-
Random Thoughts on the UK Summer Riots 2011
Exploring the notion that rioting was about masculinity and entitlement…
I think that it is important... -
We Are Man (by weareman2011)
1. Myth: There is no existing civil or criminal legislation in place to support victims, or potential victims, of forced marriage
Reality: There is a strong misperception that there are no legal frameworks in place for addressing forced marriage. The current existing frameworks, combining criminal and civil legislation and the Forced Marriage Statutory Guidelines, provide adequate mechanisms to address forced marriage. It is also important to note that there is no specific crime of domestic violence, however there is a legislative framework which allows for the prosecution of a range of offences. Similarly, the framework exists for prosecuting a range of offences associated with forced marriage including rape, kidnap, false imprisonment, grievous bodily harm, common assault and murder.
2. Myth: Statutory professionals are confident to respond to forced marriage (but need criminalisation to do their work effectively)
Reality: Statutory professionals have an over-reliance on girls to come forward for help. Schools and other educational institutions have a key role to play. Teachers should be equipped to identify and respond appropriately to girls at risk, yet they are not consistently trained to identify risk and respond appropriately. Despite well-established child protection policy in the UK, professionals often lack the confidence, skills and knowledge to utilise existing systems. If forced marriage was better addressed within existing child protection policy and practice, (similar to other forms of child abuse and neglect) rates of disclosure would improve and agencies would be in a better position to intervene much earlier to prevent forced marriage.
3. Myth: We are required to criminalise forced marriage in order to fulfil our obligations under CAHVIO
Reality: The UK does have an obligation to create specific legislation to address forced marriage under the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (CAVHIO). It is imperative that there are punitive measures for perpetrator(s) in cases where a Forced Marriage Protection Order (FMPO) has been breached. If breach of an FMPO was a criminal offence with an automatic power of arrest this would strengthen the enforcement of the orders and would help to address current inadequacies in the way that FMPOs are monitored and enforced. This would also enable the UK to fulfil its obligations under the convention.
4. Myth: Criminalising forced marriage will stop forced marriage from happening
Reality: It is likely that a specific criminal offence will have limited and potential detrimental impact on women and girls. There are concerns that this would lead to lower levels of reporting. We know from the experience of FGM legislation that legislation on its own has not managed to stop girls from being mutilated. Legislation in the UK does not operate in the same way as it does in other EU countries. It is designed with the specific aim to prosecute, not as a tool for changing attitudes or developing more responsive policies. The £15 million the government is looking to spend over the next ten years in the creation and implementation of a separate offence, could instead be used to ensure that every teacher, social worker, youth worker and other professional likely to come into contact with girls is trained on forced marriage; able to identify risk and direct to appropriate support. This money could also be invested in the specialist services that women are most likely to approach and trust to disclose in the first place.
5. Myth: Women and girls would proactively take criminal action against their parents
Reality: Children and young women will often prioritise safety and empowerment over prosecution. There is a distinction between an adult taking criminal action against an intimate partner compared to a child taking significant family members to court that may lead to a prison sentence. Relationship breakdown with significant family members can be much more isolating, permanent and has a much more damaging and longer-term impact on young women. This especially is the case as victims are often under 18. Taking parents to court is understandably complex, emotionally fraught and difficult. Women often want to leave, want the choice to say no to a forced marriage and to access safety rather than criminalise their parents. Again, it is worth noting that to date there have been no successful prosecutions under the FGM legislation.
6. Myth: Women and girls can easily identify if they have been forced into a marriage
Reality: Because of the very nature of the violence, BMER women are more likely to define their experience within the context of a family or community expectation rather than a form of abuse. For younger girls, patterns of disclosure are likely to be more complex and even chaotic. In many cases, young girls are unaware of what is happening to them as pressure to marry can occur over a number of years and can be very subtle. Young girls are also usually more dependent on their families and therefore more vulnerable to returning home without adequate support mechanisms in place. They also have fewer opportunities for accessing external support.
