180 degree subjects, with females from poorer backgrounds 50% more likely to go to university than their male counterparts.

Papworth Trust in 2016 found that ‘one study shows there is evidence that Indian Asian people are significantly more likely to experience higher rates of disability than Europeans’., quoting Emily D Williams study Ethnic Differences in Disability Prevalence and Their Determinants Studied over a 20-Year Period: A Cohort Study.

This rather depressing state of affairs shows that issues of poverty, race, disability, sexual orientation and gender, amongst many other things, often combine to create a reality of extreme disadvantage for certain groups. Most of the time, these groups are female’, according to the New Statesmen 2013.

The status quo, the place where it is accepted that the poor, the physically weaker and people who are different get it rough, is tough and is so outdated and simply cruel. With regards to women, this is not helped by the large proportion of male banter concerning women around how they look and what they would like to do with them – usually violently when they have an issue with them.

Society-made, insurmountable obstacles hinder the progress of gender equality. With one step forward and leaps back the ugly mountain blocks our future unless some real changes are made worldwide.

UN Women have suggested the strategy for states to come together in working in their economies so that it works for women and equality by making macroeconomic and political changes with women’s development at the centre of it. They say that ‘they would have equal access to opportunities and resources – a good job with equal pay, or access to land – and social protection, which together would provide enough income to support a decent standard of living, from birth to older age. Their life choices would be unconstrained by gender stereotypes, stigma and violence; the paid and unpaid work that women do would be respected and valued; and women would be able to live their lives free from violence and sexual harassment. They would have an equal say in economic decision-making: from having a voice in how time and money are spent in their households; to the ways in which resources are raised and allocated in their national economies; to the broader economic policies set by global institutions.’  In their progress report in 2015 of the world women – 16 ‘Transforming Economics, Realising Rights’, they urge member states:

 To support substantive equality, economic and social policies need to work in tandem. Typically, the role of economic policies is seen primarily in terms of promoting economic growth, while social policies are supposed to address its ‘casualties’ by redressing poverty and disadvantage and reducing inequality. But macroeconomic policies can pursue a broader set of goals, including gender equality and social justice. Conversely, well-designed social policies can enhance macroeconomic growth and post crisis recovery through redistributive measures that increase employment, productivity and aggregate demand.

Let us call for a more equal world this International Women’s Day with the UN Women’s proposals listened to in order to help forge a better working world, a more inclusive, gender equal world. We can only keep trying and urge governments to enact and enforce these policies that would also change attitudes towards women and we can gradually get to see the qualitative change as and when the insurmountable obstacles are removed.

Leave a comment

Women’s rights campaigners echoed the voices of 300+ BAME victims & survivors of abusive religious related practices & codes: ‘Who will listen to our voices?’

End of Year Update on Campaign to Dismantle Parallel Legal Systems

By Rumana Hashem

Over 300 women of Black and Minority communities, abused by religious bodies such as Sharia Councils in the UK, have signed a statement opposing Sharia courts and religious bodies, warning of the mounting threats to their rights and to their collective struggles for security and independence. The letter published on 14 December 2016 on Open Democracy 50.50 reads as below:

We are women who have experienced abuse and violence in our personal lives. Most of us come from Muslim backgrounds, but some of us come from other minority faiths.

We are compelled to voice our alarm about the growing power of religious bodies such as Sharia Councils and their bid for control over our lives. We oppose any religious body – whether presided over by men or women – that seeks to rule over us: because they do not have any authority to speak or make decisions on our behalf and because they are not committed to women’s rights and social justice. Whether we are women of Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or Christian faiths or of no faith, we have much in common with each other in the face of cruelty, tyranny and discrimination in our families, in our communities, and in the wider society. Many of us are deeply religious, but for us religion is in our hearts: a private matter between us and our God. Religion is not – and must not be – something that can be used to deny us our freedom or the little pieces of happiness that we find by mixing and borrowing from many different traditions and cultures which give meaning to our otherwise difficult existence.

We know from personal experiences that many religious bodies such as Sharia Councils are presided over by hard line or fundamentalist clerics who are intolerant of the very idea that women should be in control of their own bodies and minds. These clerics claim to be acting according to the word of God: but they are often corrupt, primarily interested in making money and abuse their positions of power by shaming and slandering those of us who reject those aspects of our religions and cultures that we find oppressive. We pay a huge price for not submitting to domestic violence, rape, polygamy and child abuse and other kinds of harm. For this reason alone, we are fearful of religious laws and rulings from such bodies. Our experience in our countries of origin and in our communities tells us that they are deeply discriminatory and divisive. They will weaken our collective struggles for security and independence.

We struggle to fit into this country and to educate our children, especially our daughters, and to protect them and give them a better life. We struggle to have our experiences of violence and abuse addressed properly in accordance with the principles of equality and justice for all. We do not wish to be judged by reference to fundamentalist codes that go against our core values of compassion, tolerance and humanity. We do not want to go backwards or to be delivered back into the hands of our abusers and those who shield them.

Many of us have not made public comments on this issue, because we are afraid of the consequences of doing so openly. All of us have faced abuse and we are desperately trying to rebuild our lives in the face of constant and continuing threats and trauma. Some of us have used only our first names to support this statement, but we feel strongly enough about this matter to do so.

We do not want Sharia Councils or other religious bodies to rule our lives. We demand the right to be valued as human beings and as equals before one law for all. We demand the right to follow our own desires and aspirations.


To view the names of the signatories and the nature of human rights violation and abuse experienced by individual signatories, please check out the article: The Sharia debate in the UK: who will listen to our voices?


In the meantime the coalition of women’s rights campaigners against parallel legal systems and Sharia Councils in the UK has launched a fresh campaign on social media for One Law for ALL which went viral two days before the closure of final evidence submission to Home Affairs Select Committee. The online campaign appeared on the same day as the letter from 300+ abused women opposing Sharia courts in the UK was published on Open Democracy.  The campaign by secular women’s rights campaigners on twitter and Facebook preceded by a hash sign “One Law for ALL”, ending with a hash sign “Struggle Not Submission” – a slogan used by the ex-WAF  members  , echoed the voices of 300 BAME victims and survivors of abusive practices and codes of religious bodies. The power of the campaign is in the slogans and the placards written and made by the women’s rights campaigners who experienced various forms of oppressions by Sharia and religious codes and practices.


