30 years after the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act, how on earth is this acceptable in 21st century Britain? By a female elected MP, no less.

[Izlet]

Labour MP Paula Sherriff was the guest speaker at a sex segregated rally next month hosted by an Islamic extremist who thinks women are “subservient” to men. Sherriff is named alongside Shaikh Sulaiman Gani on the advert, a radical imam who calls women “subservient”, condemns homosexuality and wants justice for al-Qaeda terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, currently serving 86 years in jail for the attempted murder of troops in Afghanistan. Despite it not being a religious event and not being held in an Islamic centre, the poster says there will be “segregated facilities for sisters”. “Sisters” even have a separate phone number to call than male guests.

She has since pulled out, but only thanks to an exposé by Guido Fawkes. The fact that she was even considering it is shocking.

This the same woman who is campaigning against the "tampon tax" for "gender equality". Has she perhaps confused the level of seriousness of the 2 issues? What does it tell our daughters? That they have no more rights but hey, the sanpro is now cheaper, so smile!

is there no limit to lows to which one would sink to garner votes?

SpringingIntoAction

Why are people assuming that these women were going to hear a balanced view given the description of one of the orators? How do we know that the forum would not just be reinforcing prejudices about a situation and place that they've never visited?

So you're deciding what is and is not a balanced view? I think the women would be able to form their own opinions.

Not sure what you mean by 'a place they've never visited'?

I find the whole idea of segregation absolutely appalling. It's what we hold Rosa Parks up as a paradigm of virtue for railing against. Would you be saying to Mrs Parks, stop complaining about where you sit, you're lucky you've been let on the bus at all?

Again, it's about offering a woman a choice. Choose where you sit. Forcing them to sit with men at a voluntary event, if they don't want to, is not giving them choice.

So would it be ok if meetings like this were segregated on the grounds of race too leelu? After all some people might want to have the option to sit separately.

WeMust - people self-segregate every day. People choose who they sit next to, whether they divide themselves by race, sex, religion, family etc. We have separate toilets for men and women.

I don't agree with forced segregation but I don't object to an area being made available to women who want to sit separately to men.

I am an avid reader of mumsnet and time and time again read about British families where the man doesn't lift a finger while the wife does a fulltime job, plus all the childcare and housework. Everyday I am shocked at what your average British woman will put up with. But obviously I have a very old-fashioned idea of feminism, I should be getting my knickers in a twist about women sitting on a different side of a hall to men, because really if I were to go to listen to speakers on a subject, it would be absolutely a violation of my woman's rights, that I couldn't sit beside a man while i was listening.

I should be getting my knickers in a twist about women sitting on a different side of a hall to men

Sitting on a different side?

Not allowed to use the same entrance, in fact given an entrance in a different street, and having to call a different number for tickets.

Would we tolerate our daughters bring given the choice: 'segregation or exclusion?'

I don't think that's a choice. If UKIP held a meeting and told black people to ring a black number for tickets, use a black entrance on a black street and sit apart from the white people, would people's knickers remain untwisted?

Why are the Labour Party excusing and tacitly condoning gender apartheid?

If there were meetings happening at which Asian or black or disabled people were made to use a separate entrance, on a different street and buy tickets through a separate phone line (my mind implodes at this idea), there would quite rightly be a howling outcry.

Not wanting to derail but, disabled people often have to use a separate entrance, often at the back of a building - I went to one wedding where I could only access the venue via the goods entrance.

You often cannot buy 'accessible' tickets via the internet, you have to call the box office and then you have to pay the extra £0.50 booking fee.

And if you read the terms and conditions for train travel there is still a clause saying if the train has no wheelchair space then you will travel in the guards van - obviously this rarely if ever happens these days but it was commonplace until recently.

I'm appalled at some of the apologists on this thread and Paula Sherriff's acceptance that sexism's fine, just as long as there's no danger of anyone calling her racist.

It's been this way for a very long time in the Labour party. Bending over backwards to accommodate sexism that would have shocked Emmeline Pankhurst, just to appear oh-so-very multi-cultural.

I should be getting my knickers in a twist about women sitting on a different side of a hall to men - it won't be a different side, it'll be right at the back. The worst seats.

It needs to be made quite clear that separate places for men and women to sit is not to accommodate the wishes of the women. It's not a WI meeting.

This is misogynistic, culturally mediaeval thinking men who are making these rules and who want this segregation. It's enforced segregation, not a chance for the girls to all sit together and have a lovely chat with their friends.

I don't agree with forced segregation but I don't object to an area being made available to women who want to sit separately to men

I don't agree with forced segregation but I don't object to an area being made available to white people who want to sit separately to blacks.

I don't agree with forced segregation but I don't object to an area being made available to Christians who want to sit separately to Jews.

I don't agree with forced segregation but I don't object to an area being made available to people who want to sit separately to people they hate.

I don't agree with forced segregation whatsoever. It condones and encourages the 'otherness' we hear so much about from the very party supposedly fighting for equality.

Has anyone written to Paula Sheriff for her thought process on why she agreed and then pulled out?

