This article originally appeared in T&S Issue 40, Winter 1999/2000.
‘Living Without Fear’ is a new initiative on violence against women, launched by a Labour administration that makes much of its commitment to so-called ‘joined-up government’. Helen Jones gives the document a cautious welcome, but says there are still gaps in both the government’s analysis of the problem and its willingness to back up good intentions with real resources.
On June 30 1999, the Government launched ‘Living Without Fear’ (LWF), a joint Home Office/Women’s Unit initiative to ‘combat violence against women’. The initiative recognises that ‘…advice and support for women who suffer violence is still not comprehensive enough or easily accessible’, and its goal ‘…is that within five years there will be efficient multi-agency partnerships right across the country’. LWF contains many proposals and suggestions. The Government’s strong acknowledgement that violence against women is a crime, whatever form it takes, must be seen as a victory for all the women who have campaigned for years.
In this piece, I want to examine LWF, to see what it offers victims/survivors and women’s organisations, what it requires of other agencies and the extent to which it provides a national framework to combat violence against women. The document is the culmination of a lengthy consultation process which included many women’s groups and feminist researchers. It can be seen as a set of tools: a magnifying glass to examine existing policies and procedures, a lever to help prize the lid off funding pots and a lens through which statutory and voluntary agencies can better understand each other’s roles. However, it is not the only story; women’s groups need to be critical of the document and continue to lobby for a stronger message and commitment from government. The structure of the document, highlighting examples of ‘best practice’ and current service provision and showing what the Government intends to ‘add’, provides useful information and the beginnings of a framework for action. But much of the government input is little more than good intentions.
One of the few tangible actions LWF offers is the increase of £6.3 million in the grant to Victim Support and a pledge of £6 million to be made available to ‘future’ projects within the Home office Crime Reduction Strategy. However, this initiative has an overall budget of £250 million, so £6 million is paltry. At least ten times this amount will be spent on burglary. Home Office research [1] points to a ‘best estimate’ of 8.35 million incidents of domestic assault and threats in 1995 in England and Wales. Compare the pledge of £6m with the investment of free labour provided by women within rape crisis centres and refuges and we can begin to see the commitment of the Government.
By comparison, in the USA, the Violence Against Women Act in 1999 provides $120 million for direct domestic violence services and $75 million for rape and sexual assault services rising to $260 million and $100 million respectively in 2002. Also, the £6 million is for new projects which have to fit within criteria on crime reduction, and applications will be expected to be multi-agency and demonstrate how they will reduce crime and cut costs. Few local women’s organisations will be able to meet these demands.
LWF recognises the many statutory, community and voluntary groups involved in the delivery of services to women. However, apart from a vague reference to a ‘stable funding formula’ being developed, there are no new resources for the grass roots services which women use.
No coherent perspective
The lack of any acknowledgement of action being taken on an international level about violence against women is a serious and surprising flaw. Violence against women was recognised as a fundamental human rights issue in the 1993 United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women and was a major topic at the 1995 Beijing Fourth World Conference on Women. It has also become an important issue in the European Union and Council of Europe. But there is no reference to these developments in LWF.
On a national level, male violence against women cuts across social and welfare policy, raises issues about the Criminal Justice System, aid and foreign policy, and has direct links with the recent Human Rights Act. But yet again, there is little reference to these connections; so much for ‘joined-up government’.
This lack of coherence is evident. One of LWF’s pledges is to monitor and review existing legislation, including sex offences. Yet the day after LWF was launched, a government press release announcing publication of the study on attrition in rape cases (see Liz Kelly, this issue) highlighted the possible introduction of a lesser offence of ‘date rape’ [2]. This provoked an immediate storm of outrage, played out in the media. What is perhaps most worrying is that the Home Office, who now have responsibility for implementing LWF, thought this was the most worthy aspect of the research to highlight.
What’s the problem?
LWF focuses on the needs of ‘victims’ rather than addressing the failures and weaknesses of institutional responses. Chapter 3 on ‘Justice’, for example, is vague on the government’s intention to improve the Criminal Justice System. The proposal for an improved circular to the police on domestic violence is unlikely to change the attitudes of the police, who have been the barrier to implementing the previous circular issued in 1990. Regardless of other proposals for reform contained within the document, the police will continue to hold the power over how reported cases are handled and processed, and there is little concrete suggestion as to how the continuing practice of ‘no criming’ will be addressed.
