Layout Image
PO Box 5365, Brighton BN50 8EY
opposing Sexist Violence promoting Equal Rights honouring the Victims

Archive for Opinion

Apr
16

Lessons from the Philpott Killings

by Jean Calder
By Jean Calder

Mick Philpott’s relationships with women were marked by “control, aggression and fear”, according to the judge who jailed him for life for killing his children. So it’s deeply disappointing that this vicious bully, so in love with attention that he hoped to appear on television as a ‘hero-dad’ who saved his children from a fire he had started, has become a focus of public debate not about abuse, but about welfare.

The Chancellor, George Osborne was wrong to link Philpott with welfare dependency, not because a link does not exist, but because the primary focus of politicians of right and left ought to have been upon the mothers he enslaved and the children he terrorised. Philpott could never have achieved the income he did, had he not had absolute control of the lives, labour and fertility of the two women he lived with, along with their children.

Philpott may have been the ultimate ‘skiver’, to use Osborne’s term, but the other adults present in the household, Mairead Philpott and Lisa Willis, were not. Both women worked hard as cleaners and all household and child care duties were carried out by them. Their wages, tax credits and child benefits were paid directly to Philpott. They were viewed as chattels and held in a state of slavery, as the judge in the case acknowledged. They did not have keys to their own front door, had no control of household finances and could not leave their home without Philpott’s permission. It was an utter corruption of family life.

Politicians who condemned George Osborne’s remarks about Philpott’s welfare dependency have repeatedly described Philpott’s behaviour as ‘unique’. This is untrue. One in 4 women experience domestic violence and two women die each week as a result of violence by partners or former partners. Of recent years, several estranged husbands with a history of violence have killed children.

Police observed that Philpott had a pattern of grooming vulnerable young women. He was 43 and Mairead a single mother of 19 when they met. Pregnant at 16, she had been abused as a child and raped in her teens. Prior to meeting Philpott, she lived with a violent boyfriend. Philpott seemed to offer care and protection, but then became violent. Lisa Willis was a single mother of 17 when Philpott offered her a home. She too was subjected to domestic violence by him, as was Pamela Lomax, his first wife and Heather Kehoe, another young victim who gave evidence in court. Heather Kehoe was 14 when they met and at 16 became pregnant with the first of their two children. Philpott was in his forties. Heather Kehoe told police Philpott held a knife to her throat when she tried to leave him. Eventually, she escaped.

It must have taken extraordinary courage for Lisa Willis to leave Philpott, after years of grooming, manipulation and abuse, especially with five children. As anyone who has worked with victims of domestic violence knows, the more children women have the easier it is for abusers to control them. Leaving with several children is a logistical nightmare, particularly if women have no money, nowhere to live and no transport. Domestic abusers habitually control not just their victims’ fertility, but also their benefits, personal papers and identity documents.

Lisa Willis and Mairead Philpott must have lived in terror. They knew Philpott was violent and unpredictable. He was much older than both and had controlled them since they were young. Trial records show that he used both as sex slaves. He pimped Mairead Philpott to his friend Paul Moseley and forced her into sexual threesomes that he later acknowledged she did not want. Above all, he made sure that all the women he abused were aware he had been convicted of attempted murder for the multiple stabbing in 1978 of Kim Hill, a previous partner who had left him. Philpott broke into her house, stabbed her 27 times, then repeatedly stabbed her mother. Philpott served less than half of a 7 year sentence.

When Lisa Willis finally escaped in February 2012, she did it secretly as so many victims of domestic violence do. She and the children left taking only the clothes they stood up in. Philpott disputed her custody of the children, apparently in the hope that they – and the benefits that attached to them – would be returned to him, and that she would follow. He set the fire in order to frame Lisa Willis, the day before a custody meeting.

Philpott was arrogant and criminally stupid, but the truth is he had some reason to believe his plan might work. His previous experience was that none of the agencies surrounding him had curtailed his activities. He had served a derisory prison sentence after leaving one woman for dead and badly injuring another. The police had failed to protect the women he subsequently abused and social services had done nothing to protect his children. Since 2006, journalists had recognised him to be a source of good copy, treating his domestic regime as an eccentric lifestyle choice, remaining chillingly indifferent to the needs of the women and children. Philpott did not hide his controlling behaviour. Even on the 2007 Jeremy Kyle show, he seemed to revel in his control of Mairead, telling her what to say and speaking for her.

Ann Widdecombe and a television crew later visited his household and failed to see the horror under their noses. As with politicians now, the focus of Widdecombe’s attention was Mick Philpott, rather than the women and children he controlled. Widdecombe was so bamboozled by Philpott (despite the fact that he had called her a bitch and a battleaxe), that even after the children’s deaths and Philpott’s tearless histrionics on television, she said “Nobody would ever call him a bad father.” Even now, the worst she can seem to say of him is that he used the children as a “meal ticket”.

Philpott was maintained in welfare dependency by a benefit system which encouraged him to use women and children as income generators. However, it is unlikely the government’s new benefit ‘cap’ would have safeguarded his victims. If income is reduced, abusive men like Philpott will simply force their partners to work longer hours or pimp them to other men for money. The cap may make it more difficult to maintain a ‘harem’ under one roof, but there will be nothing to stop abusive men controlling women, possibly in several different establishments. There seems little appetite amongst politicians to address the human rights implications of domestic enslavement, still less the political will to challenge polygamy – or even to protect enslaved women and discourage harems by preventing the benefits of several women being paid into a single man’s bank account.

Men like Philpott are protected by two deep-rooted and apparently opposing orthodoxies, both of which discourage intervention. The first is the traditional notion that a man’s home is his castle, where he should be free from interference. The second is the modern ‘liberal’ view that alternative lifestyles and cultures must be equally respected and maintained. The result is that under the guise of protecting family life, freedom of choice or cultural diversity, professionals fail to intervene when powerless people – often women and children – are stripped of their rights.