I don't agree with forced segregation but I don't object to an area being made available to women who want to sit separately to men

I don't agree with forced segregation but I don't object to an area being made available to straight people who want to sit separately to gay people.

I agree the apologists on here are depressing.

People choose who they sit next to, whether they divide themselves by race, sex, religion, family etc. We have separate toilets for men and women

Spectacularly missing the point. There is a world of difference between say getting on a train and deciding if you will sit next to a man or a woman and being told you can only use a certain seat.

The toilet point is ridiculous. This was a public meeting, presumably all were fully clothed and no one started to pee in the middle of the meeting.

Has Paula Sheriff commented on why she was in and then out?

That's what she should be judged on. Not biased media reporting and catcalls from David Cameron.

This is a depressing review:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35790164

Was Paula going to come in by the secondary gender women's entrance on the segregated other street?

I think the issue here is whether the segregation is by choice. The woman's free choice and not because it is expected of them. They could go and sit anywhere they liked. And sadly I don't think that is the case.
If I went through the front door with the men and sat smack in the middle of them how do you think I would be treated? I'm white and not Muslim -that might be a factor ...what if a muslim woman went and sat in the middle?

This makes interesting reading about segregation in Mosques in the US
nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/02/03/obamas-mosque-visit-demonstrates-tacit-acceptance-of-a-form-of-gender-apartheid/

sashh the disabled thing is different....it is because of practical considerations - maybe an old building where wheelchair/easy access is not feasible. It isn't to hide disabled people away or to not offend able bodied people by them having to mix with the disabled (or indeed the other way round)

The waterpark thing I linked to earlier for 'brothers only' - repeated several times - if I booked a ticket and turned up do you think they would let me go? Why is that brothers only? Is it because women will be in a state of undress -but surely unless they have booked the whole venue there will be other women there uncovered? So it is just their women who can't be seen undressed. (Their as in their possession). If it was the woman's choice whether to be seen in a state of undress surely they wouldn't need to be excluded? They would chose not to go. Is it because women just won't enjoy a waterpark? (They are delicate flowers after all, it will probably be a bit lively for them and anyway they should be at home looking after the house/children) I can't see an age thing on there - so boys could go but not girls - so starting early?

I was on a thread here a day or so ago and someone was complaining about gender based parties (all the boys or all the girls) ...and there was one school of thought that even though some children seem to go through a stage at one age of naturally wanting to play/form friendships with only one gender that should be discouraged as it was purely down to conditioning - nurture not nature. How does this sit with those arguments?

Atenco, just because some British women tolerate sexism at home ( I never never have) does not mean it's fine for muslims or fundamentalist Christians or very orthodox jews to be sexist. Of course people can choose their beliefs but we retain the right to tell them they are wrong.

People conning themselves into thinking women make a "choice" are just wrong. If you are brought up to believe in invented Gods and a religion that says men are different and have different rights then you think you choose your position but it isn't a free and informed choice. So whilst I would not ban people practising sexist religions in the UK I do want the light shone very closely on these groups and I want all women within them to know they can leave and if their family shuns them doesn't matter as it's the greater good to achieve equality.

The question of "choice" that some posters are raising here is fundamental to understanding what's going on, isn't it?

At first I felt quite angry that lots of pp seem to be deflecting attention and analysis from the power relations that are obviously at work by suggesting that this coercive, bullying, othering practice might actually be for the women's comfort or a thoughtful optional add-on. It seems obvious to me that this segregation is enforced and strictly policed by male community leaders.

Then I thought about it and realised that it probably isn't trolling/ deliberate deflection on posters' part. if people are raised in Western liberal democracies, with women's rights already largely won, and if they don't take time to read in-depth about the cultural attitudes of groups that are living among us but that have developed their values and worldviews very far from Christianity and the post-Enlightenment tradition, then assuming this is a benevolent "choice" rather than something much more coercive is the default, go-to, explanation. Islam is not a religion that promotes freedom of choice for anyone much, but certainly not for its women.

Indeed. The Victorians always said in the UK that women could not be lawyers and doctors to protect poor weak little women whose brains were not able to take in that amount of data and that it was all about protecting women. We are sick of men protecting us. They can take a running jump.

Gender segregation seems to be a bit of theme in the labour party. Not surprised though, they sold women down the river a long time ago.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3339241/Fury-Labour-s-segregated-rally-Sexism-row-men-women-segregated-party-rally-ahead-key-election.html

At least Cameron has spoken out against it.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35765255

Anyone tolerating backwards medieval people are self defeating.

The trouble is this country has tolerated this kind of crap for many years now. Wrapped in a fleecy blanket of understanding, multiculturalism, assimilation.

The acceptance of this crap by women identifying as feminists disgusts me.

Are we reaching "Peak Multiculturalism" ?

Surely the whole issue is that such segregation goes against the way british society operates

These sexist religious bigots are not going to change their minds about women.
Do we send them home?
How do you deal with religious bigots who we are living alongside in the long term?

It wasn't Labour organising these events. They are trying to reach these people. These segregated events happen anyway, (not organised by Labour pty) and all that happens is their sexist bigoted views become more entrenched.