Woman's Hour - Smart phones and tracking children, The Traitors, Regulating Botox

Episode Date: January 15, 2026

To track or not to track? Now that technology on our phones makes it so easy, many parents are tracking their children’s whereabouts. If children don’t have a smart phone, many people use a GPS tracker device do to the same thing. There are even children’s trainers available with a special slot to insert the device. But have we thought about the reasons why? What are the benefits or dangers of tracking children, and if you do track, at what point do you stop? Anita Rani is joined by Clare Fernyhough and Esther Walker.Some fat dissolving agents and skin rejuvenation treatments being injected into women currently have the ‘same regulatory classification as ball-point pens’. That’s according to evidence heard by the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee as part of a new inquiry into the potential harms of hair and beauty products and treatments. Thousands of women could be potentially experiencing harm from these products and going undocumented. Ashton Collins, co-founder of Save Face, the register for safe medical aesthetic practitioners, and Victoria Brownlie, chief policy and sustainability officer at The British Beauty Council join Anita.The latest series of The Traitors has sparked controversy after two black women, Netty and Judy, were the first to leave – one ‘murdered’ by the Traitors and the other banished at the roundtable. The debate goes beyond the game- is it exposing unconscious bias and raising bigger questions? Do reality TV shows like this hold up a mirror to society, revealing uncomfortable truths around racism, misogyny, and ageism? Author and arts columnist at the Independent Micha Frazer-Carroll and freelance writer Chloe Laws, who have both written on this topic and are both fans of the show, discuss.A group of religious leaders and a Member of Parliament in The Gambia have tabled a bill seeking to overturn the country’s ban on female genital mutilation or FGM. The matter is now before the country’s Supreme Court and is due to resume later this month. The case follows reports that two baby girls bled to death after undergoing FGM in the country last year. Rights groups have condemned the move, describing it as a violation. One of those groups is the African Women's Rights Advocates - we hear from Mam Lisa Camara from the group, along with BBC Correspondent for West Africa Thomas Naadi, based in Accra. And we nod to Claudette Colvin, who helped end racial segregation in the US by refusing to give up her bus seat to a white person in Alabama. She has died at the age of 86. Her protest and subsequent arrest was largely unknown until the details were included in a book in 2009. Far more well known is an event that happened nine months later when Rosa Parks famously defied the bus laws. Presenter: Anita Rani Producer: Kirsty Starkey

Hello, I'm Anita Rani and welcome to Woman's Hour from BBC Radio 4. Good morning and welcome to the programme. Are you watching Traitors? Well, what does the series and other reality TV formats, for that matter, reveal about society and who we judge and how we judge them? The first ever series of Big Brother launched in the year 2000, the original Social Experiment Reality TV series that's dated some of us. But if we look across so many others, like Love Island,

I'm a celebrity, strictly in traitors, are underlying prejudices exposed? If you've already thought about this and have an opinion, get in touch. Also, female genital mutilation, or FGM, has been banned in the Gambia since 2015. But now a group of religious leaders and an MP are wanting to overturn the ban. We'll be finding out why. And would you track your child? Do you already do it? Why?

Is it for your own peace of mind? Do you feel they're safer if you know where they are? Or are you fueling your anxiety and your child? Are you making them feel too safe or maybe paranoid? And moving beyond children, how would you feel being tracked yourself? Maybe you are. Maybe you do the tracking. Does it make you feel safe or does it make you feel strange

knowing that someone knows where you are at all times? And what about an elderly parent? How would you feel about tracking them if you need to? Your thoughts on this in the usual way? Text number is 84844. You can also email the program by going to our website. You can WhatsApp the program on 0300-100-444. And if you'd like to follow us on social media, it's at BBC Woman's Hour.

84844 is that text number once again. But first, some fat dissolving agents and skin rejuvenation treatments being injected into women currently have the same regulatory classification as ballpoint pens. That's according to evidence heard by the... the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee as part of a new inquiry into the potential harms of hair and beauty products and treatments. Thousands of women could be damaged by these products,

according to experts. Despite years of campaigning, adequate regulations haven't been introduced. Well, to discuss this, I'm joined by Ashton Collins from the campaign group Safe Face and Victoria Brownlee, the chief policy and sustainability officer at the British Beauty Council.

Ashton and Victoria, welcome to the programme. Victoria, I'm going to come to you first. So why are MPs holding this inquiry now? Well, the inquiry is really timely, actually. There was a similar inquiry back in October on a very similar subject. And the importance of the inquiry is to really look at the need for aesthetics regulation in the UK. At the moment, the restrictions and requirements for people undertaking and offering these treatments is purely voluntary. And what we need is mandatory qualifications, mandatory inspectors,

and a licensing scheme that restricts and looks over who should be offering these treatments. So Ashton, the inquiry kicked off hearing about particularly striking case of one woman who is actually a beauty therapist to herself. So tell us a bit more. What did you hear? What did she say? Yeah, you know, we've been supporting that individual for the last five years. And what she's been through is quite simply horrific.

So the crux of what happened to her, she went along for what she believed to be a Botox treatment. so an anti-wrinkle procedure. And shortly afterwards, she started experiencing horrendous complications. So at each injection site, and if anybody's familiar with Botox, you have multiple across your head, if you have three areas and around your eyes. And she was having these lumps appear at these injection sites. And they would dissipate and then they'd come back. And every time they came back, they were bigger and bigger.

