Addressing family violence

On Q + A yesterday Susan Wood interviews former Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier on family violence.

Boshier talked of three things he things he thinks need focussing on to address family violence:

  1. Attitudinal change
    “We’ve managed to do this with drink-driving.  We’ve managed to do it with smoking.  We can do it with family violence, and we’ve seen some top rugby players beginning to come out and acknowledge”.
  2. Give women options
    The second thing is we’ve got to give women other options.  We’ve got to enable them to feel that there is something that they can do and somewhere they can go.
  3. Men being accountable
    “We’re beginning to see it more and more, men being accountable, talking, acknowledging and making change.  And we have seen  men who have been violent in the past who have come out and said, I no longer want to be violent, so were beginning to get men talking about it”.

Conclusion:

SUSAN WOOD: Do you think we will get there?  Do you think we will get there in a generation or two with domestic violence?

PETER We will make change.  Look, the fact that I’m here today speaking about this – this wouldn’t have happened 20 years ago.  And the fact that so many mayors, people are our ambassadors- John Key, Len Brown, Ruben Wiki, the famous rugby league player, are ambassadors, this wouldn’t have happened years ago.  I’m ever the optimist.

We need more optimists like Peter.

Men are not the only perpetrators of violent behaviour, but they are more violent and can be more physically damaging.

But it needs to be said that some women are also violent. And many women are non-physically abusive.

In probably the majority of cases both partners contribute to violence, by their attitudes, by their actions and by their inactions.

We need more work on attitudes, more and better options, and being accountable.

And we need to learn to understand each other better.

Videos:

Full transcript:

SUSAN WOOD INTERVIEWS PETER BOSHIER

SUSAN A very good morning to you.

JUDGE PETER BOSHIER – Former Principal Family Court Judge
 Good morning.

SUSAN This campaign is about men speaking to other men.  Is there any evidence that men are listening – that there is less family violence?

Advertisement

PETER  Well, I think what were doing is beginning to talk about it much more.  Unfortunately, only about 20% of family violence ever surfaces.  Theres an enormous, enormous amount that hasnt been talked about, so one of the real-
 
SUSAN How did you get that number?  Thats a huge amount we are not talking about.

PETER It is.  It is a huge amount.  Well, people are often unwilling to seek help.  They feel locked in, they feel unable to share it, so one of the real purposes of White Ribbon is to flush it out and to get people talking about it.

SUSAN But you’re talking to the men, and so often in these cases we are talking about, generally here, women as the victims of it, and the trouble is they are tied up.  They are tied with children; they are tied up economically, aren’t they, so often?  How do you break that?  How do you get these women to speak out?

PETER  Well, I think there are three things – three things that I would focus on for change in New Zealand.  And first of all, its attitudinal change.  We’ve managed to do this with drink-driving.  We’ve managed to do it with smoking.  We can do it with family violence, and we’ve seen some top rugby players beginning to come out and acknowledge.  The second thing is weve got to give women other options.  We’ve got to enable them to feel that there is something that they can do and somewhere they can go.

SUSAN And what are those sort of options?  I know well get to the third one, but what sort of things specifically do you need to give women?

PETER  I think there are two things.  The first is if youre in a violent relationship, you cant just go back to it once the person whos perpetrated the violence has been arrested, otherwise the thing goes round and round in circles.  And the poor children, just like the Once Were Warriors situation, are huddled, listening to their parents fighting.  So weve got to give women, first of all, somewhere to go, secondly, to empower them to make and force change.
 
SUSAN And the third point?  So weve got a chance in attitude, something for women to do, and whats your third point?

PETER Well, the third thing, and were beginning to see it more and more, is men being accountable, talking, acknowledging and making change.  And we have seen- We have seen men who have been violent in the past who have come out and said, I no longer want to be violent, so were beginning to get men talking about it.

SUSAN So they can change?  At the moment, probably a 20-week course is the best youll get.  Is it enough to get what is possibly ingrained behaviour changed?

PETER  It is not enough, and in legislation that is coming through to reform the Family Court, one of the good things about that legislation is enhanced programmes – broader, more customised.  Look, violence varies, Susan, as you probably know.  Some is contextual – it happens as a result of a marriage break-up.  Other is lethal.  We have men who are virtually pathological, and one 20-week programme isnt enough.  They may need a programme stretching over years.

