Archive for the ‘ disability ’ Category

Disabled Women & Domestic Abuse Posters

I stumbled upon two extremely poignant posters created by Women’s Aid to highlight some of the issues surrounding domestic abuse and disabled people. You can click the links to download .pdf versions.
They are fantastic resources and free to anyone wishing to use them. You can find the originals here.

Disability & DV Poster 1

disDV1

Disability & DV Poster 2

disDV2

Advertisements

*waves* I’m Still Here!

I haven’t posted in ages and I’m really sorry about that.

It’s been a pretty hectic summer for me and I’ve had some health issues that have just eaten all my spare spoons I’d normally use for blogging. I’m hoping that now things are settling down that I can get back to normal!

As you may or may not know I’m pretty passionate about doing what I can to try to improve other peoples experience of Birmingham City Councils (BCC) Adults & Communities division (adult social care). I had quite a few issues with them, the DWP, Atos and the NHS wheelchair service when I first became physically disabled which is one of the main reasons I became a disability rights campaigner. I wanted to do my part to ensure that others in the same boat had a better experience than I did.

Now many of the issues surrounding adult social care aren’t things that that are within adults & communities remit to deal with. Social services cannot force Osborne to free up extra funding for them in his budget, nor do they have the last word on how much the local councillors decide to devote to the department. They can’t ignore national initiatives they are compelled to take part in nor can they interfere in the NHS. What they can do is work with the resources they have to commission appropriate services and to try to force up the quality of third party contractors where possible. They can also look at their own services and make sure they are appropriate, upholding citizens rights and of a good quality.

I’ve joined a Citizen-led Quality Board which works alongside BCC Adults & Communities to look at the why’s, what’s, when’s and how’s of their commissioning process to point out problems, encourage good practice and share citizens ideas and concerns.

I’m going to endeavour to write up a few posts about various areas we are covering in an effort to both share information and to look at our performance. Until then, look after yourself & I hope you have a great October x

#FemSchool13 – A Quick Summary Of My Weekend

I spent this weekend at the annual UK Feminista Summer School. It’s a weekend where feminists/women’s rights activists come together to learn from each other, organise and get inspired. All in all I had a wonderful time. Contrary to the picture the media presented the weekend was not all about ending Page 3 and Lads Mags to the exclusion of all else. Rather it was a eclectic mix of intersectional workshops and talks covering subjects such as class, race, disability, sexuality, arts, campaigning, lobbying, the criminal justice system, economics and much more.

The main hall starting to fill up for the welcoming meeting.

I arrived on the Saturday morning to take part in the welcoming panel with Lara Bates from the Everyday Sexism project and Constance Nzeneu, Migrant & Refugee Woman of the Year winner. The panel was great fun, it was a bit odd to be sitting in front of all those people talking about my activism and why I campaign for change, but if it helped one other person realise that they could make a small difference I think it was worth it.

Myself & Laura Bates getting ready to sit on the panel.

My personal goal for the weekend was to try to get as many people as possible thinking about disability as both a part of feminism and a important civil rights movement on it’s own. I really do believe that the struggle for civil rights needs to be intersectional. We are all stronger if we work together while, of course, still respecting the need for our own spaces. After the welcoming panel I went to a Mental Health & Intersectionality workshop where we were urged to look at how various types of oppression can exacerbate and cause mental health problems.

I followed that up by going to a workshop I was personally interested in – Women in Prison – which looked at how the current system is not set up to deal effectively with women in the prison system or after release. We learned that the vast majority of female prisoners have mental health problems, many of them personality disorders, which stem from frequently traumatic/turbulent childhoods. We learned a bit about how the system can breed dependency as well as how there is little scope for meaningful rehabilitation without structured support outside of prisons. It was a fascinating session, one I’m really glad I went to.

Instead of going to a third workshop I offered to run a open space session* on disability and language entitled “That’s so lame!”. I chose that name because I wanted to take a word that is used everyday by people in all walks of life that has disableist connections and use it to challenge the audience. Over the last couple of years I’ve discovered that many people who use the word lame to mean rubbish often don’t realise that the word refers to someone who is physically disabled and has a impairment that effects the ability to walk or effects the use of a limb. So we discussed the institutional disableism that creates a language where words describing impairments become interchangeable with words like rubbish, pathetic, useless, defective, dull & stupid in the collective consciousness. We also talked about differences between US & UK ways of talking about disablism and more to boot. It was really enjoyable. I finished off the day by going to the disabled women’s safe space meeting.

