Woman's Hour - Rape in war, Single-sex spaces, No-fault divorce

Episode Date: April 5, 2022

Reports are coming through that Russian soldiers have raped women in Ukraine. There are reports that women have been raped in front of their children, and soldiers have filmed what they're doing. We hear the latest from BBC correspondent Emma Vardy, and discuss why rape in war happens, justice and trauma with Dr Jelke Boesten, Professor of Gender and Development at King's College London.The Equality and Human Rights Commission has now given guidance about single-sex spaces. This is for spaces like toilets, prisons and changing rooms. We talk to Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chair of the EHRC.David Gauke, who used to be Secretary of State for Justice, comes on the programme to talk about the new divorce system. When he was in post he thought the system was making a difficult situation worse. He said that the law should allow people to move on constructively when divorce is inevitable, and that this would really help children. A new book called Lessons in Chemistry follows the rise of an unconventional TV cook called Elizabeth Zott. Set in1960s America, her career as a chemist takes a detour when she becomes the star of a much-loved TV cooking show. She's a cross between Julia Childs and Marie Curie, and what she says dares her female TV viewers to reconsider not just the dinner menu, but their place in the world. We speak to the author, Bonnie Garmus.

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Natalia Melman-Petrozzella, and from the BBC, this is Extreme Peak Danger. The most beautiful mountain in the world. If you die on the mountain, you stay on the mountain. This is the story of what happened when 11 climbers died on one of the world's deadliest mountains, K2, and of the risks we'll take to feel truly alive. If I tell all the details, you won't believe it anymore. Extreme, peak danger. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Hello, I'm Emma Barnett and welcome to Woman's Hour from BBC Radio 4. Good morning and welcome to the programme. Today, the eyes and ears of the world will be on Ukraine's President Zelensky as he prepares to address the United Nations Security Council for the first time, as he says Russian forces are trying to hide the traces of war crimes. This is after President Zelensky claims more than 300 people were killed and tortured in Bucha, near Kiev. President Biden has called Putin a war criminal

and is part of the growing group of world leaders calling for the Russians leader to face trial over the incidents. Well, today we're going to zoom in on the women of Ukraine and how rape is being used as the ultimate tool of subjugation. After a call from Baroness Helich, a Conservative peer who came to the UK as a refugee from the Bosnian War in the 90s, for an independent international body to be set up to investigate reports of rape and sexual assault in Ukraine. Also on today's programme, you will hear from the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission,

who has just published guidance clarifying that trans people can be legally banned from using single-sex spaces in the UK, such as refuges, toilets, shops, hospitals and sports clubs, if there is sufficiently good reason. You will hear more detail on that shortly and then feel free as always to get in touch if you think this clarifies the matter had you been feeling confused or perhaps concerned about this issue or maybe it hadn't crossed your radar at all you can text me here at womans hour on 84844 text will be charged your standard message rate on social media at b're at BBC Woman's Hour or email me through the Woman's Hour website. Plus, the ultimate chain-smoking female icon of EastEnders, June Brown, has died aged 95.

But what can we take from her long-standing alter ego, Dot Cotton? And everything you need to know about a new book starring a chemist turned reluctant TV chef. All that to come and more. But in conflicts around the world, women and girls continue to face horrific sexual violence, with rape repeatedly used as a weapon of war. Those were the words of Liz Truss, the UK's Foreign Secretary, five months ago. She went on to say,

I will make it my mission to work with countries and international partners to establish a new agreement to condemn them as a red line and end them for good. What we're hearing from Ukraine is distressing, to say the least. Yesterday, the news was dominated by pictures of dead bodies in the streets of Bucha, not far from Kiev. But throughout the conflict that's been going on for more than a month now, there have been reports that Russian soldiers have been raping women. They've filmed what they've done, and it's been reported that they've even put videos on porn sites.

There have also been reports of mothers being raped in front of their children, from toddlers to teenagers, with women being repeatedly raped. Some of these reports have been passed to war crime investigators, and one of the Ukrainian MPs we spoke to last week being repeatedly raped. Some of these reports have been passed to war crime investigators, and one of the Ukrainian MPs we spoke to last week said that cases were being underreported. Well, here's what Baroness Arminka Helic had to say this morning to my colleagues on the Today programme. She's working on a strategy called Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict. She began that work 10 years ago. She was also a Bosnian refugee. For some time I have been calling for a new permanent international body that will be enabled, that can investigate sexual violence

in countries, that would have expertise and dedicated forensic scientists who would collect evidence which would stand up in court and it would be able to deploy. It would be a powerful new tool that would be funded that we wouldn't work on ad hoc basis, but we would have something which I often refer to, something similar to International Commission for Missing Persons that was launched in 1996 at President Clinton, and that started collecting evidence in order to match remains of 40,000 or something missing people in Formiga, Slavia with their surviving relatives. And it started on a very small scale. Today, it operates across the world. It has been one of the

most successful, most impactful agencies, if you want, bodies that has been created. And I really hope that we can see with this latest example in Ukraine, if we couldn't see elsewhere that there is this need that we will apply our ability to put something together of this kind so that we can start eventually dealing with this crime. Baroness Helic, Emma Vardy is our BBC correspondent in Lviv. Emma, first of all, just to say, what are things like where you are at the moment? Well, Lviv is a city which still feels pretty alive during the day. People are still able to go out to shops and cafes. But this has become really a staging post of the war. This is where lots of refugees fleeing the violence in the east, particularly,

and around Kiev have been coming through this city, stopping off as a place which is a little safer and then trying to make it over the Polish border to reach safety there. I mean, we still hear airstrikes maybe a couple of times a day. And overnight here, there have been missile strikes just a couple of miles from where I'm sitting in the city centre. But it is a safer place. But that means it has seen lots of refugees coming through, many women and children who've been split up from their families, men have had to often stay behind and they bring with them stories of devastation. Many are very traumatised.