SUSAN Across society- We have heard often that domestic violence is right across society.  Is that your experience?

PETER  Yes.
 
SUSAN It doesnt matter if youre a doctor in Remuera or whatever – its right across?

PETER It is, and dont forget that family violence isnt just punching and kicking.  It is often much more insidious, and the control – the psychological violence which there is out there – is just as bad as the physical.

SUSAN Do you see that?  Did you see that in your job – the psychological violence?

PETER  I listened at times to voice recordings on answerphones which women had had in the Family Court and I had access to the recordings that men had made.  Its terrible stuff.  And the other thing were beginning to see more and more is the text messaging and the use of emails.  So now everyones pretty marked – if you sent a bad text message, the chances are itll surface.  And some of the melancholic, awful, intimidating text messaging, often during the night, now is beginning to surface.

SUSAN This week, interestingly, Professor Greg Newbold from the University of Canterbury came out saying that Maori are overrepresented in many of the bad statistics in this country, as we know, sadly.  He was blaming the warrior culture and patriarchal culture of Maori for domestic violence.  Do you buy that argument?

PETER  I dont necessarily buy that argument at all.  The evidence that I have suggests that pre-colonisation many, many years ago, violence was not part of Maori culture, and thats certainly the case in the Pacific.  So I dont think its- I think its far too simplistic to say that we can blame that.
 
SUSAN Now, in a legal sense youre also advocating some changes, arent you, one being there is actually an offence of domestic violence.

PETER Yes.

SUSAN Because at the moment, you could be charged with assault, common assault, assault against a women, but it doesnt actually show if its domestic violence.

PETER  Correct.  You see, my point on this is that if you are a drink-driver, you get charged with drink-driving.  Youre branded – you are a drink-driver, and you have to be accountable for that.  But not so, and I cannot understand or fathom this- with violence, there is no offence of domestic violence.  The most that we get is male assaults female, and thats the biggest clue you get that it could be domestic.  We can and should do much better than this.

SUSAN So it would make a difference to have on someones record domestic violence?

PETER  Yes, it would.  I would like, when I see someones list of previous convictions, to be able to see that they have assaulted a woman, a partner, maybe more than one over a period of years and that its been domestic.  At the moment, I dont know.
 
SUSAN Youre also suggesting some sort of 0800 Crimestoppers, if you like, centralised place for women to go when there is a case of domestic violence.

PETER Yes.  One thing I would very much like us to promote through the Blue [White] Ribbon campaign and other things is who do you go to where you can be safe?  And women may feel fearful that Child, Youth and Family might intervene and take away the children.  They might feel fearful that the police will act in a way they dont want.  Theres got to be a safe way to talk about this.

SUSAN Youre also suggesting somewhere for men to go, like a man stop I think you called it.

PETER  Yes.

SUSAN How would that work?

PETER  Well, it does work.  Im from Gisborne, and Im proud of that fact because its one of the few places in the country thats set up a house where men can go.  One of my points is if men are violent, why should it be the women that have to leave?  I cannot see what the rationale or wisdom of that is, and so I think a place where men can go and talk about whats going on in their lives and how they might change might be a very very constructive thing.
 
SUSAN You mentioned earlier in the interview men starting to speak.  Are you seeing that more – starting to speak amongst themselves, starting to put the, I guess, peer pressure on each other in a positive way?

PETER Well, I am.  You may have heard of the White Ribbon motorbike ride, where a whole bunch of people visit 86 centres.  And one of these which I went to was just wonderful – very very empowering.  Because I think a lot of men do know – do know that theyve been violent.  They are ashamed of it.  To be able to talk about that with others who have done similarly is a way of getting out there that they need to change.

SUSAN How do you help them, though, if they do want to come out of it?  As we said, a 20-week course isnt going to do it.  A decent man whos done a bad thing – how do you get him right?

PETER  Well, we all know that there is aggression.  There is aggression on the sports field, and controlled aggression is acceptable.

SUSAN We admire it on the sports field.

PETER  We do.  But what we dont admire is the sportsman that then loses the plot, and we used to see this in the old days on rugby fields, but I suggest less so now.  In the old days, aggression was uncontrolled.  There were free-for-all punches.  Its dreadful stuff.  So what Im trying to say, through the White Ribbon campaign, and we all are, is this fact – theres a big difference between controlled aggression and violence. 
 
