Written evidence submitted by Imkaan (VAW 0066)

Introduction

1. Imkaan is the only national, black feminist organisation dedicated to addressing violence against women and girls. As a second-tier, human rights organisation, with national membership, Imkaan provides a coordinated strategic voice for frontline BME specialist services that work to prevent, and respond to, violence against women and girls. We act as a conduit between government, statutory agencies, mainstream voluntary organisations and the specialist BME VAWG sector to promote positive attitudes, recognition, and the effective inclusion of BME women’s and girls’ experiences and needs within service planning, delivery and commissioning. Our work is delivered through strategic advocacy, sector development and support, research, newsletters and publications, accredited training, peer education and consultancy. Imkaan is at the forefront of programmes and initiatives relating to forms of violence that disproportionately affect BME women and girls.

2. This submission focuses on violence against BME women and girls and takes into account the actions of the Westminster government, considerations relating to the Istanbul Convention, as well as the provisions of the existing normative frameworks.

Summary

3. Violence against women and girls (VAWG) is one of the most persistent and pervasive violations of human rights. VAWG occurs within and across all ‘communities’ and societies. The Westminster government has obligations under international law, and has made policy commitments both at international and national levels, to address the causes and consequences of violence against women and girls.

4. While progress has been made, and welcomed, with respect to addressing VAWG, there are still major gaps in policy; particularly with respect to adequate adherence to and implementation of existing obligations and commitments.

5. Successive governments have failed to make specific policy and programming commitments that appropriately respond to the specific needs and concerns of BME women and girls and of the specialist BME led services that support them.

6. Although the current Westminster government locates VAWG within a human rights context at international level and in its main policy document on VAWG[1] – much of the existing narrative on human rights, in-country, problematises human rights conceptually and practically.

7. The government’s localism agenda has facilitated an environment where local authorities are able to operate outside of the human rights context with no clear direction on their obligations to address violence against women and girls. The government has failed to ensure that local authorities are required to make commitments and take action towards achieving substantive equality. This has widespread implications in terms of everything from commissioning to data collection, and has specific implications for BME women and girls as victims, survivors, service providers and strategic advocates.

8. In addition, the current economic situation and the government’s austerity measures, combined with a commitment to prioritising market-driven, ‘one-size fits all’ approaches is having a direct impact on specialist women’s services and in particular BME led provision for victims and survivors of violence.

VIOLENCE AGAINST BLACK AND MINORITY ETHNIC WOMEN AND GIRLS

9. VAWG occurs in times of peace and in periods of conflict. It occurs during periods of economic downturn and during times of economic boom; and despite increased awareness, and a range of national, regional and international human rights instruments that address the issue, VAWG continues to occur at ‘epidemic’ levels.

10. For Imkaan, and for many other women’s rights’ activists, academics and practitioners, VAWG is understood as being inextricably linked to women and girl’s unequal status in our societies, i.e. VAWG is both a cause and a consequence of this inequality. This position is reinforced in international law, in the Istanbul Convention, in the broader policy context at UN level and further within the Westminster government’s VAWG strategy. Yet inequality does not occur in our societies solely on the basis of gender. Many BME women are required to navigate multiple, intersecting experiences of oppression linked to ‘race’, ethnicity, class, sexuality, and other factors including issues such as insecure immigration status. While this does not necessarily translate as ‘worse’ inequality, the picture is often a more complex one; and one that has impact on a woman’s experiences of violence, her perception of those experiences, her ability to seek help seeking and her recovery. For example, a woman who is subject to immigration control may experience abuse linked directly to immigration status (threats of deportation, refusal to regularise her status, isolation etc.). She may feel, or be, unable to seek support because of her immigration status, which in turn may result in vulnerability to further abuse.

11. Crucially, the narratives around violence against BME women and girls are often problematic. Violence is largely framed within the notions of ‘culture’, ‘community’ or religion rather than within a broader context of VAWG. In addition, policy responses to violence against black and minority ethnic women and girls are often limited to the sphere of ‘harmful practices’ as noted by Thiara and Roy in Imkaan’s publication Vital Statistics [2]:

‘Research and policy initiatives on BMER women and girls have largely been preoccupied with distinct forms of violence, such as forced marriage and honour based violence. As useful as this continues to be in developing informed responses to specific forms of violence, it has also left a vacuum in a broader, systematic understanding of BMER women’s and girls’ experiences of violence.’