Yes, and to get to that with what we've specifically been hearing about rape being used as a weapon of war and this call that we've heard this morning from Baroness Hellich in the UK about the need for an independent look at this, an independent body. What have you heard? What are some of the reports that you have also been reading and hearing about? Well, there's certainly evidence of sexual violence beginning to emerge from areas that have been occupied by Russian forces. Women and girls coming forward to tell police and aid workers about sexual assaults they say have happened to them at the hands of Russian soldiers, rapes being committed.

There is a Ukrainian charity here which has a phone line for women and girls, and they say, too, they're receiving calls from victims alleging they've been assaulted by Russian soldiers, and their aid workers say they worry that what they're hearing really is just the very tip of the iceberg. You know, some of the testimony as well, and the evidence is coming out hour by hour from journalists who are able to access these areas where Russian troops have been pushed back. There was one photo quite widely reported from a highway outside Kiev where bodies are being found there. The bodies of three women were found piled under a blanket. The women were naked. It appeared as if the bodies had been partially burned, according to the photographer who took the photo.

And there's many accusations of Russian troops trying to destroy evidence as they move out of certain areas. Of course, all of this Russia has completely denied. Yes, and continues to do so. With regards to how women are being treated if they aren't able to escape, are you getting a sense of this just being the beginning of those reports and what we might hear? Because it's very hard to get your head around, I suppose, any of this. But particularly, I suppose, with war, it's still, to some people, it may be news to them that rape is used in this way.

Well, exactly. I mean, there are the obvious dangers of war, aren't there? And then there are these things which are much more unseen. I mean, Western analysts say Russia's tactics as a military have been seen before, where they try to break down the spirit of a population. Crimes against civilians and sexual crimes are part of this. The White House, too, says it's concerned about the emerging reports of sexual violence in Ukraine. Women are vulnerable to sexual exploitation and abuse. But of course, even refugees on the move who might get away from the fighting and get somewhere safe, well, they're still vulnerable. There's very active trafficking exploitation networks already in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

We know some traffickers will see refugees coming into a town. They'll see vulnerable women. They'll pose as people who can help them. So sometimes they might have escaped the missiles. They might have escaped the bombs. But women then continue to be vulnerable as they continue their journey to safety. And, you know, there is evidence there are traffickers who see Ukrainian refugees now as right pickings, really, looking for women to coerce into the sex trade.

They can pose as fake volunteers offering to give women lifts or supply them with clothes. So, you know, the problems don't end when they escape the bombs and bullets. Emma Vardy, thank you very much. Our BBC correspondent in Lviv. Let's now turn to Dr Yelka Boosten, a professor of gender and development from King's College London. Good morning. Good morning. How is rape and sexual assault used in a war setting? So the idea of rape as a weapon of war really refers to practice of raping women for the purpose of destroying a community, no? So the idea that in patriarchal societies, women are often seen as the property of men, and women's sexuality is then often tied to communities or a family's

honor. So when you rape women, you not only destroy the women, but you destroy the men and the community, which makes it so-called effective as a weapon. And because sexual violence is so very intimate and tied to reproduction, of course, it can be very harmful to communities' self-perception, creating fragmentation, shame, very long-term feelings of concern. But at the same time, there's, of course, this suggests that there's a strategy,

an order from above. And I think that there's plenty of evidence in wars around the world that there's feelings of entitlement and opportunity among combatants. This is then further encouraged by the idea that women in the enemy camp are available to be raped they're dehumanized after all they can be killed they can be raped and a military culture which this encourages such sexualized violence and are you saying it's both are you saying that there are instruction and also opportunists who uh who would see it like that? No, I think that there's very little evidence in previous wars that there are actually instructions, or at least those are not, you can't really find them. But at the same time, while superiors may not order soldiers to rape, they won't discourage it either. So soldiers need to be trained to kill. And they need a strong group coherence amongst themselves to be able to do that.

Loyalty to each other, the army and the nation is key. And sexual desire and sexual complicity can then be an effective way of creating such loyalty among soldiers, among combatants. So that's how it comes up. It's not necessarily an order from what we have seen in previous wars and what we know, but it's part of the demoralisation, the shame, the conquering, and also, as you say there, the bonding of soldiers together to be on their mission, as it were, and what happens. Because of course, you know, without going into all of the detail, although the details are out there from some of the reports, you know, one I particularly remember from last week,

one of the first reports I had read, certainly in the UK press in the Times newspaper, was about the raping of a woman. Her husband had just been killed and she was in the house and her son, was within earshot. And, you know, those sorts of attacks will last for the rest of her life, as well as her son's. It was the most harrowing account to read. And if it's not as an order, you then have to start thinking about what is going on to everybody in this situation. Absolutely. And what is going on with soldiers who are capable of doing that is a big question, I think. And I think we need to contextualize that. So it's not only the enemy population that is being dehumanized, but the soldiers to a certain extent as well. Both killing and raping

are very physically and emotionally intimate experiences. And they're sharing that intimacy among combatants, among soldiers. And that creates further peer pressure and complicity, which only makes it every time a little bit worse in what the soldiers are capable of, I think. Well, we just received a message saying getting pregnant also hasn't been mentioned, literally as you just mentioned it, but the impact on the women and the community that then goes on after that. And I suppose the other thing to say, which we know about when a country is not at war, and if we look at this country that we're in, prosecutions for rapes are extremely difficult.