Politicians do not appear well in any of this. Successive governments have failed to properly challenge the sexism and attitudes of contempt for women that give rise to grooming, sexual exploitation, rape and domestic violence. Recent cuts in legal aid and housing benefits will make it more difficult for women to leave violent partners. Despite the government’s undoubted commitment to assist victims of domestic violence, it has failed to ring-fence funding for local domestic violence services and even child protection services are under threat. It is true that since the death of Baby P the government has placed a greater emphasis on swift resolution of child protection matters and speedier adoption – and that following the Rochdale scandal there is now greater awareness of the systematic abuse of adolescent girls. However, previous Conservative and Labour governments fostered a culture of non-intervention and a policy of keeping families together almost at all costs – and the effects of this remain. For decades, police and social services failed to protect teenage girls, treating 13 as the de facto age of consent, putting neglected girls at risk of sexual exploitation by adult males and vulnerable teenage mothers at the mercy of men such as Philpott. Politicians stigmatised these mothers, blaming them for raising ‘feral children’ while the media obsessed about the need for male role models and increased contact with estranged fathers – not realising that these children often already had deeply damaging male role models, many of whom were their own violent fathers and step fathers. As a consequence men such as Philpott were not challenged, but reinforced in their position.

Philpott was protected by the indifference of professionals, the prurience of the media and the narrow gaze of politicians, who could see only fecklessness when they should have cried out against sexism, exploitation and abuse. It is probable that had key agencies acted as they should to assist and empower the women, restrain their abusers and protect the young, all the children might well be alive today.

Jean Calder
16th April 2013

0 Categories : Attempted Murder / Aggravated Assault, Child Deaths, Deaths in 2012, Domestic killing, Domestic Violence, Manslaughter, Multiple Deaths, Opinion, Professional Failure, Siblings, Violence Against Women and Girls, Women's Rights, Young Victims
Feb
20

Party Leaders ignore House of Commons Debate on Violence Against Women

by Jean Calder
By Jean Calder

Party Leaders and the media have ignored a House of Commons debate on violence against women.

One in three women around the world are believed to experience sexual or physical assault by men – estimated to be one billion individuals. On 14th February 2013, the One Billion Rising movement, supported by the United Nations and many governments, organised events around the world to combat violence against women. British MPs joined members of the public in a rally outside Parliament and debated the issue in the House of Commons.

On the same day, television and radio news were filled with reports that the South African athlete Oscar Pistorius had shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. By the next day, the front pages of all the newspapers were focussed on Pistorius, exploring his fame, his infuence and the “tragedy” of his apparent fall from grace. Little attention was paid to the loss of Reeva Steenkamp’s life – or the ironic fact that she had been due to speak on violence against women at a local girls’ school and had used social media to speak out against the recent gang rape, murder and mutilation of a young South African girl.

The Sun ran a front page photograph of Reeva Steenkamp, scantily clad, and pulling down the zip of her bikini top alongside headlines which trivialised the violence. Domestic violence charities expressed outrage and Heather Harvey of Eaves wrote to Dominic Mohan asking for a front page apology (we have published this letter on this website).

It was predictable, though no less a scandal, that not one newspaper provided adequate coverage of One Billion Rising, still less the excellent parliamentary debate which took place the same day, remarkable both for its seriousness and the amount of cross-party agreement that it revealed. The Daily Telegraph published a photograph of on page 15, while the Guardian buried a short piece on page 35. Neither covered the debate.

In a way it was hardly surprising. Leaving aside the frenzy of interest in Oscar Pistorius, the media tend to take their lead from powerful politicians, not the committed backbenchers who dominated that day’s debate. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary turned up for the discussion about rape as a weapon of war abroad, but not to debate violence here in the UK. The Prime Minister wasn’t present at all, nor were his Deputy or the Chancellor. Shockingly, no one from the Department of Education was there to respond, even though a major theme of the discussion was the need for some form of sex and relationship education in the national curriculum. Even the Home Secretary failed to put in an appearance, despite her well known concern about violence against women.

However, perhaps the most worrying absence was that of Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition. Ed Miliband was not just missing, he had picked that day – alongside  Ed Balls, the Shadow Chancellor – to make a major economic policy announcement about Labour’s intention to levy a Mansion Tax, which he must have known was going to draw media attention away from the debate in Parliament. Not only did this announcement upstage the debate in parliament, receiving huge media coverage, it was made in a a traditionally ‘masculine’ factory setting in Bedford, where the two most powerful Labour leaders were photographed surrounded by men and young male apprentices.

Ed Miliband did not use his speech – as he could have done – to refer to the disproportionate affect upon women of the current economic downturn and associated political policies. Nor did he speak of the need to retrain women in non traditional skills and ensure that young girls have equal access to apprenticeships and employment. Even on the day of One Billion Rising, the female half of ‘one nation’ became invisible, as it so often does, when male politicians do what they consider to be ‘real politics’.

Ed Miliband’s office might say that the event in Bedford had been long planned. The fact is, it may have been, but the date of One Billion Rising had also been known for many months. Ed Miliband could have chosen that day to make an announcement of major new policy regarding violence against women in the UK – as indeed could David Cameron or George Osborne (for example ring-fencing funding for refuges and safe housing). None of them chose to do so. Ed Miliband’s announcement of the Mansion Tax did not need to go ahead on that day. Even if the event itself could not have been delayed, it did not require both the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor to attend. If either Ed Miliband or Ed Balls had made the effort to be in Parliament for the debate on violence against women it would have signalled genuine concern for women’s safety. Each could have referred to the other event in their speeches and media coverage of the parliamentary debate would have been greatly increased. The fact that they chose to do otherwise suggests indifference to women’s equality and the drive for women’s safety.

It is not enough that Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary and Equalities Minister did attend. Her support for these issues is well known. Male political leaders have a long history of leaving violence against women to be debated by women as a ‘women’s issue’. The many male back-benchers who attended and participated gave the lie to this, but the debate needed the presence of the main party leaders, not least to get media attention.

Before the debate, campaigners stood in Parliament Square and read out the names of 109 women murdered last year by partners or former partners. Inside the Chamber, MPs spoke in grief and horror about the levels of abuse experienced each year by tens of thousands of women and girls in this country, by homicide and ‘honour’ killing, rape and other sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking, trafficking and female genital mutilation. Those MPs, male and female and of all political parties, respectfully and thoughtfully explored options for change.

That is real politics – and its about time our male political leaders realised this.

Jean Calder, 20th February 2013

0 Categories : Domestic Violence, General, Media Coverage, Opinion, Violence Against Women and Girls, Women's Rights
Feb
18

Reeva Steenkamp Letter to Dominic Mohan Editor of The Sun

by Jean Calder
From Heather Harvey of Eaves for Women

I am writing from Eaves for Women, a charity that works on all forms of violence against women and one of four such organisations which gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on the media representation of women generally and violence against women specifically. While it is the case that the bulk of the media coverage of our intervention focused on our concerns around the objectification prevalent in Star, Sport and P3, in actual fact our evidence was broader than that. We particularly focused, for instance, on the tendency of the media to present violence against women as some sort of sexy, titillating and frivolous entertainment. We  highlighted that this lacked context as to the scale, extent and gravity of violence against women and was inaccurate, misleading and discriminatory and goes directly to women’s access to justice for violence against women.