And they started postulating and exploding and bleeding. And it was just horrendous. And when she came to us and described her experience, we knew, very quickly that this was linked to a counterfeit or an unlicensed product because these symptoms are not associated with the licensed brands in the UK. And the challenge with that is, is that because it's an unknown product, it's very, very difficult to then offer treatment and identify what's causing these lumps to appear. And so she was on a journey of about two years of having these boils lanced biopsied to try and identify what was causing them. And in the end, she had to have

them surgically removed and has now been scarred for life. That sounds horrific. Where did she go to get these? She went to a person that isn't a healthcare professional, but, you know, somebody that she thought she could trust. And, you know, she made, she'd had Botox in the past. It was familiar with the treatment. And yeah, unbeknownst to her, she was given a product that wasn't legitimately prescribed because Botox is a prescription-only medicine and many people don't actually realize that. And so at the point of treatment, they are vulnerable to be exploited by people who are perhaps either using illegal imports. So, you know, people that buy products from places like China and Korea to circumvent the prescription process or a product that hasn't been

legitimately prescribed for them. And that's exactly what happened to her. And when this happened to her face and she had started getting this reaction, what did she do? Oh, she was in turmoil, as you'd imagine, and, you know, she is a makeup artist, so her job involves working very closely with people, having her face very close to her clients. So she was unable to work for months. You know, she described yesterday that it made her feel so depressed that she was turning to alcohol and, and awfully at one point even committed, contemplated committing suicide, which, you know, it's just horrendous. the impact that this has not only on their physical appearance, but their mental health as well is, you know, it is really indescribable. And what about the specifics of the cost of this?

How much did she pay for the treatment and how much did it cost to get it right? I think she paid a couple of hundred pounds for the treatment itself, and her corrective treatment has ended up costing her over £8,000. And so this is what people need to bear in mind. When they see cheap deals advertised on social media, it may cost you far more in the long run. both physically, financially and emotionally. Victoria, you were also giving evidence yesterday.

What's your reaction to some of the experiences you heard? Well, the case yesterday was extremely difficult to hear and there was actually audible gasps from the members of the select committee from the MPs that were in attendance. But unfortunately, that's one of many cases that we hear and the problems that we have at the moment are because there is a system where we have healthcare practitioners who ultimately, If something were to go wrong, they would be reported to their medical councils and therefore then could be struck off or there could be action taking it against them.

When you're working with a non-health care practitioner in these kinds of treatments, these more higher-risk treatments and something were to go wrong, there's nothing to stop them from then offering similar services to someone the very next day. What are the rules at the moment when it comes to regulation? The rules at the moment are very lacking, to be completely honest. and there are qualifications which people can undertake. And we have fantastic practitioners who aren't medical practitioners who have gone through the correct means of essentially getting up to a degree level qualification. But at the same time, there are online courses, there are short courses being made available through unscrupulous trainers

that can offer two-day courses, half-day courses, which will essentially allow somebody to be offering injectable treatments and others with little to no adequate qualification. and the same with the way that there's places where these services can be offered. They can be offered in people's living rooms. They can be offered in hotel conference rooms. It's really quite shocking. And so this is why regulation is so, so important so that we have something that says

the place where the procedure is taking place has been inspected, that only certain treatments are being able to be taken place in that space. And the practitioner that's offering the treatments has the correct level and the degree of standard of qualification that's necessary to do. that treatment. Yeah. Ashton, did she go to the police? Could she have gone to the police?

No, she didn't. But the person that treated her, we actually had a number of cases, treatments carried out by the same practitioner. And we signposts, where there's been an illegal event taking place, we always signpost them to the appropriate regulator. And in that case, it was the police. And a number of women did go to the police to report their experience. And shockingly, the police did.

investigate a single one of them. And it, you know, we do see this all the time where, you know, these women have been physically assaulted and have been left with lifelong injuries. But the police don't take these matters seriously simply because it's associated with the cosmetic procedure. And these women are made to feel like silly women that have made a choice out of vanity and it's their own fault. And that really needs to change. Oh, what do you make of that, Victoria? I completely agree. And I think that's why really we have no idea about the breadth and scale of this issue because there is a reticence to go and actually seek medical attention in some cases through official channels, like through the NHS. And there's a, in the same way, people do

not want to go and report it to the police because they're worried about the judgment that they'll receive that exactly as Ashton said, they feel like they've made a stupid choice. They've done something out of vanity. And actually, they are fully autonomous humans that are able to make decisions about their lives and they've done so in good faith and unfortunately something terrible has happened and ultimately these people are operating illegally. There should be something that happens as a result. They shouldn't be allowed to be continued to practice. If it is in a case of the actual item that has been created illegally, the product itself, then ultimately that's something that needs to be dealt with so that that doesn't go further afield and more people aren't affected by it.

But unfortunately, people don't want to come forward. And then, Ashton, I'm just thinking about the sort of psychological consequences for people who have been, I guess, the victims of this, but also physical scarring. Oh, yeah, I can't, you know, describe the impact that these experiences have on mostly women that go through these things. And like you said, you know, with the higher risk procedures that I was mentioning yesterday, like liquid BBLs, you know, we've supported nearly a thousand women who have had horrendous experiences with those. But that's Brazilian butt lifts. Yes, yes, yes. And, you know, 53% of these women have been hospitalized with sepsis. Many of them have needed to have large proportions of their flesh surgically removed.

They've been left and able to walk and able to work. And, you know, something that ultimately they were having done to make themselves look and feel better has had the exact opposite effect. It's ruined their lives. And so physically and emotionally, the stress is enormous. What would you like to see come out of this inquiry, Ashton? For us, you know, we are heartened that the government are now taking action on the highest risk procedures because we're now seeing things like liposuction, surgical facelifts being carried out by people with no medical qualifications

and that needs to change immediately. And outside of that, as I described yesterday, you know, as well as the licensing and all the other things, what we are calling for as an urgent point of action is the reclassification of these injectable products. that are currently, you know, regulated in the same manner as ballpoint pens and these substances that are being injected into women that are not aware that these products have not gone through any safety or efficacy trials and may not even contain the ingredients that the manufacturers claim. That needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

And Victoria, if someone listening is thinking of getting one of these treatments, what would your advice be? Well, there's definitely advice around making sure that you're checking the educational credit of the practitioner, that you are having a calling off period, they're asking you about your medical history, they're asking about your lifestyle, they're asking you about recent events, and really just checking the procedure is suitable for the particular issue that you have.