The conviction levels in this country are not what they should be. In fact, the government has apologised over that. Part of what's happening at the moment is President Zelensky trying to get the world to listen, to hear about the escalation of the violence. And part of this will be about the collecting of evidence. How difficult is it to show this? And I recognise your expertise is not the legal side of this, but to be able to show what has happened to these women in effectively, know and eventually the Hague which is where people would like Putin to end up if they're calling him a war criminal. Yeah absolutely

evidence is really important and I think the fact that we're now much more consciously aware of what is going on and and having much more attention for sexual violence makes a difference um the fact that there is a phone line in ukraine itself to take reports of rape is really important witness testimonies is important physical investigations medical investigations early on is really important so all that documentation that can be gathered now is really important for any future accountability. Absolutely. A message also about men being raped as well. That's something else to flag. Is that something your studies have shown you? Yes, absolutely. That happens is even more difficult to uncover, particularly because it's more secretive even. Men don't tend to report rape, but it does happen. Absolutely. And of course, across all of that is the fact that many will never be reported due to those who have been attacked and what you first started to talk about, which was shame? Absolutely. Many will not be reported because it's very often reporting itself is very difficult

and it's not always clear what will be the outcome of reporting. So many people will just take their sorrows with them. And that has major consequences, generational consequences, as one of the writers already said, no? Women get pregnant, girls get pregnant, and they might have children born of rape, which really has long lasting generational effects, not only on the individuals, but on society at large, of course. Indeed. And today, we specifically wanted to talk about rape and sexual assault as a weapon of war with these calls for an independent body, but also with what

President Zelensky is doing today. But as mentioned by my colleague Emma Vardy, there are many other threats and specific concerns towards women, not least trafficking and also the journey as refugees, which is what we're seeing many, you know, millions of women and children, those journeys they're having to make at the moment. But I think with just this moment to focus on it, it's something that almost, as I was saying to Emma, you have to pause to take it in. If you don't know about it, you think you may know about it. But when you actually stop to consider the reality of it and that dehumanising side of it, it's something that's very almost difficult to get your head around, isn't it? It's very difficult to get our heads around that this is the level of cruelty and violence that is going on. But I do think also it's important to take notice of the dangers of sex trafficking,

because a lot of these vulnerable women and girls are being trafficked into Europe, into European cities. Now, this is where we can do much more immediately, where we can make sure that women are not vulnerable and unprotectable and untraceable. So I do think that as a society, we could step up there. Dr. Jelke Boosten, thank you for your time and analysis. Professor of Gender and Development from King's College, London. We did invite Liz Truss back onto the programme. She was with us only a few days ago now, of course, as Foreign Secretary, but also Women's Minister. She's in Poland at the moment, but a statement was sent through from the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office,

which says reports emerging from Ukraine of rape and sexual abuse are deeply disturbing. This behaviour against women is abhorrent. The UK continues to act decisively with its allies to punish Russia for its unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. And we will do all we can to bring the perpetrators of war crimes, including sexual violence, to justice. I'll keep your messages coming in. Many of you getting in touch on that specifically 84844. But you're also getting in touch about our next discussion because guidance has just been published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission about whether transgender people should be allowed access to single-sex spaces. This could include areas such as housing, shelters, toilets, prisons and

changing rooms. The guidance states that trans people can be legally excluded from single sex services if the reasons are justifiable and proportionate. The LGBT plus rights organisation Stonewall has said the guidance appears to undermine the Equality Act and leaves more confusion, not less. While others have welcomed the guidance as a big step forward and the clarity it brings. Well, to talk us through the guidance, I'm joined by someone who should be very across it. Baroness Kishra Faulkner, who's the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Good morning. Good morning. I remember when we last spoke, I think at the end of last year, you said this was coming up and now it is here. What does the guidance say? So the guidance helps to clarify the law. It's a practical guide to help service providers make decisions about whether they want to provide single or separate sex spaces.

It gives clear information about what they should and shouldn't do. And it allows them to exclude, modify or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. It has practical examples, it gives points of the things that you need to think about, you've just mentioned that, a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and it aims to strike a balance between the different rights. These are areas where rights sometimes compete and we want to lower the temperature, we want to foster good relations and we want to clarify the law

so that everyone can respect it and not discriminate. Who is this guidance for? It's aimed at service providers, as you said, organisations such as hospitals, retailers, hospitality, sports clubs. It's aimed particularly at people who provide services to the public. And in terms of examples, because you have given some in the guidance, it's just helpful, I think, for our listeners to go through a couple of those so if we was just to take changing rooms as one um and and in terms of how this could practically be used if you're in a changing room and you think that somebody shouldn't be in there with you do

you go to the provider of that changing room let's say it's a gym do you go to the the the gym boss or whoever's on the reception desk that day and ask for that person to be removed? We're not here to make the law. It's our job to apply it. What organisations should do is that they should decide whether they want to develop a policy. If they do develop a policy, they should ensure that it's clearly understood and train their staff to do so. And we give our practical examples, but they're not, you know, an entirely exclusive list. People have to understand the law and look at our examples and see whether they work for them or develop their own policies. So where you find a problem, you need to naturally take it up with the service providers.

