To say emotional abuse is as bad as violence insults every battered wife



Sarah's* husband had been violent from the start, lashing out whenever he was stressed (picture posed by model)

The fragile woman standing before me three months ago was small, slight, and extremely scared. Gradually, she told me her story. Having married at 21, she’d had four children in quick succession. This despite the fact that her husband had been violent from the start, lashing out whenever he was stressed or had too much to drink.



But this man was no unemployed layabout — he was a wealthy, successful doctor in Somerset, and the neighbours would never have guessed what was going on behind their doors.



She was frightened and submissive. She loved her husband, and hoped that he would change. Sadly, the violence continued.



Finally — after a particularly awful beating, she had found the courage to leave and had contacted me for help because she knew I had long been closely involved with the care of battered women.



Under the cover of a story that she was visiting family, we arranged to meet. I will call her Sarah. She was terrified: terrified for her young children, all aged under ten, and terrified for herself.



Scared



She was scared that her violent husband would find her. And she was scared of leaving the comfort of her middle-class home, where each child had their own bedroom and went to private school, for the uncertainty of a life on her own.



She lifted her jumper to show me the clear imprints of footprints on her body where her husband had kicked her. Raised lumps on her head showed where he had dragged her by the hair, and sunglasses hid a black eye.



I told her she needed to leave her husband for her sake, and for her children. The day she came to me I found beds for the family in a women’s refuge.



Now, Sarah is OK. She will never return to her husband — once domestic violence reaches those proportions you cannot go back.



Sadly, as a family care activist for 40 years, I have met many women like Sarah.



I started Chiswick Women’s Aid in 1971 in a terrace house in West London, where abused women were offered tea, sympathy and a safe place to stay. At the time, this was groundbreaking work: domestic violence was simply not talked about. So began a network of safe houses, which is now run by an organisation known as Refuge.



Given that history, you might think I would be pleased to learn the Government is looking closely at the issue of domestic violence, and is launching a consultation on whether the definition of domestic violence should be widened to include emotional bullying and ‘coercive control’. But I’m afraid quite the opposite is true: I’m horrified.



The Home Secretary Theresa May says: ‘Coercive control is a complex pattern of abuse using power and psychological control over another — financial control, verbal abuse, forced social isolation. These incidents may vary in seriousness and may be repeated over time.’



In other words, she believes that in the eyes of the law it should no longer be only physical violence which constitutes domestic abuse.



Change: Theresa May has suggested that in the eyes of the law it should no longer be only physical violence which constitutes domestic abuse

She is considering moving towards the definition currently used by the Welsh government, which includes ‘control over access to money, personal items, food, transportation and the telephone’. In other words, if you stop your wife using the phone, you could be bracketed with a man who has knocked his wife’s teeth out in a rage.



In the future, couples who row, smashing precious belongings in a fit of anger perhaps, could seek to have their other half charged under domestic violence laws. Thus, too, wives who, for whatever reason, destroy their husband’s fine wine collection, or cut the sleeve off his suits in an act of revenge for some betrayal or slight, may find themselves charged with this most serious of crimes.



Domineering, bullying husbands who shout at their wives but never lift a finger to hurt them would find themselves in court.



Let me tell you: this is not domestic violence. It is an absurd idea to define such acts in that way, and worse, it serves to trivialise genuine cases of domestic abuse.



When I began my refuge four decades ago, I took in victims of severe domestic violence who were literally running for their lives.



They were prepared to leave everything behind to escape the horrendous situation they found themselves in for a safe house for themselves and their children.



To me, the definition of domestic violence is quite clear: if you are not in fear of your life, you are not suffering it (picture posed by models)

To me, the definition of domestic violence is quite clear: if you are not in fear of your life, you are not suffering it. In all other cases, where the aggression takes only an emotional form, or a few coffee cups have been chucked around, women in modern Britain thankfully have the option of finding a lawyer and choosing to separate from their husbands if they wish to do so.



Women in genuine domestic violence situations are prevented from doing so by extreme fear, and so they need help.



The obvious point is that there is almost always clear evidence in domestic violence cases — bruises, cuts, internal organ damage or scars. Unless you have seen real, shocking abuse as I have, it is difficult to imagine some of the awful violence that people can inflict on each other in the home. And that’s why I’m convinced that bringing other, lesser, wrongs under this same legal umbrella does a great disservice to the women who really suffer.



It will turn millions of us into criminals: after all, I’ve been known in my time to lob the odd glass of wine in the heat of the moment. Indeed, there is something frightfully satisfying about chucking wine at somebody.



At this rate, we’ll all end up under arrest, and that is not a situation that’s going to help the police tackle the cases of true physical violence which must be stamped out.



Toxic



For these plans open the way to the ridiculous situation of our overstretched police forces having to intervene in what are basically private disagreements and rows.



People behave badly in relationships because we have human frailties. This is not an area in which the State should meddle; leave it to relationship counsellors and divorce lawyers. They already help people escape toxic relationships.



So why is the Government going down this road? Therein lies a story.



Over the past ten years, domestic violence has become a huge feminist industry.



People behave badly in relationships because we have human frailties (picture posed by model)

Organisations such as the National Federation of Women’s Aid and Refuge have a vested interest in pushing this agenda.



This is girls-only empire building, and it is highly lucrative at that. Men are not allowed to be employed at these organisations. Boys over the age of 12 are not allowed into safe houses where their mothers are staying, which I think is scandalous. I am now, incidentally, persona non grata at Refuge, having fallen out with them over policies like those.



Who benefits from this industry? Refuge has an annual income of more than £10 million from both public and private donations. Cherie Booth is a patron. The heads of these organisations are on very generous salaries.



And they are on a feminist mission to demonise men — even those who never have and never will hit a woman.



This is female kitchen-sink politics, and it’s time we grew up. Meanwhile, the male politicians are jumping on the bandwagon because they think ‘women’s issues’ will win them the female vote.



Rubbish



David Cameron is desperate for women’s votes, but on this matter he has got it quite wrong. In fact, it is my belief that normal, down-to-earth women are appalled by this watering down of a very real crime into something entirely different.



Every woman I’ve spoken to about this issue has told me the plans are ‘absolute rubbish’.



Misjudged: David Cameron is desperate for women's votes, but on this matter he has got it quite wrong

Women want to see real crimes punished and vulnerable children protected. But if the law changes and the definition of domestic violence is watered down, the genuine victims of abuse will suffer because the authorities will have less time and energy to devote to helping them.



At the moment, there are 500 women’s refuges across Britain, and there is not a police force in the country that does not take domestic violence seriously. There is more work to be done to break the cycle of violence that occurs in some families. This is where our efforts should be focused.