SUSAN Do you think we will get there?  You mentioned drink-driving as a good example.  Its a very good example, because in my youth, no one even thought about it.  These days, none of the youth I know would think of drink-driving, and there is a real social stigma on it.  But do you think we will get there in a generation or two with domestic violence?

PETER We will make change.  Look, the fact that Im here today speaking about this – this wouldnt have happened 20 years ago.  And the fact that so many mayors, people are our ambassadors- John Key, Len Brown, Ruben Wiki, the famous rugby league player, are ambassadors, this wouldnt have happened years ago.  Im ever the optimist.

SUSAN Well, good luck.

PETER  Thank you.

SUSAN Very good to talk to you.  Thank you, Peter Boshier.

Ryder type violence can have major after effects

The after effect of violent acts can be major, not just for the victim, but also for family and acquaintances – as well as for the perpetrators.

The Jesse Ryder attack shows obvious potential after effects. It’s likely it will directly cost Ryder several hundred thousand dollars through not being able to fulfil indian cricket contracts. It’s possible it will bring an end to Ryder’s cricketing career, and may have long term health implications for Ryder.

And it’s not yet known what the extent of Ryder’s injuries are head injuries can affect people for life, sometimes quite drastically.

His attack has also had a major initial effect on Ryders partner and his family and friends who have given up much else in their lives so they can be with him while he’s in hospital. They will also be affected by his rehabilitation and other forced changes in Ryder’s life.

And there is likely to be a major effect on Ryder’s alleged attackers. If convicted their sentences will have a significant immediate affect on their lives, especially if they are sent to prison. They will be kniwn as Ryder bashers, and it may have a significant effect on their employment proespects.

Being arrested and charged is just the start of what is likely to be extensive media and public scrutiny of what sort of people might be such thugs.

And others can get drawn in to the effects as well, as a musician callinmg himself Scribe has found out – see Washed up rapper kicks Ryder while he’s down and  Rapper sparks outrage. Some dumb comments about Ryder’s attack on Twitter have attracted uncomplimentary attention.

But Ryder’s attack is not an isolated incident. There are frequent victims of violent acts, so there are frequent cases of significant after effects for a larger number of victims and associated people.

The aftermath of violence can be personality changing, relationship changing, and life changing. In some cases it is life ending.

And this is all this can be avoided if violent behaviour is avoided. We can all play a part by not encouraging violence, and by speaking against violence – there can be a very fine line between low level violence and very damaging violence, all it takes is one bit of bad luck, one over-reaction.

Jessie Ryder, and our society’s violent nature

The vicious and gutless attack on Jessie Ryder and saddened and sickened many of us. Unfortunately it simply highlights an entrenched culture of violence in parts of our society. And that culture is far more widespread than a few high profile bashings.

‘Gazzaw’ commented at Whale Oil:

It’s time now to take a stand against the mindless violence that increasingly perpetuates our society.

If the Ryder attack became a catalyst for addressing societal violence some good may come out of it.

This is surely an opportunity for Collins and Tolley to act in concert and push through some initiatives to start dealing with the violence in our society. Do it whilst the public of all political shades and the MSM are receptive.

But it shouldn’t be left to “Collins and Tolley“, or to Government. They can play a part of course. But it’s also up to media and society itself to become more actively involved in addressing entrenched cultures of violence.

That means all of us should take some responsibility for our joint poroblems.

What to do about societal violence? Perhaps we need to look at wider issues of acceptance of violence in our society. Like:
* glorification of sports violence by broadcasters
* spectator acceptance and encouragementn of violence
* political violence – verbal attacks Parliament, political attack tactics
* blog violence

There is widespread acceptance of win at all costs regardless of the nastiness of the tactics.

Members of the public stepped in to try and protect Ryder when he was attacked, I’ve seen this happen and have been involved in public confrontation of violence.

But too many violent people think it is something that violence is acceptable enough to get away with if they can.

Government can only do so much. Society needs to look more at itself, it’s own problems – and it’s own solutions.

Culture of violence in schools

New Zealand’s culture of violence is spread through much of our society. That it is apparently protected by schools trying to protect their reputations at the cost of teacher and pupil safety is, if true, disgraceful.