They said: “injustice is injustice even when it comes from people of colour”, “our community women do not want to be re-victimised by Sharia judges”, “minority women are not extensions of the ‘community’, regressive imams & Sharia judges – they are citizens with rights”, “it is racist to fob off minority women to kangaroo courts”, “polygamy is abuse and violation of women’s Rights”, “Sharia law legitimises under-age marriage & honour-based violence against women”, “the impunity that Sharia courts enjoy must be ended”, “listen to women who know: don’t allow them to be silenced by anyone” . “By accommodating Sharia courts and Betei Din, the UK government is itself in breach of its obligations to gender equality”.


Besides, Maryam Namazie of One Law for All lodged supplementary written submission of evidence to Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) Inquiry into Sharia Councils. And, on the final day of evidence supplementary evidence submission, Prgana Patel of Southall Black Sisters has submitted further evidence and long testimonies of victims and survivors of parallel legal systems to HASC on 16 December 2016.  These latest submission by One Law for All and Southall Black Sister are undeniable. The final submissions of devastating evidence made a luminous end of the year 2016.  We shall hope that these last minute yet detailed and powerful evidences will enlighten the blind government and the allegedly bias Home Affairs Select Committee. We can hope for a bright, enlightened, equal, free, fair and tolerant new year.

Hope, Peace and Happy wishes to all Community Women’s Blog readers for 2017!

Read more:

Sharia courts have no place in UK family law. Listen to women who know

Supplementary written evidence submitted by One Law for All

#OneLawforAllBecause  #StruggleNotSubmission

Leave a comment

Denounce Those Playing Political Games with Women’s Lives over Sharia and Islamophobia

Rumana Hashem

This is probably an overdue update for community women’s blog readers on our campaign against Sharia Councils in Britain. We are aware that our blog has largely been dominated by stories of Bangladeshi community for a while. Due to the ongoing political situation and violence against women and minorities in Bangladesh, we needed to prioritise stories of Bangladeshi-British women and news from Bangladesh. However, this is a critical juncture when we must return to an ongoing issue of Islamophobia and the status of our campaign against parallel legal systems in Britain.


Muslim women and secular activists in East London joined Nari Digantas's panelists and representatives of eight Muslim women's organsiations, to abolish Sharia In Britain. Monteforio Centrre on 15 Oct 2014 by Golam Rabbani of Diamond Studio

Muslim women and secular activists in East London joined Nari Diganta’s panelists and representatives of eight Muslim women’s organsiations to abolish Sharia in Britain. Monteforio Centrre on 15 Oct 2014 by Golam Rabbani of Diamond Studio

Following the commitment to dismantle abusive practices of Sharia Councils, religious arbitration in family matters and parallel legal system in the UK, minority women’s rights campaigners have been urging the government to fully and impartially investigate Sharia bodies.  Although the UK government is conducting an inquiry into the operation of Sharia Councils which was launched in spring 2016, this is being boycotted by secular and minority women’s organisations, including East London based women’s rights organisation Nari Diganta and the core coalition against parallel legal systems, for reasons explained in this article . In short, the remit of government’s inquiry is too narrow, and the panel of judges are not ‘independent’ enough to undertake an impartial investigation.

On July 4, a letter, signed by an unprecedented number of women’s rights campaigners and organisations from Britain and internationally, was submitted to the Home Secretary raising serious concerns about the government’s ‘independent review’ into Sharia councils in Britain. Our letter stated that the limited scope of inquiry and its inappropriate theological approach will do nothing to address the discriminatory effect and intent of the courts on private and family matters – areas where, arguably, the greatest human rights violations of minority women in the UK take place. Rather than taking a human rights approach, the government has constituted a panel and terms of reference more suited to a discussion in theology than one which serves the needs of victims whose human rights are violated.  By making religious appointments, the government has lost a vital opportunity to examine the discriminatory nature of not only Sharia bodies but all forms of religious arbitration.

Despite grave concerns, Theresa May’s government is moving ahead with its controversial Sharia review.  At the same time the UK’s Home Affairs Select Committee has launched an inquiry into the compatibility of Sharia with British law. Some frontline organisations and women’s rights activists including Southall Black Sisters, the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, Centre for Secular Space, One Law for All, British Muslims for Secular Democracy and the Culture Project, and Yasmin Rehman have submitted written evidence to Home Affairs Select Committee. A few of these campaigners were invited to attend oral Evidence Session held on 1 November and they gave robust evidence under hostile environment by Islamist MPs.


Women's' rights campaigners challenged the unbalanced inquiry on Sharia Councils at the public meeting on "Sharia Law, religious arbitration and access to Justice" at the Parliament on 7 November 2016. Photo credit: Southall Black Sisters

Women’s’ rights campaigners challenged the unbalanced inquiry into Sharia Councils at the public meeting on “Sharia Law, religious arbitration and access to Justice” at the Parliament on 7 November 2016. Photo credit: Southall Black Sisters


There are currently two parallel enquiries running, one by the government and one by Home Affairs Select Committee, both of which appeared to have imbalances.  Earlier this month, certain committee members in the UK’s Home Affairs Select Committee launched personal attack against a secular women’s rights campaigner, Maryam Namazie of One Law for All, who was invited to provide oral evidence following a call for evidence submission  against abusive practices of Britains’ Sharia Councils. Muslim women’s rights campaigners such as Yasmin Rehman, who expressed wish to attend oral evidence session by all means, was left out of the committee room as uninvited, while Maryamn Namazie an Iranian born secular feminist who worked closely with victims of Muslim origin and who provided powerful oral evidence on Sharia abuse at oral evidence session was faced with a personal attack as unrepresentative of Muslim women.

A committee member Naz Shah MP asserted that she wants to have a choice for Sharia divorce. The Pakistani origin -‘British-Muslim’ committee member Shah insisted that she is aware of many Muslim women who may use Sharia Councils. For Shah, a closure of Sharia Councils in Britain would mean that the option for a Sharia divorce of many Muslim women in the UK would be taken away. She asserted: ‘My choice would have been taken away’.  We don’t know if Shah will ever go to a Sharia council for divorce though, she wants to have the choice to have a Sharia divorce!