But we, ultimately, if service providers are not following the law, we're there as a backstop. We have a range of enforcement powers and we use our regulatory powers. You do give the example of separate male and female changing rooms. That's why I picked it. You say here in the guidance, the service is likely to be used by more than one person at the same time and a woman might reasonably object to the presence of a man or vice versa.

I understand that you're not the service provider, but when people are listening to this, let's say they run a gym and they want to know what they're meant to do, you publish this guidance to help it clarify, to help make it clearer for people what the law is. So in that instance, what is the service provider meant to do if, let's say, a woman goes to the desk and says, I'm in the changing room and I don't think that the person who's in there with me should be in there? Well, it depends on what the gym's policy is. In our example for a gym, we suggest that they provide gender neutral toilets as well or changing rooms. So it is for the provider to determine what their policy is and apply their policy consistently. If their policy is to exclude a trans person from the changing room, then they should be enforcing that policy. So a person is perfectly legitimately allowed to go to the service desk and say, I don't think

you're applying your policy consistently and leave it to the provider to sort that out. So I suppose then just there's a couple more points to follow up on that. If you are the person who's complaining, I suppose the question becomes, how do you know if somebody is trans? Is that based purely on how they look? Trans people should be generally accommodated the way that they present. But in general, it is for the service provider to arrive at their policy. We give clarification as to what the law is, but we don't go into giving each and every instance. No, no, no. Can I just tell your listeners?

I wonder whether I might help your listeners by telling them what the law is. So in the law, sex is binary. Being a man or a woman is what the law in the Equality Act determines is whether someone is male or female. So in terms of the exceptions of the single sex spaces. And the Equality Act also protects the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. So where a person's legal sex is determined on their birth certificate, a trans person can change their legal sex,

but trans people do not require a gender recognition certificate to be protected from discrimination under gender reassignment protections. So it is really up to the service provider to decide how they will accommodate trans people and decide not to discriminate against them. It's pretty difficult though in the instance I've just given, isn't it? Despite the guidance now providing that clarity, because you're not, as you say, rewriting the law, you're just saying what the law is. Yes, that's right. So with the example, just to keep going with it, if somebody was to say, I don't want that person in the changing room with me, they could be wrong.

Because if they're just doing it off how somebody looks and then you've got the service provider in the situation, what do they then do? Do they ask to see a certificate? What happens next? The service provider has to determine that in deciding its policy, if it chooses to have a policy. You're not allowed to ask someone to demonstrate their proof of gender reassignment by disclosing that. The service provider should decide, that is why they shouldn't reach a situation whereby they're having to resolve that

on a case by case basis. What they should be doing is having a general policy, applying it proportionately, applying it consistently, and recording where they have problems, and then seeking legal advice on how they resolve those problems. It's quite tricky for service providers. I mean, is there training that not necessarily you're going to provide, that somebody's going to provide? There is training on all aspects of the Equality Act that is provided by a range of providers out there. I think you make a very valid point.

These parts of the law are tricky, which is why we, as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, are trying to find a balance so that we can lower the temperature, give a stare to providers about how they should be doing things but would you would you sorry if just to stick with that example would you be breaking the law if you also sided for instance with the person who said to you i don't want that person in the changing room anymore and then it turned out that they had every right to be there because you talked about um you know the you talked about particular uh reasons if they're justifiable and proportionate is it justifiable just just to say to the gym owner i don't want that person in here with me because of how they look the gym will have decided what its policy is, including trans, in terms of catering to the

needs of trans people. So you could potentially end up in a gym which has only gender neutral facilities. It depends on the service provider. I know it's a bit tricky, but it is the individual service provider which will need to make its own decisions depending on the facilities they have, depending on the space they have. But they will always need to follow the Equality Act, which says it is legitimate. You can legitimately exclude. No, I understand that. It's about the enforcing of it. And you know where you eventually got to was they should seek legal advice. Well, a gym owner in the 10 minutes that somebody's come in to get changed to go and use the gym isn't going to have a solicitor on speed dial.

No, but they should have determined a policy if they chose to do so. So they should look at their policy and apply their policy consistently. The law doesn't prescribe for every provider of every service exactly what it needs to do. What the law says is that it provides a framework and we're using the framework to provide some practical guidance on what they need to do. It's not that practical, I suppose. That's the point I'm making. It goes only so far to explain that you are legally allowed to have single sex spaces. But I'm interested in how that actually then works on the ground. And I know you keep saying they have to have the policy. You're right, that's not your job.

But I suppose because you're an expert on this and in the role that you have, I'm trying to tease out the reality for people on the ground who then don't want to be accused of discrimination. I suppose with this guidance today that you've been working on and has been important, and I know you say the goal is to lower the temperature, this is a very fraught debate amongst those who've engaged with it. And even those who haven't, you know, they will have a view on perhaps what they want when they go to the hospital or the toilet or the changing room.

But in terms of where this goes and how this works, I suppose there's concern about the implementation of it and how you can avoid discrimination and uphold people's rights. Do you think there's enough guidance on that? You make a really valid point, and I think it is a good point. It's one of the reasons that we decided to do the guidance, because there was a great deal of confusion out there. And we're hoping that this is a step towards clarifying the confusion.