You will already be aware of the huge levels of disgust, repulsion and anger that your front cover of the murder, by her partner, of Reeva Steenkamp has provoked. Undoubtedly movie editors around the world are all scrambling to get movie rights on this “exciting, tragic true crime story featuring a medal winning para-olympian and a model”: that is already distasteful enough. However the Sun still purports to be a newspaper and as such some of the following are the sorts of pieces of informed and informative information that I would expect to feature in a news piece for your readers about this domestic homicide.

  • Levels of Men’s Domestic violence and homicides against their partners in South Africa – and perhaps also in the UK, so for instance 109 women were murdered by their current or ex in the UK last year, on average over the last 10 years 2 women a week are murdered by their current or ex..
  • Number of domestic homicides and other forms of violence against women including notably rape on average per year in South Africa and perhaps some analysis of why this may be – so for instance it is widely acknowledged in research that where there is extreme poverty, domestic violence increases. Indeed this is happening right now in the UK with the decline in domestic violence that we saw over recent years having stopped and fears that this is rising again. It is also widely acknowledged that violence against women increases as women increasingly take up more equal roles in public life – taking up jobs, earning their own income, occupying (unaccompanied by men) public spaces like bars and clubs, and publicly influencing politics, media and decisions. This is indeed what is largely seen as the explanation for the surge in violence against women in India as women begin to start to achieve some equality.
  • The fact that there is, with this individual, a history of domestic violence and other displays of temper and rage at any situation in which he loses control or does not get what he wants, as witnessed indeed at the Olympics.
  • The levels of gun ownership in South Africa and the fact that where there is extensive widespread private gun ownership, the number of domestic homicides by gunshot vastly increases – indeed USA is  a case in point.
  • Some reports from research about the potential correlations between competitive and macho sports and levels of violence against women. This is most commonly observed in football and rugby but can also be seen in athletics and there is research to this effect.
  • Some  quotes from commentators and experts on violence against women and bizarrely this is most likely to come from female academics in gender studies and from women working in the violence against women sector

Request

I therefore am requesting:

  • That you print a full, front page apology for the front cover,
  • That you rewrite the whole story from the above perspectives
  • That you publish a selection of the many letters of complaint that you will receive from women and probably, I hope, also from some men.
  • That you publish extracts from the Leveson report (p665) in which he clearly states that the treatment of women by some tabloids degrades and demeans women
  • That you publish relevant extracts about media reporting of violence against women from the “Just the Women” report produced by the four organisations which gave evidence to Leveson and which I attach for your and your journalists’ information, education and improved future practice herewith.

I look forward to hearing from you in the very near future before I pursue matters further with the PCC, do not hesitate to come back to us for any further support, advice and information on this vital topic.

15th February 2013

0 Categories : Deaths in 2013, Domestic killing, Domestic Violence, Foreign Homicides, Media Coverage, Murder, Opinion
Feb
7

Homicide Statistics 2011/12

by Jean Calder
from Jean Calder

The Office for National Statistics today (7th February 2013) published the 2011/12 figures for violent and sexual offences, including homicide – Focus On: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences 2001/12.

For Our Daughters does not consider the homicide statistics fit for purpose, largely because as expected, they do not tell us how many females were killed by males or vice versa.

What we do know from today’s figures is that 367 homicide victims in 2011/12 were male and 172 female. In 2010/11 there were 435 male victims, while 200 females died . This means there has been a decrease in female homicides (down 14%) as well as male homicides (down 16%).

As in previous years, female victims are more likely to know their killer (78% of females knew the main suspect as opposed to 54% of male victims). Fifty one per cent of female victims were killed by a partner or ex-partner. There were 88 homicides of females by partners and 17 homicides of males by partners (the gender of perpetrators was unspecified). A significant number were killed by ‘family members’. That was also not broken down by gender.

The ONS provides some information about motive for killing, such as revenge or burglary, but this does not include any reference to motives likely to be of specific relevance to the killing of women – such as domestic revenge killing (including family and child homicides) following divorce or escape from an abusive relationship; lethal or sadistic sexual assault; or ‘honour’ killing. Still less is there any reference to sexist attitudes or misogyny as a potential causal factor. Given that acts of violence against women are not monitored elsewhere as potential hate crimes, this is a serious omission.

The report does provide some information about the ethnic origin of perpetrators and victims, so there obviously is an awareness in the ONS and Home Office that it is potentially politically significant if one social group should kill another. The figures inform you, for example, that 74% of black victims are killed by black perpetrators and 90% of whites are killed by whites. However, you can’t find out exactly how many females are killed by males or females – or the converse figures for male victims. There can be little doubt that these figures would reveal that the majority of homicides of females are committed by male perpetrators.

Until gender-specific figures are routinely published, politicians of all parties will find it easy to focus on forms of male-on-male homicide – and avoid addressing the problem that a section of one social group routinely attacks, tortures and sometimes kills another. And in half the cases, the killing field is the family home.

For Our Daughters will be requesting enhanced figures from the Home Office and will report further on this website.

7th February 2013

0 Categories : Homicide Statistics, Manslaughter, Murder, Opinion
Oct
21

Were the Cardiff Hit-and-Runs Sexist Attacks?

by Jean Calder
From Jean Calder

Karina Menzies died on 19th October 2012 when a van ploughed into her, apparently deliberately, outside a fire-station in Ely. It was one of a series of hit and run incidents in Cardiff, in five separate locations. It was the time of the school run and Ms Menzies was with two of her three daughters, one 8 years old and the other a toddler of 23 months.  It is reported Ms Menzies pushed the children as far as possible out of harm’s way, but took the full force of the van herself.

There were fourteen victims in total, most of them female. Of the seven children who were hit, six were girls. Eyewitnesses said pedestrian victims were deliberately targeted by a man driving a white van.

News channels have presented this as an apparently deliberate, but almost certainly random attack on pedestrians by a driver with whom they had no connection. Very few journalists have acknowledged that the majority of those injured were female. Still less have they queried whether this fact was a matter of co-incidence or chance. This is a common response where multiple female victims of violence are concerned.