Using her parliamentary privilege, Naz Shah MP accused Namazie that her suggestion for closing down Sharia Councils would have discriminated against all religious believers. Without any proof, she said: ‘the people I have been talking to in the last 24 hours have told me that there is an air of Islamophobia and racism about this whole debate’. It would be interesting to know who are those people that Naz Shah MP had spoken for 24 hours to defend Sharia councils.

The antagonist comments by the MP in question was criticised by concerned secular groups and women’s rights campaigners. Yet she has not apologised for her misconduct and disgraceful attack against a women’s rights campaigner, while the oral evidence session was supposed to focus on Sharia Councils and its adverse effect on women’s lives.


The shocking part for me was the latest news that the Home Affairs Select Committee has asked victims of Sharia abuse to attend a physical event in Whitechapel in East London to be testified by committee members.  As an activist-academic – having completed a doctoral research in gendered violence, being engaged in teaching and research in feminist methodology and ethics in social work, and having invested nearly two decades in working with Muslim women and survivors of religious arbitration in Bangladesh and Britain – I found it hard to believe that the Committee intended to meet with survivors and victims’ in this manner. Whatever it is- insensibility or insanity – this raises many questions in connection with the ethics of the Home Affairs Select Committee appointed to investigate a delicate matter like abuse of women by Sharia in private life, and abuse in the name of religion. Whilst wondering about the motive, opportunity and objective of the Home Affairs Select Committee, I am leaving this blog by keeping my doubts to be explained in a later article at a wider platform, beyond the community women.


To end this report, I would like to call upon all community women’s blog readers to name and shame these politicians who fail to see how their policy could violate women’s fundamental human rights. Both the government and the Home Affairs Select Committee seem playing with Muslim women over Sharia and Islamophobia. In the name of choice of Muslim women and religious freedom, the Home Affairs Select Committee is directly acting on behalf of Islamists whose votes matter to the MPs more than women’s lives. The Committee members seem blind enough to not able to see how this ask for testifying victims and survivors of Sharia Councils could cause secondary trauma and further safety issues to many women who are in need of legal protection and access to justice.  Instead of protecting the women who gave witnesses in anonymous forms to their nominated women’s rights advocates, the committee has embarked on a project to promote violation of human rights of those survivors who are already faced with violence and abuse.


This update for community women’s blog readers includes a new Written evidence submitted to Home Affairs Select Committee by Southall Black Sisters, the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, Centre for Secular Space, One Law for All, British Muslims for Secular Democracy and the Culture Project, including Evidence Session held on 1 November. The new written evidence that was submitted to the Home Affairs Select Committee by the core coalition of women’s rights organisations against Sharia Councils in the UK is as follows:

We refer to recent emails from the Home Affairs Select Committee to Southall Black Sisters and the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation requesting us to help find Muslim women who have ‘used’ Sharia Councils, to attend an event in Whitechapel, East London, on 24 November 2016 in connection with your inquiry.

We are a coalition of organisations who have an immense track record in providing front line services and in campaigning for the human rights of black and minority women. Our coalition includes Southall Black Sisters, the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, Centre for Secular Space, One Law for All, British Muslims for Secular Democracy and the Culture Project: we represent some of the most marginalised groups in our society. Between us, we have over 100 years of combined experience of working with women from all faith backgrounds, the majority of whom come from a Muslim background.

Many of us have supported minority women, adults and children of all religious backgrounds to resist powerful cultural and religious constraints that prevent them from exiting from violence and abuse and impede their ability to assert their rights as citizens of this country. It has taken long and often painful struggles to give minority women a voice and to facilitate their access to the formal legal system that many see as their ultimate safety net. We have seen that, without proper and informed access to the civil and criminal justice system and to the welfare state, women are left to the vagaries of arbitrary and discriminatory systems of community arbitration, including Sharia Councils – the subject of the current inquiry by the Home Affairs Select Committee. The experiences of women in these circumstances suggest that such parallel legal systems create a lethal space for the resurrection and perpetuation of patriarchal control over and harm to women, vulnerable adults, and children. It is precisely because of these experiences that, in many parts of the Muslim world, women are resisting Sharia laws and religious impositions.

It is against this background, that we are compelled to raise three specific areas of concern that have arisen in relation to your inquiry:

  1. First, we have to say that we are puzzled by your request for women who have personally used Sharia Councils to participate in the event in East London, and we are compelled to decline it for a number of significant reasons:

(a) Why is the Select Committee only interested in hearing from Muslim women who have ‘personally used’ Sharia Councils? There are an equal if not greater number of Muslim women who, for very valid reasons, do not wish to use these Councils out of fear and distrust arising from their own negative experiences of religious control in their communities. Many women confronting honour based abuse, for instance, will not use Sharia Councils because they feel angry and let down by their communities and religious authorities. Many recount the ways in which they have been subject to religious abuse of power, including sexual abuse, and for these reasons they are fearful of being subject to further abuse and humiliation in Sharia Councils. Their experiences and reasons for rejecting Sharia Councils are as valid as those who ‘use’ Sharia Councils. When will these women’s voices be heard?

(b) Many women that we see are deeply traumatised and still in crisis situations. They are often unwilling or fearful of taking part in events that involve revealing intimate details of their lives, especially of a sexual nature, in front of other people (even women) not known to them. Most fear making any kind of disclosure or of raising any criticism of religious authority in unfamiliar and unsafe environments. Our experience of providing counselling, group therapy and support for the extremely vulnerable women with whom we work is that they need to feel confident in safe spaces with which they are familiar before they will disclose their experiences. They have to develop a strong affinity with other women based on shared experiences and mutual respect before they open up to others, even if they are from the same community.

(c) It is impractical for some women who live in North and West London or even outside London to travel to East London. Many are extremely vulnerable or destitute, or have work or child care responsibilities that make it difficult for them to travel long distances. We therefore propose that the Select Committee gives serious consideration to our request to meet women who have used Sharia Councils as well as those who have not, in safe venues across London and the UK, with the support of their advocates and to also consult and take evidence from their advocates who can speak to their experiences. SBS and IKWRO for example, are willing to facilitate access to women who use their services by organising a closed session at the premises of SBS, in West London, where advocates and counsellors will also be on hand to provide evidence and additional support to the women who attend.