So you're right. It's going to be the matter is looking at how it's implemented, looking at things perhaps that we haven't thought of in the guidance that might be thrown up. But what we are doing is attempting to clarify the law to help to get to a space here where for most circumstances, I mean, we have a range of different providers. We look at cafes, we look at community centres, clothes shops, gyms, leisure centres, domestic abuse refuges, counselling, therapeutic counselling, homeless hostels, health screening services. You know, we've tried to think of most of the areas where some lack of clarity or

discrimination might apply. And if there are other areas that come to light, we'll be looking at that. Well, we'll keep talking. It's a first step. It's a first step towards helping to clarify the law. Yes. And I hope we'll keep talking because this is the work that you're focused on, as well as many other things. Do you expect, and I reckon you're not in the profession of predicting, but do you expect that perhaps off the back of this clarification, more service providers may be building gender neutral provisions? They may not have them, they may not have thought they should go there because they weren't necessarily aware that they could enforce the single sex exemption? Yes, we, you know, we're hoping exactly that people will be

more mindful of biological sex as well as trans rights. And we're hoping that people will try and accommodate all of their customers in the best way that they possibly can. So we're watching this space and we're very hopeful that people will not be discriminated against and that people will get the services that they rightly feel they want and deserve, according to the law. And I mentioned what Stonewall's response had been, of course, the lobbying group, the charity in this space, and they said that the examples in the guidance that you've published encourage blanket bans rather than case-by-case decision-making, leaving more confusion and risk of illegal discrimination. Just a response to that, if you can.

Well, all I would say to them, of course, is that we don't make the law. It's our job to apply it. And we have applied it. We are we have we're confident that our legal advice is accurate and we stand behind it. We're sorry that they think that it's still confusing. We're always ready to engage with conversations with people who are critical of what we're doing to see what their issues are and to work with them to resolve those. Well, it won't surprise you that we've had many messages on this while we've been talking.

I'll read a few out now. But Baroness Kishra Faulkner, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, thank you. A message here, trans people are not banned from those spaces or services. They're able to use those provided for their biological sex rather than their gender identity. A message danny tweets on twitter the ehrc guidelines are not primarily

about trans people why are you framing this as an issue of trans exclusion rather than one of protecting our hard-won women women-only services such as women refuges and rape crisis groups why would anybody want to undermine the precious spaces of respite for victims of male violence? I'm pleased the EHRC is spelling out clearly and women's services are permitted by the Equality Act. Somebody else pointing out that was always the case. This is just guidance. And Dr. Jess Langston says, I have a cis friend who has a hormonal issue and facial hair regularly accosted by people in the women's toilets. She's been shouted at, asked to prove her gender and asked to leave. How is this keeping women safe? So the messages continue, 84844.

That's the number you need to text. Now, Dr Cotton, one of the longest running soap cottons and soap characters, I should say, excuse me, and a firm favourite with the viewers of EastEnders. June Brown, of course, though, who played Dr in EastEnders, we learned yesterday, has died peacefully at home at the age of 95. She was in the soap's very first episode in 85 and a key figure around Albert Square until 2020. Emma Bullimore, an entertainment journalist, joins me now.

How iconic was Dot, Emma? What are you thinking about today? Oh, absolutely iconic. The fact is, you do not have to have seen an episode of EastEnders to know exactly who Dot Cotton is, to know what she looks like, to see her with a cigarette on the go. She was just one of a kind. And actually, these characters in Soaps that last for so many years, for decades, it's unlike anything else we can experience on TV and film. When you watch something for an hour, a couple of hours, or a series maybe,

lots of people have grown up with that. Everyone knows exactly how she is. And that is no mean feat to create a character like that. And I mean, by looking at the statement from EastEnders, they say it's not, there are not enough words to describe how much June was loved and adored by everyone at the soap. Her loving warmth,

wit and great humour will never be forgotten. Apparently never wanted to put her cigarette out. Exactly. I mean, I wonder how many times over the years they tried to say, shall we maybe not have her smoking on screen as much? You know, it's not the done thing these days. But June Brown enjoyed smoking, enjoyed drinking. She was asked about it in her later years and she said, no, well, I'll die at some point and I'll die while I'm drinking and while I'm smoking. Apparently didn't want to put it out as she was heading onto the set of Graham Norton. No, she had a very iconic, talk about iconic, appearance with Lady Gaga, where the two of them were sitting next to each other. And you would

imagine that Lady Gaga is the outrageous one, the one that garners all of the attention. And she was just mesmerised by June Brown she'd never met anyone like her she just wanted to be her best friend and and June was was a character outside of the soap and a real personality it wouldn't be you know we see so many media trained celebrities you know exactly what to say in every interview that was not her she you know for better or for worse she was her personality and she would not quell that for anybody. And what do you think it was about her role in EastEnders though that of course for many they'll remember many very funny moments but also very moving moments as well? Hugely you know they weren't afraid to give her big storylines and she

was a fantastic actress and able to carry those off. The first character in EastEnders to be given a whole episode just to herself that was after Dot's husband had a stroke and she kind of just had a one-hander just talking to the camera about her life, hugely moving. Obviously the storyline with Ethel, her best friend, the euthanasia storyline, which was a huge challenge for her. A woman of faith who was really challenged by this kind of suggestion that she might help her friend

take her own life. So really big storylines, but like you say, humour as well. And that's when soaps are good, that's what they do best, is to blend those two things. I also think, as you're saying about media-trained celebrities, she also just in some ways seemed like a woman from another time, but almost timeless in the way that she came across. And I was thinking about, you know,

what lessons you could take from that as a woman. Yeah, I mean, the character's timeless, and she is as well. I think what's really interesting as a woman looking at this is how soaps provide a really interesting platform for women over 50. Where else on TV and film can you find fully fleshed out characters that get the lead storylines, that get the headlines of that age? It's only really soaps, and lots of actresses talk about that, and that's why people like Maureen Lip lots of actresses talk about that and that's

why people like Maureen Lipman are in Coronation Street and that's what we saw with June Brown in EastEnders as well. Well she is somebody that will remain in people's minds for a great deal of time. Have you got a particular moment whether it's whether it's June Brown or Doc Hossam one that really sticks out for you as someone who who watches TV for a living of course one of the coolest jobs I'm sure. Well it's just really her sitting in the laundrette with that tabard, with a fag on the go, just, you know, gossiping, talking about life, that iconic voice.