LWF outlines existing and proposed research on Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) practice and court procedures and pledges specialist training for prosecutors on sexual offences. These hold the promise of addressing some problems (see T&S 35), but those at the level of the judiciary remain unaddressed. The attitude of judges is highlighted in the case where Judge Brian Capstick QC reduced the sentence of a man who had raped his wife arguing that ‘The rape of a wife may make it a less serious offence than it would otherwise could be.’ (Daily Telegraph
12/10/99). This reflects the values of a (predominantly male) culture which re-enforces the myths that the Zero Tolerance Campaign worked so hard to dispel. The Government need to look hard at where the system is failing women. At present the system offers little deterrent to male perpetrators of violence — it remains a high reward, low risk crime.
Who’s the problem?
Implicit in LWF is the assumption that women are responsible for their own safety and responsible for the behaviour of men. LWF includes the following statistics (p7):
- every week two women are killed by their current or former partners. (Homicide Statistics 1998)
- one woman in four experiences domestic violence at some stage in her life. (British Crime Survey 1998)
- women aged 16-29 are at greatest risk of experiencing domestic violence. (British Medical Association Review 1998)
- domestic violence often starts and/or escalates during pregnancy. (British Medical Association Review 1998)
Is there anything strange about these statistics? Well, they are all about male violence, but there is no mention of men in any of the statements. If they were reworded would they have more meaning?
- Every week two men kill a current or former partner.
- Men cause one in four women to experience domestic violence at some stage in their life.
- Men are more violent towards women aged 16-29.
- Men often beat pregnant women.
This gender-neutral approach in the language of LWF is a denial of men’s responsibility for their own actions. In patriarchal societies, women’s responsibility for male violence extends from ignoring exploitative, sexualised advertising; wolf whistling; abusive telephone calls; harassment in the workplace — everyday activities — through to fighting for their lives when being raped; because if they do not fight, police and judges will suggest that they were not really afraid; that they did not mind too much or that they actually encouraged the offence. Some women are seen as less deserving of the status of ‘victim’ due to the dominant definition of violence which connects culpability to ‘appropriate’ behaviour. What is remarkable about LWF is that the words ‘male violence’ and ‘man’ are virtually absent.
In the introduction to LWF, Baroness ‘I’m not a feminist’ Jay, our current minister for women states:
We have produced ‘Living Without Fear’ to show how we can put an end to this unnecessary heartache and upset.
She speaks of heartache and upset when every week, two women are killed by partners or former partners, when in one area, 45 women reported rape to the police whilst 120 women reported rape to a rape crisis agency over the same period [3]. Home Office research suggests that ‘…victims who felt to blame in some way were less likely to report incidents to the police’. [4] Whilst women are made to feel responsible for the behaviour of men and feel unable to report to the authorities, women will continue to experience more than ‘heartache and upset’, women will continue to be killed. Conferring responsibility on women rather than demanding it from men can do little to end male violence against women.
Addressing the problem
Using public policy to address the problem of male violence against women must involve diverse governmental departments, statutory agencies and non-statutory agencies. Creating national support for multi-agency response is necessary, while an innovative and effective system of political accountability that makes visible the effects of violence, on women and the wider society, is vital. LWF does propose a movement towards integrated responses, but what actual proposals does it contain for making this a reality? It praises domestic violence forums, of which there are now over 300, yet ignores the reality that many run with meagre or non-existent resources and that some agencies, such as the CPS or health and education are rarely involved. If the intention is to stop the compartmentalisation of crimes against women should we not be looking to transform domestic violence forums to be inclusive of all types of gendered violence? LWF suggests that domestic violence fora have ‘…the potential to be extended to all forms of violence against women.’ (p14) but then goes on to state ‘We would like to see full coverage of domestic violence fora within five years.’ (p15). In Chapter 2 on ‘Provision and Protection’ there is no pledge by the Government to ‘add’ anything to the development of integrated sexual assault centres. The document consistently prioritises domestic violence, marginalising other forms of violence against women as merely add-ons or after-thoughts. By its own example, integration is a long way off.
LWF does contain an illustration of the number and location of rape crisis centres and cites examples of good practice of several local groups. But the Government does little to acknowledge the work of the Rape Crisis Federation (RCF) — in fact they are excluded from the list of useful telephone numbers — or the potential for RCF and Victim Support to work together.
Roz Foley commented on The Home Affairs Select Committee on Domestic Violence, which called for a crime prevention campaign. She argued: ‘…if we let non-feminist institutions co-opt this [Zero Tolerance] kind of campaign, what we will get will be the usual crap that puts the onus on women to change our behaviour, and not on men to change theirs’. [5] The newly elected Labour Government commissioned a national campaign from the Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust in 1997. To date, it has not been used. Instead they launched ‘Break the Chain’ in January 1999, a low profile campaign which focuses solely on domestic violence.