  1. We are concerned that the inquiry sessions on Tuesday 1 November 2016, at which witnesses were invited to present their evidence, were highly unbalanced and weighted in favour of those who support Sharia Councils in some form or other.

(a) The sessions consisted of 3 panels of witnesses. Out of a total of ten witnesses who appeared, seven spoke in favour of Sharia Councils (four of whom actually ran Sharia Councils), one remained neutral and only two witnesses – Dr Elham Manea and Ms Maryam Namazie – were called to present their counter arguments. We note that some of those who gave evidence were invited to do so even though they had not made any written submissions to the inquiry.

(b) Whilst we accept that witnesses who speak in favour of the role of Sharia Councils have every right to be heard, we question whether the inquiry can be said to be fair or impartial when the evidence sessions were so clearly slanted in favour of those who have a vested interest in maintaining the role of Sharia Councils over family matters.

(c) In our view, the inquiry needs to hear evidence from expert witnesses who can provide specific examples of how abused women have been re-traumatised and placed at risk following their engagement with Sharia Councils. Most of the abused women that use our services seek a divorce only after they have left abusive relationships, but they are almost always compelled to return to the abuse by Sharia Councils and other religious arbitration bodies, even if this breaches civil and criminal laws and good practice and policies in respect of mediation and reconciliation in gender-based violence cases. In other words, they are forced back underground.

(d) It must be a matter of concern that the Select Committee appears to have chosen not to hear from witnesses experienced in front line advocacy work with BME women – work which has necessarily involved the invocation of human rights and equalities legislation to challenge Sharia laws. The Public Sector Equality Duty for example has been successfully invoked to address the ways in which fundamentalist interpretations of Sharia laws have been utilised by advocates of parallel legal systems to demand gender segregation in public spaces and Sharia compliant wills in inheritance matters. These very same fundamentalist interpretations of Sharia laws are invoked in Sharia Councils and the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal. We are also worried about the focus of the inquiry on divorce when these ‘courts’ address everything from polygamy, child custody, domestic violence, marital rape, marital captivity, forced marriages and more.

  1. Finally we wish to place on record our concern about the line of questioning of Maryam Namazie at the evidence session referred to above.

(a) In particular, the tone and manner in which she was allowed to be questioned by Naz Shah MP brought discredit to the Select Committee and its approach to the issues under scrutiny. In particular, the specific suggestion that Maryam Namazie was ‘anti-faith’ appeared to provide a pretext to discount Maryam’s evidence: such tactics can and do contribute to a culture that incites religious hatred and violence towards those, especially from Muslim backgrounds, who are perceived to be apostates, atheists and non-conformists.

(b) As you will be aware, we have already seen a rise in religiously motivated hate crimes towards so called apostates that has even led to murder in the UK. (See the case of Asad Shah who was killed in Glasgow in March 2016.) Given her own background, we would have expected Ms Shah to understand the dangers of portraying those who do not conform to their faith in such negative terms.

(c) We trust you will agree that, as an MP and member of the Select Committee, Ms Shah has a duty to exercise due care and to behave fairly to all the witnesses at all times, whether or not she agrees with them. In our view, she breached that duty in this instance, and we shall be interested to know what you have to say in that regard.

We hope that you will give serious attention to the concerns we have raised. Please treat this letter as a submission to the inquiry. We are also attaching an open letter by us regarding the government’s review of Sharia Councils setting out our concerns which are relevant to this inquiry too.

We look forward to your response.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need any clarification or have queries arising from the contents of this letter.

Signed by:

Pragna Patel, Director of Southall Black Sisters
Gita Sahgal, Director of Centre for Secular Space
Maryam Namazie and Gina Khan, Spokespersons for One Law for All
Diana Nammi, Executive Director of Iranian and Kurdish Women’s organisation
Nasreen Rehman, Co-Founder and Chair of British Muslims for Secular Democracy.
Yasmin Rehman, Muslim Women’s Rights Activist and Trustee of Centre for Secular Space
Houzan Mahmoud, Spokesperson for Culture Project


Further related information:

Elham Manea (2016), “Women and Sharia Law: The Impact of Legal Pluralism in the UK” (documentation of the harmful and even life threatening consequences of privatised justice and legal pluralism for minority women who are denied the right to equality before the law), UK: I. B. Tauris. 

Video of oral evidence given by women’s rights campaigners of our coalition against Sharia Councils can be accessed here :

Video Footage of never before seen testimonies from women, and the public meetings in London and Manchester, organised by Southall Black Sisters with BME women’s groups:

Written testimonies gathered with partner organisations can be accessed here:

Written evidence submitted by the Iranian & Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (IKWRO)

Written evidence submitted by Southall Black Sisters

Written evidence submitted to Home Affairs Select Committee by One Law for All

Written evidence submitted by the British Muslims for Secular Democracy

Report on Sharia Council and evidence submitted by freelance consultant Yasmin Rehman

May’s inquiry into sharia is not fit for purpose, The Times, 11 July 2016

Inside Sharia Councils, Victoria Derbyshire Programme, 11 July 2016

Refusing to recognise polygamy in the West: a solution or a soundbite?, Open Democracy, 11 July 2016

More than 200 women’s rights campaigners have sent a letter to the Home Secretary raising serious concerns about the government-appointed independent review into Sharia councils in Britain. Maryam Namazie and Mona Siddiqui discuss, BBC Radio 4, 10 July 2016

Polygamy is not a cultural conceit. It is an affront to women, Guardian CiF, 10 July 2016

Sharia courts review branded a ‘whitewash’ over appointment ‘bias’ concerns, Independent, 10 July 2016

Nehru’s niece Nayantara Sahgal joins UK women to protest “discriminatory” review of Sharia courts in Britain, Counterview, 4 July 2016

Whitewashing Sharia councils in the UK? Open Democracy, 4 July 2016

Critics say a UK probe into Sharia courts is a sham, Freethinker, 3 July 2016

Britain probes Sharia courts treatment of women, UPI, 28 June 2016

Britain’s Sharia Courts Under Scrutiny, News Deeply, 24 June 2016

Calls to Dismantle Parallel Legal Systems by women’s rights campaigners on International Human Rights Day, 10 December 2015



