Reports of Legal Action for Women Self-Help Workshops

Freedom of movement in towns and cities: unjust parking fines and charges vs  accessible and affordable public transport, Thursday 26th June 15 people attended.  Niki Adams introduced the workshop describing how LAW was increasingly being contacted by women opposing unjust parking fines.  People were frustrated that their particular circumstances were not being taken into account and with the extortionate sums of money demanded which was causing severe financial hardship to people on benefits or other low income.

Claire Glasman from WinVisible (women with visible and invisible disabilities) described how low-income people with disabilities, especially women who have less money and are more at risk of violence, are having to choose between public transport which is generally inaccessible, unsafe and expensive, alternative schemes such as Dial-a-Ride or Taxicard which are rationed or unreliable, and penalties imposed by increasingly tight parking controls.  Running a car may also be essential because of the caring work women do, for example, to take your children to school if you are a mother with a mobility disability.

Ms Glasman said that there used to be understanding for those who contested a ticket on grounds of disability.  However, privatisation has resulted in wardens working to targets and local authorities’ prioritizing making money from parking controls, and this has meant unsympathetic or even brutal treatment of people.  Ms Glasman described how the disability Blue Badge is not recognised in central London and asked whether that means that people with disabilities are not meant to travel out of their own borough.

Rachel Burley from LAW briefly outlined the procedure which must be followed to appeal parking tickets and in particular described at what stage representations can be made to get tickets cancelled, including in court. 

She described a precedent-setting case of a man with a disability who challenged the parking tickets he received on the grounds that the restriction on his liberty to park was an interference with his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.  He also challenged the regulations which say that parking adjudicators cannot take into consideration people’s particular circumstances on the grounds that this denied him the right to a fair trial.  The court rejected these arguments but reiterated the principle that local authorities should cancel a parking ticket “where there is satisfactory evidence that the penalty charge should be waived on well defined compassionate grounds”, and that “every authority has a duty to exercise its discretion in relation to parking penalties only to pursue charges if it is appropriate to do so. In this context it is well established that the purpose of traffic management orders is traffic management and not the raising of money.”  Ms Burley concluded that as a result of this and other precedents there was clearly greater scope to challenge the hasty and often brutal decisions by local authorities to impose parking fines.

She also stressed that there may be a case that could be brought under the Human Rights Act on the grounds that people’s right to freedom of travel is being denied because people who are dependent on their cars cannot park near their destination, and are left with the choice of parking further away than they can manage to walk and ending up exhausted and in pain, or give up and go away. 

Kay Chapman described how she organized with her neighbours against a controlled parking zone being imposed in her area.  She spoke about how older people and people with disabilities were particularly affected because friends and relatives no longer felt able to visit or would only pop in because they couldn’t afford the ongoing cost of paying for parking outside her house. Home helps and other carers often curtailed their visits for the same reason.  The councils say they issue permits but home helps dispute this and say where they are issued they have to pay for them themselves. Many have been ticketed while on duty.

People were very encouraged by Ms Burley’s presentation in particular, and the resulting lively discussion came up with a number of practical strategies for people’s individual cases.  

People had questions about the powers of bailiffs and described how councils use the threat of bailiffs to bully people into paying tickets which they had good reasons to contest. 

Other women with disabilities described how the local councils accuse them of wilfully incurring tickets or question that they have a disability.  Others described the problem on the one hand of police saying that you must display your disability badges, and on the other hand their publicly quoted admission that thefts of disability badges will continue as long as public transport is not accessible and parking is extortionate.  A man with a disability from Greenwich described how public transport had deteriorated in his area resulting in long, tortuous and expensive journeys.

Where people had been able to get publicity about their case or involve their local MP and councillors they had a greater chance of getting unfair tickets cancelled. 

We finished with renewed determination to defend the right of women with disabilities and the right of others to travel around, to have a social life, relationships, etc.  To be penalised for this is discrimination and it must be opposed.  We agreed to write to NACAB to correct some information in their leaflet on fighting parking fines and prepare a self-help leaflet on challenging parking tickets.

Defending children’s right to non-segregated, multi-dimensional education, Tuesday 8th July About twenty women and men attended this successful workshop.  Participants included people from Refugee Education Support teams in London, Leonard Cheshire (international section), Ay Family Campaign, Unison, Women Against Rape, Payday and No School Apartheid (NSA).

After an introduction by Nina Lopez-Jones, Niki Adams, LAW’s Chair, gave an overview of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum (NI&A) Act which included the clause which would segregate the children of asylum seekers away from mainstream education.  She spoke briefly about LAW’s support work with No School Apartheid, a mother-led campaign, which includes parents and other carers, asylum seekers, teachers, unions, people in the Church, etc. NSA with LAW’s help had organised two very successful lobbies in the Lords and the Commons. Kay Chapman (NSA) (pictured left) described how they started.  Her children’s school has many children originating from war zones.  Parents and teachers knew that the legislation was divisive.  NSA started a letter campaign to MPs, which quickly spread around the country, to parents and teachers defending children in their schools.  NSA was invited to the T&G Annual Conference, and met with Camden NUT.  Ms Chapman read from a number of head teachers’ heartfelt letters of support that stressed the contribution of asylum seeker children to their schools.

