Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
©©
1
SAIMA AFZAL SOLUTIONS: BRIEFING
© ‘COMMUNITY COERCION AND CONTROL’
1. PROJECT NAME
1.1 ‘Community' Hierarchical, Stru...
©©
2
SAIMA AFZAL SOLUTIONS: BRIEFING
© ‘COMMUNITY COERCION AND CONTROL’
Afzal may have been driven back to her forced rela...
©©
3
SAIMA AFZAL SOLUTIONS: BRIEFING
© ‘COMMUNITY COERCION AND CONTROL’
5.3.5 The focus is on victims of domestic abuse an...
©©
4
SAIMA AFZAL SOLUTIONS: BRIEFING
© ‘COMMUNITY COERCION AND CONTROL’
associated primarily with South East Asian or visi...
©©
5
SAIMA AFZAL SOLUTIONS: BRIEFING
© ‘COMMUNITY COERCION AND CONTROL’
6.12 It is critical to understand responses to dom...
©©
6
SAIMA AFZAL SOLUTIONS: BRIEFING
© ‘COMMUNITY COERCION AND CONTROL’
The above is not an exhaustive list.
8. THE VARIOU...
©©
7
SAIMA AFZAL SOLUTIONS: BRIEFING
© ‘COMMUNITY COERCION AND CONTROL’
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

CCC Project and Model Background & Briefing-SAS-amended Feb 2017

67 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

CCC Project and Model Background & Briefing-SAS-amended Feb 2017

  1. 1. ©© 1 SAIMA AFZAL SOLUTIONS: BRIEFING © ‘COMMUNITY COERCION AND CONTROL’ 1. PROJECT NAME 1.1 ‘Community' Hierarchical, Structural Control & Coercion 2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2.1 The project to date has been supported by ThisIsTAE (TAE), University of Leeds. acknowledgment 2.2 Going forward from April 2017 the West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner will formally support the developmental of the ‘Community, Coercion and Control’ (CCC) model. Please note: Intellectual property and copyright applies to this project and model. 3. PROJECT OWNER CONTACT DETAILS: 3.1 Please contact saimaafzal@sasolutions.info or 07801704851 for further discussions and information. 3.2 Please be aware The CCC model is the intellectual property of Saima Afzal. 4. BACKGROUND 4.1 The model and project initially endeavoured to understand how external influences outside of the 'family' environment impact on victims of Forced Marriage (FM), Fe- male Genital Mutilation (FGM) under the ‘umbrella term of ‘Honour’ Based Abuse (HBA).1 4.2 38 MP’s on 22 November 2016 following the murder of Samia Shahid in Bradford2 put forward a parliamentary Early Day Motion 706 to refer to HBA as Shame Based Abuse and as such removing the notion of ‘Honour’.3 4.3 HBA may now emerge as being referred to as ‘Shame’ Based Abuse (SBA) by statu- tory and non-statutory institutions. Please be aware that the current re-naming of HBA to SBA does not alter the nature of this draft briefing. 4.4 Saima Afzal commenced the development of her thoughts to develop the CCC4 model in 1995 as a loss leader initiative and human rights activist. The primary driver for her activity was as a direct result of escaping a forced marriage and the fact that despite leaving the forced marriage the ‘abuse’ didn’t end, indeed it continued and the dynamics of ‘survival’ and ‘risk management’ shifted. ‘Reprisals’ in their various forms continued more significantly at a ‘community’ level as opposed to a familial level, the community based controls were debilitating almost to the point that Saima 1 PowerPoints have been developed that can explain the dynamics of FM, FGM and HBA in greater detail. 2 Samia Shahid Murder, November 2016- News Report: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/22/samia- shahid-family-force-marriage-inquiry-in-bid-to-derail-trial 3 http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/706 4 A PowerPoint presentation has been developed that explains the CCC model in further detail.