It is worth considering what the journalistic response would have been if this had been a white man driving at groups of black people, injuring a majority of black people and killing one. Even if one or two whites had been injured, there is no doubt that the possibility of racist attack would be central to the questioning of and by police, local politicians and community leaders. In this case, given that the majority of victims are female, the media and others speak only of the community’s grief, its anger and desire for justice. One thing they do not talk about, in fact it is never mentioned, is sexism. Yet the memorial service which took place this evening in Ely, was packed with grieving women and girls and the sense of anger and confusion was palpable

For Our Daughters works to raise awareness that sexist attitudes of resentment and contempt for women, can and do give rise to lethal violence. An important part of combating this violence is to begin to face the fact that, in some cases, attacks which appear ‘random’ may in fact be nothing of the kind. Such attitudes do not serve victims well, still less the cause of justice.

It is now widely accepted that racism can give rise to violent crime, and must be actively confronted. In the same way, we must learn to tackle sexism as a cause of violence. Unless we do, women and girls will continue to die.

21st October 2012

0 Categories : Child Deaths, Murder, Opinion, Parent/Child, Women's Rights, Young Victims
Oct
19

News, Women and Homicide

by Jean Calder
from Jean Calder

At For Our Daughters we spend a lot of time reading newspapers. We trawl them for accounts of homicides as well as other articles about violence against women and girls.

Everything we put in our homicide reports is already in the public domain, usually drawn from newspapers. It might seem that, though harrowing, it would be a straightforward job to prepare the reports. In fact, it’s not. Our aim is to write accounts which recognise the dignity and humanity of the victims, but unfortunately, this approach doesn’t fit with many published reports.

In the immediate aftermath of a violent death the focus of newspaper articles is usually the manner of the victim’s death and speculation about the killer, rarely about the woman or girl herself. There are cases where the victim does become the focus of intense media attention – however this is usually in situations where the victim is an attractive and often middle class  young woman, such as Joanna Yeates, or an appealing and very young girl like Sarah Payne, murdered by Roy Whiting, or Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, killed by Ian Huntley. In all cases there is more likely to be a positive focus upon a female victim if she is young, an attractive photograph is available and the victim possesses articulate parents or friends. In cases of sadistic and sexual violence, coverage is often intrusive and  pruriently focussed upon injuries and how they were sustained.

In domestic killings, where a woman has been killed by her husband or partner, she will often not be referred to more than once by name, but as one part of “the couple”, the killer’s “wife” or as a “mother of two”. Women who have, in almost all cases been subject to violence and humiliation during their lives, in death have their dignity and individual humanity further stripped from them.

It’s understandable that in the first hours after a violent death, before there has been an arrest, police communications departments need to call for witnesses to come forward, focussing on potential suspects and descriptions of the site at which the victim died. There may be very good reason to offer descriptions of suspect individuals and vehicles involved and even injuries sustained. However, this does not explain the  salacious descriptions of women’s injuries found in some newspapers along with an often stark absence of information about the woman herself. In some cases, as any trial approaches, it remains easier to discover the make, colour and registration of an alleged perpetrator’s car, than any personal details about their victim.

Once cases come to trial, the focus is on the perpetrator, whose defence usually rests upon destroying the reputation of the woman he killed. Newspapers uncritically headline allegations of infidelity and unreasonable behaviour which the victim cannot refute and which are often repeated on social media by the perpetrator’s family and friends.

In cases where a killer commits suicide and therefore never comes to trial, the focus continues to be upon the killer rather than his female victim or victims. All too often, police and media present such incidents, not as brutal murder followed by suicide, but as “tragic incidents” in which all are victims. Men who kill their wives and then themselves frequently become subject of particularly sympathetic police and media comment, often characterised by references to “stress” experienced by the killer and sometimes speculation blaming the female victim. In such cases, especially where the victim has been married for some while, it can be particularly difficult to find any information at all about the woman concerned.

Reports of Jennifer Phelps’ death, who was strangled by her husband in March 2011, were unique in our experience in containing absolutely no information about her at all. At the inquest, Sussex Police’s D.I. Carwyn Hughes said “This was a tragic situation in which a very proud man, who hitherto had dearly loved his wife, killed her through his perceived despair of the financial situation he found themselves in. Instead of seeking help or letting others know the extent of the the problems, he took the terrible decision to murder her and kill himself.” This statement, which was quoted in a local newspaper The Argus, gave rise to vicious online comments on the newspaper’s website suggesting extravagant women bring such deaths on themselves. Jennifer Phelps reportedly had no knowledge of their financial difficulties.

Last night I watched an ITV news broadcast which gave notice of the funeral the next day of little Ben and Freya Pedersen, two children stabbed to death by their father, who subsequently killed himself. At the time of their deaths, newspapers and television broadcasters showed greater interest in the fact that their father’s horse had survived an IRA bomb three decades ago, than that he was a violent man who had butchered his children, almost certainly in revenge for their mother’s decision to leave him. The ITV news report on 18th named the killer and his horse, but neither the children nor their mother.

19th October 2012

0 Categories : Child Deaths, Domestic killing, Domestic Violence, Homicide / Suicide, Multiple Deaths, Murder, Opinion, Parent/Child, Sex Killing, Young Victims
Oct
15

Jimmy Savile and the Need for a Public Inquiry

by Jean Calder
from Jean Calder

Every day brings further allegations of serial abuse of young girls by Jimmy Savile, at the BBC, in two children’s homes and three hospitals, including maximum security Broadmoor. The Metropolitan Police, co-ordinating the police investigation, have confirmed they are now in contact with 60 potential victims, with 340 lines of inquiry and continue to liaise with 14 police forces. They have officially recorded 12 allegations, but expect this number to grow.

Following earlier apparent paralysis in the face of allegations about offences on its premises by one of its biggest stars, the  BBC has apologised and declared it will undertake three separate inquiries. The first, which will start straight away, will examine why the Newsnight programme that investigated the allegations of sexual abuse was not aired, while two sycophantic tribute programmes to Savile went ahead. A second will examine whether culture and practice at the BBC at the time enabled Savile’s abuse. This will wait until police inquiries are complete. The third inquiry will apparently relate to more general allegations of sexual harassment at the BBC.

Rob Wilson M.P. has called for a genuinely independent public inquiry into the dropping of Newsnight’s investigation into Savile, but it seems a public inquiry with a much broader remit is now demanded. A pattern is emerging not just of cruel indifference to the abuse of young girls, but also systemic and institutional sexism and a level of active collusion and cover-up which suggests possible conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Narrow inquiries with limited remit simply will not do.