On Sunday I was running (with the help of my friend, Jackie) a workshop on Disability, Feminism and Activism. Given how awesome the other workshops happening at the same time sounded I was really happy that we still got a decent sized group. We covered a lot in the hour we had; the basics of disability, the pro’s of intersectionality and a run down of the last 40 years worth of campaigning for disabled peoples rights. We did some group activities as well thinking about feminist areas of interest that strongly intersect with those of disabled people (like reproductive rights, abuse, education, body image, austerity etc..) and thinking about campaigns both movements could join together to in. The attendees were fantastic and I had a super morning chatting with them.

I had to leave after that point because I was a) almost out of spoons and b) had a family engagement that afternoon. It was a wonderful event and one that I’d recommend to anyone interested in meeting other feminists and/or learning some new skills and theory. I’m really sad that I didn’t get the chance to go to any of the workshops exploring other intersections like sexuality or race but hopefully I’ll get the chance next year.

*At open space sessions anyone can suggest a topic/plan they’d like to talk about and meet others who are interested in doing the same. 

Ableism Or Disablism?

Nearly all the big US based blogs on line talk about ableism being something experienced by persons with disabilities because we live in a society where being able-bodied gives you a level of privilege/being a person with a disability means you experience oppression specific to that.

Many of us in the UK who fight for disabled peoples rights don’t use that language. We talk about disablism the oppression faced by disabled people, because society is set up to primarily cater to the needs of non-disabled people.
Which set of language is the best to use? Is there even a difference? Are those in the UK backwards?
I have opinions on this so I’m going to share them (it’s what blogs are for after all). You can make up your own mind. All I would ask is that you have a think about what the words mean, the sentiment attached to them and if you think they are contributing to make the world a more equal place for everyone.
There are two big models of disability which state the following;
  • The Medical Model – That people are disabled by impairments* e.g. Jean’s amputation is why she can’t get into all the shops she wants to or, David’s Downs Syndrome is why he struggles to find work. In feminist terms it’s like saying women don’t have equality because their biology is the problem.
  • The Social Model – That people with impairments* are disabled by an inaccessible society e.g. Jean can’t get into all the shops she wants to because they were designed without access and/or staff are not trained to provide reasonable assistance; or David struggles to find a job because our society allows institutional stigma attached to his impairment to continue to exist. In feminist terms it’s like saying women don’t have full equality because we live in a patriarchal society.
We have all fought long and hard to move away from the medical model and move towards the social model and to move away from the language of the medical model that places the blame for inequality on the person with an impairment. Those who follow the medical model also have a tendency to minimise, dismiss or ignore impairments without a currently understood physical origin (including many learning disabilities, ME/CFS/Fibromyalgia, mental health conditions and other such things).
With this in mind I’m going to talk about why I personally think the words “able-bodied”, “ableism” and “people with disabilities” are problematic.
Able-bodied
I find language that describes people without impairments to be able-bodied, exclusionary and there for divisive. There is a pernicious idea held by many in society that most disabled people use wheelchairs (when less than 7% do) and that most impairments are physical impairments involving paralysis or amputation. It comes from things like media bias when selecting representatives, the international symbol for ‘disability’ being a wheelchair and things like the paralympics where there are a disproportionate amount of contestants with a limited spectrum of impairments. I’m sure you can see why this is less than ideal.
The phrase able-bodied suggests that all disabled people by contrast don’t have able-bodies, which is;
a) impairment focused, something that feels very close to the ways of thinking enshrined in the medical model,
b) plays into the problematic stereotype mentioned above and
c) clearly not all disabled people have physical impairments which make their bodies non-able. A person on the autistic-spectrum or with schizophrenia is completely able-bodied yet I think we can agree they still have to deal with stigma & oppression/exclusion from society. A person who uses glasses to correct a physical visual impairment may not ever think of themselves as being disabled or non-able.
Using the social model we have a definition of disability which moves away from impairments and looks at societal oppression/exclusion/barriers faced by those who happen to have impairments. Those who experience that oppression are disabled by it, they are disabled people. Conversely those who do not are not disabled by it. They are non-disabled.
Ableism
Ableism stems from the same ideas that able-bodied does. That disability equates to not having a body that works as a “normal, able” body should. I feel that it too is exclusionary and harks back to the outdated thinking of the medical model. It also helps enforce the idea that disabled people are less able than non-disabled people. I would argue that there is a massive spectrum of ability within the disabled community, the same way there is a massive spectrum of ability within the non-disabled community. For those reasons I prefer the term disableism to describe the disabling oppression we face.
People with Disabilities
You may have heard about person first language. People with disabilities is an example of that. Person first language was coined as a better way about talking about people with impairments. It’s pretty simple, you talk about the person first instead of the impairment. So instead of saying “Go ask the epileptic” people now try to say “Go ask Steve”. If the impairment has to be mentioned then it gets mentioned after the person has been, for example “This is Steve, he’s here today because has epilepsy and it’s flaring up at the moment”. It’s a great way of using language to avoid de-humanising people with impairments.
The thing is that it’s a great way of talking about impairments. As I hope I have explained disability is subtly different to impairments, the two words do not mean the same thing. Both words have different meanings. Impairments are something that a person has a level of ownership over, they are frequently part of who they are. Disability on the other hand is not, it’s something done by an inaccessible society to a person. If we were to imply that it was something owned by the person then we’d be taking a big step backwards to wards the medical model. This is why I (and a lot of others) prefer the term “disabled person”. It is a stark reminder that the individual is disabled by society. I have heard the arguments that “people with disabilities” is trying to do just that, but I personally don’t think that using the language of talking about impairments to talk about disability instead is anything but confusing and slightly counter-productive.
I know that there are plenty of people out there who would argue that the phrase ableism is inclusive of everyone who is disabled, it’s not the word and it’s construction people should pay attention to it’s the meaning/intent. I personally don’t agree. Words have meaning, words inspire imagery, words strengthen or weaken conceptions, words are frequently read and heard without intent. I also understand that there are plenty of vaild criticisms of the social model and of the very words disability and impairment and their origins and connotations. I don’t want to turn this blog post into a thesis though so I’m going to leave them for another day.
I don’t expect you all to agree with me, but I hope this post has helped people explore some of the issues around the language we use.
* an impairment is any medical condition (be it sickness or not), mental health condition, learning disability, genetic or cognitive condition etc..

