Each action distils the collective responses to questions asked in the online public consultation conducted by genSET in conjunction with the 1st European Gender Summit. As such, it complements the consensus recommendations of: a) the genSET Science Leaders Panel1, b) the DG Research, Innovation and Science Expert Group on Structural Change in Research Institutions2, and c) the Gendered Innovations project3.

The Manifesto elaborates the question included in the earlier EC public consultation on the Green Paper - “What actions should be taken at EU level to further strengthen the role of women in science and innovation?” - in order to focus attention on twenty-five years of research demonstrating how gender impacts the quality of research and innovation.

Over 300 individuals participated in the online consultation. These contributions were presented and discussed at the First European Gender Summit in Brussels, attended by over 400 stakeholders.

This Manifesto is a work in progress to be advanced through evidence based actions and cooperation between scientists, policy makers and gender research scholars.

Remise de l'Ordre du Canada au Dr Henry Morgentaler pour sa contribution aux droits de femmes du pays - Appel à la Gouverneure générale du Canada de maintenir cette décision historique symbolique.

Florida already offers an anti-choice plate entitiled "Choose Life" that has raised over $4 million in revenue for anti-choice clinics.

To get a proposed license to pass through the legislature a representative sample must be collected indicating 30,000 licensed Florida drivers intend to purchase the plate.

Overwhelmingly, the perpetrators of these acts are men, who direct their violence at women simply because they are women. It should be very clear, then, that women who escape from these situations of torture and abuse have very specific needs that require women-centred and women-led services: it is an uncomplicated question of providing safety, support, dignity and humanity to women who have suffered horrifically at the hands of men.
 
In awarding the contract to run Poppy Project services to the Salvation Army, a generic service provider with lacking specialist skills, training or recognition of trafficking for domestic servitude and sexual exploitation as a gendered issue, the Government is surely failing in its duty to address violence against women as upheld internationally by the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Such a blatant negation of the value and importance of women-centred services is not only disappointing – it is dangerous.

We want an explanation from the MoJ as to why a non-specialist service-provider was awarded the Poppy Project contract, and we want confirmation that trafficked women will not suffer as a result. Further, we want the MoJ to recognise the services that women-led organisations provide, and to affirm its understanding of trafficking for sexual exploitation as violence against women issue.
 

Solicitor Rebekah Carrier describes the Cap as ‘catastrophic, cruel and arbitrary’.

In Parliament, the Early Day Motion sponsored by John McDonnell MP calls on the government to lift the cap to protect current and potential victims of domestic violence. The government has been forced to respond to the many objections and since 10 April, some women in refuges and hostels are protected, but the majority – like the mothers and children in the legal challenge – are not.

For more information about the petition contact WAR
Tel: 020 7482 2496 war@womenagainstrape.net

About the legal challenge: Rebekah Carrier, Hopkin Murray Beskine. Tel: 020 7272 1234 www.hmbsolicitors.co.uk

• One third of women have suffered domestic violence. Every week two women are killed by partners or ex-partners, in England and Wales.

• The Benefit Cap limits a family’s total benefit to £500 per week, including rent and Child Benefit. Extortionate rents, including for some refuges and hostels, leave mothers and children with little or no income to live on.

• A test case is being fought in court on behalf of families impoverished by the Benefit Cap after escaping violence. So far, there is no exemption from the Cap for victims of violence.

• Many victims of violence are unable to get a job immediately or to move to a cheaper area – they need to stay close to friends and relatives for support, and time to recover and to reassure distressed children.

Women Against Rape was among the groups demonstrating at the High Court in October. We heard in court what the mothers and children have gone through, including living for years in run-down housing.

They are represented by Rebekah Carrier of Hopkin Murray Beskine, who describes the Cap as catastrophic, cruel and arbitrary:

"Two of the families have fled domestic violence in circumstances where they were financially reliant upon their abusive partners, and they now face a stark choice between descending further into poverty and risking losing their homes, or returning to their abusers in order to escape the imposition of the cap."

Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape says:

“We call on the government to put the safety of women and children first by lifting the Benefit Cap so no one is trapped in a violent a relationship where they risk injury, trauma and even death.”

Girls under the age of 18, in particular, have been subjected to extremely brutal treatment.

Too many minors have been forced into marriage to become a child bride with no means to escape their fate. Too many have been muted by family members or spouses when trying to voice their objection. Time and time again, this has ended in the murder of our girls, whether by their families or by their spouse.
It’s time to put an end to this horror.

Laws have been created to penalize and punish the criminals “after the fact”, but not enough laws to prevent such heinous crimes from occurring before it can even start.

We need a law that will prevent parents from forcing their daughters into marriage before the age of 18 and religious leaders from having the right to perform marriages of minors under 18 as well. This should be punishable by the courts for both parties.

Carers are impoverished. Income Support is being abolished. Child Benefit, society’s commitment to children, is no longer universal. Carer’s Allowance is insultingly low and most carers don’t even qualify. 200,000 care workers are denied the minimum wage.

When mothers are impoverished, children suffer: hunger, ill-health, and more often taken into care.

Mothers are told they are ‘workless’ and that earning is more important than caring. They are pushed into jobs regardless of hours, pay or childcare provision. The right to have children is being challenged.

Mothers are forced into unpaid work to ‘earn’ their benefits (‘workfare’). ‘Workfare’ bypasses the minimum wage, driving down all wages, especially women’s, and undermining pay equity.

Having to fit caring around jobs results in overwork, exhaustion and ill-health. Grandparents must often leave retirement to help.

Employed mothers (or fathers) who take time off to care for children or relatives, lose pay, promotion and future pension.

When caring work is devalued, people, relationships and life itself are devalued. The result is inequity and social neglect, but also environmental destruction and war.

Demanding time and resources for caring aims to redirect economic and social policies towards people and the planet, and away from the uncaring market.

Petition background

An estimated 100 to 140 million girls and women in the world today have undergone some form of female genital mutilation, and 2 million girls are at risk from the practice each year. The great majority of affected women live in sub-Saharan Africa. It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person's rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

The practice is mostly carried out by traditional circumcisers, who often play other central roles in communities, such as attending childbirths. However, more than 18% of all FGM is performed by health care providers, and this trend is increasing.

Background of FGM in East Africa
In Kenya, evidence from the Kenya Demographic and Health Surveys (KDHS) shows that, in 2008/9, 27% of women had undergone FGM. The practice has remained highest among the Somali (97%), Kisii (96%), Kuria (96%) and the Maasai (93
In Uganda, the Sabiny, Pokot and Tepeth communities continue to practice FGM which is deeply rooted in tradition.

In Tanzania Female Genital Mutilation is traditionally performed on women. The most affected areas include Arusha, Kilimamnjaro, Dodoma, Singida, Mara and Morogoro regions,other regions include Iringa, Mbeya, and Zanzibar. According to Tanzania health statistics, FGM affects 18 percent of the female population in Tanzania.

No health benefits, only harm

FGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways. It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls' and women's bodies.

Immediate complications can include severe pain, shock, hemorrhage (bleeding), tetanus or sepsis (bacterial infection), urine retention, open sores in the genital region and injury to nearby genital tissue.

Long-term consequences can include:
- Recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections;
- Cysts;
- Infertility;
- An increased risk of childbirth complications and newborn deaths;
- The need for later surgeries.

For example, the FGM procedure that seals or narrows a vaginal opening (type 3 above) needs to be cut open later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth. Sometimes it is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing and repeated both immediate and long-term risks.