7. Myth: Forced marriage is an isolated incident that does not link to forms of gender-based violence such as domestic violence, rape or female genital mutilation
Reality: Forced marriage is rarely an isolated incident. It is a process which is likely to happen over a long period of time and often occurs within the context of other forms of violence including domestic, sexual, ‘honour-based’ violence and female genital mutilation. Equally, because of the gendered nature of VAWG, there will be cases where less powerful family members usually, but not always, women and girls may appear complicit in the abuse, but may also be subject to coercion, or repercussions, if they do not support the family’s intentions and are not in a position to exercise choice.
8. Myth: There are adequate levels of support services available and funded for women and girls who have experienced forced marriage
Reality: The Missing Link (2011) highlights a lack of age-appropriate services for girls subject to forced marriage. There are only two services specialising in providing forced marriage specific refuge-based accommodation and support services in London. Both have been subject to significant cuts in funding, and there is an absence of any form of specialist service in many areas of London. This pattern is consistent in other parts of the UK.
9. Myth: Forced marriage happens when a woman or girl is abducted and taken abroad to be married against her will
Reality: Forced marriage is not an event, it is a process. Victims of forced marriage are likely to experience coercion, threats and violence from multiple perpetrators, and multiple interested parties, including parents, siblings and wider community networks. Part of the reason victims sometimes do not identify that they are being (or have been) forced into marriage is exactly that. It is very difficult to criminalise ‘you are such a good daughter and your mother is not well, it would make her happy if you got married’. Instead, you can support that young woman, you can increase her understanding around coercion, and you can provide safety interventions.
10. Myth: Forced marriage exclusively affects Pakistani / Muslim / South Asian communities
Reality: Forced marriage affects a wide range of communities, including Irish Traveller, Afghan, South Asian, Kurdish, Iraqi Kurd, Arab and some African communities. In a UK context, the needs and experiences of some affected groups are less visible within existing policy and service frameworks, which in turn contributes to hierarchies of need and responses. It is vital that individuals and groups that are extremely marginalised, and who have limited voice, are supported to engage around this issue. Too often the spotlight is on individuals or organisations with higher profiles, who then become perceived as single spokespeople on specific issues.
3,500 girls are at risk of mutilation in the capital
Anna Davis, Education Correspondent
More than three thousand London girls are at risk of genital mutilation every year, experts warned today.
The report by black and ethnic minority women’s organisation Imkaan found that in the city 3,500 baby girls are born every year to mothers who have suffered female genital mutilation, and therefore are at risk themselves. This is an increase of 65 per cent in 10 years.
Imkaan is calling for all school teachers to be trained to help girls who are facing violence and is calling on David Cameron to tackle the issue.
Marai Larasi, director of Imkaan, said: “It is not acceptable that in 2011 many girls and women living in Britain face extreme, violent threats to their safety and even to their lives. These issues are neglected because of fears of being labelled at best culturally insensitive and at worst racist.
“There would be outrage and a national scandal if this were happening to little white girls. Every girl should be protected, no matter her background.”
The report’s authors said girls from African families, as well as Afghan, Turkish, South Asian, Kurdish, Arab and Irish traveller families are among those who could be at risk, and stressed that education for health professionals is needed to tackle “a dangerous postcode lottery of support services for girls and women should they try to find help”.
The report also noted that hundreds of women could fall victim to forced marriage every year. The Forced Marriage Unit dealt with 330 cases of women and girls at risk of forced marriage in London last year.
The Right Honourable David Cameron MP
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA
Friday 25 November 2011
Dear Prime Minister,
Regarding forced marriage, ‘honour-based’ violence and female genital mutilation of women and girls in the UK
Imkaan is a national organisation. We work with Black, Minority Ethnic and Refugee (BMER) violence against women and girls (VAWG) services that assist BMER women and girls who are experiencing, or at risk of, gender-based violence.
As part of London’s own VAWG Strategy the Mayor of London this year commissioned Imkaan in partnership with Equality Now and City University, to conduct a study of prevalence, needs, the incidence of, and responses to forced marriage, female genital mutilation and ‘honour-based’ violence. The study reveals that despite the Home Office’s intention to ‘see violence against women eradicated in the UK’, there are some startling gaps and failures in policies and procedures. As a result, women and girls are left in life-threatening situations. We are certain that you share our concerns and we therefore write to you today, to highlight our findings and recommendations, including the need for a co-ordinated action plan. We have enclosed a copy of the report.
