|
|
Abstract
The claimants brought civil suits against child care institutions and authorities for the sexual abuse to which they were
subject whilst under the defendants’ responsibility. These cases were not initiated until the claimants were well into adulthood
and began recognising the harms they had suffered, and as a result, their claims were time-barred at first instance. However,
after A v Hoare (and Other Appeals), in which the House of Lords significantly altered the laws on limitation, their cases were reheard and allowed to proceed.
In this respect, AB and Others v Nugent Care Society; GR v Wirral MBC demonstrates the benefits of the ruling in Hoare; but at the same time, this note argues that the Court of Appeal utilises a problematic conceptualisation of the harm of
sexual abuse and the case highlights the potential for inconsistency and uncertainty in such delayed claims following the
decision in Hoare—which is not the panacea it initially appears to be.
- Content Type Journal Article
- DOI 10.1007/s10691-010-9154-1
- Authors
- Nicola Godden, Durham Law School, Durham University, 50 North Bailey, Durham, DH1 3ET UK
Abstract
This article discusses the work of Dr Mary Louisa Gordon, who was appointed as the first English Lady Inspector of Prisons
in 1908, and remained in post until 1921. Her attitude towards and treatment of women prisoners, as explained in her 1922
book Penal Discipline, stands in sharp contrast to that of her male contemporaries, and the categorisation of her approach as ‘feminist’ is reinforced
by her documented connections with the suffragette movement. Yet her feminist and suffragist associations also resulted in
the marginalisation and dismissal of her work, such that Mary Gordon and Penal Discipline are virtually unknown today. Nevertheless, her insights into the position and needs of women prisoners retain a striking
contemporary relevance.
- Content Type Journal Article
- DOI 10.1007/s10691-010-9151-4
- Authors
- Deborah Cheney, Kent Law School, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NS, UK
Abstract
Feminist legal efforts to make sense of the external migration policies of the European Union (EU) have focused almost exclusively
on the EU’s initiatives against trafficking in women. This article examines one of the more neglected areas of EU immigration
policy—the return of ‘illegal immigrants’. It analyses the so-called 2008 Returns Directive in the light of the multidimensional
inequalities experienced by migrant women, which affect their migration status and expose some of them to the threat of removal.
Owing to insecurities over external migration, the Directive constructs even the most vulnerable migrants as a threat to be
controlled and is likely to result in detrimental consequences for many migrants, and in particular already vulnerable women
who are likely to be further disadvantaged by it.
- Content Type Journal Article
- DOI 10.1007/s10691-010-9153-2
- Authors
- Heli Askola, Faculty of Law, Monash University, Building 12, Clayton, Vic 3800, Australia
Abstract
This article explores the tensions between autonomy and expectations of mother-caregivers, in the context of normative trends
in post-separation parenting law. Going back to first principles of feminism, the article asks what scope for autonomy there
is for modern mothers in the face of socio-legal norms that prioritise shared parenting. The very relationship between mother-caregivers
and children illustrates the important connection between relationships and autonomy: the caregiving that mothers provide
enables children to become autonomous persons yet, at the same time, this caregiving relationship constrains maternal autonomy.
In the current context that encourages shared parenting, the potential for maternal autonomy may be even more compromised—a
deep irony in a supposedly post-feminist era. A responsible mother is now expected to nurture a child’s relationship with
the father, unless he is proven to be harmful. The ability of women to be at all autonomous from the fathers of their children
in the face of this normative expectation is dubious, even when the adults live separately. Moreover, the dominance of the
heterosexual and patriarchal family—always a challenge for women’s autonomy—is reproduced in this imposition of equal parenting
in the name of children’s rights. This article uses a contextual approach to relational autonomy to point to an approach that
might challenge the normative climate of shared parenting.
- Content Type Journal Article
- DOI 10.1007/s10691-010-9152-3
- Authors
- Susan B. Boyd, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, 1822 East Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada
Shelley A.M. Gavigan and Dorothy E. Chunn (eds): The Legal Tender of Gender: Law, Welfare and the Regulation of Women’s Poverty
- Content Type Journal Article
- DOI 10.1007/s10691-010-9155-0
- Authors
- Helen Carr, Kent Law School, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NS UK
Michelle Madden Dempsey: Prosecuting Domestic Violence: A Philosophical Analysis
- Content Type Journal Article
- DOI 10.1007/s10691-010-9156-z
- Authors
- Rosemary Hunter, Kent Law School, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NS, UK
Abstract
Although nearly 99% of abortions in New Zealand are permitted in order to prevent danger or injury to a woman’s mental health
(the ‘mental health exception’), the reasons why mental health considerations should effectively control access to abortion
are not altogether clear. This article analyses abortion case law, statutes and debates from New Zealand, the United Kingdom
and the United States to attempt to explain the legal connection between mental health considerations and access to abortion.
The article argues that the mental health exception evolved in response to a change in the predominant construction of women
seeking abortion from ‘selfish’ to ‘desperate’, coinciding with increasing societal subscription to an expanded view of psychological
harm. By conceptually accommodating both constructions of women seeking abortion, the article argues that the mental health
exception usefully enabled society generally to proscribe the practice of abortion on the basis that it was unnatural and
irrational, while nevertheless permitting it in cases considered to be deserving.
- Content Type Journal Article
- DOI 10.1007/s10691-010-9140-7
- Authors
- Charlotte Leslie, Meredith Connell, Barristers & Solicitors 55-65 Shortland Street Auckland New Zealand
Abstract
This paper draws on the concepts of reproduction and scale to suggest that Skeggs and Wilson, in their contributions to this
issue of Feminist Legal Studies, both identify a future-oriented reworking of historically accumulated value. The spectacular emotional labour of British
reality television and the parody of mechanistic labour in Bangkok’s sex shows may be seen as instances in the affective search
for future security in transnational markets. Capitalist subjectivities are still being produced through these gendered and
sexual activities, but they are being produced with television audiences and sex tourists whose geopolitical baggage becomes
part of the show.
- Content Type Journal Article
- DOI 10.1007/s10691-010-9147-0
- Authors
- Ruth Fletcher, School of Law, Keele University Staffordshire ST5 5BG UK
Markets and Sexualities: Introduction
- Content Type Journal Article
- DOI 10.1007/s10691-010-9143-4
- Authors
- Kate Bedford, University of Kent Kent Law School Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NS UK
Janice Richardson: The Classic Social Contractarians: Critical Perspectives from Contemporary Feminist Philosophy and Law
- Content Type Journal Article
- DOI 10.1007/s10691-010-9141-6
- Authors
- Jill Marshall, Queen Mary University of London School of Law Mile End Road London E1 4NS UK
|
|