It's just a snapshot in your mind. And as I say, it's no mean feat, really, to be able to create something like that, that even if you don't watch TV for a living or haven't seen EastEnders in a decade, it just instantly pops to mind. And that is an incredible creation to have given the world of TV.

Emma Bullymore, entertainment journalist. Thank you very much for some of your memories. Of course, please get in touch if there's a moment for you or why she stood out, either as her character or as June Brown, of course, because we did love hearing her talk as her, didn't we?

84844. Now, the biggest reform of divorce law for 50 years comes into force tomorrow. It changes the law that dates back to Henry VIII. No-fault divorce will change how couples split. No longer will they have to separate for at least two years, increasing to five if one party doesn't consent. Don't forget that part. Or blame one another to legally end their marriage.

The updated legislation aims to make separation less hostile for all parties involved, especially children. But will it work? And does it go far enough? I can now speak to the architect of the law change, David Gauke, former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary. David, good morning. Morning, Emma. What was it that needed reforming when you were in this position?

Difficulty with the old system, the system that exists until today, is as you described it, there were various hurdles that had to be got over before a divorce could happen. And very often, what was happening, you had a divorcing couple who had to attribute blame. They had to find somebody had behaved unreasonably uh and that process could be very confrontational and and what you would hear and you know i was hearing this from uh the lawyers uh who worked in this field you know they were saying you know we are finding relationships that have obviously you know come to an end as a marriage, but are now deteriorating because of the process of divorce and having to attribute blame. And so my view was that we needed to end that,

we needed to move to something which people have been calling for for some time and introduce no-fault divorce. And the impetus was a particular case, wasn't it, of Teenie Owens in 2018, and the Supreme Court ruled she couldn't divorce her husband. He contested the divorce until they'd been separated for five years. It's exactly right. And that was a very high profile case. And I think it helped change people's minds because what you saw was that Teenie Owens was essentially trapped in a marriage that she wanted to end.

Her husband was refusing her desire to do that. And I think it became pretty obvious to people looking at this case that the law as it stood wasn't working in a sensible way, that it did need to be updated. And so once that case came to an end at the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court said, look, we can't change the law here. I mean, I think the members of the Supreme Court wanted to be,

wanted the law to change, but felt that this was a matter for Parliament. And at that point, I instructed my officials at the MOJ to say, come on, we need to move this forward. We need to bring this forward. And it's taken some time for this to happen. But I think there is a very broad consensus that these reforms are necessary. Yes. And talking about the Ministry of of Justice when you refer to the MOJ some are concerned it doesn't go far enough and I was looking at the words of Baroness Deitch who was speaking in the House of Lords who said the new no-fault divorce law is coming into force but

the most miserable and litigious part of it will remain the law about splitting assets and paying maintenance the law is so bad that the Justice Ministry is paying couples £500 each to mediate and avoid it. And she says without reform, the no-fault divorce law will fail to achieve its aims. What do you make of that? Now, I can understand where she's coming from. And I remember speaking to Baroness Deitch when I was the Justice Secretary at the time. I think the first point to make is that no one is going to pretend that the reforms are going to solve every problem. They're not. But they're clearly a step in the right direction. The difficulty in terms of reforming the issue of the money, which obviously remains a big challenge, is there isn't the same consensus on what should happen there.

How much discretion should the judiciary have? What should be the particular rules? Now, that's not to argue that they can't be improved. I'm sure they can. But the situation I was in, there was an opportunity to take a very clear step forward on no-fault divorce. If I tried to address the money side as well at the same point there was a there was a very significant risk that the whole reform could have been lost so so I wanted to proceed on on an

area where I think there was a broad consensus not unanimity but a broad consensus uh and proceed on that front and I think there is now a a you know an argument for looking again at how the financial assets are distributed. I think it's right we have that debate. But as I say, I don't think there's quite the consensus on what we should have in this field as there was on attribution of blame within the marriage. I imagine that may come up. I'll give out the details at the end of our discussion in our phone in tomorrow about this, that some may bring that up as one of the issues that they've grappled with and also found incredibly difficult. Of course, not everyone is going to be happy about this coming to pass,

although you talk about a lot of agreement on this. Some critics, of course, you'll be very familiar with this saying, this move undermines the institution of marriage, makes divorce easy, in quotation marks. Where did you come to with that when that was presented to you? How did you used to respond? I think my view was that we're not going to strengthen the institution of marriage by making the divorce process as confrontational and hostile as it has been. And that isn't the sort of sensible approach. I mean, it is interesting, you go back 30 years ago, this debate's been going on for at least 30 years, and proposals for reform were widely criticised for undermining marriage. I've been struck,

frankly, and pleasantly surprised how small those voices have been in this debate. I think there is a recognition that protecting marriage as an institution isn't best done by making this process as messy as it has been. And particularly for children caught up in the middle of this, that can make the whole process much more traumatic than it needs to be. Indeed. And again, and I'm sure that will come up in our phone-in tomorrow. How's your divorce from politics going? All right. Fine, fine. It has its compensation.

