You are here:   Columns >  Open Season > Worst for Women
 

Then there is the wilful refusal of the party to investigate one of its own MPs despite allegations of serious professional misconduct. Mike Hancock, MP for Portsmouth South, was approached by a vulnerable constituent in 2009 for help with her housing problems. Over the following months he began to see her regularly, bought her gifts and once took her out to dinner at the House of Commons, all of which he admits. Hancock also admitted to sending "sexy" text messages to the constituent, who suffers from mental health problems. One read: "Please give me a chance you never know my princess XXX". Hancock was arrested by Hampshire Police in October 2010 but the Crown Prosecution Service later decided that there was insufficient evidence to charge him.

Even though only seven of the 57 Lib Dem MPs are women, Clegg opposes all-women shortlists. (The Tories have 49 out of 306.) The Lib Dems set up a Campaign for Gender Balance nine years ago but it has been a relative failure compared to Labour's all-women shortlists or the Tory A-list. (This may be why the party took so long to expel the Lib Dem peer Jenny Tonge for her anti-Semitic ranting.) At the 2009 Speaker's conference on making parliament more representative, Clegg suggested the problem was not the selection process as such, but the fact that not enough women were coming forward in the first place. Is it any wonder, with the policies the party has adopted? 

The stark reality is that the Lib Dems face the prospect of having no female MPs at all after the next election if their current poll ratings do not improve, because five of the seven represent marginal constituencies. Would that really make any difference? They hold a skewed idea of personal freedom and liberty, and claim that it is beneficial to everyone. What they refuse to acknowledge, however, is that women and girls who face sexual violence desperately need state intervention and tough law and order responses both to feel and to be safe.

The party says it stands for "the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals". But it is the freedom of men rather than women that is prioritised. Any rights of the individual must include effective public remedies against private violence. The Liberal Democrats are the last party to recognise this truth.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Anonymous
May 2nd, 2012
1:05 PM
"the men, who let's face it, can't exactly be entirely happy with their lives" Wow. What a classic example of the idiotic 'But what about the poor MEN?' response to any article about women's rights. We're not talking about women being unhappy with their lives. We're talking about them being abused, raped, objectified, mutilated, exploited and murdered. Get a grip, Hugh.

Hugh
April 5th, 2012
3:04 PM
Tough law! Yes, Julie, tough law. What young women really need is to be criminalised and stigmatised for their career choices. Similarly, the men, who let's face it, can't exactly be entirely happy with their lives, let's criminalise and stigmatise them too. That's really beneficial to society as a whole, isn't it? Well, no, actually, I don't think it is. Paying for sex and accepting payment for sex is legal. The legal profession hasn't seen fit to make it illegal and I'm sure it would have if there were the slightest excuse. There isn't. What is truly harmful to men, women and society is unnecessarily criminalising people and, in so doing, ruining their lives. It seems that the author positively in favour of continuing with these failed policies and, indeed, making them even more oppressive. She is, in fact, in favour of causing the kind of damage, and worse, that she claims to be fighting. I hope she is merely naive, unable to understand the consequences of her demands and not ideologically in favour of actively harming people.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.