Is this the way to keep women safe?

The Independent has reported today that "women could be given the right to know whether their partners have a history of violence under plans to be considered by the Government". I have mixed feelings about this, even though on first glance it seems like a good idea. I heard a Woman's Hour programme earlier in the week where the proposal was discussed by Michael Brown, whose daughter, Clare Wood, was murdered in 2009 by a violent partner; Jane Keeper from Refuge; and Brian Moore, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police.

Michael Brown supports the proposed law, which is being called Clare's Law after his daughter. He believes that had his daughter known about her partner, George Appleton's previous convictions for violence against women, she would never have got involved with him.

Greater Manchester Police have been criticised for not offering Clare the help she needed, but Mr Brown is insistent that any new policy had to be national, and not just relating to Manchester, and he talked passionately about the prevalence of domestic violence murders. He said,

"The statistics are frightening. There's 2 ladies every week killed by domestic violence. Their partners turn on them. And I think if they were all clumped together and that was two coach loads of ladies going over a cliff face, the drivers and the bus would be taken off the road. And because these ladies are dotted all around the UK, the statistics don't show that there's somewhere in the region of 100 - 120 girls or women killed by their partners every year. And strangely enough there's one man every 3 weeks. So the statistics speak for themselves. Had it all happened at the one time there would have been an enquiry, and because these ladies are dotted round the UK, it falls by the wayside and I think it's shocking".

The coroner at Ms Wood's inquest is reported to have said that women should be able to be informed of any convictions for violence in the past of their partners, and the statistics from Brian Moore, the Chief Constable, appear to back this up.

He explained that research he carried out showed that there were more than 25,000 serial perpetrators of domestic abuse who offended against different victims over 5 year period. This does show that there is a real problem of abusers hurting woman after woman after woman, and if a law like the one proposed could help to prevent that, then surely we should try it, as one measure amongst many, to truly tackle the problem of domestic abuse.

But Jane Keeper from Refuge summed up concerns that I, too, share. She explained that the majority of victims of domestic violence still never go to the police. Therefore there are a lot of unconvicted perpetrators, who women could potentially check, and be informed that they are fine. Ms Keeper also discussed the practicalities of the proposal - do women call the police each time they meet someone new? At what stage in a relationship do you check? And she mentioned resources too, that police are frequently not even able to tell high risk victims that their abuser has been released on bail, so they would be hard pushed to respond to lots of queries from people in new relationships.

The aspect that worries me the most is the idea that a woman could be reassured by the lack of previous convictions of her partner. Lulling her into a false sense of security could be downright dangerous. It's not that this law would simply not be 'enough', it's that it could cause more problems when someone feels they have been assured safety.

A lot does need to be done about domestic violence and abuse, and no one solution can present all the answers. But I fear that this solution will cause new problems as well as some solutions. But then, in the cases mentioned by Chief Constable Moore, perhaps a law like this could have helped the women in relationships with these 25,000 serial offenders. I do not know which would be greater: the scale of damage caused by a lack of this law; or the scale of damage caused by a law like this being introduced.

[The image is adapted from a photograph by Elvert Barnes, issued under a Creative Commons License. This blog post is cross-posted at The F-Word]

Taking Liberties

I have just watched the film Taking Liberties, which you can see for free at moviesfoundonline.com. If you haven't seen it yet, then you really, really must.

"Right to Protest, Right to Freedom of Speech. Right to Privacy. Right not to be detained without charge, Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Prohibition from Torture. TAKING LIBERTIES will reveal how these six central pillars of liberty have been systematically destroyed by New Labour, and the freedoms of the British people stolen from under their noses amidst a climate of fear created by the media and government itself."

It features Walter Wolfgang (the 83 year old man who was arrested under the terrorism act for shouting, 'Nonsense!' at the Labour Party Conference), Brian Haw, Mark Thomas, Maya and Milan, Sylvia and Helen, Mouloud Sihali, Shami Chakrabarti, and many, many more inspiring people who protest loudly against the shocking and frightening attacks on our civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism.

There are very apt archive clips brilliantly juxtaposed with people speaking about the current situation in Britain, and perfectly chosen music.

The official website for the film is noliberties.com, and perhaps most importantly, it has a fairly well-stocked What You Can Do page.

I found that the film contains stuff I already knew, but perhaps needing reminding of, as well as things I had no idea about, for instance that the prisoners held in Guantamano Bay represent just 4% of the people that America is detaining in secret all over the world.

It consolidates a lot of facts in a way that brings it all together in a comprehensive and, frankly, terrifying way.

Watch it now. Then join Liberty and Amnesty. Then protest. If you dare.

Straw sacrifices prostitution law to ban strikes by prison staff | Politics | The Guardian

Straw sacrifices prostitution law to ban strikes by prison staff

The government last night dropped key parts of its criminal justice and immigration bill, including a crackdown on prostitution, to ensure that powers banning prison officers going on strike are rushed on to the statute book by May 8.

The justice secretary, Jack Straw, is also sacrificing a proposal which would have barred the appeal court quashing convictions on a technicality in cases where there was "no reasonable doubt" about the defendant's guilt. It stirred strong opposition in the legal world where it was seen as incursion on the discretion of judges.

The bill would have introduced a programme of "compulsory rehab" for those involved in prostitution and removed the pre-Victorian term of "common prostitute" from the statute book which ministers said was widely regarded as stigmatising and offensive.

Women who were persistently found to be involved in loitering and soliciting were to attend compulsory drug and alcohol rehabilitation courses instead of being fined. If they failed to attend at least three meetings of the course they could face up to 72 hours detention before being brought before a court.

Women's groups, penal reformers and probation officers said women would be locked up simply for missing meetings.

Ministers said the changes were a way of providing women with an "exit strategy" from the sex trade and were the only legislative proposals to emerge from a review of the laws surrounding prostitution carried out in 2003.

The term "common prostitute" dates back to the 1824 Vagrancy Act and a public consultation showed that it is now widely regarded as offensive.

The Ministry of Justice last night said it was withdrawing the prostitution and criminal appeal provisions of the bill to ensure the legislation received royal assent by May 8, when a voluntary no-strike agreement with the Prison Officers' Association will lapse 12 months after the union gave notice it wanted to end it.

A ministry spokesman said: "We are taking this action to ensure that legal protection is in place in the event of further industrial action destabilising the prison estate, as was witnessed on August 29 last year. We must take this action in order to meet our duty to protect the public."

A special delegates conference of the POA on February 19 gave the union executive a mandate to take action, including a strike, and a mandate not to sign a new no-strike agreement. Straw was prepared to sacrifice key parts of his criminal justice bill yesterday to ensure that there was no gap between the voluntary agreement lapsing and the introduction of the statutory ban on industrial action taking effect.

The bill was the 55th criminal justice bill since Labour came to power in 1997 and would have created 19 new criminal offences on top of the 3,000 created in the past decade.