This Week in Women's Rights - 'A Bunny's Tale'

This Week's Historical Theme: Women's Rights

 

1 May 1963

A significant event throughout the history of women's rights that occurred in May was Gloria Steinem's publication of "A Bunny's Tale". After her brief but shocking time undercover as a Bunny in Manhattan's Playboy Club, feminist writer, Gloria Steinem published the first half of her landmark account, "A Bunny's Tale", in SHOW magazine on 1 May 1963. Steinem was commissioned by SHOW to apply for a job at the Playboy Club under a fake name and document her experience. The servers at the clubs were known as "Bunnies" and were made to wear a highly sexualised bunny uniform trademark of the Playboy brand. Her brilliant exposé stripped back the glamorous facade of Hugh Hefner's Playboy empire at the height of its influence, revealing the strife misogyny and exploitation of young women.

Steinem quickly learned the truth was far removed from the glamorous way in which it was depicted. Bunnies were paid far less than the advertised $200-$300 per week, the club took 50% of the first $30 they made in tips, and they had to comply to a harsh system of demerits which amounted to salary reduction. These demerits could be given for offenses such as refusing to go out with a customer in a rude way, or allowing the cotton tail on the back of their uniforms to get dirty. The Bunnies were also subject to constant harassment by the clientele and in some accounts, were pressured into going out with "Number One keyholders" who were exclusive members of the club. Though Hefner tried to take the exposé in his stride, claiming applications to work the Playboy Club had increased after its publication, it was merely the first of many feminist attacks on the male-centric Playboy lifestyle that exploited and objectified women.

Want to find out more about Gloria Steinem's exposé? Click here for more information, or here for more about feminism in the 60s and 70s.

Issues of Hijab in France - Macron’s ‘Anti-Separatism’ Bill

Conflict between the French state and French Muslims has been a key area of contention throughout the country's history. Indeed, France is notorious for its various bans against Muslim women's religious clothing in a bid to curb the growing influence of Islam in what they wish to be a secular nation. However, these bans have a longstanding history of leading to an onslaught of controversy and debate. Whilst those who support restrictions on the Islamic veil argue that it opposes the principle of laïcité- or religious neutrality- those against restrictions feel that they discriminate against, and even violate the rights of, Muslims in France, since they limit their freedom to practice their religion in public.

Nowadays, the discussion surrounding the hijab in France is constantly growing more heated; it is likely that this is due to the most recent laws that are being debated at this very moment. Last month, the French Senate voted to approve an amendment banning Muslim women under the age of 18 from wearing the hijab anywhere in public. A second amendment would ban parents from participating in school trips and activities with their children if they are dressed in religious clothing. The ban was proposed by a group of senators from the conservative Republican Party (LR) and the European Democratic and Social Rally group (RDSE). It is true that the ban is not yet law, with France's National Assembly required to sign off on it before it can take effect; however, opposition to the amendment arose instantly, with some suggesting the proposed rule amounted to a "law against Islam".

The French Senate's move comes as part of the country's push to introduce a so-called "anti-separatism" bill, which it says aims to reinforce the policies of secularism and religious neutrality. However, the bill faces widespread criticism from those who argue that it singles out the minority Muslim population. Police would effectively be given the right to harass Muslims- and virtually anyone- wearing clothing deemed inappropriate by the ambiguous wording of the bill. Whilst some say that the bill does not explicitly target the Muslim population- rather, it aims to eradicate all religious symbols from the public sphere- when President Emmanuel Macron first introduced the bill in October 2020, he spoke explicitly about tackling "Islamist separatism," which he described as the French Muslim community's lack of willingness to renounce practicing their religion in public.

Last month, Amnesty International warned that the proposed law posed a "serious attack on rights and freedoms in France", and called for "many problematic provisions" of the bill to be scrapped or amended. The organisation, along with a large number of French Muslims, strongly opposes the ban as it deems it rooted in anti-Islamic sentiment. Now, the issue of the ban is being talked about all over the world, with the hashtag #HandsOffMyHijab circulating widely on social media; Muslims are speaking out against a law that would restrict their rights to freedom of religious expression.

