LONDON (WOMENSENEWS)–Confronted by the first drop in the number of women elected to the House of Commons in 20 years, British lawmakers have passed a bill to reinstate a previously banned election procedure that favors female candidates for seats in Parliament.

The bill would allow Britain’s political parties to mandate women-only so-called shortlists–the lists of candidates for the House of Commons put forth to party members in the British equivalent of primary elections. A brief experiment with all-women shortlists in the mid-1990s helped elect a record 120 women to the Commons in 1997, up from 60 five years earlier. But by then the practice had already been ruled illegal.

A law professor and disappointed office-seeker Peter Jepson successfully challenged the women-only policy in an employment tribunal in Leeds, northeast England; following last June’s elections, the number of women in the Commons slipped to 118 out of 659 members.

The bill, which received the support of all political parties and moved rapidly through Parliament, revises British sex-discrimination laws to allow the parties to impose forms of “positive discrimination” that are illegal if practiced by private companies. It passed its final vote in Parliament on Jan. 28 and now awaits only the assent of the queen. Under a sunset clause in the bill, its provisions would lapse in 2015, probably after three elections for Commons seats.

“When asked, ‘Why not do more to reduce inequality in representation of women and men in Parliament?’ we have been able to hide behind the Jepson case, which has cast a legal shadow over positive measures,” said Stephen Byers MP, Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. “But with this measure on the statute book, there would be no hiding place for political parties.”

Bill May Face Court Challenge from Male Office-Seeker

Candy Atherton, member of parliament for Falmouth and Camborne constituency, is the first person ever selected off an all-woman shortlist and one of the most vocal advocates of reinstating the practice. “I wouldn’t even have been called in for an interview if men had been in the race,” she said. “A couple of local men just assumed they were going to get the nomination.”

But Jepson prepared to take his party to court again, this time under European Union law. “I’m not at odds with the Labour Party over the inadequate representation of women in Parliament,” he said. “But there is nothing positive about discrimination.”

He said his preferred solution is “twinning,” in which two constituencies combine to select a pair of candidates, one male, one female. In 1999, twinning led to women winning 37 percent of the seats in the Scottish Parliament and 41 percent of those in the Welsh Assembly.

While offering no real opposition to the bill permitting women-only shortlists, leaders of the opposition Conservative Party indicated they would not implement the policy. Instead, they plan to create training programs for women considering public office and to use polling data to try to persuade local officials to back promising women candidates.

“I can’t imagine the Conservative Party going to women-only shortlists,” said Caroline Spelman member of parliament for Meriden, and the Tory spokeswoman on international development and women’s affairs.

Anne Widdecombe MP, a defeated candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party who remains influential, said that a policy of women-only shortlists would deny men’s human rights and would be patronizing and demeaning to women.

“It would create two groups of women MPs,” she said, “one who could look everyone from the prime minister down in the eye, and the other that got there because of special favors. I wouldn’t find that helpful. I’d find it humiliating.”

Britain and the United States Lag Behind in Electing Female Lawmakers

Widdecombe said she is confident that the gender balance in Parliament will shift when the generation of women who grew up in the 1980s–when 10 Downing Street seemed the exclusive property of Margaret Thatcher–enter their 40s and 50s and start to move into politics.

But Byers said the Labour Party supported a more interventionist approach to correct the longstanding imbalance of power. “Relying on improvements to be made without direct intervention has been tried before and has failed,” he said. “It was that view that meant that in 1945 there were 24 women members of the House of Commons, and almost 40 years later in 1983, four years after the first female prime minister was elected, there were 23–hardly an encouraging statistic that supports the argument for ‘biding one’s time.'”

Britain ranks 36th among world parliaments for the percentage of women sitting in its lower house. Eighteen percent of its members are women, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union rankings, while the U.S. House of Representatives ranks 49th with 14 percent, the global average. At the top of the list of 179 countries are the Nordic and Germanic states, with Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Iceland and Germany taking the first seven spots.

In several Latin American countries, notably Argentina, parties are required by law to meet a quota of women candidates. The 74th amendment to India’s Constitution in 1993 reserved a third of the seats in village councils for women. In France, a law requiring that women’s names fill three out of every six slots on slates for municipal office resulted in women winning nearly 48 percent of the seats in city governments last summer.

Full equality may be on hold in Britain. Labor’s national executive committee announced on Jan. 30 that it would drop its goal of having 50-50 representation after the next election, aiming for 35 percent instead.

“We still have an aspiration of 50 percent of women MPs, but you have to be realistic about these things,” a party spokesman said. “We would have to have something like 140 MPs retire or die to get 50 percent at the next election.”

Paul Rodgers is a freelance Canadian journalist based in London. He has written for The Economist, New Scientist, and The Independent, among other publications.

For more information:

The Inter-Parliamentary Union:
http://www.ipu.org

Caroline Spelman MP:
http://www.carolinespelman.com

Peter Jepson:
http://www.peterjepson.com

Human Rights Official Alarmed Over Response to Mexican Murders

By Laurence Pantin
WEnews correspondent

MEXICO CITY (WOMENSENEWS)–An international human rights official investigating the murders of more than 200 women in a Mexican city bordering Texas said she is disappointed by the slow pace of official response to the crimes.

“It’s unquestionable that there’s a definite degree of negligence,” said Marta Altolaguirre, Special Rapporteur on Women’s Rights for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the institution charged by the Organization of American States’ Charter with monitoring human rights in the Western Hemisphere. “Obviously, there hasn’t been the necessary resolution to investigate these cases.”

Altolaguirre’s remarks came on Wednesday as she concluded a two-day visit to Mexico to analyze the status of women’s rights in Ciudad Juarez, where 268 women, many of them very young workers in “maquiladoras,” or foreign-owned assembly plants, have been murdered since 1993. A number were raped or beaten and then strangled before being dumped in a field, their hands tied behind their backs. About 90 of them were found mutilated or tortured, suggesting that some of the crimes could be serial murders.

The motives for the murders are obscure. Theories include drug or organ trafficking or the use of the women in the filming of so-called snuff movies that feature the sexual assault and murder of women.

Laurence Pantin is a Women’s Enews correspondent based in Mexico.