More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.
Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.
The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
+ this.
A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.
It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.
I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):
"the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"
It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.
Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it.
I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
????
I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.
One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.
I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.
You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).
The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.
(*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
I don't dispute the ONS data, nor your personal experience. However, I think it's worth looking at the definition of 'domestic abuse' in the ONS data (from the Glossary). It is:
"Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. It can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse: psychological physical sexual financial emotional”
We have no breakdown between these categories. All abuse is serious, of course. But I strongly suspect that it is women who suffer from the vast majority of the abuse in the 'physical' and 'sexual' categories, while men may well be over-represented in the others. Your personal experience of physical abuse is sad but, I think, atypical.
In no way do I wish to reduce the hideous effects of abuse on women. There is too much of it. What I am trying to highlight is that there are many men whose lives are being affected, or ruined, by abuse - and on occasion they can be treated as perpetrators rather than victims. They are all to often ignored.
And why does 'atypical' matter, if thousands of people suffer from it each year? Should their suffering be ignored because it is atypical? Because it ruins an overly simplistic message of 'victim' and 'perpetrator'?
In addition: far too few people - of either gender - talk about their experiences of abuse of all types. This needs fixing.
There's a kind of dislocation in those types who simultaneously claim their country is the bestest in the world while seeing people who want to come there as somehow morally deficient; prick tease patriotism I call it. That other countries' milkshakes appear to bring a load more boys to their yards also doesn't seem to compute.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
This is the relevant part of the article
A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
But that is not the proposed law. The law is left up in the air. Uncertain. To screw with the RNLI and its insurers. I can't understand why you fail to see that.
Comments
And why does 'atypical' matter, if thousands of people suffer from it each year? Should their suffering be ignored because it is atypical? Because it ruins an overly simplistic message of 'victim' and 'perpetrator'?
In addition: far too few people - of either gender - talk about their experiences of abuse of all types. This needs fixing.