No wish to return just yet. Not yet. Not yet. OK. David Gauke, thank you very much for talking to us. Former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary who took, as he says, the opportunity to make this change, bring this reform to pass. And from tomorrow, that's where we are. No fault divorce will come into practice then. And here on Women's Hour, we're going to be opening our phone lines to hear what you have to say on divorce reform.

I want to hear your experiences, and I know some of them will be incredibly painful, but you'll also want to share and also help others. What has it been like ending your marriage? What was it like? Perhaps you're in that process right now. How could removing blame have changed things? How will it moving forward for you, do you hope? What has been the impact of divorce on you, but also your family, children, grandparents,

friendship groups, and not just these law changes, I suppose. Have you got any other suggestions about what could have made the process more amicable, less toxic if it had gone that way. Maybe, I'm very aware of this, you will be one of those who has postponed getting divorced, waiting for this reform to come in. Well, do join our phone in tomorrow. The lines will be open from 8 o'clock tomorrow morning, but you can get in touch now by emailing me and the team here at Women's Hour. You can go to our website, follow the link, or on social media.

We're at BBC Women's Hour, or text, as you've been doing throughout the programme, many messages coming in on 84844. Text will be charged at your standard message rate and do check for those exact costs. But looking forward to talking

to lots of you, actually talking to you on air tomorrow. Let me tell you about something else. And it's a book and it's a novel called Lessons in Chemistry, which is tipped to be

one of the hottest reads of the year. It follows the life and struggles of Elizabeth Zott, else. And it's a book and it's a novel called Lessons in Chemistry, which is tipped to be one of the hottest reads of the year. It follows the life and struggles of Elizabeth Zott, a chemist turned reluctant TV chef. Think part Julia Child, part Marie Curie. Set in 1960s America, the character Elizabeth teaches the nation's housewives chemistry and cooking on her TV show Supper at Six, her chemical equations and rousing words, I should say, dare her female viewers to reconsider not just dinner, but their place in the whole world. Bit of an ambition there.

A debut novel, no less, written by Bonnie Garmis, sold all over the world, and Bonnie's soon to be a TV series starring Brie Larson. Yes, I'm really excited about that, of course. And by the way, it's a pleasure to be here today, Emma. Thank you. It's lovely to have you. And it's pretty good for a debut novel, I'm really excited about that, of course. And by the way, it's a pleasure to be here today, Emma. Thank you. It's lovely to have you. And it's pretty good for a debut novel, I imagine. I hope so. I feel that way, at least. This character had been in your mind for a while. Is that right?

Yes, she had. She'd been a minor character in another novel that I'd started and shelved. And one day I'd had a really bad day at work. I'd faced a lot of sexism in a meeting. And when I left that meeting, I went back to my desk and I felt that this character had suddenly come back into my life. I felt like she was sitting there looking at me and I felt like she was saying, you think you've had a bad day? Well, get a load of mine. And then I wrote the first chapter of Lessons in Chemistry at that point.

Because her day was in the 60s, very different indeed. And why is there chemistry in her cooking? Well, you know, I think that she is a scientist and, you know, she sees everything from a very evidence-based point of view. So cooking is chemistry. There's absolutely no doubt about that. When you go into the kitchen and you apply heat to anything, you're causing a chemical reaction and you ignite this chemical reaction. It ends up breaking bonds and creating new bonds. You do that every single day you apply heat. Or breaking pans in my case. Yeah. And then you put that on a plate and you call it dinner, but you've actually just conducted an experiment and hopefully it was successful.

Yes. Well, and she is a scientist by training. Yes, she is. She's a chemist. And she had a lot of barriers to get to that point. We don't want to give away too much. But her getting to this point was very pragmatic as a single mother. Yes. Yes. You know, she is self-taught. She didn't have the opportunity to have a regular education. So it is possible to teach yourself things and she is self-taught. But yes, you know, she was fired from her job for the crime of being pregnant. In the 60s, you could not hold a job if you were pregnant. So she had to keep going on her own. And I think the whole idea of how to get those messages across in the 60s to your fellow women, perhaps about the limitations under which you were living. I mean, we talk now and perhaps forget.

I know it's the 60s as well. And there's a whole other side of this and the feminism and everything that was coming. But to talk, you almost sometimes had to have a code to talk about how miserable perhaps you were, or, you know, the problem that has no name. Exactly. And I think for women of that era, you know, they were being told that they were happy. This was after World War II, they were told life was beautiful for them. They had appliances that were called avocado or harvest gold, and it was supposed to make their lives easier. But it wasn't easy for them. And I think a lot of women, I think that entire generation is a representation of dreams that never came true, ambitions that were never allowed to be entertained. And I think that must have been very difficult to live under, but that's what my mother lived under.

And that's why this book is dedicated to her. I was going to say, had it made you think of the women in your life who hadn't been able to do just even, you know, 1% of what they could probably be capable of? Yeah, I mean, my mother was a nurse. But when we all came along and there were four of us, she stayed home, as did every other woman. But she never, ever stopped talking about what it had been like for her to be a nurse. It made her feel productive. It made her feel like she was a contributor. And women get to feel that. They should feel that because they are. And it was really important to her. So when we were all gone, she re-upped her license. She

renewed her license, rather, and she went back to work and became, I will say, Nurse of the Year at her hospital. Where are we talking about in the world? At that point, we were living in Miami, and she was one of the very first nurses to volunteer for the AIDS wards. Wow. Well, there you go. And what an accolade. What would she make of your chemistry? Is it accurate?