12. The lack of an effective, integrated approach to violence against BME women and girls has a direct impact on women and girls themselves. BME women and girls often report dissatisfaction with the responses from statutory services; and while many women and girls use services provided by non-BME women’s services, women report an overwhelming preference for specialist, BME led women’s services.[3]

13. While it is important to develop an analysis of how different cultural contexts facilitate and perpetuate gender inequality, and therefore provide ‘fertile ground’ for violence against women and girls, it is crucial that this does not occur as a process of ‘othering’. There has been an overwhelming tendency to treat violence against BME women and girls which is committed by BME men/ families as a signifier of collective ‘cultural’ deviance; whereas violence committed by non-BME men/ families against any woman/ girl is framed as an individual, specific, random act of deviance. It is important to note that no modern society or community has succeeded in constructing and maintaining equitable relationships between women and men. Gender inequality, and its causes and consequences, is maintained by numerous evolving customs, traditions, institutions, and practices. For example despite widespread criticisms from women’s groups for its objectification of women, The Sun Newspaper’s ‘Page 3’ has been defended as ‘a British institution.’[4] Yet on-going objectification of girls and women creates a landscape in which VAWG is normalised. However, scrutiny of customs, traditions and institutions that facilitate VAWG rarely include those that have evolved within a ‘Western’ context such as negative media portrayals of women.

The Istanbul Convention

14. Imkaan has welcomed the government’s decision to sign the Istanbul Convention and we urge the government to ratify the Convention without further delay. The Convention sets important standards for addressing VAWG. If the government begins to truly meet the obligations of the convention, there are likely to be positive changes, which would be embedded across society and therefore more sustainable.

15. The Convention is grounded in anti-discriminatory principles, with respect to ‘race’, colour, migrant and refugee status and national or social origin. The Convention also notes that:

‘Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of the Convention’

16. Current approaches to the protection of women and girls in effect discriminate against all women and girls. For example, although women-only provision, is an essential element of effective responses to VAWG, local authorities have increasingly used commissioning processes to force women’s organisations to provide services for men – often indicating that women only provision effectively discriminates against men.

17. While this approach disadvantages all women, BME women and girls experience disproportionate levels of discrimination in that:

i. Despite evidence indicating that many BME women prefer to receive services from specialist BME led women’s services, these services have historically been more poorly funded than their non-BME counterparts.[5]

ii. Local authorities often do not see the value of specialist BME women’s services.

iii. BME specialist women’s services have been disproportionately affected by the current austerity measures.[6]

iv. Austerity measures have led to cuts in organisational budgets (including non-BME led services), which has resulted in lack of funding for interpreting and translation services. This in turn affects some BME women’s access to safety, support and justice.

v. Despite the recent focus on issues such as forced marriage and female genital mutilation, there has been a lack of adequate investment in specialist provision to support victims.

vi. Imkaan’s own data also points to an acute lack of targeted support services for young women, LGBT groups, and women and girls who are disabled,[7] all of whom have been identified as at risk of forced marriage.

vii. BME women are much more likely to be subject to immigration control than non-BME women. Women who are ‘caught’ in the immigration and asylum system are often treated as immigration offenders, rather than victims of abuse. Poor quality decision-making and powerful anti-immigration rhetoric effectively erode the rights of whole groups of women and limit their access to basic protections.

Recommendations relating to protection

18. It is essential that the Westminster government take urgent action in line with current obligations and international agreements. For example, the 2007 General Assembly resolution on the Intensification of Efforts to Eliminate All Forms of Violence against Women, calls on states to

‘have regard to women who need special attention in the development of policies to address violence, such as women belonging to minority groups, including those based on nationality, ethnicity, religion or language, indigenous women, migrant women, stateless women, women living in underdeveloped, rural or remote communities, homeless women, women in institutions or in detention, women with disabilities, elderly women, widows and women who are otherwise discriminated against.’

19. As such the government should establish a specific taskforce, / working group, specifically focused on policy and programming around violence against BME women and girls. The taskforce must include appropriate representation from BME VAWG women’s non-governmental organisations and academic experts with a proven track record in this field.