The challenges ahead
The role of information giving, counselling and, fundamentally, believing women, in one-to-one and group sessions, has been central to the development of women’s groups such as Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Centres. Such an approach is however highly demanding of resources. Many refuges and rape crisis centres have moved towards more individualistic approaches that do not take account of the collective nature of women’s experience of male violence. Belief, the time to talk and the opportunity to share experiences has a significant effect on a woman’s ability to regain control over her life. Women’s groups have sought to name the problem, to break the silence to ensure that male violence against women is no longer protected by secrecy. But funding remains an issue which threatens this approach.
And while we critically assess LWF, the argument continues that a gendered analysis of violence is misguided. Melanie Phillips, writing in the Independent on Sunday (14.7.99) argued that there is overwhelming evidence that women initiate domestic violence as much as men. She selectively quotes from Home Office research [6] findings that 4.2% of men and 4.2% of women said their current or former partner had assaulted them. Look again Melanie. The study acknowledges that it cannot distinguish between the initiation of violence and responses to it, and further found that women are far more likely to report both repeat assaults and serious injury: ‘Women were much more likely to report choking, strangling, suffocation and being forced to have sex’ (p37), and that women and not men reported being fearful. The same study reports that 26% of women (one in four) will experience domestic violence at some time in their lives.
Without an analysis of gender inequality, initiatives such as ‘LWF’ produce a politics and an ideology of male violence that suggests ‘Violence against women is a crime, like any other crime…’. Male violence against women is not ‘a crime, like any other crime’, it does not have the same motivations as burglary and theft: it does not even have the same motivations as street violence.
LWF takes up many of the recommendations made by Women’s Aid in ‘Families Without Fear’ their Agenda for Action on Domestic Violence. The focus is on the needs of individual women (surely an acceptable agenda for women’s support groups). But a Government-led, national strategy should be more than advice and examples of how to pick up the pieces. Interventions focus on the needs of the individual, whether that is in provisions for women and children or in programmes for offending men. This is of course necessary, but it offers no clear challenge to the causes of crime and can therefore offer no real prevention or protection. The central question of how we get men to change their behaviour is not asked. This is a serious question. Men ‘get’ something out of abusing women and children. The Zero Tolerance Campaign got it right and continues to get it right. Men abuse women to gain power, to take control. The myths that surround male violence against women still exist in society and still need to be challenged. This is why campaigns are an essential ingredient in any strategy to end male violence against women. It is vital that the strongest message reaches the widest audience. The priorities of the Zero Tolerance Campaign were founded on the belief that ending male violence against women is an achievable destination, not merely a direction.
The potential of LWF is limited on a number of fronts. Firstly, the investment of money pledged by the Government is minimal. How can the good intentions of LWF be carried through in the face of continuing cut-backs to public services and the precarious financial position of women’s organisations? Secondly, the individualistic approach, focussed on the needs of victims and current best practice ignores the expectation from both the UN and Council of Europe that governments produce a coherent national strategy and plan of action aimed at eliminating violence against women. Instead we are offered ‘add-on’ fixes to existing provision. Thirdly, local level domestic violence forums are prioritised; this is little more than a smokescreen to disguise the inaction and lack of commitment of Government. A coherent national strategy which would offer leadership in both institutional change from the highest level and demonstrate how all forms of violence against women can be included in local co-ordination is entirely absent.
Despite its huge limitations, Living Without Fear is a move in the right direction. It acknowledges the continuum of male violence that feminists have been protesting about for years. It offers examples of successful projects, including some of the most radical and feminist in the UK and these may encourage further development. The Foreword to Living Without Fear states ‘This is only a first step and will not in itself solve the problem of violence against women.’ We must ensure that the journey does not come to a premature end.
References
Cabinet Office ‘Living Without Fear’ (TSO, 1999)
Notes
[1] Home Office Research Study No. 191, Table 3.1↩
[2] Home Office Research Study No. 196 A question of evidence? Investigating & prosecuting rape in the 1990s (HMSO)↩
[3] Merseyside Police Management Information & Analysis Unit — Figures for Wirral April 1998-March 1999. Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre for Women on Merseyside Statistical Report 1999.↩
[4] Home Office Research Study No. 191.↩
[5] Trouble & Strife 27 Winter 1993.↩
[6] Home Office Research Study No. 191, (HMSO, 1999)↩