What Is The Mental Capacity Act?

Last week I attended an interesting talk on the Mental Capacity Act (for beginners I should add) and I thought I’d share what I learned with you.

History

In 1994 a man with profound learning disabilities and complex care needs was released from residential care to live with a family in Surrey. He developed a routine and went about his life without serious incident until 1997. The family said of the first 3 years “It’s fair to say that it was a challenge – but it was rewarding to see how much [he] benefited from living in a family setting. At first he was very institutionalised, but he gradually became more confident and progressed beyond all expectations.”
He attended a day centre once a week and did so without issue until one day he got on the bus to find he had a different driver who took a different route to the day centre. The man arrived feeling very agitated and staff had difficulty calming him down. The next thing the family he lived with knew was that he had been “admitted informally” into hospital without their consultation. They were also informed that they were not allowed any contact with him. This was all done after one quick consultation with a doctor who did not know the man or his family, because of how the system worked then all they had to do was claim it was in the man’s “best interests” and they could remove his liberty with no option for appeal.
The family began a lengthy legal battle which lead to the man coming home and the discovery of the abuses he had experienced whilst detained. The Department of Health fought the legal action and eventually it ended up at the European Court of Human Rights. In 2004 the ECHR ruled in the man’s favour and as a result the UK government released the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which came into force in 2009. This case is known as the Bournewood Case if you wish to do more reading.

Purpose

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) should provide a legal framework for dealing with adults over the age of 16 (18 with regards to deprivation of liberty cases) who are believed to lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves. This does not just apply to people with profound learning disabilities or cognitive disabilities but also applies to people who have lost conciousness*, are in shock or any other state that means they may (even temporarily) lack the capacity to make crucial decisions.