There is an organisation called Babtack, who have a fantastic campaign called The Time Campaign, which gives a whole series of bits of information about questions that you should be asking your practitioner, as well as them asking you. But I think in the short term, until we can get regulation in place, it's that medical practitioners are the correct place to go to for these more invasive treatments like injectable treatments

because we just cannot take the risk until regulation is in place. And also women should come forward, should they, if they've had this happen to them and not feel shame? Absolutely, because unfortunately, the CAD will just continue to get kicked down the road by government until they can really understand the length and breadth and seriousness of this issue. and what we've had since the Cure Review back in 2013

is 13 years of people saying that they're going to do something about it and small steps being made, but ultimately we're still at a point where we have voluntary registration, voluntary education, and we really need full regulation in this space. Victoria and Ashton, thank you so much for speaking to me about this this morning. And if you've been affected by anything you've heard in this discussion, you can go to the BBC Action Line where you'll find links to support. And we have asked the Department for Health and Social Care for a Statement,

but have yet to hear back from them. 844 is the number to text. We also ask the police for a statement and have yet to hear back from them. Now, the latest series of The Traitors has sparked controversy after two black women, Nettie and Judy were the first to leave. One murdered by the traitors and the other banished at the round table. The debate goes beyond the game.

Is it exposing unconsciously? bias and raising bigger questions. Do reality TV shows like this hold up a mirror to society revealing uncomfortable truths around racism, misogyny and ageism? Spoiler alert, there may be some details revealed in this discussion about the current series of traitors. While joining me to discuss this is author and arts calmness at the independent Misha Fraser Carroll and freelance writer Chloe Laws, who have both written on this topic and are both fans of the show. Misha and Chloe, welcome. I'm going to come to you first, Misha. You called this a pattern of people of colour leaving early bleakly predictable.

What do you mean, explain? Definitely. Well, thank you for having me, Anita. Yeah, so I wrote this piece in The Independent, basically discussing, well, worrying trend that I feel like I've seen across different series of the traitors, which is people of colour leaving the series very early on. Not the best source ever, but the only research that I could find on this was from a Rediter who compiled kind of all of the early exits from the show and found that 40% of people

who leave in the early rounds of the traitors are people of colour, and that's a disproportionate figure to the number of people of colour who are actually on the show. And I feel like this is something that we see across reality TV, not only in terms of the statistics of the number of people leaving, but also the ways that they're discussed and the ways that they're treated. So I feel like there's often this kind of pattern where black people specifically are, for example,

described as aggressive or suspicious or hostile or things like going. on the offensive when I think that that behaviour would be seen differently if they weren't black people. And I think you see this in all kinds of ways that are also gendered, relate to disability. And I think, like you say, there is something about holding up a mirror to the society that we live in and something about traitors that feels like it is this sort of microcosm of dynamics that we see every day in places like the workplace. You were initially hesitant about speaking up about this. Why? I think that it's really awkward and uncomfortable to talk about. I think that

as a person of colour who's written on race for years and years, I'm very used to bringing it up and people saying, you know, you're playing the race card, you've got a chip on your shoulder, you make everything about race. And I think that that's really difficult, especially when it comes to things like pop culture and reality TV, where people might kind of say, you know, it's not that serious, it's just a game.

And I think I want to be able to kind of tread that line of saying, yeah, it is just a game. And I don't want to necessarily approach this with a spirit of anger or like, you know, this is. the worst thing in the world. But simultaneously it is something that's happening and I do think we should be able to talk about it. And I think that women of colour like me are very used to experiencing backlash and people kind of getting very angry when we talk about it. But yeah, I think that we should name it and start a conversation about it. Chloe, what makes this show

stand out compared to other reality TV shows when it comes to revealing, or some might say, unconscious bias? I'm thinking of, you know, Big Brother or Love Island. Strictly, I'm a celebrity. what's your take? I think any game that is based on social judgments are internalised biases will come out so people who are seen as bossy or quiet or game playing and I think this show is so brilliant and so loved and so it almost, you know,

I'm almost more upset to see these biases come out because we're not expecting it as much as we would with something like Love Island. What do you mean by that? I think Love Island has been, has a history of misogyny whereas the Traitors is really an entertaining game that many of us love, but it has still been susceptible to general societal, you know, biases that we all feel like misogynate or racism.

Misha. Yeah, I think Chloe raises an interesting point. I think that things like the traitors are often viewed as like more family-friendly, maybe less of a kind of brutal kind of show. And I think in dating shows, unfortunately, the sad reality is that black women and women of color, we're very used to being. treated as less desirable and being kind of chosen last and things like that. Whereas with traitors, I think you think of it as more of a kind of like fun-spirited game

where you wouldn't see things like this come up, but they certainly do. Is it racism? Is it unconscious bias? And what is unconscious bias? Yeah, I think that the way that we name it is like a really interesting topic of discussion as well. I think that I would name it as racism, not in the sense that it's interpersonal or, or any individual is like deliberately or overtly perpetuating racism. But rather I think of racism is something that is collective. It happens on the level of the group, on a systemic level. And I think that is what we're seeing come up in traitors.

It's something that is happening primarily at the roundtable. So when everyone gets together as a group. And I think that it is something that's unconscious. And yeah, when we talk about unconscious bias, we're talking about something that is not deliberate. It's not something that people know that they're doing. but rather that as we move through the world and move through society, we internalise and absorb racist ideas that are around us.