The findings of the study fall under five overarching themes:
- Although the UK has a well developed child protection system, which is automatically initiated in other cases of child abuse and neglect, professionals with a mandate around child protection do not routinely utilise existing safeguarding policies and procedures to protect girls from forced marriage and female genital mutilation.
- Although prevention and early intervention are both more effective and less costly strategies, they are ignored in favour of reactive approaches. The result is a lack of identification, and too few cases come to the attention of key professionals who are in a position to support women and girls. Very little work is carried out consistently in both primary and secondary schools.
- Rather than these issues being addressed within a context of VAWG, there is an excessive focus on ‘culture’ and religion. As a consequence, training is not mandatory across local authorities, and local authorities do not consistently include these issues as forms of VAWG. The chance of receiving a good quality service, which can assess need and risk, and intervene early to protect girls, is often reliant on the enthusiasm of individuals who have personally sought relevant knowledge and skills.
- There is a lack of understanding, investment in, and recognition of, the work of specialist voluntary women’s organisations with expertise in forced marriage, female genital mutilation and ‘honour-based’ violence. Yet the study reveals that these are the very services that women and girls are more likely to approach for help.
- Racism and cultural assumptions are still present in the practice of some professionals. There can be a reluctance to intervene because of a perception that these issues are about culture rather than violence against women and girls. This often leads to inappropriate responses by professionals.
Women and girls that were consulted during the study want the government to take more decisive action in responding to female genital mutilation, forced marriage and ‘honour-based’ violence; they stated ‘be culturally sensitive but either it is a human rights violation or it is not’. They want safe spaces to engage with their peers, share their concerns and fears, access support and encourage greater awareness. Although there are differences of opinion about whether a separate piece of criminal legislation is required to address forced marriage, there is consensus among survivors and practitioners that women and girls need high quality specialist support.
We are encouraged that the government’s Call to End Violence against Women and Girls Action Plan specifically addresses forced marriage, ‘honour-based’ violence and female genital mutilation to a certain extent. To help make this call a reality we need a more focussed and joined-up approach. In particular we make the following recommendations:
- Female genital mutilation, forced marriage and ‘honour-based’ violence need to be dealt with as part of a mainstream agenda on child protection and violence against women and girls.
- Consistent training for all frontline professionals with child protection and / or VAWG responsibilities.
- Work with teachers and pupils at primary school stage should be prioritised. Girls are likely to have had female genital mutilation carried out by the time they reach secondary school, and some girls as young as nine years old have been reported as being at risk of forced marriage. It is not enough to include references to these issues in the secondary school PSHE curriculum, especially given that this is not compulsory.
- Longer-term investment in specialist BMER VAWG organisations that support women and girls to deal with the physical and emotional impact of violence.
- Consistent community engagement to encourage more women and girls to come forward for support, raise awareness of the law and challenge the attitudes and values that underpin these forms of violence.
- Consistent data collection on the prevalence of female genital mutilation, forced marriage and ‘honour-based’ violence.
We do hope that you are able to discuss the findings and recommendations of our report with key Ministers, and that you will develop the existing VAWG action plan to improve the UK’s response to these forms of violence so that we might reasonably achieve the goal of eradicating them in the UK.
We would like to request to meet with you, and / or your advisors at your convenience to discuss ways forward. We look forward to hearing from you soon. London’s Deputy Mayor for Policing, Kit Malthouse, has also written to Theresa May in support of many of our recommendations along with a copy of our report.
Please note that this is an ‘open letter’ and will be made available to members of the press. We may also make any response from you available to them.
Yours faithfully,
Marai Larasi MBE, Imkaan and Efua Dorkenoo OBE, Equality Now
Exploring the notion that rioting was about masculinity and entitlement…
I think that it is important to have dialogue about masculinity. I just also think we have to be really careful about not oversimplifying our arguments.