20. While the taskforce is carrying out its brief, the government should issue urgent, clear guidelines to local authorities about their obligations to ensure that BME women and girls receive adequate protection from violence; and that special measures should be taken to secure shelter and other provision for BME women and girls including specialist expert services which are led by BME women, for BME women. It is important to note that:

99% of women surveyed said that the BME service made them feel safer and more protected overall and women cited that being with other BME women, being able to speak their own language and specialist expertise were the most important aspects of the support that they received.[8]

21. The government should ensure there is sufficient investment and commitment to improving the availability of services which hold the specialism and deliver high quality provision for women and girls affected by forced marriage and female genital mutilation and who deliver services within a clear VAWG analysis rather than one which is primarily about culture.

22. Statutory bodies need to adopt minimum standards around violence against women and girls, which include specific standards around the treatment of BME women and girls.[9] BME women and girls should not be an after-thought. Their needs and aspirations should be a core part of any work to address VAWG and it is essential that the expertise of BME women is sought rather than maintaining a wholesale assumption that experts in VAWG generally are au fait with the nuances and specificities of BME women’s experiences.

23. Urgent attention should be given to government policy and practices around immigration and asylum including the use of detention centres. Women and girls (and women’s children) who have experienced violence should be provided with appropriate, adequate support. Immigration and asylum claims should be processed with sensitivity to the issues of VAWG. Case owners should receive on-going training including on key areas such as credibility.

24. The Convention calls on State Parties to take action to prevent violence against women. This includes a range of approaches covering educational spaces, general awareness raising and the training of professionals.

25. Schools are a key site for prevention activities, and are also crucial to early intervention. Despite repeated calls from key agencies for the Westminster government to prioritise primary prevention, particularly with respect to schools[10], there is currently no clear commitment to develop a systematic, centralised approach to VAWG prevention. As Imkaan’s research[11] notes:

The inconsistent work in schools was highlighted as a setback and without a clear policy steer from central government, there was a concern that schools were less likely to incorporate [harmful practices] as part of the curriculum.

26. Imkaan is also concerned with the specific ways that BME women are objectified in media spaces. This is effectively ‘racialised objectification’ which is normalised across industries, including advertising, music and fashion. We are concerned that this gives wider messages about the [lack of] value and availability of BME women’s bodies. Yet dialogue about sexualisation, body image etc. rarely takes account of the very specific ways that the commodification of BME women’s bodies occurs, and the impact that this has on BME women’s self-perceptions, on men’s views of BME women and on wider societal attitudes to BME women.

27. Work done at ‘community’ level is often piecemeal and poorly funded. In addition notions of ‘community’ and of ‘community’ leadership often means that organisations that have no gendered analysis are being resourced to deliver work on VAWG. This is especially concerning in the current context of increased awareness about the issues of sexual exploitation, forced marriage and female genital mutilation.

Recommendations relating to prevention

28. In September 2012, UN Women in cooperation with ESCAP, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF and WHO convened an expert group meeting on preventing violence against women and girls. The final report reiterates calls within Beijing Platform for Action around VAWG prevention called for ‘integrated measures to prevent and eliminate violence against women and girls’. Imkaan supports many of the measures proposed in the report - specifically paras 115-142.[12]

29. The government should:

i. Take action in line with the Agreed Conclusions[13] on the elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls, from Commission on the Status of Women 2013, which the Westminster government has already agreed to.

ii. Make sex and relationships education and media literacy compulsory in ALL schools. Robust conversations with young people about consensual and respectful relationships as well as skilling them up to critically analyse media messages are crucial steps to curbing the impact of harmful media messages.[14]

iii. Invest in community engagement work to address violence against BME women and girls, which should include work with men and boys, but must be led / guided by BME women experts. Work must be developed and delivered within a strong gendered, rights-based analysis and must be able to meet appropriate standards for safe minimum practice. Safe minimum practice standards must be developed in line with feminist and human rights principles and must be appropriate / applicable to each community setting.

iv. Strengthen regulatory structures with respect to all media and internet agencies, considering co-regulation as an option. Minimum standards for media agencies should be developed, which include accountability around issues such as sexism and racism, and which support media agencies to maintain principles of free speech while ensuring accountability. Ultimately media agencies should not be in a position to breach individual and collective human rights by simply citing arguments around ‘free speech’.

May 2014