So these are very subtle things like black people potentially being a bit more suspicious or outside of the group. But it's definitely not something that I think is kind of done knowingly or deliberately. Chloe, there might be people listening who don't, I've never seen the program, maybe a couple. So explain it's in the round tables where everything hinges on instinct and that these these, biases and these prejudices come to the fore. Explain more what happens. What are people seeing? Yeah, so there's traitors that are selected by Claudia and then there's faithfuls

and the faithfuls have to find out who the traitors are and the traitors are secretive and lying and then they murder faithfuls throughout the show. So each episode there's a murder and then there's a round table where the faithfuls have to accuse the traitors of being traitors.

And I think often as you say this is where the biases come out and people, you know, there's gender biases as well where the women are kind of always subjected to this double bind criticism. So attacked for being too bossy or too quiet and they kind of can't win ever. So we saw it this season with Fiona, but then we're also seeing it with Jade. And yeah, I think it's just a real microscope to this very human behaviour. Like we all hold unconscious biases and it's not an individual problem with this show and the contestants. this is a societal one

and I think the show is just kind of letting us watch this come out because I think it's not necessarily malicious but it's still important and it's still real and I think we see a lot of outright racism and misogyny directed to the contestants on the show on the flip side on social media

which I think is almost as important as discussions that we're having about the contestants. Absolutely, tell us more. So I mean there were three women who just won the island game version, and they have all said that they have been subjected to loads of misogyny online on social media since winning, that they were called Mean Girls and Katty and Nasty, and we're seeing it now with Rachel on the show.

We see it with the people of colour on the show constantly, where the kind of fans are not favourting them, and it's, I think, you know, they're receiving kind of backlash and bullying just because of these biases and these prejudices. and that, you know, we see that throughout reality TV and women generally with a platform are subjected to it. But I think the unconscious biases we're seeing the castle, you know, are also happening outside of it

and the contestants are both victims and, you know, also kind of perpetrating these as well. Yeah, Misha, Judy and Nettie were the first women to leave traitors this year. And what struck you about the language and the reasoning used against them? I think the language was really telling. So Judy was called Angry while she was on the show at the roundtable and also criticised for being too serious. This was a big thing that when the game began, she became really serious.

And I think, again, it's interesting to think about the idea that actually was that influenced by race. And if she was a different person, would that be too serious or would that be the game has begun? Like, everyone's behaving seriously. And I think it kind of mirrored, yeah, what happened to Temeca Emson last year on the celebrity, season where she was kind of categorized as going on the offensive. Yeah. And so I think that that language does feel specifically related to the ways that black women are often kind of framed as being angry black women. Someone just messaged in saying, I noticed the black people, people of color being voted off first. I've stopped even mentioning it as the reaction is always what your guests

have mentioned as I'm a black woman. My opinion is seen as paranoia. It's really important that we discuss this. It's interesting that we are able to discuss. this now. I've noticed that the articles that are being written about it is because we have more black women writing for prominent publications. Now, maybe this conversation wouldn't even be happening. Well, it wasn't happening 10 years ago. Yeah, it wasn't happening. And I think it's really kind of, it gives me hope that you and I, as like, two women of color, can be sat here and talking about this. And I agree with you that I don't even think it would enter the public realm about a decade ago. And now it feels like a conversation that's really overdue is just getting started. And I'm

glad that we're talking about it, but I also think that that could go further to it being discussed, for example, on the show, or maybe in the show's counterpart, uncloked. I think there could be a way that it's actually named because Traitors, I think, has like the tonal range to be able to do that and has so far sparked conversations about disability, neurodiversity, and this is starting to feel like something that audiences are talking about, and I think that if they could bring it into the show, that would feel really nice, like they were naming this thing rather than ignoring it. Well, certainly as talking about it, is giving some of our listeners a reason to get in touch, which we like. 84844 is the text number.

My family, we are black, have seen and discussed this trend of black contestants being eliminated early, as well as being labelled differently for years and years. It's so noticeable and blatant to most black people as this is our lived experience in the UK. Chloe, can we also see this sort of bias or underlying prejudice around gender and age, sometimes tipping into misogynes? How do you see that playing out in this series? Yeah, definitely. I think like any other bias, it's coming out. And this series, it's prevalent,

but definitely not as prevalent as season two, where there was a real boys club that became quite infamous. There were six traitors throughout that season, and only one was a woman, she was a woman of colour, and she was voted off very quickly. It was male voices that dominated the season. At one point, Claudia even pointed out

another man like, you know, like the olden days. And I think at one point it was only women who had been murdered by the group of male traitors. So that was in season two very prevalent. And in season three, I think there was a, you know, a very conscious decision by casting and production to make sure that the traitors were women. This season is a little bit more mixed, but you can definitely see, I think, again, back to that double bind criticism. So the men who are attention-grabbing are seen as convenient for the traitors, whereas the women who are attention-grabbing or loud is seen as, you know, erratic and dangerous or rude.