Leave a comment

Invitation to a Fundraising Party for the film Rising Silence

By Pushpita Gupta
You are cordially invited to a Fundraising Iftar Party on Saturday the 25th of June at our house for an urgent film to be made following the lives of 7 Birangona women.  The party is to be held at:
All welcome!
RS Artwork (2)
Birangona means ‘Brave Woman’ and this was the honorific granted to the hundreds of thousands of survivors of the campaign of rape carried out by the Pakistani Army and their local collaborators during the Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971. Please help us make Rising Silence that aspires to give a voice to the survivors of mass rape of Bangladesh in 1971, but it is not about rape – it is about the strength of women who have picked themselves up after facing brutal physical and emotional abuse. It is about their will to survive; honouring their insurmountable courage, and bringing to the forefront a crucial part of a nation’s history that has been for too long ignored, made taboo, and silenced.
The establishment of rape camps during the Liberation War of Bangladesh by the Pakistani army is a hugely sensitive issue, and unfortunately one that the world seems collectively willing to dismiss / overlook – despite the fact that over 200,000 women were systematically raped within a nine-month period. Our film is a testimonial documentary bringing to life the true stories of some of the survivors of these vile rapes and what they have had to endure since.
To know more about the making of the film please go to the link HERE.
So far we have received enormous support and well wishes from people from all walks of life. This film is truly becoming a people’s film, our film. We are the strength to bring this film into light. Please join us and lets raise some funds.
 We sincerely hope that you can come.
Warmest regards,
Pushpita Gupta


Leave a comment

Honouring women anti-mining campaigners and environmental-activists on #IWD2016

Tribute to two ‘true fighters of the Planet’ – Berta Cáceres and Janine Roberts

By Rumana Hashem

On International Women’s day we should celebrate both- our community women and international feminists, women’s and workers advocates’ struggles and achievements, especially women activists who devoted lives for working class and grassroots people. On this IWD 2016, when UN has chosen a theme called, Planet 50-50 by 2030: Step it Up for Gender Equality, we should think of the saviours of the Planet – the climate and anti-mining campaigners who tried to help those suffering from pollution of the planet by the miners and the corporations that serve none but the bourgeois and aims to destroy our planet. On this occasion we mourn the death, and celebrate the lives of Berta Cáceres and Janine Roberts, two hugely influential and inspiring personalities in the history of resistance to the injustices perpetrated by corporations and the mining industry.


Berta Cáceres, a great community organiser, Honduran indigenous and the founder of COPINH was assassinated by armed individuals who forcibly entered her home in La Esperanza, department of Intibucá in southwestern Honduras, Mexico.  Berta Cáceres was a leader who had inspired many of us for many years as an indigenous woman-leader and environmental-activist, raising her voice in the defense of women’s bodies and community, land, water and the commons. Through her actions, she has strengthened the role of women in resisting destructive corporations and macro-level repressions.  Berta was successful in constructing alternatives based on aboriginal knowledge and collective practices. In recent interviews, she encouraged many to rise up in collective solidarity in the global South and North against the predatory capitalist and patriarchal society in order to save women’s lives, human lives and the planet.


On International Women’s Day 2016, anti-mining activists and environmentalists at Friends of the Earth (FoEI) have paid homage to and raised voices in indignation at the brutal murder of Berta Cáceres. So did we. Berta was an indigenous Lenca leader, a grassroots feminist and an environmental-justice activist. She was murdered in early morning of 3rd March in her very own home at the side of Mexican activist Gustavo Castro Soto from Otros Mundos / FOE Mexico, who was badly hurt by the same gunmen. Anti-mining activists and environmentalists have initiated an urgent action alert and signed a letter to protect Gustavo Castro who witnessed the assassination of Berta Cáceres in Honduras and was injured himself. Everybody is encouraged to sign the letter here


Janine Roberts (1942 -2016) was another great woman who, for more than forty years, devoted herself fearlessly to exposing the covert practices of global miners. She knew what it means to counter the lies and myths perpetrated by the mining industry. Janine Roberts, known to many as just “Jan” or Jani”, had put herself in direct physical danger on many occasions. But she is sadly no longer with us on the earth.

Jan has passed away peacefully on 26 February 2016 – six years since the very day when she had suffered a massive stroke, following several days locked-in by ice on a boat in Bristol’s city basin. Bristol served her as both a home and a cherished centre of some remarkably effective and diverse electronic campaigns.

Latin American women at Peru denounced violence by the mining company. File photo 2011 (Source:

Latin American women at Peru denounced violence by the mining company. File photo 2011 (Source:

Today, 8th March, is the right day to pay our tribute to Janine Roberts who initiated many strategies, now familiar to organisations critical of the extractive industries. One of the most noteworthy of these strategies were the launch of People against RTZ and its Subsidiaries, known as PaRTiZanS, in 1980. We should not forget how this strategy and this global network became the vehicle for many so-called “victims” of the-then world’s largest corporate miner in the following few years. This network, PaRTiZanS, has acted as a way of survival for those who dramatically threw-off the dubious mantle of “victimhood”, by attending and speaking out as minority shareholders at Rio Tinto’s AGMs.

Jan’s close friend and a colleague working to hold Rio Tinto to account, Roger Moody, has written a beautiful tribute to Janine Roberts. I thought that it was worth reclogging on community women’s blog for our readers.


Jan Roberts: commemorating a true warrior

Published by MAC on 2016-03-02
Source: Statement (2016-02-29)


The tribute below comes from Roger Moody, currently Research Editor of the MAC website, and a close friend and colleague of Jan Roberts over many years.

“Our” Jan

There’s one woman, among all those I’ve been privileged to know,  to whom I owe more than any one else what it means to counter the lies and myths perpetrated by the mining industry.

For more than forty years, she devoted herself fearlessly to exposing the covert practices of global miners – often putting herself in direct physical danger.

However,  Janine Roberts – known to many colleagues and friends as simply “Jan” or Jani” – is sadly no longer with us in mortal form.
She slipped away peacefully on 26 February 2016; six years to the very day when she had suffered a massive stroke, following several days locked-in by ice on a boat in Bristol’s city basin, which served as both a home for her and her cherished canine, Storm, and the focus of some remarkably effective and diverse electronic campaigning.