  2. 2. ©© 2 SAIMA AFZAL SOLUTIONS: BRIEFING © ‘COMMUNITY COERCION AND CONTROL’ Afzal may have been driven back to her forced relationship. The latter pressures in- fluenced the work and development of the CCC model. 5. CONTEXT: 5.1 Coercive Control: Professor Evan Stark’s definition: ‘A strategic course of conduct in which a pattern of violence, sexual coercion, intimida- tion, isolation and control are used to dominate and exploit a partner and deprive him/her of basic rights and resources.’ 5.2 The above is now enshrined in legislation since December 29 2015 Section 76: Seri- ous Crime Act 2015. This legislation is primarily designed to be utilised for cases where Domestic Abuse (DA) is a factor. The definition of DA acknowledges FM and FGM as a form of abuse, control and violence. 5.3 Whilst the definition is positive and welcomed there are some significant limitations to its application and use which are, in brief outlined below: 5.3.1 The dynamics and psychology associated with coercive control is yet to be fully understood and appropriate training must be provided to all frontline and supervisory practitioners. 5.3.2 The legislation and the definition provided above is restrictive as it explores primarily the controls applied within a 'family' context and does not include societal, structural and hierarchical controls that exist in the various forms across many 'communities'. Therefore, the dangers related to insufficient identification and understanding of the ‘risks’ victims face internally and ex- ternally, for example from the partner/family and externally from non-family members or ‘power structures’ may remain unexplored and as such inade- quate safety planning/risk management may result. 5.3.3 The definition and research undertaken is ethnocentric approach and as such limited in encompassing the issues affecting marginalised5 and minority ‘community victims’. Please be aware some attempts have now retrospec- tively been undertaken to adapt the definition to contextualising and explain Coercive Control in the context of HBA/SBA. 5.3.4 Responses to ‘dominance’ and ‘power structures’ faced by individuals or ‘marginalised’ groups are not explored or understood fully in the context of controls that are applied via ‘community’ based norms and rules. The defini- tion and legislation is restricted to family members and current or ex-part- ners and technically the coercive control legislation is limited in its applica- tion for when the key risk occurs outside of the familial setting.6 5 Marginalisation is being used as a term to describe those individuals, groups or ‘communities’ who are seldom heard or whose views are not captured by government, society and or statutory agencies. For example, young peo- ple, disability groups, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans groups or those belonging to Black Asian and Minority Eth- nic groups be they visible or non-visible. No assumptions are being made about marginalisation, geography location, resources and many other factors will influence who those groups are. Marginalisation and who is classed as a ‘marginalised’ individual, group or ‘community’ must be agreed locally. 6 SAS Further guidance has been created as well as additional typologies of Stalking and Harassment to assist prac- titioners in utilising alternative legislation to manage CCC.
  3. 3. ©© 3 SAIMA AFZAL SOLUTIONS: BRIEFING © ‘COMMUNITY COERCION AND CONTROL’ 5.3.5 The focus is on victims of domestic abuse and the victim response, whilst this is always welcome there is a significant need to understand and focus on ac- tivity that enables the understanding of where risk to a victim emanates from. For example:  Is the risk emanating purely from one or multiple ‘perpetrators’?  Is the risk multi-faceted?  Do practitioners understand that there may be additional risk that emanates from ‘community’ based controls and norms? 5.4 To fully support the ‘risk’ victims may face must be comprehensively understood to help manage or prevent further harm and escalation of the concerns identified. 5.5 Crisis point intervention and data is being utilised as opposed to identifying early identification and intervention triggers and information to help enable mediation or undertake activity that reduces and/or eliminates risk prior to reaching ‘crisis point’. 5.6 The above is not an exhaustive list. The key areas of current limitations are captured for discussion and research purposes. 5.7 The limitations must not be viewed as a disregard for the established definitions but as an acceptance of them. 5.8 The SAS positon primarily being to develop academic or practice based evidence to help explore and critique potential caveats, with a view to progress and continue with the developments already made in the arena of safeguarding and the Violence Against Women and Girls Agenda (VAWAG) agenda. 6. KEY ELEMENTS OF THE ‘COMMUNITY COERCION & CONTROL’ MODEL 6.1 The model seeks to be inclusive in approach and ensure that both ‘family’ related abuse as well as ‘community’ based abuse and controls are identified to better iden- tify risks to victims. 6.2 The model seeks to expand the application and use of Professor Evan Stark’s re- search which relates to coercion and control in a Domestic Abuse context across of issues relating to Crime, Safeguarding and the VAWAG agenda. 6.3 The model seeks to challenge constructively the terminology of ‘honour’ based abuse which has formally adopted at a governmental adopted and practitioner level and primarily appears to be applied and associated with forced marriage and no- tions of ‘honour’ that relates to victims and families linked to South East Asian ‘com- munities’. 6.4 The model does not seek to ignore ‘honour’ and ‘shame’ as a critical dimension of how victims appear to and seek to explain the negative judgment and behaviours that they may have experienced in relation to forced marriage, female genital muti- lation and or other forms of HBA/SBA. The model seeks to improve the understand- ing of ‘honour’, ‘shame’ and how a variety of ‘communities’ both mainstream and marginalised potentially may adopt behaviours that are traditionally viewed as being
  4. 4. ©© 4 SAIMA AFZAL SOLUTIONS: BRIEFING © ‘COMMUNITY COERCION AND CONTROL’ associated primarily with South East Asian or visible Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Groups (BAME) ‘communities’. 6.5 The model seeks to redefine the notion of ‘honour’ and ‘shame’ within the wider framework of behaviours that occur where ‘community coercion and control’ exists, i.e. community controls/norms and structures that breach, equality and human rights or other relevant legislatively enshrined entitlements. Therefore, the rules in isolation are potentially ‘not’ criminal however as a collective some norms may well provide an indication of ‘risk’ and as such highlight where and when potential crimi- nal or human rights breaches might occur. 6.6 The model seeks to explore positive controls i.e. those that prevent criminality or human rights and/or equality breaches. The model also seeks to significantly explore the negative controls i.e. those that directly or unwittingly contribute to human rights/equality and or other legislative breaches. 6.7 The model has (since 2011) been widened to understand perpetrator motivations, other 'communities' such as Eastern European, Traveller groups, Lesbian, Gay Bisex- ual and Trans 'communities', young people, as well as exploring any gender norms that may be applied and the potential positive or negative impact/consequences of the norms identified. The model seeks to additionally explore how notions that are currently defined as HBA/SBA may in fact when re-defined more holistically apply to a variety of ‘mainstream’ and/or ‘marginalised communities’. 6.8 The model explores key aspects of hierarchy, culture, 'parallel'7 leadership struc- tures, values, religio-cultural beliefs. Activity and some research/engagement has taken place to explore the various social domains and key equality and human rights which are either adversely or positively impacted by the ‘hierarchical’ ‘community’ based rules. 6.9 The model also seeks to explore the responses to dominance and the associated par- adigms of responses to dominance/power structures, for example: Can the same in- dividual at one level, i.e. personal/private level challenge adverse ‘community based norms and rules’ whilst at the same time acquiesce or withdraw at a ‘visible’ or ‘pub- lic’ level or vice-versa. 6.10 Early indications primarily appear to demonstrate that the latter potential re- sponses to dominance and power structures is a 'survival' norm and potentially an instinctive response. 6.11 Preliminary, informal work has been undertaken by SAS to explore responses to dominance as a ‘parallel’ or alternative risk management structure that individuals are likely to deploy a survival response. Early indications suggest that the latter is ev- ident, particularly when statutory agencies are unable to provide the required sup- port and response to tackle HBA/SBA. 7 A Seminar presentation relating to ‘Parallel’ leadership has been developed, currently delivered as an aspect of the College of Policing, Equality, Valuing Difference and Inclusion, Senior Leadership Programme.