This Week in Space Exploration - Vladimir Komarov's Death

This Week's Historical Theme: Space Exploration

 

24 April 1967

A significant event throughout the history of space exploration that occurred in April was the death of Soviet cosmonaut, test pilot and aerospace engineer, Colonel Vladimir Komarov. Komarov was testing the spacecraft Soyuz 1 during the space race between the United States and the Soviet Union. After 24 hours and 16 orbits of the earth, Komarov was scheduled to re-enter the atmosphere, but ran into difficulty handling the vessel. It took 2 more orbits around the earth before he could manage re-entry. When Soyuz 1 reached an altitude of 23,000 feet, a parachute was supposed to deploy and bring Komarov safely to earth. However, the lines of the chute had gotten tangled during the re-entry difficulties and there was no back up chute. Komarov plunged to the ground at 144km/h and was killed on impact. This was the first fatality of a space flight.

There was a vast public morning of Vladimir Komarov in Moscow and his ashes were buried in the walls of the Kremlin. Komarov's wife, Valentina, had not been told about the launch of Soyuz 1 until after Komarov was already in orbit and thus didn't get a chance to say goodbye to her husband. Earlier in 1967, the US experienced its own space related tragedy where 3 NASA astronauts in the Apollo program (Gus Grissom, Edward White and Roger Chafee) were killed in a fire during tests on the ground. Despite the dangers, the US and the Soviet Union continued their space exploration program and 2 years later in 1969 the US landed the first man on the moon.

Want to find out more about Soyuz 1? Click here for more information, or here for more about the space race.

This Week in the United States - The Lincoln Assassination

This Week's Historical Theme – The United States

 

14 April 1865

A significant event throughout the history of the United States that occurred in April was Abraham Lincoln's assassination. President Lincoln was shot in the head at Ford's Theatre in Washington DC by actor John Wilkes Booth. Booth initially plotted to capture him and take him to Richmond, the Confederate capital, however on March 20 1865, the day of the planned kidnapping, the president failed to appear at the spot where Booth and his six fellow conspirators lay in wait. Two weeks later, Richmond fell to union forces. In April, with Confederate armies near collapse across the South, Booth hatched a desperate plan to save to save the Confederacy, learning that Lincoln was to attend Ford's Theatre on April 14. He plotted the simultaneous assassination of Lincoln and his two possible successors: Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William H. Seward.

On April 14 at about 10pm, Booth walked into the theatre and up to the presidents box. Lincoln's guard, John Parker, was not there as he had left his post to get a beer. Booth slipped in and shot the president in the back of the head. He jumped to the stage to escape, injuring his leg, and fled on horseback. The other conspirators were captured, except for John Surratt who fled to Canada. The troops finally caught up with Booth on April 26 and killed him. All the captured co-conspirators were killed including John Surratt's mother, Mary Surratt. John Surratt was eventually tracked down in Egypt and brought back to trial, but managed, with the help of clever lawyers, to win an acquittal.

Want to find out more about the Lincoln Assassination? Click here for more information, or here for more about how Presidential Assassinations changed US politics.

This Week in the Cold War - The Rosenbergs

This Week's Historical Theme: The Cold War

April 5 1951

A significant event throughout the history of the Cold War that occurred in April is the sentencing of the Rosenbergs. In the most sensational spy trial in American history, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were sentenced to death, convicted of playing a central role in a spy ring that passed secret data concerning the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. Their role in espionage came to light in a chain of arrests that started with British physicist Klaus Fuchs who was arrested in 1950. He was questioned and his implications eventually led to David Greenglass who pointed the finger at his sister and brother-in-law, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Greenglass later told New York Times journalist Sam Roberts, that he had entered into a deal with the US government, implicating his sister, Ethel, in exchange for his wife's immunity.

After a brief trial in March 1951, they were found guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage, although the couple proclaimed their innocence. The Rosenbergs and their attorneys continued to argue that they were "victims of political hysteria". Humanitarian organisations in the United States and around the world pleaded for leniency, particularly since they were the parents of two young children. The pleas for special consideration were ignored. At their sentencing hearing on April 5 1951, Federal judge Irving R. Kaufman described their crime as "worse than murder" and stated "By your betrayal you undoubtedly have altered the course of history to the disadvantage of our country." He then sentenced them to death and they were executed on June 19 1953 making them the only spies executed during the Cold War. Whether they were guilty or not has been in dispute for more than half a century.