In my mind, expressions and manifestations of masculinity are…
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Starmer says those convicted of involvement in the riots should not be seen as a “separate category”, as some judges have argued.
Instead, he says, the Crown Prosecution Service and other legal authorities “need to keep our feet on the ground” and “remind ourselves that we are dealing with ordinary criminal cases”.
Surveys have suggested that courts have handed down sentences to those involved in the riots that are about a quarter longer than normal. Some people have been incarcerated for months for stealing low-value items.
Mr Starmer makes clear that he is not commenting on individual sentencing. However, his warning that disorder cases should be treated like all others will be taken as a signal that he opposes the tough line taken by many, the Prime Minister included.
His remarks raise the prospect that many of the sentences will be reduced by the appeal courts. “We should not treat these cases as a separate category,” he says. “We should treat them as we do any other case.”
Mr Starmer also implies that David Cameron was wrong to claim that controversial human rights laws were one of the triggers of last month’s riots. “I don’t think human rights could be listed as one of the causes,” he says, adding that criticism of the Human Rights Act is based on “misrepresentations and myths”.
He says the “absolutely fundamental” laws need to be strengthened not weakened, as demanded by the Prime Minister, who has established a commission to consider a new British Bill of rights. Mr Starmer indicates that he will oppose any such move. Asked about Mr Cameron linking the riots to human rights laws, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service says: “My stand on the Human Rights Act is clear. The rights set out are absolutely fundamental and universal.”
In today’s interview, Mr Starmer reiterates that weakening human rights legislation is a “non-starter” and that the commission established by Mr Cameron will end up strengthening the laws.
The DPP also signals his opposition to a suggestion from Theresa May, the Home Secretary, that courts should remove the right to anonymity for youths prosecuted for their involvement in the riots. He has asked the Children’s Commissioner to become involved in discussions over potential changes.
“My view is that the law — which says you don’t name unless it’s in the public interest — has survived the test of time, and that’s what we should apply. I’m not advocating a change of that approach.”
From a strictly mundane point of view, the Notting Hill carnival should not go ahead. Huge street festival; spread across a large area; crowds gathering with impunity; inaccessible side streets; all-day drinking … There are also concerns that the massive police presence will leave everywhere else woefully underprotected, making it a bit like Christmas for any self-respecting, social networking looter at a loose end over the long weekend.
Genuine as such concerns might be, there is also an issue of perception at stake that could do enormous long-term damage to London’s racial status quo. The carnival is correctly perceived as a black event; however, much of the media has subtly and speciously presented the riots as being black too. To prevent the former going ahead because of the latter would promote the idea they are intrinsically connected, giving the erroneous impression that “black culture” were to blame for two days of violent looting up and down the country. If somebody as obviously educated as David Starkey CBE, can be so bamboozled as to draw such a conclusion, what chance have the rest of us got?
Promoting such a thoughtless premise displays an astonishing lack of interest in or observation of how things really are in London in the 21st century. First, it advances the idea that we are, essentially, all the same negro – “the black community” – and as well as being unable to make individual decisions, that negro is somehow lumpen: underprivileged, frustrated, marginalised, criminally inclined, badly educated and violent. The secondary implication follows that, as black culture exists as an expression of that homogenous group, it must demonstrate one or more of these qualities. Thus any celebration of a black West Indian tradition has no option but to end in the primal fury of the hopelessly disaffected, probably levelled at mobile phone shops and sportswear outlets.
This isn’t to make light of very real social concerns across the capital. In fact it’s because of what came to light during the riots that it is vital not to ramp up a still easily held perception of London’s black population as a dangerous mob continually and culturally on a hair trigger. Indeed to do so establishes the sort of scapegoat that obscures pretty much all of what actually needs fixing.
Under these circumstances, the Notting Hill carnival becomes even more important, as over the years it has honestly reflected the city’s relationship with, first, Caribbean arrivals, then second-generation immigrants and now it represents the racial and cultural melange it has become. To do that on the carnival’s scale, from a non-traditionally English point of view, is too uniquely London to be sacrificed.