The Department of Health (DoH) has said it will investigate the decision to appoint Sir Jimmy Savile as head of a taskforce overseeing Broadmoor hospital in 1988, where he volunteered for 40 years, reportedly held keys and abused young vulnerable patients. However, health service managers have shown less interest in investigating allegations that hospital managers colluded with Savile’s abuse of female patients. Criminal justice agencies seem similarly reluctant to  acknowledge and examine their own past failures, but it surely is only a matter of time. Yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph lists at least 6 lost opportunities to bring Savile to justice which appear to have been missed or even sabotaged by the police or crown prosecution service.

We’ve heard several commentators and journalists suggest the attitudes at the BBC and elsewhere were ‘permissive’ in the 1960s and 1970s and that things are different now. Yet we know that sexual abuse of teenage girls is widespread.  In June this year, Sue Berelowitz, deputy children’s commissioner for England told M.P.s that “sexual exploitation of children is happening all over the country.”  She quoted a police officer from a “very lovely, leafy, rural part of the country” who had told her: “There isn’t a town, village or hamlet in which children are not being sexually exploited.” She told of girls as young as 11 “summoned” via BlackBerry Messenger, and forced to perform oral sex on a line-up of gang members, one after another. Berelowitz called on MPs and everyone else to ”lay aside their denial”.

In Rochdale, where there was systematic and often violent sexual abuse of teenage girls, their allegations were repeatedly ignored by agencies who, like the abusers, considered the girls to be prostitutes. Despite strong evidence, the CPS refused to prosecute the cases, something that changed only when Nazir Afzal took over as senior crown prosecutor. There are many more such cases, most of which will never get to trial.

The widespread publicity which followed the Rochdale case focussed on the victims’ ethnicity rather than their gender, suggesting that the girls may have been targeted by male perpetrators of Pakistani origin because they were ‘white’ rather than because they were young females. The media coverage of Savile’s offences has focussed on his ‘paedophilia’, stressing the victims’ age and vulnerability rather than their gender. Yet it was the fact that they were young females that made them targets, and sexism, rather than age and even disability, which made them most vulnerable to abuse. All child abuse involves abuse of power and boys are sometimes victims and suffer grievously.  However, it is girls who are overwhelmingly more likely to experience sexual abuse, especially of a serial nature. It is  sexism which creates contempt for young girls so deep-rooted that an adult man can serially abuse them and others treat it as a fact of life. It is sexism which leads police and prosecutors to ignore victims’ allegations – and others to keep quiet because a donation is more important than girls’ safety.

There are many agencies which have informally and for years been treating girls over 12 (and sometimes under that age) as if they could give informed consent. They have failed to act if young girls appear ‘willing’ and in respect of allegations of rape or assault, have applied to them all the prejudices to which adult victims are subject. It is easier and cheaper to believe that girls and women fantasise, make malicious allegations or get drunk and lead men on, than to mount effective investigations.

In an excellent article in the Guardian Jonathan Freedland linked the police’s treatment of Savile’s victims with that of other rape victims. He wrote: “There are big questions here for the police. Some wonder if the Met is overdue another “Macpherson moment“, in which it is forced to confront its own institutional sexism the way the Stephen Lawrence case laid bare its racism. It is at least clear that it has enormous work to do to win the trust of women, so that it becomes a first instinct of those who are attacked to report the fact.”

Jane Root, controller of BBC2 from 1999-2004, told the Observer there needed to be a examination of  perceived sexism in the BBC, and “throughout television” in the 1980s and early 1990s. It was, she said  “this sexist atmosphere, although a totally different thing, that assisted a very dedicated paedophile such as Savile to operate in the middle of it all,”.

There seems little doubt that she is right about that – except that, in our view, sexism is not a ‘different’ thing, but lies at the root of almost all sexual offences against females, whatever their age. And though the abuse of a girl is an even crueler offence than the abuse of an adult woman, the difference is in degree, not in kind.

We need a full independent public inquiry, not just into how key agencies and institutions mishandled the Savile case, but also ways in which those same agencies and institutions – principally the police and CPS – have, over the years, failed countless victims of  rape and sexual assault.

15th October 2012

0 Categories : Aggravated or Serial Sexual Assault, General, Opinion, Sexual Assault, Suicide, Young Victims
Oct
8

Centre for Social Justice Opposes Gendered Approach to DV

by Jean Calder
By Heather Harvey, Lilith Research and Development Manager/Eaves Housing for Women

In July 2012, the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), produced a paper called “Beyond Violence” by Dr Elly Farmer and Dr Samantha Callan. Many women’s organisations are concerned about the direction in which this paper is seeking to drive policy.

The CSJ report suggests that a ‘feminist’ analysis which looks at ‘power and control’ issues as motivating factors, is too narrow. They argue that most domestic violence is about things other than coercive and controlling behaviour and that a lack of progress in reducing domestic violence is due to the errors of a framework they see as misguided and narrow.

As a result the paper recommends that funding should be redirected from this “traditional approach” and refuge workers should have to undergo regular training on other factors that they think can equally cause domestic violence.  They suggest that these might include factors like poverty, alcohol or substance abuse, jealousy or the perpetrator’s own history of witnessing or being a victim of abuse.

It is the case that any of these factors may be exacerbating factors in an abusive relationship or be triggers for a particular incident of violence. However they are not the cause of the violence. Perpetrators choose to use violence because they think they are entitled to do so, they think it will help them to achieve their goal, enforce compliance and assert their power and superiority. Domestic violence is therefore directly linked to analyses of power, to a society’s concept of appropriate gender roles and so to how we conceive and enforce “masculinity” and “femininity”.

“Beyond Violence” relies heavily on an American publication, written in 2008 for the U.S. Association of Family and Conciliation Court. The American authors of that paper attempted to separate types of violence into five categories cited below:

Coercive Controlling Violence  “a pattern of emotionally abusive intimidation, coercion, and control coupled with physical violence against partners”

Violent Resistance “both men and women may, in attempts to get the violence to stop…react violently to their partners who have a pattern of coercive controlling violence”

Situational Couple Violence “is used here to identify the type of partner violence that does not have its basis in the dynamic of power and control”. It is used in response to a particular conflict or situation.

Separation-Instigated Violence: This category reflects violence that has occurred in the context of separation.  There is no history of violence nor does it continue after separation though the author stresses “It is important to differentiate this type of violence from continuing violence that occurs in the context of a separation.”