Principles

The MCA is decision specific. This means that it is only applied to somebodies ability to make one particular type of “decision” at a time. This should help to stop someone who lacks the capacity to make complex financial decisions also automatically loosing the ability to choose what to eat, whether to undergo a particular medical procedure or which activities they can safely engage in. It bears in mind that not being able to dress is not the same as not being able to bank. The only people thought to lack all capacity are those who are unconscious. On to of that there are five key principles which provide a framework for applying the MCA:

  1. Presume Capacity – when assessing people should always be presumed to have full capacity in all areas until it its proven otherwise.
  2. Allow for Unwise Decisions – it’s important to remember that people with capacity can still make unwise decisions. If someone with diabetes decides they want to eat a bag of sugary sweets it’s not necessarily a sign of a lack of mental capacity. Part of having capacity is having the ability to make both wise and unwise choices.
  3. Maximise Communication – not being able to communicate easily is not the same as lacking capacity. If someone can make choices then every attempt to help them communicate meaningfully should be made so they can maintain independence. If someone is in an acute state of shock and a choice can wait until they have regained their ability to communicate then it should be left until they can make it. If someone can communicate via eye movement only then systems need to be put in place so they can do that rather than declaring them to lack capacity.
  4. Best Interests – If after looking at the above principles someone is still thought to be lacking capacity to make a specific decision then it must be ensured that any action taken is thoroughly in the persons best interests. Not the best interests of local government, a care firm or friends/family members but the best interests of the person deemed to lack capacity. This should help protect the individual from abuse.
  5. Least Restrictive Option – When deciding what action to put in place for someone deemed to lack capacity the least restrictive option should always be used. If someone is deemed to lack the capacity to make serious medical decisions they shouldn’t be institutionalised. All other options, such as the use an advocate should be exhausted first.

Assessment

The assessment is normally done in two stages:

  1. They look to see if there is an impairment in the functioning of the mind or brain. If there is no impairment then a person has capacity and the process stops there. If there is an impairment then they go onto the next stage.
  2. Assessors check to see if the individual, with regards to a specific decision, can; understand information, retain information, use information and communicate decisions. 
If the assessment/assessors is looking at a potential deprivation of liberty situation (when restraint/medication used to “restrain”/1 to 1’s/ 2 to 1’s etc… are being used over a long period of time) then 6 assessments should take place which are preformed by a GP and a Best Interest Assessor to ensure it’s in a persons best interests and the least restrictive option available. The longest deprivation of liberty orders are for 12 months.
Mental Health Act
I should say that the Mental Health Act (MHA) and the MCA are two different thing with some overlap. People sometimes assume the two things are the same, they are not. The MHA is designed to ensure people who need treatment for a severe mental health disorder receive it, even if it goes against their wishes (as long as it can be shown that not treating them would put themselves or others at risk). People with severe mental health disorders can still maintain full capacity, so if they need to be detained so that treatment can be provided the MHA would be used, not the MCA. If someone with capacity is “Sectioned” because of a mental health problem and is being deprived of liberty then that is nothing to do with the MCA. On the other hand, someone could have a mental health disorder that has had the effect of removing capacity to make certain decisions but is not severe enough to warrant a deprivation of liberty under the MHA. In that case the MCA could come into play.
I hope you found that as interesting as I did, and I’m sorry if there are any parts I’ve not explained very clearly. 
* I don’t know if you remember but in the USA there was a spate of stories about people who had undergone CPR suing those who tried to save them for assault (because CPR frequently results in broken ribs and bruising), the MCA now protects those in the UK from the same threat of legal action as long as the action is clearly in the persons without capacities best interests.

An Intersectional Look At The Social Model

Today I want to look at the social model of disability and primarily how closely it intersects (overlaps) with feminist theory.

“In our view it is society which disables physically impaired people. Disability is something imposed on top of our impairments by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation in society.” UPIAS (Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation) statement from 1975

The Social Model in a nut shell

The social model of disability states that people with impairments are disabled not by their impairments (as the medical model states) but that they are disabled by the directly & indirectly inaccessible world we live in. The key to understanding the social model is understanding how impairments are different from disability. Within the social model any medical condition is called an impairment – a chronic health condition, a amputation, a denigrative disease, a mental health disorder, being non-neurological, a genetic condition or anything else that causes a body &/or mind to deviate from the “norm”. A impairment can have a variety of effects on a person which take varying amounts of energy to cope with. Some may barely notice an impairment others may feel it’s presence constantly and often overwhelmingly.

As mentioned in the quote above, disability is something imposed on top of those impairments. It’s being given a wheelchair to use but not being able to get it into shops because of poor accessibility. It’s being looked over for a job because of societal stigma about mental health. It’s being expected to live below the poverty line and lie for 12 hours daily in your urine because society thinks you don’t deserve more.

How does that all intersect with feminism?

One of the ideas in the social model is that because people with impairments do not fit our societies idea of normality they are treated less favourably, oppressed and forced out by society. This is done by stigmatising people with impairments, institutionalising them, sterilising them, refusing to educate them, abusing them, euthanising them and perniciously by ignoring them.