At its beginning in 1959, when Trinidadian expat Claudia Jones organised a steel pan event in St Pancras town hall, it was an understandably closed-off affair, a Caribbean pride response to the increasing racist attacks taking place in London. A few years later, the Russell Henderson Steel Band took a Portobello Road children’s street party on an impromptu road march around Ladbroke Grove with local West Indians and a few white people joining the parade. It became a regular event, with Jones’s party joining up to produce a Caribbean-led neighbourhood carnival, establishing the Notting Hill vibe. Although the crowds grew to tens of thousands, the long arm of the law seldom reached past the over-refreshed, and that photo of the nervous-looking policeman dancing with a black woman wasn’t far away.
That all changed in the late-1970s. The carnival had transformed from a steel band parade into a huge sound system-based affair, and against a background of roots reggae and routine police harassment, the event tipped over into a series of violent confrontations between black youths and the police. As a result, the police presence increased year on year. Remarkably, this appeared to do little to prevent the seemingly regulation stand-offs. As darkness fell on the Sundays and Mondays, and the vast proportion of carnival revellers had gone home, bottle throwing and baton charges would bring the event to a close.
While this showed up the racial and generational schisms within London society and issues within the pre-Scarman Metropolitan police, it almost killed the carnival. And once again, this was largely a matter of perception as, regardless of how much fun so many enjoyed during the afternoons, images of post-dusk disorder became the common visualisation as the event’s annual repute was measured in arrest figures and crime reports. They came to define the carnival and, unsurprisingly, people of all races stayed away in droves.
However, true to the spirit of what London was becoming in the 1980s, it rebuilt itself with greater organisation and cultural diversity along the lines of such sound systems as Norman Jay’s Good Times or the multi-racial Nostalgia Steel Orchestra, a band that connects back to the original Russell Henderson Steel Band through pan master Stirling Betancourt.
Such outfits – both culturally black, yet deliberately wide open to anybody – epitomise what carnival is today, how it re-established itself to become the spectacular attraction that showcases a vibrant art form and dedicated planning and organisation. But more importantly, by allowing originally foreign expressions – playing mas and the sound system – to showcase themselves and the city on this scale, it sends a powerful message far beyond London’s population.
Of course attendees and participants are duty bound to behave themselves – why wouldn’t they be? – just as the police have the responsibility to apply the same public order controls as they would, say, at a football match. Such controls as an early evening shutdown and visibly vast numbers of uniforms on the street shouldn’t – in theory – detract from anybody’s enjoyment, providing both sides of the equation realise they have an important role to play. If this week’s pre-emptive raids mean the police will be less on edge, there shouldn’t be a problem. Perhaps they can even get back to the serious business of dancing.
In the aftermath of England’s August riots, a small number of girls have been brought before the court. They have been lumped together by the media, predictably described by their clothes and hair. But the main thing they have in common is that they rioted and that they are girls. Why and how they participated in the riots will differ according to their circumstances.
Sadly, violence touches the lives of some girls and young women in their homes, their schools, their relationships, their peer groups and on the streets. Some girls have to navigate violent landscapes each day. Depending on their backgrounds, their contact with those who can help and their self-esteem or resilience, that violence can impact some girls’ choices and outlook.
Over the past five years, I have worked with and interviewed hundreds of girls caught up in volatile and violent environments. Some have held firearms on behalf of boys, others have attacked boys. Some say they are aggressive so that young men won’t see them as sexual objects to be abused and attacked, others because they want to make money. But how many of these motivations are reflected in our response to their violence?
Interventions for children who have committed offences are centred around why boys engage in, or desist from, offending. The Youth Justice Board reported earlier this year that in 2009/10 males were responsible for 78% of all recorded offences committed by young people. Amid the commentary that girls are becoming increasingly violent, the youth justice system has never been designed to respond to offending by young women. From the assessment tools used to predict risk to the interventions designed to decrease vulnerability, girls have been an afterthought. If we really want to prevent offending and reoffending this needs to change.
Taking a gendered approach to the youth justice system is not about making excuses for girls who offend, or claiming that boys should be punished and girls should not. We live in a gendered world. Girls experience the world as girls, and the world responds to them in the same way: their involvement in the riots is another example of this. Any response to girls who have committed offences needs to be able to recognise the gendered context within which these offences are committed.