Michael Kalmanovitz (Payday) described how the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child could be used to oppose the detention of children.    He quoted from a number of sources to show that Local Education Authorities (LEA) would not be responsible or accountable for the standard of education in accommodation centres.

Claire Montgomery, an advisory teacher for refugee children, outlined the legal obligations on local education authorities to educate the children of asylum seekers and their responsibilities to those in detention centres and accommodation centres.  She explained that LEAs wait to see if asylum seeker children are detained, “dispersed” or deported before considering a school place.  It isn’t known how many children are in detention centres, nor for how long.  A number of NUT branches have resolved that members should not work in accommodation centres. Nina Lopez-Jones reported on a Tottenham school where teachers are publicising the “disappearance” of children.  Zizu Mengistab (pictured top), who has just won refugee status, described how her daughter lost a year of schooling by being illegally denied a school place. 

Sarah Parker (Ay Family campaign) gave an in-depth account of how Mrs Ay, a Kurdish woman with four children, despite having lived in the community for three years and the children having gone to a local school, are all now in a detention centre.  They have been there almost a year: conditions are terrible, the children aren’t being educated and are depressed.  The judge ruled that a strong immigration policy outweighed the needs of the children.  LAW offered their support and stressed the importance of publicising that because of legal technicalities the full case has never been heard in court and insisting that the family has the right to a proper hearing.

There was a very lively discussion about the responsibility of LEAs, the teaching unions and voluntary organisations to support asylum seeker children.  It was agreed to contact teaching union branches that are campaigning for mainstream education for asylum seeker children; to follow up on the international human rights conventions that protect children; to encourage in particular children’s charities and bishops to support and publicise the plight of children in detention.  People were encouraged to remain in touch to support each others’ work.

Defending the Right to Dissent & Protest, Tuesday 15th July.

Thirty women and men representing a range of justice organisations as well as a number of individuals attended.  Nina Lopez-Jones introduced the workshop.

Brian Haw who started a peace camp in Parliament Square over two years ago in protest at sanctions and now war in Iraq, described Westminster Council’s attempts to evict him.  But the courts have upheld his right to protest in the Square, acknowledging that his protest concerned an issue of national importance and focused appropriately on Parliament where decisions are made.  Michael Schwarz (pictured above left speaking), Mr Haw’s lawyer from Bindman’s Solicitors which has worked with LAW since 1981, explained how they used the Human Rights Act to win this precedent-setting case which overrides other statutes restricting dissent, and protects individuals acting in groups and alone.

Maria Gallastegui and her daughter who help Mr Haw sustain his continuous protest with food, laundry and other vital services, explained why they do this support work for him.  Ms Gallastegui also described her community organising on a very racially mixed “no-go” estate to counter the prejudice estate people faced, which is often used to dismiss what they have to say and to contribute.

The twice-weekly community picket and open mike run by women from the Global Women’s Strike (GWS), also on Parliament Square to protest the war and occupation of Iraq, has also prevented several attempts to close it down. The women have been able to rely on the earlier precedent, and on gathering support from the public and some MPs including with a press conference in the House of Commons.

Maggie Ronayne (pictured above right speaking) from the National University of Ireland reported on the case of a woman peace protestor charged with criminal damage to a war plane.  The jury failed to reached a verdict.  A woman who had lived at Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp described how the women had set new legal standards by defending themselves in court, often successfully.

Chris Coverdale from Legal Action Against War compellingly described efforts to prosecute named politicians for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes using the International Criminal Court and the Geneva Convention.  He said that the atrocities in Iraq were clearly grounds for prosecution.  A suggestion to issue a petition was accepted. 

A woman from the Yarlswood asylum seekers support group sought advice from the workshop on what to do about the judge in the case threatening campaigners with contempt of court for demonstrating outside.  Niki Adams (LAW) described a similar experience and stressed the importance of not being intimidated and upholding our right to protest.  What happens in court is often greatly influenced by public opinion and it is crucial that campaigners are not deterred from publicising the case and gathering support.

Protestors who had been at Fairford military base sent information.  Their civil right to dissent had been severely infringed when they attempted to picket the base.  A woman who participated in the 2002 Mayday protests gave an update on their case against false imprisonment.

People described feeling nervous about attending pickets and demonstrations especially since the police had started using the tactic of detaining people for hours.  However, armed with precise information about their rights from the workshop, they felt encouraged to continue to exercise their right to protest.