Want to find out more about why the Rosenbergs were executed? Click here for more information, or here for more about espionage in the Cold War.

This Week in the United States - The 15th Amendment

This Week's Historical Theme: The United States

30 March 1870

A significant event throughout the history of the United States that occurred in March was the adoption of the 15th Amendment into the U.S Constitution. On 30 March 1870 the 15th Amendment (the last of the 3 Reconstruction Amendments) was passed by Congress and ratified, granting African American men the right to vote. The amendment followed the 13th Amendment (1865) which abolished slavery, and the 14th Amendment (1868) which granted African Americans full rights to citizenship. In the same year, Hiram Rhodes Revels, a Republican from Natchez Mississippi, became the first African American ever to sit in Congress.

Despite this, by the late 1970s support for Reconstruction was dwindling and the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 marked the end of the Reconstruction Era. The individual state authority over their laws left the door open for southern state legislature to determine specific qualifications for suffrage. Such tactics used were literacy tests and poll taxes – as well as Jim Crow Laws and intimidation by white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan - which  disenfranchised a majority of Black votes in the decades following Reconstruction. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s that triggered the end of discriminatory voting practices with President Johnson signing the Voting Rights Act into law in 1965.

Want to find out more about the Reconstruction Amendments? Click here for more information, or here for more about the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Kill the Bill

In the wake of the Sarah Everard Virgil which saw the shocking use of unnecessary force by the police on the 12th of March, an eruption of protests have broken out against the Government's Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill with momentum quickly building as people exercise the very civil liberties that could be taken away.

Over the last two weeks hundreds have gathered in London and more recently Bristol, to protest the Bill, coining the popular slogan "Kill the Bill" as it passed its second reading on the 16th of March by 359 votes to 263. Criticised as being "the most draconian restrictions we have seen on protests for decades" by journalist, author, and broadcaster Ian Dunt, why exactly is the Bill so controversial?

The controversy is saturated around the policing aspects of the Bill, 4 sections in particular – protests; public nuisance; memorials; and gypsies and travellers. These sections drastically increase the powers of the police to arrest and detain people and most significantly, to curb protests.

Protests – gives state more powers to stop protests

- The special powers the police had to intervene in major marches would also apply to static and single person protests.

- The police jurisdiction to restrict protests to prevent disorder, damage, disruption, intimidation would be extended to included "impact" which is vague, meaning excessive force can be used unnecessarily.

- Currently you can only be persecuted if you knowingly breaking the law while protesting, but this Bill dictates you can be persecuted if it's decided that you ought to have known.

- The police are allowed to stop protests from getting too loud which isn't defined objectively but instead when noise "may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation". The Bill allows the Home Secretary (Priti Patel) to quite literally define "serious disruption" however she wants via the statutory instruments meaning she can effectively change the law unilaterally to get rid of a protest.

Public Nuisance – makes being a public nuisance a statutory offence

- Being a public nuisance is already a crime but only under common law so there are no explicit regulations, but this Bill makes being a public nuisance a statutory offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years.

- The Bill expands the definition of public nuisance to include "annoyance" meaning you can go to jail for being publicly annoying.

Memorials – increased sentences for damaging statutes and memorials

- Damaging a memorial or statue is already illegal with a fine of up to £5000 and a maximum prison sentence of 3 months but this Bill increases that to a maximum of 10 years.

- The minimum sentence for rape in the UK is 5 years so in theory someone could have a longer sentence for spray painting a statue than for rape.

Gypsies and Travellers – gives the state more powers to persecute Gypsies and Travellers

- The police can already remove gypsies and travellers if they have caused damage to land or used threatening language, but this Bill allows the police to remove gypsies and travellers if they think that significant distress to the public is likely to be caused.