The secret story of violence in schools

A teacher is punched in the face, another is shoved in the chest and their lunch stolen, one is regularly verbally abused while another has their car vandalised.  But at the schools’ request, none of it is reported to police.

Post-Primary Teachers Association president Robin Duff called the situation “intolerable”.

He said, in the PPTA News, the teachers’ union could not continue to be “complicit in this conspiracy of silence” that concealed the level of violence within schools.

He said competitiveness in schools gave them an incentive to hide issues of violence towards teachers and staff, and some schools didn’t want police involved because it could lead to negative publicity.

The national executive was “particularly concerned” to learn that some schools were actually forbidding teachers from reporting instances to police.

This is similar to families who keep violence secret to avoid exposing their reputation or mana to scrutiny. But…

The Secondary Principals’ Association was reluctant to support the  PPTA’s move.

President Patrick Walsh said he had not seen any evidence of a conspiracy of silence, nor was he aware of principals banning teachers from reporting assaults to police.

An open inquiry would find out if he’s right or not.

Walsh said some schools could be worried by bad publicity associated with assaults, but principals would be foolish to cover up violence against teachers because it could result in a personal grievance case against the school.

But there are serious claims that it’s happening.

Until we deal with our violence problems openly and honestly the culture will continue to ruin people’s lives – can it will continue to cost some lives.

Dirty school secrets, like dirty family secrets, need to be exposed and addressed. This takes courage, but it’s something we as a country need to do.

What can we do better for our children?

We all know that addressing abuse and harm of children is difficult, there are no easy quick answers. Many people and groups are trying to do something about it. The more effort and co-operation the better, if we all help a little it can add up to a lot.

Everyone can contribute, with ideas and actions. As individuals and as groups what should we be doing? How can we help best?

Any positive ideas on what might help? Or  stories of what is helping children and successfully confronting violence and abuse?

If we think positive we will do positive.

Backlash against speaking up, and support

It’s not always easy speaking up against violence and abuse. There can be backlashes and attacks – from people who feel exposed or guilty about their tendencies to support abusive behaviour?

A few weeks ago on a blog someone posted a link to a photo depicting ‘children’ that I thought was repulsive. Sure it was playing on a well known literary work from a few hundred years ago, but the way in which it was graphically displayed here was disgusting.

I spoke up about it.

This result in abuse and intellectual accusations, first be one person and because I was speaking up alone he was joined by others, who complained about me commenting on the blog. Suddenly, without warning or comment, I was blocked from posting on the blog, so I couldn’t respond to attacks.

This was on a supposedly respectable blog with an academic/intellectual slant, although I had been attacked by multiple participants previously due to political opposition.

This demonstrates two things.

  1. A culture of acceptance of violence and abusive material permeates through much of our society.
  2. Speaking up against entrenched group views is not always easy.

This just makes me more determined to speak up when I see promotion or acceptance of violence via comments or abusive material. If no one speaks up then nothing changes.

Blogs aren’t always like this. A week ago on another blog someone calling himself Psycho Milt commented:

All sarcasm aside, this twat should be glad those cops were present, they were probably the only thing keeping him from a well-deserved punch in the face.

This comment was supported by some but challenged by others, including me. Psycho Milt remained defensive about his comment and kept reiterating his justification for a “punch in the face”, but those of us opposing violent action held our ground.

That’s what can make a difference.

Good Narks and nastiness

There have been good Narks, also frustrations, but it’s been very sad to see the depths of nastiness that some knockers have resorted to.

I’ve been with Nark since pretty much when it began last year, most of the time mostly towards the sidelines. Like virtually everyone who got involved I wanted to help do something about New Zealand’s terrible record of child abuse and violence.

In some ways Nark was very successful and popular.  Many people joined wanting to do things around the country. The problem is that while there was plenty of doing and enthusiasm Nark grew too big too quickly to manage properly. The time and effort required for organisation and administration was not given priority, resulting in some problems and many frustrations.

This led to a mass resignation in January. Nark was a voluntary fledgling organisation and those who had become involved had other priorities in their lives to deal with. Some decided Nark was not for them. Most who left went on to doing different things or things differently. Fair enough.

But…

A few people who left Nark (and some who joined them later) started a campaign to discredit Nark, maybe they aimed to destroy. They have continued a campaign of abuse and accusation, some of it quite personal and nasty.