And we're seeing it play out, you know, with, say, Harriet last night, she has been very good at the game. And so it's Roxy. And they are receiving, you know, kind of quite a bit of heat about being traitors, but also online have had quite a lot of abuse directed at them. Whereas the men who are displaying similar characteristics haven't really received as much and are pretty well loved. So I think from both within,

the castle and without it, you can definitely see, like, lines of, you know, underlying sexism. Gabby Windley, who was on the US show, said that in the castle, the men didn't take her seriously. So I think that, you know, the female confesses on the show have felt it themselves as well. It's not just us kind of projecting that. I'm going to read out this message and get your reaction to it, Misha. I'm listening to your programme with increasing disbelief about racial discrimination in the traitors. Absolutely ridiculous. I watch this programme and don't think for one minute there is any racism.

soever, and that's Fran from Welshpool. Yeah, well, I think Fran's comment points towards kind of the slipperiness and how hard it is to kind of pin down what's happening here. And I think it's very common when we talk about unconscious bias to look at these instances and say, I can't see racism, you know, I can't point towards it and say, this is exactly what's happening in this individual interaction. And I think it just points towards the fact that these aren't about individual phenomena. They are things that play out on the level.

of the collective. And I think, yeah, it's very hard to watch one episode and say this episode was racist. But I think that one thing that is a positive about having so many seasons of the show now, we have a kind of lot of data to look at. And it is a pattern. And I think a pattern that we can't ignore. The term unconscious bias, doesn't it take away responsibility a little bit, just that term itself? Yeah, I think this is an interesting debate that happens in the sphere of unconscious bias. And I kind of agree with you there is a risk of it kind of stripping responsibility or leading to us, you know, talking about it as something that people don't knowingly do or something that kind of can't be helped. And I think I'm quite resistant to that framing. I want us to be

able to hold on to the fact that it can be unconscious. At the same time, there might be overt stuff happening there at the same time. But regardless, it is something that we can do something about. and even if it is unconscious, I think it is something that we can address. Well, we can definitely have a conversation about it at Woman's Hour. Thank you both of you for speaking to me, Misha, Fraser Carroll and Chloe Laws. Keep your thoughts coming in, 844. We did ask the BBC and the production company Studio Lambert, who make the traitors for a response.

The BBC didn't want to comment and we're yet to hear back from Studio Lambert. Now, a group of religiously... and a member of Parliament in the Gambia have tabled a bill seeking to overturn the country's ban on female genital mutilation or FGM. The matter is now before the country's Supreme Court and is due to resume later this month. The case follows reports that two baby girls bled to death after undergoing FGM in the country last year. Rights groups have condemned the move describing it as a violation. One of those groups is the African women's rights advocates. And with me in the studio is Ma' Lisa Kam.

from the group. She lives in the Gambia but is in the UK this week. But first let's speak to BBC's correspondent for West Africa, Thomas Nadi, who's based in Ghana. So Thomas, why are these religious groups now calling to overturn the ban on FGM? FGM has been banned in the Gambia since 2015. Well, there are several reasons why religious groups won the ban overturned. We know that Gambia is predominantly a Muslim country, and so pushing for the ban to be lifted, they are basically saying that the practice is mandatory in Islam and then rooted in the culture and tradition of the Gambia. Some of them even argue that those who engage in their practice be rewarded, and those who don't comply be punished.

And then some also believe the ban itself is alien to their way of life. And now let's talk specifically about the law. The law was introduced and the former president, Yaya Jame, who ruled the country with an iron fist. And Gambia is one of the poorest countries in the world. According to the World Food Program, 48% of his population live in poverty. And so somehow of the opinion that he introduced the law

to please international donor agencies and not necessarily to protect the rights of women and girls. So when the first conviction occurred in 2023, those against the law were outraged and then even helped fund the fine imposed by the courts. They then started the campaign to overturn the law in 2024. Fifteen out of 26 countries in sub-Saharan Africa have banned FGM. Is that right? That's correct.

Fifteen out of 26 countries have banned it. is a very pervasive practice in the sub-region. But the problem has been with enforcement. The case of the Gambia, for instance, the ban has not stopped the practice. A grandmother and a mother of a three-week-old baby who died after undergoing the procedure were convicted and fined just $135, which isn't deterrent enough. And there's also an ongoing case involving three-weeks. men accused of performing FGM on a one-month-old baby, who unfortunately developed complications and died.

And so because they are laws to protect women and girls, these things are done secretly. And the more worrying situation now is the fact that babies are now being targeted. When do we expect the case to be heard, and is there any sense of the possible outcome? The Supreme Court is currently on recess and is expected to resume. before end of this month to continue the case. And then we, the court is likely, I should say, likely to uphold the law in line with the decision taken by Parliament, which had rejected the bill forward to overturn the law. We also know that Gambia is a signatory to various international conventions that

protects the rights of women and girls. And so the court will definitely take that into consideration when delivering a judge. on this particular case. But how much support has this overturn got in the country? Well, it enjoys a lot of support. There was a lot of backlash when the first conviction involving three women who had performed FGM on eight children occurred in 2023.

There was a public, there were calls for it to overturned. And so in March 2024, that was when a private member's bill was introduced in Parliament to do exactly that. but the parliamentary committee recommended that the law should be maintained and so MPs rejected the bill. But now, as we understand, the religious leaders have decided to proceed to the Supreme Court. And the court is currently looking into the case. Let me just add that there was actually a survey that was conducted in 2020, which revealed that 46% of women wanted their practice to continue.

while the same exact number of women or percentage of women wanted FGM banned. But it was a slight improvement from a similar study in 2013, where 65% of women actually supported their practice. So it appears that advocacy work is improving the situation. Thomas, thank you so much for joining us to speak to us this morning from Ghana. That's our BBC correspondent for West Africa, Thomas Nadi. Well, as I mentioned in the studio, I'm joined by Lisa Kamara from the group, African women's rights advocates. Lisa, welcome.

What was your reaction when you heard about this case? For me, thank you for having me, Anita. I would say I am, first of all, I would just like to say that I'm speaking as a survivor of FGM that works with other survivors. and community members in the Gambia. When I heard about it, there were mixed emotions because I was there during the fight for the ban on FGM before 2015. And it was a lot of fight, a lot of work educating people going out in communities until we got what we wanted.