I have lost count of the numbers who have said to me, “How do you think it was for me – I was the only girl?” when recounting their experiences of being in the youth justice system where their needs were ignored.
While the involvement of girls in violence is documented, we are yet to see a gendered consideration of what needs to happen at a policy level. Speculation about the impact on boys of being raised by single mothers has been plentiful, for example, but what is the impact on girls? Do we know how many girls are in single parent homes because of domestic violence? And even when we can answer these questions, we still need to know the impact of such circumstances on the girls who do commit violence, and the majority who don’t. We cannot make sense of young women’s involvement in violence until we can pick these issues apart.
We are starting to see progress. Only last month, the all-party parliamentary group on women in the penal system announced that it would hold an independent inquiry into girls in the justice system. Such an inquiry will, for the first time, shine a light on the experiences of young women in a system designed for young men, and make the case for a justice system relevant to girls. The inquiry comes in a year when the government launched its action plan to end violence against women and girls, and backed a plan to tackle child sexual exploitation.
Addressing the victimisation and offending of young women is essential if we are to prevent their use of violence. The recent riots have reawakened the public consciousness to the impact that violence can have on our lives. Now is the time to harness this interest and fear to create a more effective criminal justice system.
Violence damages lives in different ways. A more gendered approach has to be part of the way forward.
Carlene Firmin is founder of the Gag Project to empower gang-affected women and girls.
Ed Miliband joins those criticising historian’s claim that ‘whites have become black’, saying it is ‘disgusting and outrageous’
The BBC has received nearly 700 complaints about the historian and broadcaster David Starkey’s claim that “whites have become black” during a discussion about last week’s riots on Newsnight.
Of those contacting the BBC, 696 were protesting about Starkey’s comments, and 21 complained the debate was chaired poorly and he was treated “unfairly”.
The media regulator Ofcom also had complaints and an online campaign by an organisation called gopetition.co.uk demanding that the BBC issue a public apology for “unacceptable comments” had attracted more than 3,600 signatures by mid-afternoon .
The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, described Starkey’s comments on race as “disgusting and outrageous”.
Speaking at Haverstock school, his former school in Chalk Farm, north London, Miliband said it was “absolutely outrageous that someone in the 21st century could be making that sort of comment”. He added: “There should be condemnation from every politician, from every political party, of those sorts of comments.”
Starkey’s remarks, during a debate about the riots on Friday’s Newsnight, provoked immediate controversy, with the BBC business editor Robert Peston tweeting: “David Starkey’s nasty ignorance is best ignored, not worthy of comment or debate – though I fear there will be a media feeding frenzy.”
CNN presenter Piers Morgan described him on Twitter as “a racist idiot” and said he had committed career suicide.
Most complainants said the BBC was wrong to allow Starkey to express such a view, should not have had him as a guest, or at the very least should have challenged him more robustly.
Starkey was in a heated discussion with Owen Jones, author of Chavs: the Demonisation of the Working Class, when he made his remarks during a discussion hosted by Emily Maitlis that also included the writer Dreda Say Mitchell.
“What has happened is that the substantial section of the chavs that you wrote about have become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion,” he said.
“Black and white, boy and girl operate in this language together. This language, which is wholly false, which is this Jamaican patois that has intruded in England. This is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country.”
Starkey then referred to David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, whom he described as “an archetypal successful black man”. He said Lammy sounded white. “If you turn the screen off, so you were listening to him on radio, you would think he was white.” Lammy called Starkey’s remarks “dangerous and divisive”.
The BBC said while it acknowledged that some people will have found Starkey’s comments offensive, “he was robustly challenged by presenter Emily Maitlis and the other contributors who took issue with his comments”.
Jones highlighted the offence Starkey might have given and Maitlis pointed out that David Cameron had already said the riots were not a race issue, it added.
Dr Reefat Drabu speech at “Faith Against FGM” Conference in July 2011
Chimamanda Adichie: The danger of a single story
Kavita Ramdas: Radical women, embracing tradition
We Are Man (by weareman2011)