Many strategies, now  familiar to organisations critical of the extractive industries, were ones she either initiated or materially assisted in bringing to birth. Perhaps the most noteworthy of these was the  launch of  PaRTiZanS (People against RTZ and its Subsidiaries) in 1980.

In a few  years, this global network became the vehicle for many so-called “victims” of the-then  world’s largest corporate miner, to dramatically throw-off the dubious mantle of victim hood, by attending and speaking out as minority” shareholders at Rio Tinto’s AGMs. In fact,  around one hundred Indigenous spokespeople and workers  have intervened as “dissident” shareholders at Rio Tinto AGMs over succeeding years, and one or more will surely be present again at this years event.

The CIMRA years

Having spent a formative period of her earlier life camping out in the bauxite-ravaged lands of Weipa, north Queensland, Jan arrived in Britain in the late 70’s, pledged to stand four-square with the region’s Aboriginal communities, as they battled to overturn the fraudulent colonial trope of their land as being  “terra nullius” – thus unoccupied and open to flagrant exploitation.

She swiftly set up a militant Aboriginal solidarity group in the UK – Colonialism and Indigenous Minorities Research and Action, or CIMRA

Her 1978 book, “From Massacres to Mining”, inscribed the first full account of the atrocities which accompanied that invasion to  the late 1970’s; an Australian edition appeared in 1980, and a second was published ten years later (1).

In 1980, Jan organised the first visit to the UK capital by three mining-afflicted Queensland Aboriginal leaders – Joyce Hall, Mick Miller and Jacob Wolmby – who publicly indicted Rio Tinto (then RTZ-CRA) for “racism” in the columns of the Financial Times.

Although the trio didn’t themselves get to attend that year’s AGM, another Aboriginal Australian, Boolidt Boolitha from Victoria, flew in to confront the company in person at its 1981 Annual General Meeting.

Following this, and in quick succession, Jan poured out a tremendous corpus of work, including several books and numerous articles. She gave many radio and television interviews, and was indispensable to the production of several films, including one shown on Granada TV in the UK – and just once by ABC in Australia, before CRA stepped in to prevent its further dissemination down-under [ Australia: why we must still weep for Weipa .

A second mining giant, Anglo-De Beers, also wanted to stop her bringing to fruition perhaps her most treasured authorial project – an exposé of how the world’s biggest diamond trader viciously exploited workers and communities across the globe.

Begun in 1987, and multinationally funded, this mission took her across five continents, and produced some very disturbing images (for example of  young children labouring in the company’s diamond cutting shops.)

Only there for (or rather against) De Beers

In this case, Anglo American didn’t need to resort to legal action to prevent the truth being told of what she’d uncovered about these “conflict diamonds” (which in a real sense they were, some years before Global Witness and Leonardo di Caprio made the term fashionable.)

The company asked to meet the film’s prime sponsor, the BBC, to discuss the series’ content. Here’s Jan’s own account (in third person) of what happened after “Aunty” at Broadcasting House then decided to sack her:

“Researching why the BBC were so insistent on her removal and why it refused to give reasons, she learns that the Oppenheimer family attacked her in meetings with BBC, complaining that she was “obsessed” with investigating the diamond trade .(That is, she will not go away.) The film is completed by the BBC in her absence. It is then first shown in the US – and despite her having produced many of the scenes in the film, her credits have practically vanished. When she asks why, she is told the BBC gave instructions to remove her producer and journalist credits.

“At her request the General Secretary of the Broadcasting and Entertainment Industry Trade Union, the powerful BECTU, contacts high officers of the BBC asking that she be given the proper credit for her work. On the Friday before her film is shown, a senior officer of the BBC phones her to tell her that while the BBC did not deny that she produced part of the film, and was the senior journalist, it refuses to give her any credit for this work on the film… She is extremely perplexed by this..”

“[T]he BBC (who do not own the film – it is owned by the Australian government investors – the BBC only bought UK transmission rights) then make a deal with De Beers Tthat they will not sell her film to any other country…”

Despite this: “[S]he does all she can to get the film out to more viewers – and to complete her book on De Beers. When De Beers tries to ban the American version of her film from being shown in the diamond rush area of Arctic Canada, their heavy handed action leads to the Federation of Trade Unions, the local environmental organisation, Ecology North and the Dene Indians inviting her to speak to her film. She is flown to Yellowknife. Her film is put on in the largest hall in town and it is standing room only. Later she is the guest of Dene Indians, goes out with dog teams, falls in love with a beautiful frozen land and sky.

That’s not all: “When she goes to South Africa and Namibia to research her diamond book, she shows her film on De Beers property to the mine workers. De Beers tries unsuccessfully to ban her from several mines. The Union says she is the first person banned by De Beers since the Emergence of 1988!” [See:

I’ve quoted this extract from one of her many blogs at some length, because it strikes me as emblematic of the sheer courage and fortitude – we may also say “bloody mindedness” – Jan exhibited towards the highly powerful and insidious forces she chose to tackle head-on throughout her life.

Speaking truth to power

It was this resilience and passion for the “right way” of doing things which inspired every facet of her extraordinary life.

On her hospitalisation in early 2010, the consultant treating her doubted she would survive more than a few days. Jan not only proved him wrong; she went on to publish several further books, though not specifically on mining, from her bedside over the following six years.

Even though it’s increasingly rare to meet – let alone work alongside – such a multi-faceted human being in today’s mono-cultured and rapidly acculturating societies, Janine Roberts was truly a “Renaissance Woman” in many senses of the term.

I doubt we’ll ever encounter her like again.

(1) My own recollection is that first English edition of “From Massacres to Mining” was co-published by War on Want and CIMRA in London in 1978. However, pressure on the British development agency and threats to suet for libel, caused War on Want to withdraw this version from distribution, although a second, re-edited, version was soon put back into circulation (RM).


Leave a comment

A woman must not forget that she is an International Woman until Equality is achieved

Piya Mayenin profile photo

By Piya Mayenin

International Women’s day (IWD), Mothering Sunday, Mothers Day are celebrated on 6th and 8th March respectively which are the official dates and time to remember Women and their contributions.