That was the law, which we all celebrated. So, you know, 10 years down the line, felt like we're going back to Squire 1. Because when the law came as a survivor and also coming from a practicing community, I celebrated because knowing my child is safe, but then all the children are also safe from all the households that do not have an activist like me.

But when this discussion started 10 years again, 10 years, you know, further, and I was like, how safe are we? How safe are other girls? I can be assured that my child is safe. I know I'll not cut her, but what happens to the other girl child that I fought for 10 years ago?

What's happening? Why, after 10 years of a ban, has this now happened? What's your understanding of it? It's difficult to comprehend because the people that are actually challenging the law are not women. They're not the ones that feel the pain, claiming that it interferes with culture and religion,

with no basis, with no basis, with zero basis. It's important to know that FGM does not end with the cut. It stays without physically and emotionally throughout our lives. So where this challenge comes from, we're still trying to comprehend what happened 10 years later. Yeah. I was alarmed to hear the figure that 406% of women support this.

You've got a slight smile. I mean, I think it's a knowing understanding. Why would women support something so brutal and barbaric? First of all, I would like to say that I don't call FGM brutal and barbaric. It comes from a place of love. When our parents do it to us or when their parents also did it on them, it was from a place of love because they felt it was what was best for them. Okay.

Because it has been in the culture. So explain what's told. What is explained? We're told that it makes us clean. We're told that it helps control our sexual desires, which is good for a woman, because then, you know, you stay in your marriage, that you don't go out, pretty scarcely, you know, playing around. So that is what we're told. We're told that it makes us good Muslims as you grow up. But then that takes me back to your question.

of why women are supporting it. We have a lot of learning and unlearning to do. Because that is what I believed. I believed it was good for me. I believed FGM was good for me until, you know, I had my own experience when I had my first child, you know, after the complications that I've heard, the discussions around it and also making my own research. Then I, it dawn on to me that this is really harmful.

There are long-time complications. So we believe that women have a lot of unlearning and learning. need to do because of what we were told when we were growing up. And so when you are doing your advocacy work, when you're out there talking to people, when you are talking to women who want to uphold this and believe it is part of culture or a tradition, how difficult are those conversations? They're very difficult. They're difficult because you're trying to convince someone that believed something that

was there for thousands of years. Someone that believes something is a religious obligation. It's difficult to convince them. But we always get to a point where they understand our perspective, especially when we talk about the health complications. Mind you, we come from a community that promotes the culture of silence. People don't talk about their pains and their struggles. So when women go through or are affected by some of those complications, we don't talk about them openly because we believe it's part of womanhood. That is what we're told growing up.

But then during these discussions, we point out some of these. complications because we are survivors ourselves, we understand, we point out certain complication and then they realize that this is not normal for me to feel feel this pain. This is as a result of what I've gone through. So like I said, it's a lot of learning and unlearning. And, you know, these conversations needs to continue with these women because with education, a lot of changes can happen. Is there also fear if you do think, you know, maybe women, I'm just, because women know

their pain. They know what their bodies are going through and what they've had to suffer, but maybe not even being able to talk about it openly. Because we're told they're secret. Our bodies are sacred. We're not supposed to talk about it. It's not more of fear, but because of what we're told to believe that women's body pad are sacred, women are supposed to go through certain types of pains, and we're supposed to keep quiet about it. We're supposed to talk about it. For example, when after a woman comes back from the hospital giving birth, people come and check on you. Hi, how are you? Anita, how are you doing? And you're expected to say, I'm fine.

It all went well. Yeah. You're not expected to explain your experience. So that is how they grew up. So you don't expect them to openly talk about their pains, let alone acknowledge some of the complications that they go through. What effect has this had on your own health? As a woman, you know, I've had three kids and I've gotten to a state. where I'm unable to have to deliver a child naturally.

And this is not unique to me. A lot of other women are going through. And you mentioned your own daughter at the beginning. You do have a daughter and you've said you know that she will be safe. Yes. But you fear for other people's? For other girls, yes. Are you hopeful that this practice will ever be stopped?

I am hopeful. I'm hopeful it will be stopped, but not as quickly. as other people want. Because, you know, there was discussions about ending FGM in a few years' time. FGM is not ending in a few years' time. It's not realistic. I come from a practice in community. We understand how deeply rooted this harmful practice is. It's a violation of women's right. It's a violation of the girl's child right. And it is everybody's business to talk about. I'd like to thank you for coming in to talk to us about it, Ma'am, Lisa Kamara.

And we asked the Foreign Office about the loss of funding to prevent FGM and asked whether they would attend the planned summit. They didn't reply to those specific questions, but sent as a statement saying they've launched an international coalition to end violence against women and girls globally, saying it's an international emergency. And they added, and I quote, be it domestic violence in the home, child marriage,

female genital mutilation, the forcible taking of women's earnings, or the deliberate stopping of a girl from going to school, we want to be part of a worldwide mission to prevent this violence and abuse. Now, Claudette Colville, who helped end racial segregation in the US by refusing to give up her bus seat to a white person in Alabama

has died at the age of 86. Her protest and subsequent arrest was largely unknown until the details were included in a book in 2009. Far more well-known is an event that happened nine months later when Rosa Parks famously defied the bus laws. One year after Claudette Colville's arrest, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregation on buses must end. The legal case turned on the testimony of four plaintiffs,

one of whom was Claudette. While in 2018, she spoke to Matthew Bannister on Outlook on the World Service and described the experience. The white people was always sitting in the front of the bus and black people to the back of the bus. And the bus driver has the authority to assign the seats. So when more white passioners got on the bus, he asked for the seats. So what did you say when the driver asked you to give up your seat?