Yes, it is. But only because I've had it checked by two chemists. Yeah, she would be very proud, I think, of the chemistry in the book. Yeah, it's always good to get those things checked, I imagine. But you say a bad day at work, and you were working as a copywriter. Say this is your debut novel. How old are you, if you don't mind me asking? I'm 64. So, you know, for doing this at this point, had you wanted to write your whole life? You were writing, but had you wanted to write a novel? Yes, I have. I wrote my first novel at age five. It was a page and a half long. It was terrible.

It only had one character. There was no plot. And then I wrote another at age 12, and I thought it was great. And my librarian put it in the library, and no one ever checked it out. And then I wrote, I started another novel that had Elizabeth Zod in it, but I shelved that. And actually, to tell you the, but I shelved that. And actually, to tell you the truth, I shelved that based on some sexism that I had encountered. No. It was really bad. Go on. But it just made me, it put me off of writing that book.

Was it something that was just said to you in a work setting? No. Actually, it was from an advisor of mine. I was going for an MFA at that time. And he was very sexist. And yeah, I decided I had to shelve that book because that book was getting really angry. But anyway, and then I wrote another book, but that got rejected 98 times. This is my third attempt, and I hit it. 98 times? Yes. That's something. Yeah, well, I was gonna go for 100. But then I thought, why? What a waste of time. Move on. Do you think that will not get published now? I hope so. But I'm actually kind of

reworking that a little bit. Okay. Well, you got some space, hopefully, to do that. It must be something as well, having a book made into a TV show. How does that feel? Because you won't then get to have the same control in some ways, will you? No, I don't have control. You know, I will be reading the scripts, and the team has been absolutely wonderful to me. I have no complaints, but I have to let other people do their jobs. What do your daughters, I believe you've got two, what do they make of the messages in this book?

Oh, they're thrilled. You know, I think that they think, you know, that women today do have problems in the workplace. And I wanted to show them that women in the workplace in the 60s, it was much worse. And it wasn't so great when I was working. And it's not so great when they're working. But we have made steady progress. We have to keep going. Yes, indeed. Well, I mean, this is a program dedicated in the progress and the problems, if I may put it like that.

Do you think, though, being an older writer now, that you have had a lot of interactions with tons of people. And you've watched how other people react to things. So I have a bigger suitcase of experiences to draw from. And that's been really, really helpful. Oh, I like that. A bigger suitcase. I think I might use that. Okay.

What's the best recipe in there? Oh, my gosh. You know what? I don't really like to cook. But the best recipe is the one for brownies, of course what? I don't really like to cook. But the best recipe is the one for brownies, of course. Okay, we'll take that. I'm always trying. I think I do produce quite good food. It's just I have to follow the recipe. I'm one of those. It's not natural. Bonnie, a delight to talk to you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Good luck on the next bit

of your journey. I can't believe we've rejected 98 times. I know. There you go. I don't want to dwell on that. But I think it's also important to hear how people get to where they get to. You have to keep going. The stories behind. Lessons in Chemistry by Bonnie Glamis. All the best to you. Thank you. A message just coming in here, quite a few, about June Brown talking about another amazing actor.

And then, of course, the character of Doc Cotton. Sarah's texted to say, on Comic Relief, she apparently said, she said, excuse me, apparently I am a gay acorn, whatever that is. It stayed with me forever. So funny, so dry, loved her. And another one here, about 20 years ago, when my daughter was small, I heard June Brown sing a nursery rhyme in one episode of EastEnders. I'd only ever heard my mother sing that particular rhyme to me in the 1960s. And I wrote to June, who had the grace to reply, saying she didn't know any more of it, but remembered it from her own childhood. A charming and talented woman. We loved her. Many, many more memories, I'm sure, and messages coming in.

And another one just with regards to divorce, because coming up with our phone in tomorrow, Dolly says, I think this should help. I know too many young people who have been badly affected by the divorce of parents it affects them throughout their whole life and many don't know what a loving relationship is because they haven't witnessed it so that's a comment on the big change about to happen to divorce laws but i thought we would end the program with the voice of a ukrainian girl and it's one that you may remember from the very early days of the russian invasion of the war in the voice of a Ukrainian girl and it's one that you may remember from the very early days of the Russian invasion of the war in Ukraine because a video of her

went viral when she sang Let It Go, of course the Frozen anthem, in a bunker in Kiev. Ничего уже, отпусти и забудь, Новый день, он скажет, путь не боюсь. Ничего уже, пусть бы шум ничто, Холод всегда мне был по душе. Браво, браво! Her name's Emilia and she's just seven years of age and she's found safety in Poland. But on Sunday, she was in Wales visiting the Aberystwyth Arts Centre

and sang the Ukrainian national anthem. Let's have a listen. singing in Russian That's Emilia, the seven-year-old Ukrainian little girl, singing us out today on Woman's Hour. Thank you so much for all of your messages and your company. Back tomorrow at 10. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Thank you so much for your time. Join us again for the next one.

I'm Sarah Trelevan, and for over a year, I've been working on one of the most complex stories I've ever covered. There was somebody out there who was faking pregnancies. I started, like, warning everybody. Every doula that I know. It was fake. No pregnancy. And the deeper I dig, the more questions I unearth.

How long has she been doing this? What does she have to gain from this? From CBC and the BBC World Service, The Con, Caitlin's Baby. It's a long story. Settle in. Available now.