A quote from Rosemarie Garland-Thompson will hopefully tie this up;

“Female, disabled and dark bodies are supposed to be dependant, incomplete, vulnerable, and incompetent bodies. Femininity and race are performances of disability. Women and the disabled are portrayed as helpless, dependant, weak, vulnerable and incapable bodies.”

Feminism has long argued that the world we live in is a Patriarchy where overwhelmingly the voices of people in power are male because societal norms, values and cultures are set up to favour them. Being “male” becomes the norm which “female” bodies deviate from. In this way the oppression women face (as well as that faced by black & minority ethnic/ people of colour and LGBTIQ people is) comes from a similar place. Whilst the effects obviously vary, we are oppressed by not meeting the hidden arbitrary societal norm.

There are lots of ways that both feminist and disability issues intersect and that arguments from both sides can be strengthened if they are looked at together. I’ll give a example now by looking at one way that medicalisation of “difference to the normal” has been used to as a tool of oppression.

We can see  the normal actions and behaviours of female bodies have been pathologised throughout history because they deviate from the masculine norm. They have been thought of as hysterical, over/under indulgent, intellectually impaired and a host of other things. Today feminist theory would argue that the unnecessary medicalisation of the normal effects of hormones for example has been used as a social (and physical) tool to oppress women. We see the same when we look at how people with bodily differences are labelled as defective, deficient, freaks, subnormal, pitiable, eternally child-like, incapable and so on. Disability rights activists argue that impairments are normal and natural things which shouldn’t be automatically associated with any of the words listed previously. The same way that feminists would rightly argue that calling a woman who is publicly experiencing emotions as defective (hysterical) is problematic the same can be said about those who label those who were born with one foot as defective (cripples).

By looking at these issues together, and going further to include racial, trans* and sexuality critiques we start moving towards the the root of the issue; the oppression of those who deviate from a hidden ideal of normality (commonly thought to be a white, cisgendered, heterosexual, non-disabled man). 

UK Disabled Women Talking To The UN

The UK is signed up to a UN human rights convention called CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women). Every few years in the UK an independent organisation called The Women’s Resource Centre compiles a “Shadow Report” to highlight areas they believe the UK is either failing or succeeding in implementing CEDAW. Part of CEDAW is making sure that disabled women’s human rights are maintained.

Two representatives from the disabled women’s cooperative Sisters of Frida are in Geneva as I type to help deliver the Shadow Report and to present details to the UN. I’ve copied the information from their press release bellow if you’d like to know more.

” It is essential that disabled women are represented in processes like CEDAW reporting as too often our experience as disabled women is invisible, this is an opportunity to change this and show how the cuts and legal changes are affecting us”

says Zara Todd, Sisters of Frida steering group member.

For the first time, disabled women (Sisters of Frida) will take part with other women’s groups from the UK in Geneva to address the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) so as to highlight the problems impacting on women’s equality in the UK and what our Government must be examined on, and held to account over, by the UN. This is a unique opportunity for women to raise the key issues they are facing with the UN and the eyes of the world will be on the UK and their progress on women.

On July 17th the UK’s record on women’s rights will come under the spotlight internationally as the UK Government report to CEDAW on their progress. (They were last examined by the UN Committee in 2008. )

Women’s rights in the UK have come to a standstill and in fact some are being reversed. Government policies and austerity measures are disproportionately impacting on disabled women and the rights that were fought so hard by disabled people for are now being reduced. CEDAW is as an important instrument to disabled women as CRPD is important to disabled people and they are inter related.

The Women’s Resource Centre has coordinated a network of organisations across the UK who have produced a detailed shadow report which reflects on the Government’s report to CEDAW which was submitted in 2011. In October 2012 the CEDAW Working Group sent a list of key issues and suggested questions for the Committee to ask the Government to highlight the extent of discrimination against women in the UK which the Government gave a piecemeal response to in February 2013.