Why? That’s a very good question.

I admit there are still things that need to be addressed and done in Nark to get it on a sound and acceptable footing. There always will be administration that needs to be done, the paperwork has to be present and correct.

But I think it is inexcusable the way the campaign of hate has happened, some of what I have seen has been disgraceful. There are ways of addressing problems, but vindictive nasty attacks , abuse and accusations are never acceptable – especially from people who are supposedly working against abuse.

Probably just about everyone attracted to dealing with abuse and violence have their own histories and stories, some can be quite awful. Most of us have unresolved personal issues, it’s the nature of life.

Lashing out at others, giving the verbal bash, this doesn’t solve anything for anyone, all it does is makes things worse. It keeps the culture of abuse alive and kicking – in the guts. It doesn’t even help those who are lashing out, all it does is extend their bad feelings.

If issues come up that need addressing, sure, there are reasonable ways to bring them to attention and to deal with them.

But surely the abuse, the online violations of decency, must be seen for what they are, counterproductive to dealing with the real problems out there. We should be working for the children in danger, they need adults who will speak up and act for them. And there’s a few adults crying out for help in dealing with their unresolved problems too.

There’s only a few real haters and wreckers, jealous and vindictive. Maybe they should be ashamed of themselves. Maybe they need help.

Unfortunately others jump on the abuse bandwagon and put a few kicks in too – see it for the destructiveness and nastiness it is. Don’t feed the monster. Redirect your efforts at things that will help others, or yourself.

The hate is a continuation of the problem we are supposed to be working against.

Surely we should all be working for better, worse is a curse on all of us. We have to attack the violence and abuse culture, not the people trying to do something about it.

Imperfect as we all are, imperfect as Nark has been, we need to make better.

Have you heard the one about men thrashing children?

From an unlikely beginning in an unlikely place a discussion developed yesterday that illustrates how entrenched the culture of violence is in New Zealand.

It began on a Dim Post about Piri Weepu and breast and bottle feeding babies, moved to male bonding, and then a couple of quips.

“It’s common knowledge that male bonding with children begins and ends with sporting events.”

Wrong, it begins with a sound thrashing and ends with a clip around the ear.

As I have a habit of doing I questioned this.

I guess that’s supposed to be a joke but joking about violent child abuse these days is not a good look.

That was a deliberately mild rebuke as I didn’t know if ‘merv’  meant it as a joke (he probably did). A discussion (mostly crticial of me) ensued.

Gregor W: Agreed Pete. Because as I recall, violence against children used to be goddamn hilarious.
Top marks for sanctimony, Sir.

Gregor W:  I would have suggested saying nothing because it was very clearly, nay, blindingly obvious, that the comment was in jest. And for the record, I don’t consider ‘tsk-tsk’ing as offering a solution to a problem.

ieuan: I think most people reading the ‘sound thrashing’ comment will see it as a joke even if you can’t, for future reference why don’t you assume the average readership if this blog is say… a bit more ‘well rounded’ than some of the other blogs you spray your comments around.

Gregor W: Pete – for the love of God man, we get it.
1. Child abuse=awful
2. You are the arbiter of family values, common sense and good taste on the interwebs
2. You humour has been surgically excoriated and replaced with pomposity

Gregor W: Please address further questions vis-à-vis what may or may not constitute humour on this blog to The Department of Tedious Pedantic Buggers.

garethw: Dear Sir, s
I wish to complain in the strongest possible terms about the comment you have just posted about the male who clips their childrens’ ears. Many of my best friends are men, and only a few of them are transvestites.
Yours faithfully,
Brigadier Sir Charles Arthur Strong, Mr.
P.S. I have never kissed the editor of the Radio Times.

will: Oh come on Pete. I know Gareth can be a bit of a wet but it seems like a harmless joke to me.

Eric Blair: I think the gentleman who awarded ‘top marks for sanctimony’ possibly nailed the underlying issue that afflicts much of the mentality surrounding issues relating to child-rearing. It’s impossible to talk to people whose minds are so infected with ideologically-driven ideas of what is ‘correct’ that they unintentionally lampoon their own opinions and in the end jeopardise their right to be taken seriously.

merv: In most social groups a jokey comment about a ‘clip around the ear’ or a ‘sound thrashing’ is taken with the jest that is is given with.