However we do not remember women in the same way on those days. Whilst Mothering Sunday, Mothers day and even Valentine’s day we think of women in a warm, fond way in their roles as mothers, grandmothers, stepmothers, mother in laws, wives and lovers, IWD bears a very different history and significance which must never be forgotten. Political and Human rights issues are at the core of it and have been marked initially by struggles of working women, economic fairness, social justice, suffrage rights and leading to overall gender parity.

IWD has been celebrated now for over a hundred years with the first one in 8 March 1909 in New York and then 19th March 19 11 in Denmark, Germany , Austria and other European countries. It has since become the inspiration of all women and the pledge for parity (gender equality) in addition to celebrating of women’s political economic and cultural success. IWD has been given international official recognition during International Women’s Year in 1975, by the United Nations and was taken up by many governments who had not previously known of its existence.

Whilst the shape of women’s struggles is different depending which part of the globe they are in, their struggle at the end of the day is the same one. While developed countries battle with the objectification of women in media outlets, under-representation in positions of power and unequal pay rates, developing countries struggle with  ‘…dowry related violence; rape; acid throwing; domestic violence; illegal fatwa; sexual harassment; wage and social discrimination’ (Odhikaar, 2016). Not to mention forced marriages, Honor killings, in addition to Diasporas of the developing nations.

The writer presents a radio program on Betar Bangla radio based in the UK on Violence against Women and states that one of the top most reason for violence against women is perpetuated by attitudes of historical the male dominated society; an attitude that is imbibed also by the female population resulting in the parroting of words to give effect that stigmatises other females and fitting into the male thinking misogynistic atmosphere. There is an old adage, ‘Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t’ and this in the writer’s opinion describes why whilst the male misogynist is tolerable as one can fight it, the female misogynist is far more dangerous, damaging and difficult to fight.

An example of this is the Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who did everything that the worst male misogynist would want to do. Only one other single female soul was in her entire cabinet, namely, Baroness Young. Even in Prime Minster David’s Cameron’s cabinet there are far more women which should embarrass the Lady Thatcher. However it has been evident that it doesn’t. Her atrocious comments on single mothers have been attacked fiercely by single parent support groups and William Hague simply distanced himself from her comments. Many women applaud in loyalty to Donald Trump exist comments, who is not only a xenophobic but also a misogynist not to mention a fascist. In a magazine several years ago, the writer was stunned to read an article where a man was stating that he saw all women as cows. In his picture with the article, his loving devoted wife was holding him tight as if he were a cuddly toy pleased with her designation (that she was a cow).

A cat ought to behave like a cat, not a snake as this confuses the world. In May 2015, The Lib Dems were annihilated from 57 seats to only 8 while the Conservatives rose despite of their non social non liberal policies. The reason should be obvious, practice what you preach or be the cat who acts like a cat and not a snake. Likewise a woman should remember she not only a woman but an international woman. As she is representative of other women, she must go beyond of being a single personal with single aims and goals and see them though the eyes of women everywhere and in every situation. She must not support the misogynist.

A name comes to mind, the late Rosalind Elsie Franklin, an English chemist and X-ray crystallographer whose works on coal and viruses were appreciated in her lifetime, but her contributions to the discovery of DNA were largely recognized posthumously. In fact it was men who had taken the name for her works. James WatsonFrancis Crick and Maurice Wilkins shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962. Watson suggested that Franklin would have ideally been awarded a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, along with Wilkins, but the Nobel Committee does not make a posthumous nomination which is a great tragedy and injustice in the writer’s opinion.

In London one has to stroll about the city to see all the high financial and other positions held by men in suits whilst their secretaries are women. Waitresses are women. Which begs the question whose city is London? A man’s or a woman’s

On the international level it is welcome sight that for the first time ever two women are official candidates in the 2016 UN elections. Irina Bokova who is currently the UNESCO Director General and Vesna Pusic Deputy Speaker of the Croatian Parliament.

In the sub continental mindset misogynistic views are often perpetuated by the movies and literature that constantly depict and describe ‘good’ women as being virgin, loyal and obedient and sacrificing wife who endures all torture because she should resemble a ‘Sati Savitri’ naari as opposed to the ‘bad’ disobedient wife who is to be shunned. ‘Naari haath is used as a term to describe womanly tantrums.

Of course if one studied the Hindu scripture from Gita, the Vedas, Upanishads even the Puranas and epics like Mahabharata, would find that apart from Brahma ‘the God’ most of the other major deities in Hindu religion are female including Durga Kaali and Saraswaathi to name but a few. This simply goes to show there is no ceiling that women cannot go beyond. Yet misogynists continue to use Hindu scriptures to subjugate women!

Likewise, Islam was the first religion that recognized women as ‘being’ in her own right. A woman not to be shunned buried alive or tied up and kept for carnal needs of men. Islamic jurisprudence although complicated was applied to render justice and equality. The modern misogynists apply laws with a mixed misogynistic touch and interpretation that do not reflect the true intentions of the religion passed to Muslims by the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) which was simply to battle inequality. A prime example of this misogynistic application of Islam is Saudi Arabia where women virtually have no rights at all.

In Bangladesh women are made to endure abusive situations as the economic alternative and shunning by misogynistic society would be unbearable. Widows are still stripped of assets, given a rough deal through Islamic intestacy rules which are applied by misogynistic men, yet again. That is if they are not or are not also victims of violence from the deceased husband’s family and wider community.

Similarly in Afghanistan, perhaps one of the most illiterate and misogynistic states under the Taliban stopped women from accessing education through violent killings and forced them to wear the niqab and jilbab so nothing but the eyes are seen and even then one wrong move and they were shot.

Across the Bangladeshi Diaspora these misogynistic views continue. Without naming names, disturbing comments regarding single mothers can be heard on community TV. Wholly offensive and incorrect statements are frequently made. Surprisingly women present on a particular program did not rebut a statement that was equally puzzling and disappointing.

In the duration of my practice as a lawyer in the UK, I have dealt with many cases of domestic violence, separation, divorce and children matters. I have never seen a case where the separation or divorce was not absolutely necessary in the circumstances of the matter. The usual scenario even where there is no physical violence there is nonetheless an abusive nature of the husband with extreme unfairness on the woman and quite frequently on children alongside that. Moreover, no sensible person could claim that a widow has done that to herself (made herself a widow) and is thus of less value as a human being because her husband has died.