The shadow report – Women’s Equality in the UK: A health check – brings together issues impacting on the realisation of women’s rights under CEDAW in the UK in order to support the Government to make positive changes in the future.  These are the recommendations put forth in the shadow report on disabled women’s rights

  • Take into account the intersection of gender and disability and mainstream disabled women in all Government policies
  • Implement an effective data collection system which is disaggregated by sex, age, disability and region, which can inform the developmentof policies and programmes to promote equal opportunities forwomen and girls with disabilities
  • Specific strategies are needed to target disabled LBT women as they experience multiple discrimination through homophobia within disabled communities and services, and negative attitudes to disabled people in LGB&T communities and services

On health and social care

  • Take steps to address the poor health conditions of women withpsychosocial disabilities. Disabled women typically receive healthservices that are targeted at women in general or at disabled people in general, services need to be targeted specifically for them
  • Improving access to mental health services for disabled women must be accomplished by services that respect the right of disabled womento make their own choices, in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
  • Allocate more financial resources to Social Service Departments,requiring them to use the interpretations of the social model of disability when assessing disabled people’s support needs for a ‘care package’
  • Ensure women and girls with disabilities are educated about sexual and reproductive health, including Sexually Transmitted Infections and maternal services and adopt reforms to improve healthcare services and facilities, including in respect of sexual and reproductive health

Political and public life

  • Educate media about the discrimination disabled people experience, and encourage them to report the ‘real’ stories including monitoring the portrayal of women with disabilities in the media alongside industry self-regulation
  • The UK Government should offer extra support for disabled women who want to become MPs, councillors or other elected officials to tackle their under-representation in public policy

Economic and social benefits

  • Simplify the application process to the benefits system. Most importantly, the system should recognise that disabled people are experts on their needs and the difficulties they face. The benefits should allow for them to remove the barriers they experience on a daily basis

Disability hate crime and violence against disabled women

  • Ensure steps are taken to address the heightened risk for girls and women with disabilities of becoming victims of violence, abuse,exploitation and harmful practices, such as forced marriage, in thehome, community and institutions
  • Effective legislation and policies must be put in place, including Women – focused legislation and policies that include disability, to ensure that instances of exploitation, violence and abuse against women with disabilities are identified, investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted
  • Ensure that both services and information for victims are madeaccessible to women and girls with disabilities which guarantee their access to redress and protection, including training of police and others and increasing the number of accessible domestic abuse refuge services

Rural women

  • Increase accessibility in public transport, and train bus/train staff to assist disabled women travelers

“We believe that the way the UK Government is implementing welfare reform is having a significant and vastly disproportionate effect on disabled women. These policies on welfare reform are failing to ensure the rights of disabled women and impact assessments are not carried out properly resulting in erosion of the rights which they currently have. The regression of human rights being conducted against UK citizens in the name of welfare has a disproportionate and exponential impact on disabled people. The changes to legal aid means that disabled women have no recourse to support against the discriminations further compounded by gender, race, sexual orientation, the class system, and underlying social deprivation,”

says Eleanor Lisney, Co-ordinator of Sisters of Frida, together with the Glasgow Disability Alliance (who also submitted a report to CEDAW )

The Appendix 36: General Recommendation 18 – Disabled women is at http://thewomensresourcecentre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Appendix-36_General-Recommendation-18_Disabled-women_FINAL2.pdf (PDF)

Word doc Appendix-36_General-Recommendation-18_Disabled-women_FINAL2

The full shadow report Women’s Equality in the UK: A health check is at http://thewomensresourcecentre.org.uk/our-work/cedaw/cedaw-shadow-report/

For more information or interviews contact Zara Todd : zaraltodd@hotmail.com 0044 (0) 07952185958 and follow @FridasSisters (twitter), information about other groups from

Women Resource Centre Policy Officer Charlotte Gage,  charlotte@wrc.org.uk or charlotte.gage.uk@gmail.com 0044 (0) 7841508231 @womnsresource

Notes to editors

Sisters of Frida (sisofrida.org) is an experimental co operative of disabled and allied women seeking a new way of sharing experiences, mutual support and relationships with different networks.

The delegation to Geneva is made up of a variety of women’s organisations from around the UK who will be highlighting specific issues relevant to their work and the women they work with as well as bringing issues from organisations in the UK who are unable to attend.

Members of the delegation include:

Committee on the Administration of Justice (Northern Ireland)
Engender (Scotland)
National Alliance of Women’s Organisations
North East Women’s Network
Northern Ireland Women’s European Platform
Older Women’s Network Europe
Sisters of Frida
Southall Black Sisters
Wales Assembly of Women
Women’s Resource Centre

There are also representatives from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Scottish Human Rights Commission and Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission attending to provide evidence in their roles as National Human Rights Institutions.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: