Zero Tolerance Campaigns
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-04794, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, on 20 years of zero tolerance campaigns. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament congratulates Zero Tolerance on 20 years of campaigning to change attitudes to violence against women (VAW) by men; believes that the pioneering zero tolerance campaigns, which began in Edinburgh in 1992, were among the first to raise awareness of the prevalence, nature and reality of domestic and sexual abuse; understands that VAW is still a significant social problem in Scotland today; notes the cross-party consensus toward dealing with it; is concerned that much more work needs to be done to tackle VAW in all its forms, including commercial sexual exploitation, which, it understands, is still widely tolerated, despite being defined by the Scottish Government as a form of violence against women, and believes that continued support is needed for VAW prevention campaigns and activity, which aim to bring about a zero tolerance culture in Scotland.
17:06
It is a great privilege for me to pay tribute to Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust’s enormous contribution to the primary prevention of violence against women since its groundbreaking billboard campaign was launched in this city almost exactly 20 years ago. Zero Tolerance has always challenged male attitudes in relation to domestic abuse, rape and sexual abuse and is now extending that challenge to encompass what some people regard as being more acceptable forms of violence against women, including pornography, prostitution and commercial sexual exploitation more generally.
I come first, however, to what seemed like a revolutionary moment in the winter of 1992-93, when I vividly recall graphic messages about the prevalence and causes of violence against women appearing all along Princes Street and in other locations such as Easter Road football stadium:
“Male abuse of power is a crime.”
“No man has the right.”
“From 3 to 93—women are raped.”
“End the male protection racket.”
“She lives with a successful businessman, loving father and respected member of the community. Last week he hospitalised her.”
The campaign shone a light on what had been in the dark for a very long time. It told us not just of the shocking prevalence of violence against women but of the way in which it affects all sections of society, contrary to some stereotypes of that time. Crucially, it related all that to gender inequality in society and saw violence against women as a profound societal and cultural problem that is rooted in unequal power relations between women and men.
As far as I know, that campaign was also the first to target and challenge men. Before this evening’s debate, I re-read a speech about zero tolerance that I gave in the House of Commons 20 years ago, in which I referred to a current—at the time—Scottish Office campaign that targeted women and told them how to act so as to avoid suffering violence. The zero tolerance campaign was groundbreaking in many different ways.
I pay tribute in particular to Evelyn Gillan and Franki Raffles, who so tragically died in 1994, because they were the two women who were the drivers of the campaign, although they incorporated the support of Margaret McGregor as chair of the City of Edinburgh Council’s women’s committee at the time, which was also important.
Finally, I pay tribute to the Evening News, because it, particularly through the journalists Nicola Barry and Jean West, covered the campaign in a sustained, sympathetic and comprehensive way, which as well as the billboard campaign had a big effect on me. The campaign led to similar campaigns all over the country and, indeed, the world, but Zero Tolerance here in Edinburgh moved on to develop many more primary prevention materials and to engage in many more campaigns on violence against women.
I do not have time to describe all that work, but I note the emphasis that Zero Tolerance has for some time been putting on early intervention. In that regard, the respect materials that Zero Tolerance developed for schools some time ago are particularly important, although the organisation is starting to plan action in the pre-school period. I was glad to hear that respect will be relaunched in a few weeks’ time and I hope that the materials will be taken up more widely by schools than they have been hitherto.
I will mention one more campaign, because I attended its launch a year ago. The campaign is called the employers’ PACT—policy, action, communication, training—and it provides a package of materials for the workplace on violence against women. Zero Tolerance has run many campaigns and produced many materials, and is still doing so.
I move swiftly on to the present, because zero tolerance has become more challenging than ever. We all know, I hope, that violence against women is a continuum on which there are various forms of violence. It is unfortunate that, for some people, some forms are more socially acceptable than others, such as pornography, prostitution, lap dancing and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation.
Pornography is clearly about the abuse and exploitation of women and is a central part of the violence against women culture. I recently attended a lecture on rape-prone societies by Professor Miranda Horvath, from London, who is a well-known expert in the area. She gave the audience a little test. We were given a series of quotations, some of which were from men who had been convicted of rape and some of which were from lads’ magazines. We had to say which was which. I found that difficult, but the professor who was sitting next to me said that she found it totally impossible—and she is perhaps the number 1 academic expert on rape in Scotland. I am therefore pleased that Zero Tolerance has the porcupine campaign, which involves 16 to 19-year-old young men and women, who have targeted the porn industry through a Facebook campaign and in other ways.
Prostitution and lap dancing will be discussed in Parliament this year. I pay tribute to Rhoda Grant and Sandra White for raising those issues, which are clearly also forms of abuse and exploitation. We should remember that nine out of 10 women in prostitution want to exit it, and that many—if not most—of them have suffered abuse. As well as remembering that prostitution is on the violence against women spectrum, I hope that over the course of the year we will look carefully at the evidence, particularly from Sweden, where the purchase of sex by men was criminalised in 1999, and from Norway, where that was done more recently, in 2009. I hope that members will look at the difference that criminalisation has made, because I think that the more we look at the evidence and understand the nature of prostitution, the more we will support Rhoda Grant’s proposals.
This debate is about primary prevention, but I am sure that Zero Tolerance will not object if I use my final minute to highlight the funding crisis that faces the Edinburgh Women’s Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre. The centre faces a minimum loss of 50 per cent of its annual income as a result of the end of key funding streams. They are not Government funding streams, I hasten to add. The centre is one of the busiest rape crisis services in Scotland and the need for its services is significant. It has a nine-month waiting list and—tragically—demand continues to increase each year. Last year it cost the centre £330,000 to deliver support, and most of the money funds front-line staff. Currently, the centre has secure funding of £100,000 beyond May. If it is unable to raise sufficient funds, it faces losing 75 per cent of its specialist counsellors and support staff, and it is extremely concerned that that would leave women in Edinburgh and the Lothians who experience sexual violence and abuse without the support that they need and deserve.
The figures that I have given highlight a continuing problem. Zero Tolerance would be the first to admit that, notwithstanding all the work that has gone into primary prevention, the problem is not going away. We have heard a lot about rape in India, which is absolutely appalling, but we should focus on rape in Scotland. We have a serious problem, so let us support organisations, such as Rape Crisis Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid, that provide services and continue to invest in the primary prevention work of Zero Tolerance and others, which is clearly needed more than ever.
17:14
I thank Malcolm Chisholm for bringing the debate to Parliament and pay homage to the words and sentiments that he used, for which I am very grateful.
I declare an interest as a board member of the Central Scotland Rape Crisis and Sexual Abuse Centre. In December, I spoke in a members’ debate—led by my colleague Jamie Hepburn—on the white ribbon campaign, which aims to involve men in tackling the scourge of men’s violence against women and children. The campaign was started a short while ago, and is supported by a number of organisations including Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland and Amnesty International.
Zero Tolerance is also significantly involved in that campaign. I believe that, if it was not for the groundbreaking work of Zero Tolerance over 20 years ago, campaigns such as white ribbon would not have even been thought of, never mind put into full operation. It is only right that we praise those organisations and bring attention to the important work that they carry out to prevent violence towards women. I have been involved with this serious issue for a good number of years, and I have seen at first hand the vital work that has been carried out. From raising awareness of the issue across society as a whole in order to prevent violence, to dealing with the aftermath of that violence and comforting the victims, the work of those organisations should be commended.
Prior to the start of the zero tolerance campaign in 1992, there seemed almost to be reluctant acceptance of violence against women. Few men in Scotland were involved in any of the campaigns to prevent that violence, and it was left to a small number of committed women to fight for a woman’s right to be protected from abusive men.
Since then, there has been a marked change in society towards the crime, although—as the motion rightly points out—we have still not eradicated it. Although I am of the opinion that incidents of violence against women and children are not on the increase, I believe that the hard work that organisations such as Zero Tolerance carry out has given many women the confidence to act and come forward to report attacks, and has brought the issue into the public domain and to the public’s attention. That has been achieved through the provision of secure advice along with meaningful support, which has been a hallmark of Zero Tolerance since its inception.
I believe that the fact that the debate—in which I am pleased to speak—has been led by a man, Malcolm Chisholm, sends out a strong message, and I praise the number of male colleagues who have contributed to such debates over the years.
There is, however, still a lot of work to be done to bring about a zero tolerance culture in this country. As a man, I have a moral obligation to do that, and I can try to raise awareness among male-dominated forums and institutions. Although the Scottish Government and its predecessors have taken a number of steps to tackle the scourge, it should not be left to the Government or to Zero Tolerance alone. We all have a responsibility, not only as parliamentarians but as human beings, to tackle the problem. Organisations such as Zero Tolerance have an important role to play in that regard, and I commit to supporting fully their actions and future campaigns.
17:19
Violence against women is too often a hidden problem in Scottish society, and the work of campaigns to promote zero tolerance of domestic, sexual and physical abuse is invaluable in the wider effort to tackle sexism and promote a fairer and safer society.
I thank Malcolm Chisholm for bringing the debate to the chamber to celebrate the progress that has been made as a result of 20 years of zero tolerance campaigning, and for the opportunity to highlight the needless suffering of women throughout Scotland who continue to face intimidation, violence and isolation on a daily basis.
In Glasgow’s Drumchapel area, the first Scottish Women’s Aid centre to be based within a residential scheme was established to assist women and families who suffer from domestic abuse. It is the only such service in Scotland that operates 24-7 and it currently provides crucial support to more than 40 families every year. That resource, with the support of volunteers and community activists, provides women and children with a safe place in which to secure long-term accommodation, receive medical treatment, and build better lives away from abusive partners and destructive relationships.
Every woman in Scotland should have access to the standard of services and the quality of resources that are provided by Women’s Aid in Drumchapel, and after 20 years of zero tolerance campaigning it is not acceptable for abuse victims to be subject to a postcode lottery of crisis services that are dependent only on the resourcing of domestic abuse services in their area.
The work of the domestic abuse court in Glasgow has also improved the circumstances of many women who are in the process of exiting abusive relationships by speeding up the process of bringing justice to the perpetrators of abuse. The specialised process results in a conviction rate of about 85 per cent, compared to only 50 per cent for cases that are dealt with through the ordinary procedure of the sheriff court. That is due in part to the work of the ASSIST—advocacy, support, safety, information services together—project, which works with abused women across Scotland to ensure that they are informed and supported through the criminal justice process. The service is operated by Glasgow City Council and is independent of the criminal process, and works with victims before, during and after the criminal trial.
Sadly, many of the organisations and projects that support the work of Scottish Women’s Aid centres across Scotland are already under threat of closure and cannot rely on having consistent funding from local Government, following severe budget cuts. Glasgow City Council alone will absorb a £153 million reduction to its budget over the next two years, which means that community organisations that were established to support victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault are at risk of cuts to resources, which will result in poorer services for the victims with whom they work.
Only through proper resourcing and unqualified support of grass-roots advocacy organisations can we make the zero tolerance campaigns truly effective, and show that Scotland does not and will not tolerate physical, sexual or psychological abuse against women.
17:22
I, too, thank Malcolm Chisholm for bringing such an important issue to the chamber for debate.
When the first ever zero tolerance campaign was launched in Edinburgh in November 1992 it was a watershed moment, as Malcolm Chisholm so eloquently described. Yet 20 years on from those pioneering campaigns, regrettably violence against women is still with us and it remains high on the political agenda.
Violence against women is a pervasive social problem that affects every neighbourhood throughout Scotland; it can be found in every social background. Against that bleak backdrop, Zero Tolerance is a torchbearer that works to tackle the causes of men’s violence against women. It works with individuals, communities, women’s organisations, schools, the media and others to address the causes of violence against women and bring about change. Starting the new year with this debate, just over a month since Jamie Hepburn’s members’ business debate on the white ribbon campaign, is a good way to drive forward that change.
We need to reassure victims that abusive behaviour is not normal. It is repugnant, disgusting and unacceptable, and victims must be supported in understanding that they are not to blame. We need to send an uncompromising message to the perpetrators of abuse—the cowardly bullies who frighten, threaten and hurt—that they will be exposed, their names will become public and their squalid little secret will be out.
In the December debate, I said:
“Violence against women is unacceptable and abhorrent, and it has no place in Scotland.”
I referred to the statistics, which are very depressing:
“In Scotland, nearly 60,000 incidents of domestic abuse were recorded by the police in 2011-12, which is a 7 per cent increase on the 2010-11 figures. Since 2002-03, there has been a 67 per cent increase in recorded incidents of domestic abuse, and there are currently 163 incidents of domestic abuse recorded by the police each day.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2012; c 14293.]
The greatest protection available to the perpetrators of that misery is silence. That silence is malign, which is why domestic abuse must be reported and, when reported, tackled.
As it is vital to make help available to women who are fleeing violence, we should, as other members have pointed out, recognise the valuable work of many voluntary groups in that regard. I recently visited organisations in my area that carry out excellent work to support and protect women and their children suffering from domestic abuse. My most recent visits were to Renfrewshire Women’s Aid and Inverclyde Women’s Aid, which provide fantastic support to women and their families.
We must never forget that children can also be victims; for example, they might be present when incidents of abuse occur or might themselves be subjected to direct violence. I was heartened to hear, as I think Malcolm Chisholm mentioned, that the Zero Tolerance Scotland website contains a link to a website for younger people, safe hub Scotland, which provides information and guidance to younger people who have experienced domestic abuse. I was also interested to learn that this invaluable tool was designed for young people by young people who have experienced such abuse. In this age of technology and social media, we have a huge opportunity to inform, reassure, share information with and give guidance and advice to victims.
Does the member agree that portrayals in the media, particularly in television and film, of the perpetration of violence against women should be outlawed in Scotland and that the Government should introduce measures in that regard? After all, such things encourage people to justify their own violence against women.
The member makes a valid point and any measures that can be taken to discourage and deter the portrayal of violence as something that is routine or, in the minds of some, acceptable—obviously, the chamber itself would condemn it—would be worth while.
I know that the cabinet secretary’s colleague Mike Russell has become the first MSP with an application that can be downloaded but I wonder whether the Scottish Government might consider having an app specifically for children who are living in a situation of abuse. It could provide help and information, could be accessed discreetly and would prove to be an enormous support.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to excellent organisations such as Zero Tolerance and Scottish Women’s Aid. Clearly the united will of Parliament is to keep violence against women at the forefront of our agenda, to keep talking about it and to keep providing encouragement and support. I congratulate those organisations, which work so tirelessly to support those who are so desperately in need of their help.
17:27
I, too, congratulate Malcolm Chisholm on securing this debate, because it is important to celebrate Zero Tolerance’s 20 years of work. There have been achievements. Mr Chisholm’s motion is right to point out that the early days of campaigning were “pioneering”, because violence against women simply was not seen as a political issue and had to be forced on to the agenda. Women activists such as Margaret McGregor, who chaired the City of Edinburgh Council’s women’s committee, campaigned to put violence against women on the agenda and, crucially, supported investment for organisations such as Rape Crisis Scotland to ensure that women had support.
Women’s committees across the country were vital in ensuring that our councils acted and Zero Tolerance’s work in promoting awareness, carrying out research and issuing campaigning literature—particularly the hard-hitting campaigns that Malcolm Chisholm quoted—were hugely important in challenging outdated sexist attitudes. Indeed, for the past 20 years, women have been campaigning to change outdated sexist views on issues such as rape, domestic abuse and sexual violence. However, those issues must still be brought to the fore and, in this debate, we should not only celebrate the hard work of these women but sympathise with the women who have experienced abuse or intimidation. Most of us cannot even begin to imagine how their lives have been scarred.
We must also debate the progress that has been made in, for example, the legislation that this Parliament has passed. The Parliament’s first ever committee act, which was promoted and driven by our former colleague Maureen McMillan, was the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001, which gave protection to victims of domestic violence in unmarried relationships and, in more recent times, we have had the Forced Marriage (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Act 2011. No matter whether we are talking about our Parliament or our councils, women’s voices in our political institutions have to be heard and given legitimacy.
The Zero Tolerance briefing makes it clear that far too many women in Scotland experience high levels of violence. In 2011-12, reported rapes rose by 19 per cent and, as Annabel Goldie mentioned, domestic abuse reported to the police rose by 7 per cent. Those figures are unacceptable; we need to add our voices to opposing that violence.
The bills proposed by Rhoda Grant and Sandra White pose some hard questions for the Parliament about the purchase of sex and the impact on women of the attitudes towards women that are promoted by lap dancing. We must seize those bills to promote a wide debate across Scotland and modernise attitudes. We must do everything that we can, whether through legislation or policy, to transform the inequality that women experience because the evidence is that we live in an unequal society.
The campaign also needs the support of men, whether it is support from Gil Paterson and Malcolm Chisholm in the chamber, or the work of Graeme Pearson—who is sitting beside me—when he was a senior police officer to ensure the provision of police support. We need the support of men, too.
All of us are needed to tackle domestic and sexual violence and the intimidation that women experience. Our challenge is to tackle inequality and the outdated sexist attitudes that objectify and tolerate violence against women, however it comes at them.
I hope that the minister, when summing up, will focus on what the Scottish Government is committed to do to ensure that, in these times of austerity, the issue of violence against women is not put on the back burner. The Government will have support across the chamber. Anne McTaggart was right to highlight that local authorities face huge financial pressures. That must not lead to the downgrading of support for the preventative work that is done by groups such as Zero Tolerance, the community campaigns that Anne McTaggart referred to, and the vital work of our rape crisis centres. That work must continue; it needs our support. I hope that Malcolm Chisholm’s debate will focus future action and support.
17:32
I add my congratulations to Malcolm Chisholm on securing the debate. I commend him for the long, unstinting and committed support that he has given to the issue. He referred to a speech that he delivered at Westminster, which shows how long he has been involved.
I should declare an interest: I am the co-convener of the men’s violence against women and children cross-party group. I have the great honour of being the co-convener alongside Malcolm Chisholm. I have learned a lot from him in the past year.
We all know and understand that violence against women is a significant problem, and we have heard many stories about that today. One thing that members should commend themselves on—we do not often do that—is the cross-party support on the issue. That is a credit to the Parliament and to everyone in Scottish politics who has supported and progressed the issue over the years.
We know that work needs to be done. We must continue to tackle the problem in all its forms, a number of which we have heard about during the debate. I am interested in human trafficking; another cross-party group is pushing that issue. We should take that seriously, too.
We should remember that violence against women is a worldwide issue. That has an impact on our focus in Scotland and how we can lead the way in the rest of the world. Although we should focus more on Scotland’s problems than on those worldwide, we should not forget that if we can change attitudes in Scotland, we can perhaps change attitudes worldwide. That might mean that we do not experience again the horrific scenes that we are seeing from India.
As Malcolm Chisholm said, the original zero tolerance campaign was a six-month campaign with billboards. It then moved to a poster campaign for workplaces. At the time, I was a young Unison steward, who was tasked, as part of the women’s committee, with putting up the posters in my workplace. I was faced with those who wanted to tear down the posters because they were seen to be too hard hitting, nasty and scary. Let me refresh members’ memories about the posters. The first poster, which dealt with child sexual abuse, said:
“By the time they reach 18, one of them will have been subjected to sexual abuse.”
That was a hard image to look at and a hard message to understand, but it was a message that we needed to put across. I put that poster up, but it was torn down. I put it back up.
The second poster dealt with rape and was very close to the bone. It was a black-and-white poster that said, “From three to ninety three—women are raped.” It was another extremely hard-hitting poster that some of my colleagues said should be taken down because it was too scary. When they went away, I put it back up. There is a theme to how I dealt with the situation as a young Unison steward. The strapline of that poster was, “Husband, father, stranger—male abuse of power is a crime.” It is and always has been a crime, and we should ensure that its absolute rejection by society as a whole continues to be a focus.
The third poster dealt with domestic violence and challenged the widely accepted myth that domestic violence occurs only in working-class households. We definitely dealt with that myth. The strapline for that poster was:
“She lives with a successful businessman, loving father and respected member of the community. Last week he hospitalised her.”
It was extremely concerning.
I am a bit worried about my time, Presiding Officer, because the clock did not change.
Your time is really up.
Okay.
Those were powerful images that sent powerful messages.
We were delighted to host an event in the Parliament on 6 December at which all parties spoke. We need to continue to change attitudes. We should commend the work of Jenny Kemp, Franki Raffles and Evelyn Gillan, and of the Scottish Government, because the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 provides for the automatic referral to a children’s panel of a child who is in a household in which they are likely to be the subject of sexual or domestic violence. We should impress on the Government the need to continue that work.
I congratulate Zero Tolerance and everyone who has been involved in the debate.
17:36
Thank you, Presiding Officer, for allowing me to contribute to the debate. I commend Malcolm Chisholm for bringing these matters to the chamber and support his call to address the continuing abuse of women, whether by the use of new technology and other new means, or by the sex trade or whatever.
I also thank Sarah Boyack for acknowledging the work that has been done in the decades since the setting up of Zero Tolerance, particularly by the police service in Scotland. Despite that work, more than 1,000 women are victims of domestic abuse. As we debate the issue, somewhere in Scotland a woman is probably being abused in her home—the place where she should feel safe and should feel that she can be as she should be.
My commitment on such matters dates back nearly 40 years. My first attendance at a murder inquiry as a detective officer involved going to a dwelling house on the north side of Glasgow. I believed that I would be involved in an interesting investigation to discover who some miscreant was, only to find myself—the week before Christmas—in a tenement building in which a woman had been kicked to death all round the house. Not a single room in the house did not contain her blood, her hair and other tissue. As far as her partner was concerned, her crime was that she had taken the benefit cheque and spent it on food and Christmas presents for the children. Her partner, who had been out at the bookie’s during the day and had imbibed at tea time, had come home and felt aggrieved about the fact that the woman in his life had taken the decision to spend his cash in that manner.
The abuse of women has nothing to do with sex. Abuse in its real sense is entirely about power, control and gratification. That murder has never left me. Over the succeeding months and years, I attended many places in the aftermath of sexual abuse, rape and murder, when women were abused by the people they should have trusted most—the men in their lives—but who let them down repeatedly. Hence my commitment to Zero Tolerance and to changing attitudes in Scottish society: I want to ensure that such things no longer occur.
There have been many successes and there is no doubt that Zero Tolerance has played a major part in the changes that have taken place, but relationships between men and women need to change. Women need to find a way of playing their full part in our society and receiving due respect for what they are—human beings. We need to take forward the zero tolerance campaign. It cannot be put on the shelf as work that has been completed.
We can feel good about what we have done in the past but there is much more to be done in the future. There are new trends and strains in terms of abuse. We have young people who are using mobile phones and the internet to debase and undermine girls and women. I hope that the minister will bear in mind those new developments and take advice on how we might deal with such matters.
This chamber should not take its eye off the ball: domestic abuse is still a major problem in Scotland. There were 59,847 cases in the past year. Children are being abused in such circumstances and children are learning to abuse in the future. We need to put an end to that.
Due to the number of members who wish to speak in the debate I am minded to accept a motion to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Malcolm Chisholm.]
Motion agreed to.
17:41
I am grateful that the debate has been extended so that we can all make a contribution to it. I thank Malcolm Chisholm and congratulate him on securing the debate. I also congratulate Zero Tolerance and the many other groups that have worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the truly horrific crime of domestic and sexual abuse.
The speeches have been excellent, although they have raised harrowing issues. As others, including Annabel Goldie, have said, it is not just the victims of domestic abuse—the women—who suffer; it is also the children who witness the abuse. I hope that the criminal justice bill, with its emphasis on the issue of corroboration, will be a positive move towards convictions for those horrific crimes.
I want to concentrate on one particular part of the motion—Malcolm Chisholm mentioned lap dancing clubs and adult entertainment—basically, the commercial side of sexual exploitation. It is something that I and others have worked to address for many years and I am grateful that other members have mentioned the bill that I tried to put through. Many of the members who are in the chamber will remember that before the 2011 elections I tried to put forward legislation that would enable councils to say that when it came to any form of sexual exploitation such as lap dancing clubs, pole dancing, adult entertainment venues and strip clubs, even one was too many. The councils would have the power to say that they did not want such clubs in their areas. I thought that it was a perfectly good piece of legislation. Unfortunately, as members will recollect, when it was put forward with Government support, the Opposition voted it down.
I am sorry about that, but I take heart from tonight’s speeches. It is a positive sign for the bill that I am proposing and also for the bill that has been proposed by Rhoda Grant. We should look at my bill and debate it and I hope that it will have cross-party support. I look forward to the debate on those members’ bills.
I have been looking at the internet in relation to this topic and people have been sending me various newsworthy items as well. In the city of Aberdeen, there was a recent application for a new strip club. If it had been approved, Aberdeen would have had eight strip clubs—fortunately the application was thrown out. That would have been the largest number of such clubs in any city in Scotland. It would have been the same number as in central London.
I am reminded of the South Ayrshire application for a pole dancing club. The applicant was not going to apply but took heart from a change in council and also from the fact that Glasgow City Council was not allowed to stop such a club in Glasgow. The application was put forward and it was approved. Now we are looking at possibly four or five such clubs in the South Ayrshire area—not in a city. It is incumbent on us to say that legislation comes from the Parliament. It should be handed down to councils and they should have the right to say whether the local people want such a club.
As Malcolm Chisholm and others have mentioned, thoughts of sexual abuse and sexual violence start somewhere. Where do people see that? Graeme Pearson mentioned the internet and Hanzala Malik mentioned the television. Women are looked upon as objects and not human beings. That is where things start from. It is also about education, and we should consider that.
I am grateful for being allowed to speak in the debate and hope that people will support the legislation that will come through.
17:45
Kofi Annan, the former secretary general of the United Nations, said:
“Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation, and it is perhaps the most pervasive ... As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equality”.
Last autumn, there was global condemnation of and revulsion at the attempted murder of Malala Yousafzai, who is an incredible 15-year-old girl. She was targeted for campaigning for education—which is a basic human right—for girls in Afghanistan. More recently, we learned about the brutal rape and death of a young Indian woman, who was a medical student. She was attacked by six men while simply travelling on a bus. Such extreme examples of violence against women and children have drawn global attention to the issue and strengthened the demand for change.
When I first became involved in politics, I listened with interest to those who discussed whether there was a need to take action for gender balance in politics and beyond. After 13 years in politics and more than 30 years in sport, I am convinced that action is needed.
At the local government level, it is less likely that travel away from home will be regularly required, so we might think that that would make involvement in local politics more accessible and appealing to women with young children or women with other caring responsibilities. However, only one in five councillors is a woman. That is a great shame, because councils make many decisions that impact on women’s daily lives.
As I have said before, when I was on the City of Edinburgh Council, two highly regarded nurseries were closed. All those whom I met who campaigned against closure were women. That is not surprising, because women are still much more likely to be involved with nurseries on a day-to-day basis and much less likely to be involved in the decision-making process. When leisure budgets were tight, one of the first things to be cut was crèche provision. Women campaigned hard, but they were not listened to. Subsequently, access to leisure and fitness was made more challenging.
Why are there so few women in representative politics? Does the occasional hostile manner of debate put women off? In my first-ever formal full council meeting, a colleague in another party was described as a fishwife. I was astonished, but not an eye was batted by more experienced councillors. It was clearly not a big deal; rather, it was the cultural norm. Is that because council meetings take place in the evenings, when women might be dealing with food and family—with bath and bedtime, perhaps?