Did you say anything? Yes, he asked, you know, Gal, while are you sitting there, get up and give me those seats? So I said, I paid my fare and it's my constitutional rights. That's a very brave thing to say under the circumstances. Yes, indeed. Were you frightened at all? Well, I could say I was angry because I knew I was sitting in the right space. I would have given up my seat if I'd have been an elderly person,

but this was a young white woman, and three of the students got up reluctantly, and I remained sitting next to the window. Most of the people, they ask, why didn't you get up when the bus driver asked you? I said, it felt as though, Harry your Tubman, hands were pushing me down on one shoulder. And so, John, truth, hands were pushing me down on the other shoulder. Claudette Colvin, who has died at the age of 86. And earlier in the program, we were talking about Botox regulations. we have had a statement from the Department of Health and Social Care.

A spokesperson said we're taking decisive action to crack down on rogue operators who are putting people's health and well-being at risk. Our new regulations will ensure only properly qualified healthcare professionals can perform these types of cosmetic procedures. Anyone considering a cosmetic procedure should research their providers' qualifications, insurance and track record. Our message is to be extremely wary of treatments that seem too good to be true. Your health is not.

worth the risk. Now, last week, a group of 74 health professionals signed an open letter to urge all parents to pause on tracking and to reconsider whether the surveillance childhood we're sleepwalking into is really benefiting our children. So is tracking fundamentally harmful or just an innocent tool? And when, where and why would you track your children and when do you stop tracking them? Well, joining me now is journalist Esther Walker and Claire Fernie Howe, founder of campaign group Smart Phone Free Childhood. Esther and Claire, welcome to the program.

I'm going to come to you first, Claire, because you created this letter. Why? Hi, yeah. I mean, I totally get why parents want to track their kids. It's convenient. And we all want to keep our kids safe, don't we? But we've been speaking increasingly to psychologists and health professionals who are saying, all saying the same thing. They're saying that actually there could be some really unintended psychological consequences associated with tracking. and that we need to pause, reflect and ask ourselves, what message are we sending both to ourselves as parents and to our children about the world that we live in if we say that we need to know your precise geographical location

at any given time? You know, we're implicitly telling that the world is unsafe and there is no evidence for that. There is no evidence whatsoever that tracking makes our kids any safer. But it's a norm that's rapidly becoming embedded. So before we sleepwalk into it, the psychologists are saying, let's pause. You know, we've slept walked into norms before, haven't we? We did it with social media and kids. And now we're trying to reverse that and it's quite hard.

So before this becomes completely normalised, we're asking, you know, we're at a juncture now. We need to pause, reflect, think about actually the messages we're sending and the potential unintended consequences, both for us and for our children. Esther, you track your kids. Why do you do that? Yes, I don't quite track my children. I track their things. So when my daughter started walking school independently when she was 11, she's now 14, there was a transition period where, you know, this was a new thing that she was doing,

and she doesn't go to school very far away. But she, there was a transition period where we, I did want to know where she was and she was okay with that. And I put a tracker in her, in her bag. And that was also so that she could find her bag because the school was very big and she's a bit vague and she does lose things. So it was more, it was more than one thing. But I had a conversation with her about before I put the tracker in her bag, you know, I asked her permission and I explained what I was doing. And she was okay with that. And I think that, you know, look, I'm not going to argue with a load of psychologists, but, you know, I did not tell her in a great gibbering fret of screaming hysteria about how dangerous the world was. And I needed to know her precise geographical location at all time.

I said, it's nice for me to know where you are, you know, because sometimes there is miscommunication between the school and parents. And if an after-school lesson or a club has been cancelled, and I don't know, it's just handy to know where she is. But, I mean, I can't, like, push back on, like, a million professionals telling me that I'm making a mess of my kids. Well, no, I mean, it's not, Claire. I mean, it's not one extreme or the other.

It's not about being a gibbering anxious wreck, I'm guessing. It's that just by the act of wanting to know that is sort of, is that, you know, go on, Claire, I'll let you respond to Esther. Absolutely. Yeah. And, you know, Esther, it sounds like you're taking a very moderate approach. I think what health professionals are coming together to say is that, you know, we, there is no evidence that it makes them safer. There is a really important right of passage that, you know, where children start to separate from their parents and get that increasing autonomy and independence. and now what we're able to do is put technology in the middle of that. And it mitigates our very normal feeling of parental anxiety, which I certainly have about thinking about my daughter crossing town on her own, for example.

But we're depriving them something of really, really important. There's a lot of evidence that shows that children desperately need autonomy and independence and true independence to develop, you know, that autonomy is correlated with a whole range of things, better emotional regulation, resilience, better at dealing with frustration, uncertainty. And actually, it just helps them build confidence. If they know they can walk to the shop, they can go to school on their own,

they can navigate the world without being tracked, it's those skills that really help them develop into successful, resilient adults. So I think this is a nuanced area, but we just need to be thinking about, we're doing something that we're relieving our own anxiety, we're sending messages to them that actually they can't necessarily do this on their own, potentially.

And we think that we're making. them safer, but actually we're depriving them of those very real life sort of street smart skills that they need. Because, yeah, you know, of course, they are still on their own. They can solve their problems, but there is something about knowing that you're being monitored, know, that we respond differently when we are monitored. And, you know, they need to know that actually they can solve these problems completely on their own. Esther? Well, I'm not sure what's to say to all that. But I certainly, I mean, look, I don't, I haven't. done all this research. So I don't, I don't quite have the facts of my fingertips. All I have is

anecdotal evidence of me and my own children. And they seem to be fine. And they come across all sorts of problems on the train when they're going to school or, you know, walking to and from school or socialising with their friends that they do have to solve on their own. And they tell me that they've solved them on their own. So I don't think that the, I mean, I just personally in my daily life, I really haven't found that my children don't do things or are scared or whatever because because they're not aware at all times that there's a tracker in their bag. I mean, I can't possibly argue with any facts or figures.

