Sandra Osborne

Labour Party | Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock

Violence against women

Sending the right message to society

In the debate about whether Mike Tyson should be allowed into the UK the Home Secretary does not appear to have taken account of the most importantissue. It is not just a question of whether he represents a threat to the public as an individual. After all, he'll be under far too much scrutiny toget the chance. The really important issue is that as a public figure convicted of rape he has a particular role. The significance of this was demonstrated by the fact that his management had direct access to the Home Secretary to plead his case.

The powerful images of public figures and the strong messages they send are what sets them apart. It is not a matter of degree - whether Sean Connery has made an ill judged remark, or Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist. Unfortunately both are common place but public figures are symbols for the kind of society we are and provide a channel for the messages we put across. The same can be said of Jack Straw as Home Secretary.

Violence against women - whether physical, mental or sexual is a crime. The fact that this needs to be repeated says it all.

Shameful history

It was not so very long ago that the abuse of women was sanctioned in statute and law. A man could beat his wife with a stick as long as it was nothicker than his thumb. It is little over a decade ago that, for the first time, a man in Scotland was taken to court for raping his wife.

The institutions of the state and religion have a long and shameful history of shoring up the ability of men to rule in society and in the home even if they chose to do so by force and this was underpinned by a conspiracy of silence and the communal condemnation and deprecation of any woman who had the audacity to protest.

In some communities there was a kind of ' honour among thieves' - the more upright male members of the community would take in hand those who offended sensitivities too often by conducting their abuse in public but otherwise women were left to make their bed and lie in it.

Of course women are not, and never have been, weak pathetic creatures. They developed mechanisms to cope and sought solace in each other, because they certainly got no help from the state. However, systematic beatings and rapeswere the reality of life for far too many women.So what has changed?

A great deal has changed

As a matter of fact a great deal has changed although the rapes and beatings continue. Women no longer just have to take it and abusers are more often condemned. Firstly, change came about by the efforts of women themselves.

The early feminists started the ball rolling by challenging male property rights and fighting for the vote, but in the 1970s there emerged a challengeto male power in the form of violence against women which saw refuges develop all over the country, pressure on the police and the courts to treat domestic violence and rape as serious crimes and legislation on equal rights for women.

Margaret Thatcher eventually told us ' the battle for women's rights has largely been won'. For a while it seemed that the current younger generation of women actually believed it - if they did they were soon to know better.

And all that time the same old messages were churned out -" she deserved it, they enjoy it, its the drink that causes it, the working class is to blame,men can't control their sex drive". Last week I even heard of a male politician of the so called left who said ' If she goes to a hotel room with a guy at two o'clock in the morning what does she expect!' And who said attitudes have changed! But changing attitudes is what its all about.

A vital lifeline

During the 1980s Labour Councils started to provide resources for Women's Aid and Rape Crisis groups. Provision was patchy and it was always a struggle ( it still is) but at least there was somewhere women and children could go. The lifeline was vital but in some ways it was even more important that the statement was being made to abusive men - it's not OK . The first signs of public condemnation began. More often the women who were involved in the self help groups were pilloried themselves as men haters but we took that as a sign of success.

When we reached the 1990s there was a major breakthrough - the local authorities , the police, even, dare I say it, the Tory Government , startedto take violence against women up themselves. running public education campaigns and reviewing their policies. The Zero Tolerance campaign challenged unequivocally the myths and stereotypes and clearly made the link between the different forms of abuse - violence against women whetherphysical, mental or sexual was wrong either in the home or outside it.

The virulent opposition to the campaign was another sign of success but this time the institutions of the state were backing it. Both the Labour Government and the Labour led Scottish Executive have prioritised the issue and we have seen real progress albeit there is still a long way to go.

A mainstream issue

Yes, violence against women is at last high on the political agenda so much so that it is now called a mainstream issue. It is a very welcome development but it does have one major drawback - all of a sudden everyone is an expert and feels qualified to jump on the bandwagon making ill informed remarks. As I have said earlier, it was ever so, but the dangerous part of it is when the ' powers that be' stop listening to the people who know - the abused women themselves.

I have seen the results of the ill informed comments. When Childline came into existence it brought the whole issue of child sexual abuse to the public attention and as a result the nature and extent of the problem was called into question. It was another case of the truth hurting.

I was at that time involved in a self help group for women who had been sexually abused as children. I can still visualise the tangible pain and distress caused when some big mouth politician, judge or public figure made a stupid comment. What of those women who have never told anyone that they have been raped.

Some women take twenty or thirty years to disclose that they have been raped and seek support. It has taken so long to get a message across that can encourage women surviving in a lonely and painful vacuum to come forward and we must have adequate resources in place to help when they do.

Sending the wrong message

But if this is not backed by those in positions of responsibility taking every opportunity to send a message that violence against women is totallyunacceptable it is not only patronising, it is quite literally dangerous.

To use discretion to allow a convicted rapist to come to Scotland when there was an option to refuse entry is not a neutral dispassionate decision - it is to favour the abuse of power over justice for those who have survived abuse. Just as before, it is sanctioning violence against women in the public arena and sending out entirely the wrong message.