- This means they don't have to do anything wrong; the police just have to suspect that they are likely to do something wrong which sets a dangerous precedent.

The Government's main defences for the Bill run along the lines of Covid-19 provisions, women's safety, and ironically, upholding democracy.

During the Sarah Everard Virgil, Covid-19 was used to explain the excessive police force, and it is now being used to apply blanket restrictions on protesting in the name of social distancing guidelines. Despite this, the Bill does not specify a time frame for these new policing powers as being singularly for use during the pandemic. Covid is seemingly being used to justify an unjustifiable Bill that will see the end to freedom of expression as we know it.

Furthermore, Home Secretary Priti Patel claims "this Government is committed when it comes to violence against women and girls" and the Bill is needed to "safeguard more and more women and give the protection they desperately need from their abusers". This is true to an extent as the Bill does increase the minimum time severed in prison for people found guilty of serious crimes like rape and sexual assault, however this is clearly not the Bill's primal aim as the significant new powers are awarded to the police. This can be seen as rather questionable since the Black Lives Matter movement exposed the severe abuses of police power and brought this problem to the forefront of public attention.

The Government have also claimed the Bill was always in their manifesto with Priti Patel claiming "this is a manifesto Bill that this Government were elected on" then going on to say, "we live in a democracy and this Government will work to deliver on that". However once again this is not wholly true as while the 2019 manifesto does include tougher sentencing and clamping down on traveller camps, it does not say anything about protestors so it can hardly be claimed by the Government that this Bill is being enforced in the name of democracy.

Multiple Tories MPs have also claimed the concerns about the right to protests were exaggerated, listing off examples such as people handcuffing themselves to public transport or an instance where an ambulance couldn't get to a hospital as reasons for the increased policing powers on protesting. However, these actions were already against the law under the Public Order Act 1989 so how exactly do these examples justify the new Bill?

"This Bill will be of great comfort to law-abiding British People...if you cannot live by the rules of our society, then you should live in a place that has a different set of rules, and that place is prison. The good news is that we are recruiting 10,000 extra prison officers and 20,000 new police officers, and we are building more prisons." – Lee Anderson, Conservative MP for Ashfield

This terrifying insight into the motivation behind the Bill with its hard-line law and order stance seethes with authoritarian undertones – after all, it is protesting the Bill seeks to criminalise.

With all this in mind, it is hardly surprising the Bristol "Kill the Bill" protests on the 23rd of March descended into a riot outside Bridewell Police Station where several police officers were injured, police vans were torched, fireworks were set off in the street, and several arrests have been made. Videos of the riot show the police charging at protestors dressed in riot gear and accounts from people who attended said it was peaceful and tensions only escalated once the police arrived. If people feel their civil liberties are under threat, the narrative begins to emerge that it's the people versus the state.

Home Secretary Priti Patel said there was "no acceptability" for "criminality and thuggish behaviour" at the Bristol protests, while Prime Minister Boris Johnson said people had a right to protest but the violent scenes were "unacceptable". But the question is, under their new Bill proposal, do we have the right to protest? University student Rhianna Prewitt, who attended the demonstration, said: "This is a symptom of not allowing organisers to actually properly organise protests and, by doing that, extremists and people who are looking for a riot are going to take advantage to cause chaos...if the Government doesn't want us to protest during the pandemic, why are they pushing through a significant law at this time without public scrutiny?"

Surprisingly, former Prime Minister and former Home Secretary Theresa May has been one of the main opponents to the Bill stating, "freedom of speech is an important right for our democracy", then going on to say, "there will be people who have seen scenes of protest and will have said 'why isn't the Government doing something?', to which the answer in many cases may simply be because we live in a democratic, free society". May then went on to criticise the Bill for various reasons, particularly how the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, has effectively given herself more power through this Bill in being able to unilaterally define "serious disruption" by law and thus curb any protest she so desires.

Leader of the Labour party, Keir Starmer is unwaveringly against the Bill and clashed with Prime Minister Boris Johnson during the Prime Minsters questions stating the Bill "sounded a lot more like protecting statues than protecting women".

There has also been disagreement within the Conservative party ranks with Charles Walker, a senior Conservative MP blatantly stating, "this House criminalised freedom of protest".