Mutual Violent Control: This category describes relationships in which both partners use violence to control the other.

The CSJ for some reason chooses only to cite the first four, but appears to amalgamate the fifth category into the third “Situational Couple Violence” – the category which it seems to believe to be the most common. What the UK publication does not do, is to engage with the several critiques of this work on differentiation  (see Bailey et al. 2010; Kaye et al. 2003; Meier 2007;  Wangmann 2008; Ver Steegh & Dalton 2008). These critics have raised concerns about how these categorisations were arrived at (methodology), how clearly they can be delineated, their practical application and risks associated with it and concerns about the skills and knowledge of those who would be required to make these assessments and act upon them.

Nonetheless, the CSJ paper uncritically adopts this categorisation. The paper also references situations where someone just flips out in a “hot, emotional” moment. Such a “hot, emotional” moment however could vary from shouting or cursing through to a violent and sometimes fatal blow.

The paper also suggests that a man who is violent to one partner might not be violent to another and that the relationship dynamics between the partners can be an inflammatory factor. It states: “Research shows that a man’s aggression towards his partner may or may not continue over time depending on whom he is with and on whether or not his partner is also aggressive. Women’s level of depression can also have some bearing on men’s violent behaviour”.

This is most alarming, as it offers the potential to blame the victim for the violence. Even if this is not the intention, in practice it would be the common understanding and application. It is at variance with the weight of literature on perpetrator behaviour and attitudes and the Home Office’s own policy (see for instance the introduction of Clare’s Law).

The CSJ focus on “Situational Couple Violence”, which they suggest makes up the majority (89%) of domestic violence cases, is particularly dangerous. This is said to be where both partners are mutually using violence in a very dysfunctional relationship. The paper suggests that therefore it is vital to work on the relationship not just the victim, stating:  “In many areas of social policy people are treated as individuals and the importance of interpersonal connections is lost. Domestic abuse is a problem with a relationship and solutions lie within this and other relationships”. The paper urges that a more relationship based approach can result in “healing and restoration” of the relationship and this is missing in current practice. It goes on: “Current policy and practice is dominated by the important but insufficient goals of punishing perpetrators and ensuring safety for victims”.

In a climate of cuts, there is an appetite to save money and to avoid the use of the legal and judicial system wherever possible. Mediation, anger management, couples counselling, behaviour contracts, reconciliation and restorative justice therefore become attractive alternative options. The risks inherent in such measures, where power imbalances exist, as in domestic abuse situations, cannot be underestimated. In 1991, Vandana Patel was stabbed to death by her husband in the Domestic Violence Unit in Stoke Newington Police Station in North London after the police had acted as mediators in bringing the couple together.

Another key focus of the paper is on the needs of the child and how negatively a child is affected by witnessing domestic abuse.  The paper says that there has been “too sharp a focus on the needs of the victimised parent” and recommends that approaches should,  “Ensure children’s needs are at the forefront of domestic abuse responses”.  It is absolutely the case that where children have witnessed domestic violence, they also need dedicated care and attention. However domestic violence is a crime against the victim and that is the priority whether or not children are involved.

It is already a huge problem for women victims of violence to be taken seriously and to access help, support and a refuge as a victim of violence if they do not have children. A further raft of statements and policy measures that focus on domestic violence as a problem to children witnessing it, is no help to the primary victims.

Even in some of the most extreme cases of “coercive controlling behaviour”, the police currently often fail to identify and act on the risk. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has recognised this and prioritised “gender violence”. They state, “A steady increase in the number of referrals and complaints made to the IPCC has highlighted incidences of violence and abuse against women. Gender violence can take the form of physical, sexual or psychological abuse. The increase in cases has resulted in the IPCC focusing a key part of its guardianship work on gender abuse”.

We need only look at the For Our Daughters website – two women a week, some with children and some without, are killed by their current or former partner whether during the relationship, during the separation or after the separation. In some cases drink, drugs, jealousy or a life of hardship are also present, in others not.

Taking the facts of the cases on this website, if we or the police at the time, had tried to categorise them according to the CSJ’s proposed categories, where would they have been placed? Several of them might not have fallen into the narrow category of “real DV” which is intended in this paper by “Coercive controlling”. The implication of this narrow band of “real DV”, reminiscent of “real rape”, is that only these cases are “high risk” enough to galvanise to action. Yet all of these cases had the same end result – Murder.

Note: FOD is grateful for this opinion piece, which raises important issues. It was based on a special edition of Eaves’ women’s weekly news. To subscribe to this weekly newsletter please go to: http://www.eavesforwomen.org.uk/newsletter/womens-weekly “

 

0 Categories : Domestic killing, Domestic Violence, Murder, Opinion, Perpetrators, Women's Rights
Oct
6

Michael Pedersen – Neither Hero nor Victim.

by Jean Calder
By Jean Calder

Ben Pedersen (7) and Freya Pedersen (6) were found stabbed to death on 30th September 2012, next to a car in a rural bridleway near Andover. Their bodies lay alongside that of their father, Michael Pedersen (51). It is accepted by the police that he killed the children and then committed suicide.

The two children had been visiting their paternal grandfather with their father, who was estranged from their mother Erica Pedersen and had been living with his adult son from a previous marriage. Ms Pedersen and he had recently separated and she was believed to have started divorce proceedings.

Some national newspapers have reported that Pedersen was known to be violent, that he had attacked Ms Pedersen and was under some legal restraint not to approach his former home. However, these reports have received little attention. Overwhelmingly, the focus of media cover – which has been widespread and has included a front page article in at least one national newspaper – has not been on Pedersen’s victims, but upon Pedersen himself and his early career as a sergeant in the Household Cavalry. Journalists and editors have paid more attention to Pedersen’s experience of an IRA bomb 30 years ago – and the fact that Sefton, his now long-dead horse, survived the blast and received a Horse of the Year prize – than in the murder of the two children and the anguish of their bereaved mother. At least one headline referred to Pedersen, who was slightly injured in the 1982 blast, as a “hero”.

This is despite the fact that Surrey Police admitted they had had “previous contact” with the Pederson family and had thus referred the case to the Independent Police Complaints Commission for review – something that usually happens when there have been prior threats of violence or a history of domestic violence.

There have been several reports about recent acts of violence and threats by Pedersen against his wife.  A friend alleged that just 72 hours before the killings,  Pedersen had complained to him that Ms Pedersen had told the police that he had hit her and knocked her over. The friend said: “As he left me last week, he said, ‘She will pay for this’ ”. Another friend said Pedersen had recently attacked Ms Pederson, saying: “He left her with two black eyes, a split lip, fractured arm and broken shoulder.” Another woman referred to him as a “bully and a coward”.