But what I do know is that... Isn't it about something a bit more subtle than that? Let's take you back to your own childhood and growing up and, you know, how... I guess we grew up... I guess we're in an age now where things are so different and now you've got trainer companies getting onto this and you can put sort of various devices

into children's shoes or whatever. It's just knowing that sort of, underlying that somebody knows where you are, kind of makes you behave differently in the world to guess, I guess, how you and I might have behaved, knowing that we just had to be a bit more vigilant. Well, I mean, my parents were, allowed us a great deal of freedom.

Sure. Because they valued our independence and freedom over their own kind of neurosis and anxiety. Let me tell you, that did not stop me from growing up into an extremely anxious adult. And I think we do need to interrogate this myth that pre-tech parents were not anxious or neurotic about their children. And I knew a great deal of people, my peers, who were not allowed their independence. They were not allowed to go out and do those things because their parents were unduly worried about, you know, the danger of the world or of London.

I grew up in London. London is a very dangerous place. And I never encountered that many problems. but my, you know, if I'd known that someone knew where I was, I think I would have found it very comforting. Lots to unpick here. Collar, is there any evidence that parents and children are feeling more anxious because of this?

There's not a huge amount of research into digital tracking itself because it's a very new phenomenon. There is a lot of research into children who have more autonomy are less anxious. You know, there's sways of evidence on that. But I think there's a wider point that's really important. here, which is tracking is now driving the belief that children need to have smartphones at a younger and younger age. Most parents don't want to give their child a smartphone at young age. We know that. We often do it because of peer pressure.

But now increasingly, we're hearing from the parents in our communities that actually it's because of tracking they think they need to do it. So parents are now feeling forced into a social norm, which is not great. We know the younger child gets a smartphone, the worse their mental health will be. And I think we also need to look at the marketing that's coming from these companies who are, are profiting financially from kids being tracked all the time. And, you know, that, that, there is a financial transaction at the heart of this here. And we do need to also be asking that this. Is it helping us? Is it helping our kids? Or is it actually making us dependent on these devices, which now it's very, very hard to say, we got children can't have one, which actually is a really, really important thing to think about. We also work with a lot of

head teachers in our movement who say they felt unable to ban phones from schools because the number one reason now is because parents want to track. We had one. one head teacher told recently, if you ban phones, you're going to have blood on your hands, because if something happens for my child, it will be your fault. And this is not rational. This is not based on evidence. This is based on perception. And I think we need to think really carefully about, you know, what is our perception and what is actually the real life evidence? The world is not more dangerous than it has been. But because we can do this thing now, there's almost this, we're concluding that if we don't do it, they're somehow not safe. And I think that's the thing at the heart of all of this,

that we just need to question and reflect on before this becomes a norm that's very hard to reverse. Esther, what age will you stop tracking them? I think that it's an ongoing conversation, surely, with your children. And I feel very lucky that I have the kind of relationship with my children where I can talk about these things sort of openly and honestly. And it comes up in the news all the time. My children aren't stupid.

They read newspapers and they know about these things. I think I do think that I do know parents who have children. at university who continue to track their children at university. And I, you know, I do not want to sound judgmental, but I do think that is perhaps an error. Because it's one thing knowing, you know, is Sam on the butt on the coach already on the way home from football? And like, what time is he going to be here?

Am I going to put his dinner on or not? You know, and it's another thing looking at your child somewhere in a nightclub in Newcastle at 3 a.m. Esther, will you be able to resist the urge, though, Esther? it's not really an urge. As I said, it's an ongoing, intelligent, adult conversation with my children. I'm going to read that because we've got loads of social on this. I'm going to read that some of the messages.

I have a young friend who can track me. I find this very comforting being in my 70s and live alone. Sometimes I'm walking home at night. I ask her to track me. Personally, I think it's a brilliant facility. Another one here is saying my daughter tracks me on her iPhone and I don't mind it one bit. I find it comforting to think that she knows where I am. And I'm not yet at the stage where I don't know where I am.

another one saying, I track my mum in her own home. I call it spy camera, but she's 94, lives completely independently, even though I visit every other day. It's just brilliant for peace of mind. And my daughter and I track each other as a safety tool. I don't stalk her, but I can check where she is if she's on a night out. She's in her 20s. So this is a lot of adults tracking adults as well. And just very quickly to both you, do you have concerns about being tracked by companies and

services because that is the other thing that is starting to become more standardised. Yeah, I mean, absolutely. And also not just companies, but we know that, you know, children on Snapchat, for example, their location can be picked up by other people. So tracking can actually make them less safe. But yeah, you know, this norm where we're all tracking each other all the time and certainly companies as well is really worrying. I think we also need to just get better at being, at not knowing,

at being able to live without uncertainty as adults. and as children. And I think, you know, technology is now sort of stopping that happening. And we just need to keep that muscle and be able to live with a little bit of uncertainty. I mean, so many messages coming in. I'm going to end the program with a couple more. But thank you, Claire and Esther for that. So much food for thought.

Someone has got in touch to say, could it be that knowing your tract would make you feel safe, but then make you more likely to take risks because mommy and daddy know where I am and they can save me. So interesting. Join me tomorrow for more Woman's Hour. That's all for today's woman's hour. Join us again next time. Hello, Alex von Tundsenwin here with a brand new series of history's heroes.

People with purpose, brave ideas and the courage to stand alone, including the little-known story of a famous author caught up in a horrific accident, which would require all his courage. Dickens remained in the river, helping the rescue, assisting the wounded. He didn't search. out to be heroic he didn't play on his heroism. Subscribe to History's Heroes on BBC Sounds.