Representation of women is better in our national Parliament, but at about a third, it is simply not good enough. Conversely, male primary school teachers are a rarity, although male headteachers are not.
What does any of that matter? It matters because violence against women happens in a context. As Zero Tolerance has stated, violence against women is more than domestic abuse.
During the Olympic games, we rejoiced when women succeeded, but that coverage was short term. I recently tweeted my excitement at finding a woman on the sports pages of a national newspaper, but that excitement was short lived, as she was pictured only because she was someone’s girlfriend.
The long-running quiz “A Question of Sport” may be chaired by Sue Barker, but in common with panel shows such as “QI” and “Have I Got News for You” and many news discussion programmes that I am sure that we all watch, women are consistently underrepresented on it. Indeed, the Leveson inquiry raised concerns about the way in which women are portrayed in the media.
Why are women so often portrayed in swimwear, frequently with a critical headline about their dismal failure to banish cellulite? Seriously, that is not what concerns the women I know. It leads to the objectification of women. We must challenge the objectification of women and the obsession with how we look. We need strong messages about what women do, what they have achieved and women succeeding in the professions, sport, art and teaching. Such women should be highly visible.
All forms of violence against women happen in a cultural context. As we debate the future of Scotland, we must include debates about the prevalence of abuse and persistent and deep-rooted gender inequalities, because if we can change the culture—and we must do so—violence against women is preventable.
I thank Malcolm Chisholm for bringing this important debate to the chamber and Zero Tolerance for its ground-breaking and on-going work.
17:50
As other members have done, I congratulate Malcolm Chisholm on bringing this members’ business debate to the chamber. I thank him and Christina McKelvie for their work as conveners of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on men’s violence against women and children. As a new deputy convener of the group, I hope that I can make a contribution in future. I take the issue extremely seriously, as do all members.
I want to take a sideways look at the issue, having just returned from a trip to Thailand. As I was driven through rubber plantations to meet my new in-laws, I recalled a tale that my grandmother told of her niece Jessie from Aberdeen, who married a rubber planter and then returned to his plantation with him to find her life intolerable. She left him and returned to Scotland, only to be told by her relatives here that she should have stayed and made the best of it. How far we have come from those attitudes in Scotland today. I decided to light a candle in Jessie’s memory in the Lana Ram Buddhist temple that we visited on new year’s day with my new son-in-law. I did so to try to shine a light on relationships the world over that are wrongly based on men’s abuse of power over women.
The film by Lyndsay Mann that was commissioned by Zero Tolerance to mark 20 years since the first Z campaign in Edinburgh looks at the current focus of Zero Tolerance’s work, which is to effect positive social change here in Scotland. In the film, Evelyn Gillan, a previous director of Zero Tolerance, says:
“the value of any legacy is the extent to which people pick up the baton and carry on with it.”
It is important that, as members have highlighted, Zero Tolerance is now working in new ways.
With my sideways look across the world, I ask myself how much we can share the zero tolerance campaign across the globe in these times of connectivity. On a recent fact-finding visit to Gaza, John Finnie and I heard from a community mental health programme about the high incidence of domestic violence as a result of men turning their anger and frustration at their powerlessness in society on to their families. Support for women and children is essential and yet resources are few. With the support of the Council for European Palestinian Relations, we intend to arrange a visit of young women from Gaza, and we hope to arrange for them to meet young people from the zero tolerance campaign so that links can be made.
There is a clear opportunity to support women elsewhere, so we should always look for chances to pick up that baton. We should also have the confidence to speak out about the broader oppression of women by men around the world. We should not be afraid—because of cultural relativism—to say that women have the right to fulfil themselves outside the home through education and in the world of work if they so choose. In my view, the stifling of opportunity for women is also an abuse by males.
Alison Johnstone highlighted the case of Malala Yousafzai, the 15-year-old girl who was shot in the head after campaigning for women’s education. That case has had a positive outcome, in that she has recovered, but the recent gang rape of a young paramedic, which Alison Johnstone also highlighted, had a tragic ending. She was left on a road for dead and, after 13 days in hospital, during which she gave accounts of the attack, she died. One Indian professional has called the case the “clash of centuries”. After many years of Government promotion of girls’ education and young women entering the world of work, many men, who have been raised with a sense of entitlement simply because they are male, still believe that women should be restricted to roles as wives and mothers.
I regret to say that you should be drawing to a close, please.
Recently in India, tens of thousands of people carried the baton on the streets, and the Indian Government has now acknowledged that violence against women is a national challenge.
I ask all members not only to work in Scotland but to find ways in which we can work to support women across the world to have equal rights, today and from now on.
