Following the disruption that I had caused at the Berlin Conference I was very surprised when about three months later one of the British organisers contacted me to ask if I would be interested in going to Geneva in June to participate in a follow-up conference to Berlin. Time was short and I was needed to make a quick decision. There were several factors that prompted me to accept this invitation... the issues being raised were very important, I thought it presented an opportunity to contribute actively rather than aesthetically and I find it difficult to say 'no'. However, after a preparatory meeting it became apparent that my role in Geneva would differ greatly from that of my role at the Berlin conference. Whereas in Berlin I had participated as an independent artist and student, in Geneva I would be representing an activist collective with a specific political campaign. My mandate for participating in the 'International Women's Conference to Reclaim ILO Convention 103 for the Defense of Working Woment's Rights' was to help organise a campaign to have the Provisions provided by ILO 103 introduced into British employment law.
Having said that I would attend the conference and booked flights etc. I could not back out at this stage and yet I had serious concerns about my role. It did not seem to make sense that I was being asked to speak on behalf of others who had far greater knowledge and experience than me and (rightly or wrongly) I suspected that I might be being used as a gendered mouthpeice to present what is deemed to be a women's issue. In a panic I expressed my concerns in an e-mail to one of the conference organisers who wrote back to reassure me. Another issue that weighed heavily upon me was that my colleagues required me to become a member of the (New) Labour Party, a move which it was explained would validate my position as a speaker at political meetings and so on... a sort of subversive 'enemy within' role. Feeling like a traitor to myself I briefly joined so that I could be mandated to deliver the conference campaign.
I had continued to strongly believe in the importance of the conference and of the task I was being given and so decided to make the best of a difficult situation. From my diary at the time... 'I am trying to focus upon the important issues that have bought us all together. I've worked hard and I'll just deliver the campaign issues as best I can'.
I have almost no personal 'residue' (photographs and suchlike) from my journey to Geneva nor from the conference itself . I just saw it as being a difficult job that needed to be done. The purely political stance I was being asked to adopt left me feeling cold and distant.

Shown below is my conference paper from Geneva (in addressing delegates as 'comrades ' I was following formal procedure). This is followed by my official conference feedback and then some comments taken from my diary.

Conference paper
(This text is the edited version I delivered due to time/translation constraints)
'Comrades. I am a member of the teaching union NATFHE, the Students Union, and the Labour Party in Britain. I have been mandated to attend this conference to speak on behalf of a self-organised collective of people who are seeking to liaise with other people internationally, through organising a campaign to have the Provisions provided by ILO 103 introduced into British employment law.

We believe that maternity rights as provided by ILO Convention 103 must be introduced into employment law. ILO Conventions generally, codify the most progressive legislation protecting workers rights and are therefore an obstacle to processes of deregulation.

Whereas ILO Convention 103 banned the dismissal of pregnant women, its ratified version ILO Convention 183 makes it possible for employers to do so. In Britain, New Labour have introduced an Employment Bill which takes the right to maternity leave away from hundreds of thousands of working women. It does this by applying the Provisions of The Bill only to 'employees' (defined as 'someone employed under written contract'). This creates a distinction between an 'employee' and a 'worker' with The Bill excluding anyone who doesn't have a written contract of employment, such as casual workers, agency workers and home workers, who are among the most vulnerable members of our workforce.

We are sure that the government will want discussion of The Bill to focus on the extension of maternity leave from 18 weeks to 26 weeks. And yet only working women classed as 'employees' are covered by The Bill and so it is clear that this does not improve the rights of all pregnant working women'.

Official conference feedback
This, the second conference of the weekend, had the specific aim of working to defend ILO Conventions and for maintaining the independence of worker organisations. The focus for the contributions given at this conference, was upon the effects that the ratifying of ILO Conventions are having and discussion was held about the manner in which the process might be intervened in. The difficulties are complex as the revisions are presented by governments as being positive for the populace. This is a deliberate strategy which makes them difficult to contend. The need for clarification of the facts was acknowledged in order that we might be able negate the power of ideological ‘spin’. For example in Britain this emerges through Blair's’ third-way, or perhaps I should say, forked-tongue proposals relating to maternity rights and the new Employment Bill issues that were raised.

The effects of this conference seemed tangible, real. It was acknowledged that all the issues raised could not be answered at the conference, and that there is a need for self-critical and cautious yet determined progression. Through the manner in which the conference had been organised it became clear that political responses, not aggressive reactions, are the way forward. There was no sense of closure at the conference, for the emphasis was on tolerance, independence, openness, collective action and the need for people to be able to make up their own minds. It was said that ‘our role is to clarify what is at stake for societies everywhere, for when political strategies based upon generating wealth and power for individuals are allowed to proceed unquestioned and unchallenged, it will always be the working-class who will suffer'.

Specific campaigns were presented at the conference. The campaign relating to ILO 103 in Britain has parallels in many other countries. Would it be possible or positive, for the British campaign to liaise with these other campaigns relating to maternity rights and the defence of ILO Conventions?. Shared appeals were made in support of peace and humanity. Familiar perhaps, but never more important, vital and necessary than now.

Diary comments
'It's not like an academic conference, you have to put your hand up if you want to speak. I got incredibly nervous before I spoke (as usual) so I had to decide how I was going to speak. The responsibility of speaking on behalf of other people focused me. They needed me to be clear and coherent in communicating the campaign. Deregulation has had very real effects upon me, hence my shaking, but I managed to concentrate. I feel proud of myself for doing the job well.
Afterwards. I'm just a bit concerned that I was too articulate, distant and competent to deliver the lived effects of deregulation. It's just something for me to think about'.