From the Outset: Why violence should be a priority for the Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Miranda Horvath & Liz Kelly Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit London Metropolitan University

Why this paper?• End Violence Against Women (EVAW) submission to the Equalities

Review, December 2006. • Raised question of whether violence should be a priority

for the CEHR• A cross-cutting and intersectional issue

– bodily integrity, safety, human dignity and security– Affects individuals, social groups and communities and the state

• Insufficient attention to within current equalities work, limited legacy • Most expertise and knowledge currently in fields of gender based

violence and child abuse, where violence is understood as a cause and a consequence of inequality

• Literature review• Questionnaires and interviews across the

equality strands• Two drafts for comment• Final document is a beginning of a ongoing

dialogue – with CEHR and within equalities field– hate crime

Process

• Young men (16-24) are most at risk of random violence from each other in the public sphere

• Girls and young women are more likely to experience sexual violence

• Over two thirds of LGB ethnic minority men and women experience homophobic abuse, with even more reporting racist abuse

• Levels of sexual abuse are higher for children and adults – especially females - with learning difficulties, but if they report they are least likely to see their case result in a charge and/or conviction

• Victimisation follows the contours of disadvantage and exclusion: belonging to a group that is discriminated against increases the likelihood of experiencing violence/abuse

Key findings: victimisation

• Sex offenders are often not the ‘specialists’ that terms like ‘rapist’, ‘paedophile’, ‘voyeur’ would suggest – they offend across crime types and victim groups– Ian Huntley

• We know far less about whether those who commit physical and sexual violence in the private sphere are also implicated in more public forms of violence – such as racist and homophobic abuse

• Perpetrators of violence are more likely to select someone over whom they have a privileged position

Key findings: perpetration

• Violence is not mainstreamed in

equalities thinking or mechanisms• Silo thinking and provision – experiences

which cannot be addressed • Human rights offers a powerful framework• Violence provides a route to address the the

three pillars of the CEHR - equality, human rights, good relations - in the round

Key findings: policy and provision

• (Re)defining equality and garnering consensus– Personal safety, bodily integrity and human dignity – Human rights as the framework– Levelling up of good relations duty, linked to violence– Consultation to be broadened – variations within

constituencies and intersectional positions• Transparency on progress

– Required data fields for research, evaluation and official data– Intersectional analysis– Promote coherence across policy layers

Core recommendations 1

• Targeted action on persistent inequalities– Medium and longer term prevention targets– Connecting health, justice and education

• Accountability for delivering equality– Enhance understand of how violence sustains inequalities and

disproportionalities of harm– Equality proofed PSAs– Public procurement and commissioning should ensure access to

support, redress and justice for victims of violence– Recognition and support for specialist – single stand – and

intersectional service provision– Equitable geographic access

Core recommendations 2

• To everyone who responded to the questionnaire, was interviewed, gave comments

• To Holly Dustin, EVAW Campaign manager and Miranda Horvath

• To EOC and Roddick Foundation for financial support

AND• To CEHR for openness to the argument

Thanks