The vast majority of single mothers in Bangladesh and across the globe are mothers raise children (the children of the nation, of the globe) whilst their husband’s work abroad or in other parts of the country to earn a living.

In the Western world, single mothers are forced to take on the role of breadwinner, carer, housekeeper, cook, teacher and not to mention counselor! They are known to stretch themselves beyond limits and any limit what most couples would as parents, even if they do not quarrell over their respective burdens and responsibilities. A single mother does not even have that privilege.

A typical day starts often early in the morning with taking children to school (if they are of school age). On return from dropping the child or children if she hasn’t dashed off to work, it is the task to clean toilets, bathrooms, and kitchen and leaves preparation for cooking and then run off to work. When the day’s work is done they return (Many do part time shifts or part time work so they can pick up their children) The rest of the evening is again never ending cleaning, cooking, overlooking homework, washing the children, feeding, and teaching . The mother sleeps when everything is done and after the children are done she often catches up on work duties. The added onus of bearing the responsibility of a mother and the missing father engages a single mother around the clock and includes breadwinning, paying bills, housekeeping, Garden keeping, washing family clothes, ironing and constantly finds herself learning about how to best raise her children, provide stability and a loving and secure environment for the child’s development. These basic things are quite frequently overlooked by a two parent family as the social focus is on the single mother. On a national level state help to a single mother is minimal especially if not working. Many single mothers find ways of supporting their children at universities and do not expect help from Adult children merely because of the passion that their child should not lose out and should do well. A single mother usually sacrifices social activities and ‘fun’ for the wellbeing of their children and as they are forever catching up on their tasks at hand. For a civilized modern society not to note that is really a shame.

There are countless examples of extraordinary and great personalities who have been inspired and nurtured by single mother; Why don’t’ we start off with the current most important leader in the world? Barack Obama, 44th President of the US, Aged 54 who credits his single mother Ann with encouraging him and nurturing his ambitions:

‘I grew up without a father in my life. I had a heroic mom and wonderful grandparents who helped raise me and my sister, and it is because of them that I am able to stand here today.’ (Mail Online 10 Oct 2012)

What about Gymnast Louis Antoine Smith, the 26 year old British gymnast who received a bronze medal and a silver medal on the pommel horse at the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the 2012 London Olympics. In 2015 he became the European champion on Pommel Horse. Louis credits all his success to the sacrifices made by his mum Elaine Petch from Peterborough.

I could go on and fill up pages but one could simply Google it to stumble on an extensive list as I have found.

The stigma surrounding single mothers is decreasing in the Western countries and it must do so in the sub continental originated communities too. If blame is to be apportioned then it must be to the right person which is usually the father, whether you want to blame them for being irresponsible, abusive, violent, drunk, gone abroad for work, or even having died on their widow!

Being a single mother is better any day than living in an abusive or even borderline abusive environment and in fact, in the UK, it becomes a duty for mothers to leave their abusive partners for the safeguarding of their children as is stipulated in the Children Act 1989.

Finally, stigma must be replaced with the acknowledgement of the true role of a working single mother who usually works 10 times harder as a parent than in a two parent family and are only a single parent as result from unfairness in life. She is usually a person fixed on a strong sense of principles and values and is not on drugs or dating different men as their own success and their children’s success demonstrate.

Whilst having a secure family surrounded with mother and father is everybody’s ideal, the reality is that half of women are probably single and that is even when they are married sometimes as the example of women bringing up children in Bangladesh and other places indicates! These children in fact go on to pull along their families to a better economic situation in later years.

Stigmatising single mothers for personal or political point scoring is reinforcing that it’s okay to victimize the poor. As a poor person who is also a single mother is more likely to be violated. If she is uneducated and unaware of her rights (and a single mother), she is more likely to be violated. She or her children are more likely to be trafficked.

The essence of International day is women’s right. The fact that women must not be sold. A woman is a person of her own, with a mind of her own and has a moral right to agency of her own mind. As single mothers are in a place to have agency of their own minds, they would do everything in their power to raise top -class children of the globe and society must help them as otherwise half the population is dead.

We need to broaden our horizons as shallow people will only raise shallow people – that is the main point here. That is the focus. If one wants to focus on single mothers then here are the two points.

  1. Society that failed women and young people have the highest debt to these single mothers as without them society would have nothing as they are the ones who support the future generation with their utmost being. So society instead of demonizing and shunning them let’s pay a tribute to them. Look at it theoretically, if single mothers abandon their children, would society be able to afford to look after them? The writer answers ‘no’ because the economy will just go bust in trying to achieve what these single mothers have achieved.
  2. A woman must be an International woman in order to represent all women, single mum   or otherwise.


Endnote: The Author is a solicitor of England & Wales, an active human rights campaigner and writer with a feminist edge. Piya ‘s work includes generating awareness amongst the community and challenging discrimination, bigotry and hypocrisy that affects Immigrants and all communities’ at large, creating barriers and causing alienation and segregation.


Save the Feminist Library from Eviction

Sign the Petition & Join us in a Protest Against the Eviction of an Incompatible Collection of Feminist Research and Women’s Studies


Southwark Council are threatening to evict the Feminist Library on 1st March (the first day of Women’s History Month) from the building on Westminster Bridge Rd, London, that has been its home for 30 years.

The council have given notice that the rent on the Library’s space in the building, which has housed a variety of community groups alongside the Library for the past 30 years, will be raised from £12,000 to £30,000 a year. Council officers are refusing to negotiate – join us in calling upon them to work with us to save the Library.

On 10th February, Southwark Council Cabinet approved a report that ‘highlights the need for a thriving VCS (Voluntary and Community Sector) that mobilises community action and makes best use of community resources, skills, knowledge and spaces’. We cannot understand how treating our organisation in such a way is consistent with approving this report.

Read more here

Learn more about the Feminist Library and donate to our Emergency fund here

Sign the Petition to Save the Feminist Library from Threat of Eviction

Join the Protest and Deliver the Petition to Southwark Council’s Budget setting meeting

When: Wednesday, 24th February, 7pm

Where: Southwark Council, 160 Tooley St, London SE1 2QH

We urge as many supporters as possible to JOIN US IN A DEMONSTRATION OUTSIDE THE MEETING on Weds 24th from 6.30pm.

Re-blogged by Rumana Hashem from 38