These disturbing reports have not stemmed the tide of sentiment about Pedersen’s army history and his injured horse. This is despite the fact that since leaving the army, Pedersen has had a number of jobs and co-ran a haulage company with his wife. They have run a number of small businesses together.

As happens so often in cases where violent men murder their children as an act of revenge against a partner who has left them and subsequently kill themselves, the senior police spokesperson leading the investigation, in this case Detective Superintendent Tony Harris, made no distinction between the three deaths, treating the killer as a victim. He spoke of “those involved”, saying that their family and friends should “be allowed to come to terms with what has happened” at this “difficult” time. He referred to a “terrible incident” and “these tragic deaths”, failing to acknowledge that a murder had been committed against two children who did not choose to die, by an adult male who was their father, but  who chose to kill them and then to kill himself.

Surrey Police’s decision to treat the perpetrator of this brutal crime as a victim was further indicated by their decision to announce the appointment of police family liaison officers to work with “the families of Michael, Ben and Freya” – rather than the family of the two murdered children. The families of killers must often be deeply traumatised by their actions, but the police do not normally allocate staff to “provide support and keep them updated”.

Sadly, this double murder was not, as DS Harris called it, an “isolated incident”. Domestic violence is widespread and child killings by fathers are becoming increasingly common. Such murders are not accidents or acts of God and only very rarely arise from mental illness. They are almost always murderous acts of will by violent and controlling perpetrators, usually occurring after their partners have found the strength to leave.

Until the police and media stop feeding into the self-pity of violent perpetrators and start to identify these homicides as the cold blooded murders they are, the killing will go on.

 

0 Categories : Child Deaths, Domestic killing, Domestic Violence, Homicide / Suicide, IPCC Report or Review, Multiple Deaths, Murder, Opinion, Parent/Child, Siblings, Young Victims
Aug
3

Shafilea Ahmed’s Killing was Sexist Murder

by Jean Calder
There was no ‘honour’ involved in the murder of Shafilea Ahmed.

As with other so called ‘honour’ killings, this was a sexist homicide, based upon an assumption of female subordination and the false premise that girls have a duty to be compliant and obedient – firstly to fathers and to a lesser extent mothers, then to brothers and even brothers-in-law and subsequently husbands whom they may not even have chosen.

Shafilea was not alone. There have been many so called honour killings over the past few years and many more reported and unreported incidents of violence and torture of rebellious girls and women. Most have involved violence by fathers, brothers and brothers- in-law – and a few mothers and mothers-in-law. An estimated 8,000 forced marriages have taken place.

There were 3 other sisters living in the Ahmed household with murderous parents and a brother who, according to Shafilea’s sister Alesha’s evidence in court, allegedly excused the violence saying Shafilea “deserved it”. Alesha alleged her brother Junyad, then 13, actively assisted by handing the plastic bag which killed Shafilea to her mother who passed it to her father. He denied these allegations in court and insisted on his parents’ innocence. The girls must have experienced unimaginable extremes of terror.

There are questions which urgently need to be answered. How is it that a teenage girl could have been taken to Pakistan, return requiring weeks of hospitalisation having drunk bleach while abroad and not receive effective protection from Social Services? Why, despite the best efforts of her teacher, was Shafilea’s  distress not recognised or effectively acted upon by education and other authorities? And following Shafilea’s disappearance, why were no effective steps taken to offer her siblings assistance and facilitate disclosure? Was this another instance where ‘cultural’ sensitivities were allowed to trump girls’ rights to safety?

It took 9 years to prosecute this case, despite clear evidence of a pattern of abuse against Shafilea and covertly recorded evidence of discussions within the home about DNA and evidence required for conviction. The Ahmeds were finally charged with Shafilea’s murder in September 2011 by the new CPS chief prosecutor for the north-west, Nazir Afzal, who decided there was sufficient evidence to bring charges. Afzal recently told the Guardian newspaper that he was not afraid of tackling “honour” crime within Asian communities. It was he who intervened to ensure the  prosecution of the Rochdale child sexual exploitation case earlier in 2012.

The statements of the Ramadhan Foundation and other bodies condemning honour killing are to be welcomed. However, it should be taken as read that such attacks are un-Islamic. What For Our Daughters most wishes to hear from religious and community leaders, politicians and newspaper editors alike, are unequivocal statements condemning sexism and supporting women’s rights and equality before the law – including girls’ and women’s absolute right to free choice in respect of marriage, lifestyle, education, career, dress, religion and politics.

Shafilea was a girl of rare ability and courage. She made many attempts to resist  the violence and oppression which scarred her daily life and her death is a tragic waste. If her death is to have any meaning, it needs to be a catalyst to stop sexist violence and the obscene waste of life that goes with it. For that to happen this government and all future governments must have the courage to protect the rights of all women and girls – and confront sexist violence wherever it is found – without fear of backlash or regard to sectional interests and cultural sensitivities.

Jean Calder, 3rd August 2012

 

0 Categories : Child Deaths, Deaths in 2012, Domestic killing, Domestic Violence, Honour Killing, Opinion, Parent/Child, Women's Rights, Young Victims
Jun
9

Rhoda Grant On Violence and Abuse Against Women and Girls

by Jean Calder
Rhoda Grant MSP, is Shadow Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism in the Scottish Parliament and a long standing campaigner against violence against women.

Introductory Note from For Our Daughters:

On a recent visit to Scotland in May 2012, we were unfortunately unable to meet with Rhoda Grant. However, she has kindly sent For Our Daughters some of her thoughts and a fascinating account of recent activity within the Scottish Parliament.

It’s interesting to see how much progress has been made in Scotland in a relatively short time. In fact, in respect of legislation on such issues as forced marriage and stalking, Scotland can be said to have taken a lead which Westminster has followed.  It is also clear that it has been individual deeply committed MSPs, often of differing political parties, working with other campaigners, who have made the difference.

For Our Daughters is watching with interest current moves to combine all Scottish police forces. In our view, this is likely to provide Scottish politicians and others campaigning for better preventative and criminal justice responses to sexist crime with unique opportunities for innovation, change and development.

Our grateful thanks to Rhoda. We’d be interested to publish a response by the SNP – and representatives of other parties.

Jean Calder.