17:54
This has been a very good debate indeed and, like everyone else, I pay tribute to Malcolm Chisholm for securing the debate and for his lifelong commitment to this mission. Many members who have spoken tonight from all sides of the chamber are also committed to the subject and have spoken about it on numerous occasions in Parliament.
I also take the opportunity to say something about Zero Tolerance and congratulate that organisation on its anniversary. Members have already recalled the days when Zero Tolerance was formed. As Malcolm Chisholm said, many of the founder members and people who did so much work 20 years ago to get that organisation up and running, and to begin to change attitudes, which was more important than the organisation itself, are no longer with us. They should be remembered for their contribution, particularly Franki Raffles who, as Malcolm Chisholm said, died in 1994.
I am pleased to note that Scotland leads the rest of the UK and countries further afield in many aspects of the zero tolerance campaign and related issues. In my first ministerial appointment a few years ago, I was happy to introduce legislation to outlaw forced marriage in Scotland.
Graeme Pearson and Annabel Goldie mentioned technology. Graeme Pearson talked about how technology is being used to abuse young girls and women, as well as older women. Annabel Goldie talked about the possibility of developing an app for children who are under threat of domestic violence or living in a situation in which there is domestic violence or abuse. As chair of the Scottish Government’s group on domestic abuse and violence, I can say that we are already looking at working with the police and others to develop an app so that women who are under threat can quickly get the assistance that they require. I will also take up Annabel Goldie’s suggestion about developing an app specifically for children. That kind of technology could be very helpful in preventing particular situations and ensuring that the relevant services can get to a situation much more quickly than would be the case otherwise. We will take up Graeme Pearson’s point about how technology can be used to abuse and see what we can do on that front, because such abuse is clearly unacceptable.
It is important for us to stay ahead of developments, including technological developments, to prevent domestic abuse and violence while, at the same time, using technology to intercept those who are trying to use texts or other types of technology to spread their evil ways by abusing women or young girls.
The zero tolerance campaign that was started 20 years ago has informed much of the work of my predecessors in this job, including Malcolm Chisholm, as well as the current Scottish Government’s domestic abuse and violence against women agenda and strategy. It is important to record the fact that, since we have started recording the incidence of domestic abuse in Scotland, with the exception of one year, the numbers have increased steadily. As has been said, almost 60,000 incidents were reported last year, about 47,000 of which were domestic abuse against women.
One of the many reasons for last year’s 7 per cent increase and the previous increases is that, fortunately, more people are now prepared to come forward and report incidents of domestic abuse. I am not saying that that entirely accounts for the increase in numbers; clearly, it is difficult to determine why the numbers have increased. However, as a result of all the work that has been done and the campaigning by Zero Tolerance and others, people, particularly women of a certain age, are much more prepared to come forward than they would have been 20 or 30 years ago.
The cultural changes that the campaigning and legislation have brought about mean that there is no longer the level of tolerance among abused women that there was 20, 30 or 40 years ago. They do not accept that that is their lot, as women did all those years ago. Fortunately, many more are prepared to come forward nowadays.
I hear the point about funding. We have maintained the level of funding for the current spending period. It is one of the budgets that were protected because of the importance of continuing to give the loud and clear message that we are doing what we can and funding the organisations that we can fund with the money available to deal with domestic abuse and violence.
I pay tribute to organisations such as Rape Crisis Scotland and the tremendous work that they do nationally and in their local areas to help women who have been the subject of rape or attempted rape.
A welcome recent development, announced by the Lord Advocate a few months ago, is that the number of successful prosecutions for rape is increasing as a percentage. It is still not high enough, but we are making progress in that area. Although the Lord Advocate is not here this evening, I commend him and his predecessor for their commitment to taking the issue very seriously from a Crown Office point of view. Some success has been recorded in that respect.
This is an area in which the Parliament is totally united. It is important not only that the Parliament sends a clear, loud and united message every time we have a debate about the issue but that we send that message more regularly, to demonstrate that we are committed to dealing with the issue.
I look forward to the day when the incidence of domestic abuse begins seriously to drop. The police have introduced important initiatives. In particular, I commend the action that has been taken by Strathclyde Police around old firm games. The police visit the perpetrators of domestic abuse before and often after the game and warn them about their behaviour. A similar strategy was adopted during the recent festive period. In the time that the initiative has been running, there has been something like a 30 per cent decline in the incidence of domestic abuse before and after old firm games and during festive periods.
There are areas in which we are making progress. It is not fast enough, though, and we need to do more. The Scottish Government, along with everyone else in the Parliament, is totally committed to ensuring that we rid ourselves of this terrible blight on our society.
Meeting closed at 18:03.