This overt assault on freedom of speech and expression comes as a shock considering the stance Conservative MPs have taken on the topic of civil liberties and free speech in the past. Many railed against the Covid-19 lockdown provisions and called for intervention by the state to prohibit cancel culture on university campuses - yet they are in favour of an anti-protesting bill. Fundamentally the Bill gives both the ministers and the police more power and takes power away from the people. It is hardly the Bill for women's safety it has been pitched as.

David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham put it best:

"By giving the police the discretion to use these powers some of the time, it takes away our freedoms all of the time".

This Week in Women's Rights - The Equal Rights Amendment

This Week's Historical Theme: Women's Rights

22 March 1972

A significant event throughout the history of women's rights that occurred in March was the passing of the Equality Rights Amendment by the U.S Senate. First proposed by the National Women's political party, it was introduced to Congress in 1923 shortly after women in the United States were granted the right to vote. The ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) was to provide for the legal equality of the sexes and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. The revival of feminism in the 1960s led to its approval by the U.S Senate on 22 March 1972 and it was then sent to the states for ratification.

Hawaii was the first state to ratify the ERA followed by 30 other states within a year. However, during the mid 1970s there was a conservative backlash against feminism and thus growing opposition to the ERA led by Phyllis Schlafly. Despite a deadline extension to June 1982, it was not ratified by the requisite majority of 38 states. What would have been the 27th Amendment to the Constitution was therefore rejected. Regardless of the considerable legislation since passed to protect the legal rights of women, due to the rejection of the ERA women still do not legally have equal rights under the U.S Constitution.

Want to find out more about why the Equal Rights Amendment is still yet to be ratified? Click here for more information, or here for more about Phyllis Schlafly's campaign against it.

This Week in the Great Depression - Gambling is Legalised in Nevada

This Week's Historical Theme: The Great Depression

 

19 March 1931

 

A significant event throughout the history of the Great Depression that occurred in March was the legalisation of gambling in Nevada. This was done in an attempt to lift the state out of its hard times. At the beginning of the Depression, Nevada's mines were in decline and its economy was in shambles. These mining opportunities had been revealed by settlers in 1859, with discovery of the 'Comstock Lode' of gold and silver, before Nevada had been made the 36^th state of the Union during the Civil War five years later. Divorce was also legalised in the same year as gambling, in response to population flight.

 

Established in 1905, Las Vegas has since become the gambling and entertainment capital of the world. It is especially famous for its casinos, nightclubs and sporting events. In the first few decades after the legalisation of gambling, organised crime flourished in the city. It's tolerance for many forms of adult entertainment has also earned it the title of 'Sin City', making it a popular setting in literature, films, television and music videos. Today, state gambling taxes account for the lion's share of Nevada's overall tax revenues.

 

Want to find out more about the history of gambling in Nevada? Click here for more information, or here for more about the Great Depression.

This Week in Japan - The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster

This Week's Historical Theme: Japan

 

11 March 2011

 

A significant event throughout the history of Japan that occurred in March was the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The largest earthquake ever recorded in Japan had caused massive devastation, and the subsequent tsunami decimated the Tōhoku region of north-eastern Honshu. This triggered the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The failure of its backup power and cooling systems caused the fuel rods in all three nuclear reactors to partially melt down. After several days, all three reactors would explode. Thousands of people were evacuated, as workers attempted to use helicopters, water cannons and seawater pumps to cool the facility.

 

Over the next few months, the full extent of the disaster became apparent. No deaths were initially attributed to the incident, but 18,000 people nevertheless lost their lives due to the earthquake and tsunami. As of 2021, a 371-square-kilometer "difficult-to-return-zone" remains evacuated. In 2018, the government announced that a former plant worker who had served during the meltdown was the first death officially attributed to radiation from the disaster. Today, the Fukushima incident is considered to be the second-worst nuclear disaster in history, ranking behind Chernobyl, as it forced the relocation of over 100,000 people.

 

Want to find out more about the Fukushima disaster? Click here for more information, or here for more about history's other nuclear disasters.