Rhoda Grant Writes:

“There are many facets and many campaigns regarding Domestic Abuse, Violence against women.  All come from the same premise.  Those who seek to coerce or harm another person because of their gender.

The use of language is also important – the term Domestic Abuse is chosen to ensure that all types of abuse, not just physical violence, are also taken into account.

However, sadly in practice, the law appears to recognise only violent crime, not other forms of abuse against women just because they are women.

Much of this goes on in the home, the use of power to control what women can and cannot do, who they can see, what they can buy etc.

Those of us who are privileged to be elected to Parliament must use this position to deal with this hateful crime.

The Scottish Parliament has taken the issue seriously, however much of the legislation that deals with this has been pushed forward by members rather than government.

Government have provided increased financing to groups who tackle violence against women, however, like all public spending this is falling in the current economic downturn.  Rather than “ring-fence” violence against women funding the SNP Government have allowed decision making to be at the discretion of Councils, at a local level– there is a real threat that this could be a backward step.

Powers regarding Domestic Abuse were devolved to the Scottish Parliament at its inception in 1999.  My friend and colleague Maureen Macmillan had been an active campaigner regarding violence against women and a member of her local Women’s Aid group.

When she was elected in 1999 she was determined to move the legal protection forward. It was a new parliament and in order to gain cross party support she prevailed upon the Justice Committee to take forward the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001.

This was the first Committee Bill to go through the parliament and to date the only one.

As with all legislation, especially non–government legislation – there needs to be compromise.  Maureen knew her Committee Bill was not the last word.  When she retired in 2007 she asked me to take up the challenge.  With her help, and the help of many others, I promoted the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2011.

During that process I met Ann Moulds who persuaded me to amend the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill 2010 to make stalking an offence.   The UK Government have now recognised the benefit of this legislation and have agreed to implement it at UK level.

After I finished my Domestic Abuse Bill I was approached by Trish Godman, she had consulted on a Prostitution Bill, but was retiring and was unable to progress it.  She asked me to take it forward in this session.  Again this will be a member’s bill rather than a government bill.

This Scottish Parliament allows members to promote their own legislation and it is a simpler process than at Westminster.  This has allowed the Scottish Parliament to address the agenda regarding the abuse of women and further address the equality issue.

There has also historically been a better gender balance in the Scottish Parliament – it hit a high of 39.5% but is falling away again – is this the reason why members are more likely to deal with the agenda around violence against women?  In truth many men within that parliament have been vocal supporters too.

Maybe the biggest cause for change is that women’s group and others have taken the lead in making sure that the issue reaches the public consciousness.

However, there is much further to go.  The justice system still lags way behind.  The Domestic Abuse Court in Glasgow has shown the difference that can be made when those presiding over our justice system are properly training and aware of these issues.  This is however; the minority position and we all too often hear well-meaning but badly informed judges making crass statements regarding abuse and violence against women.”

Rhoda Grant,

7th June 2012

 

0 Categories : Domestic Violence, Guest Contributions, Opinion, Sexual Assault, Women's Rights
May
23

Racism Trumps the Abuse of Girls

by Jean Calder
by Jean Calder

Over the past few weeks there has been widespread discussion about the grooming and sexual exploitation of white girls by Asian men in Rochdale. Most of the debate has focused upon whether or not there was a racial aspect to the abuse. Blinkered rightwing commentators, including those of the BNP, insisted that the abuse involved racist offending against white girls by Asian Muslim men. Equally blinkered ‘progressives’ rejected any focus on either race or gender, emphasising the vulnerability of the victims and the fact that the majority of men who abuse children are white.

Typical amongst the latter group was Keith Vaz M.P., Chair of the Commons Home Affairs Committee,  who said: “I do not believe it is a race issue.” adding “What we need to do is to have a proper far-reaching, thorough investigation into these crimes and causes of these crimes. There are a lot of questions about the way in which organisations that have care of young girls have dealt with them and allowed them to be put into these positions”(my emphasis)… “I think we do need to look into this but I think it is quite wrong to stigmatise a whole community. “

Both groups, obsessed with the issue of race and determined either to condemn or defend Pakistani Muslim men, have refused to address the attitudes of misogyny and contempt for women and girls which lie at the heart of these offences. Both groups have seemed indifferent to the safety of Asian women, happy to make the racist and sexist assumption that abusive Asian men protect ‘their own’ females.

In contrast, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi – encouraged rather touchingly by her Pakistani father – has called for condemnation of what she calls “This small minority who see women as second class citizens, and white women probably as third class citizens”. Baroness Warsi said of the abusers:  “These were grown men, some of them religious teachers, or running businesses, with young families of their own. They knew this was wrong. Whether or not these girls were easy prey, they knew it was wrong.”

Nazir Afzal, also of Pakistani origin, was the courageous chief prosecutor for the CPS in the North West who reversed the original, flawed decision not to prosecute two members of the Rochdale gang. Other trials are in the pipeline. His was an early voice of both reason and outrage, acknowledging that poisonous attitudes to women in sections of the male Pakistani community gave rise to sexual exploitation.  He said of the Rochdale abusers “These men are not defined by their race; they are defined by their attitude to young girls. They almost feel they have a right to control these young girls because no one else will. But they do it for their own nefarious purposes.”

Mr Afzal has reminded an apparently indifferent liberal intelligentsia that young Asian girls may also be suffering abuse, but feel unable to report it. It is to be hoped that the dreadful case of 17 year old Shafilea Ahmed – allegedly murdered because she refused to conform to a traditional life of female obedience and compliance – and that of her sister, allegedly silenced by fear and loyalty, will cause them to reconsider.

Baroness Warsi called for openness in the Islamic community, saying “In mosque after mosque after mosque, this (sexual exploitation of girls) should be raised as an issue so that anybody who is remotely involved should start to feel that the community is turning on them. Communities have a responsibility to stand up and say: ‘This is wrong, this will not be tolerated’.”

In the same way, elsewhere in our community, people such as police, journalists, editors, social workers, lawyers, charity workers and teachers, should examine their own role in failing to address issues of abuse against women and girls.

We surely all have a responsibility to say “This is wrong, this will not be tolerated.”

23rd May 2012.

0 Categories : Aggravated or Serial Sexual Assault, Child Sexual Abuse, Deaths prior to 2010, Honour Killing, Opinion, Sexual Assault, Women's Rights, Young Victims
Next Page »

latest tweets


For Our Daughters
Copyright © 2013 All Rights Reserved
Website design by BHT Design