I answered the last one:

Don’t you see that jesting about such things can be seen as social approval for actually doing those things – and we know there is a culture of thrashing kids in New Zealand. Jesting is a part of that culture, often inadvertent but nevertheless it supports the culture.

And merv – some of those who joke about thrashing their kids will be some of those who actually do thrash their kids, possibly remembering the laughs they got.

I’m sure that some people who joke about violence and child abuse are not violent people. But some probably are.

We have an endemic culture of violence in New Zealand. It’s obvious in the big news of deaths and serious abuses.

Like these kids.

But the Dim-Post thread illustrates that our violence culture is much wider and deeper than the worst cases. It’s spread even through relatively benign blogs like Dim-Post, embedded in our culture.

If we want to address the worst cases of our appalling child abuse we also need to address much more, including the passive and tacit approvals many of the rest of us provide the abusers.

Edit:

I knew I was risking being accused of being an accuser, and that has happened:

merv: Oh and Pete, keep your snide asides alluding to my possible status as a child beater to yourself.

merv – it wasn’t intended as a ‘snide aside’ directed at you, it was stating something obvious in general. I have no idea about you specifically.

I remember an old classmate joking about giving his son a good belt around the ear at a school reunion, and everyone knew he was also serious.
I remember a sports teammate joking about giving his wife a fat lip for ‘giving him lip’, and everyone knew he was also serious.

In both those cases there were sparse grins and everyone else was emotionless – and silent. Tacit approval of a culture of violence.

Alan Whetton – disgraceful thuggery

Alan Whetton doesn’t seem to have noticed that rugby has moved on substantially and so has society. His comments in the Sunday News were disgraceful.

Target Quade’s cheap shots!

If referees and the authorities are going to ignore Cooper’s cheap shots, Whetton reckons it might be time for some old-fashioned justice.

“They are two interesting characters,” Whetton says of the McCaw and Cooper “One experienced, calm and collected, the other who shows his emotion on his sleeve and is prepared to have a  crack, put a little bit of niggle in. Good on him if he gets away with it.

“But I expect the All Blacks to stand up to that. If it gets a bit too much someone should say, ‘hey’, and give a little pop to him (Cooper). Are we allowed to do that these days? Give a little pop to the fellow to make him realise he’s playing the All Blacks.”

No, they are not allowed to be on-field thugs these days. It could easily lead to being banned from taking any more part in the World Cup. It could lead to their team losing the World Cup.

But that’s only one reason why this is a boneheadd last century remark.

The comment reflects very poorly on New Zealand sportsmanship.

And it reinforces one of the biggest problems New Zealand society has – the badly mistaken belief that violence is a response of choice.

The McCaw response – to act like a modern All Black and captain, is the right response.

The Whetton suggestion should be seen as a sad and disgraceful example to New Zealand males. We must move on from macho madness and maiming.

And journalist Duncan Johnstone should also be ashamed for publicising this.

NARK the Non-Violent Code of Silence

We all know how bad the tentacles of violence spread, violence is far too prevalent through all levels of our society. Violence has a major impact on relationships, children, families, workplaces, schools.

The effects of violence spread through to health, crime, unemployment, productivity, education, entertainment, sport – violent effects are pervasive through our families and communities and society.

We all know the problems with violent men.

Non-violent men are as big a part of the problem as violent men. Through their greater numbers and their complicity non-violent men are a bigger part of the problem. Through their code of silence non-violent men have allowed the levels of violence to remain and fester and boil with rage.

I’d bet the every non-violent man has heard other men talking of their violence, sometimes even skiting, about “sorting out the missus” or “having a good scrap” or “giving the kid a good hiding”.

And I’d bet every non-violent man will admit to times they have remained silent, allowing the violent men among us to believe that what they do is normal and it’s ok, because no one speaks up and says it’s not normal and it’s not ok.

Violent men need to address their problems, they need to learn why they are violent, they need to learn how to deal with their violent behaviour, and they need to stop being so violent.

Non-violent men need to address their problem too. Non-violent men need to stand up to violence, they need to speak against violence when they hear of it or see it.

Non-violent men need to break their code of silence.

Non-violent men need  to NARK on violence.

Then we will really address violence in our society.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 77 other followers