  5. 5. ©© 5 SAIMA AFZAL SOLUTIONS: BRIEFING © ‘COMMUNITY COERCION AND CONTROL’ 6.12 It is critical to understand responses to dominance and the associated para- digms. There is a need to further understand the latter at several levels, including at a societal level, from a victim and/or perpetrator perspective. 6.13 The model has been identified as a potentially neutral model (via Leeds Univer- sity) to be utilised holistically and be considered as a tool to explore other issues such as hate crime, radicalisation, under-reporting of sexual abuse, child sexual ex- ploitation, human trafficking and other safeguarding issues. Early indications appear to identify that multiple issues and breaches of human rights and coercive control are experienced by victims whilst only the ‘substantive issue or crime’ is believed to have been dealt by organisations and victim service providers, i.e. crisis point inter- vention and as such there is some debate to be had in regards to risk indicator thresholds, and if they are possibly too high or low based on an ethnocentric model of identifying risk. 6.14 Any research/engagement to establish ‘Community’ Coercion and Control needs carful management as there are various stages of coercive control, for example at a ‘familial’ level, ‘community’, geographical and ‘structural level’ that must be under- stood to ensure that the correct response/research/ engagement/consultation envi- ronment is created. The latter will help ensure that the paradigms of responses to dominance are adequately and reasonably negated against. 6.15 Formal, private academic study will be commenced by Saima Afzal as the identi- fier and developer of this model at the University of Leeds. 6.16 Additional key partners and resources will be identified to ensure further formal research and engagement activity is undertaken in an appropriate, robust and ethi- cal manner. 7. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND USE OF THE ‘COMMUNITY, COERCION AND CONTROL’ MODEL 7.1 Potential key benefits and use of the model has been identified as:  An early intervention and prevention tool  An educational and developmental tool (both ‘communities’ and relevant statutory practitioners)  A safeguarding and risk assessment too.  Improving ‘community’ engagement and involvement  A neutral holistic safeguarding approach  A tool to reduce or eliminate subconscious bias amongst safeguarding practitioners  A Crown Prosecution Service charging tool  Perpetrator management tool pre/post adverse or unlawful behaviour.  Potential model to identify mediation and intervention opportunities to avoid demon- isation, pathologising8 or criminalisation of marginalised and under-represented com- munities. 8 To view a given group, community or culture as psychologically abnormal in comparison to the ‘mainstream’ and/or ‘majority’ groupings that they reside within.
  6. 6. ©© 6 SAIMA AFZAL SOLUTIONS: BRIEFING © ‘COMMUNITY COERCION AND CONTROL’ The above is not an exhaustive list. 8. THE VARIOUS FORMS OF ‘COMMUNITY’ COERCION & CONTROL 8.1 CCC will manifest in many forms. 8.2 CCC can relate to criminal conduct in the Public Protection arena, however it can equally be expanded to apply to organisational/community norms and practices that can result in a detrimental impact on the agents and agencies involved.9 8.3 Below is a list of crimes or issues that can manifest because of ‘community’ or ‘Insti- tution’ based controls10. The below is not an exhaustive list:  Forced Marriage  Female Genital Mutilation  Child Sexual Exploitation  Bride Snatching  ‘Faith’ Based ‘Healers’ as Abusers/Criminals  Organisational/Institutionalised Based Bullying and Harassment (Individual & Collective)  Community Based Stalking, Bullying and Harassment (Individual & Collective)  Concepts of ‘Honour’ Based Abuse both as Coercive Control and ‘Community’ Based Co- ercion & Control  Domestic Abuse in the context of Coercive Control  Hate Crimes (in all forms)  Human Trafficking  Terrorism and Extremism  War & Conflict  Unjustifiable disproportionality (for example. Stop and Search, Minority Ethnic recruit- ment)  Lack of Cohesion & Segregation 9. FURTHER READING 9.1 The Casey Review: A Review into Opportunity and Integration Dec 2016 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-casey-review-a-review-into-op- portunity-and-integration 9.2 Government Multi-Agency Guidelines: Handling Cases of Forced Marriage 9 Agents: The individual, as a practitioner or a member of the public Agency: The institution, or group, for example statutory, private, charity, faith based, sport, informal gatherings. 10 For UK, based training delivery ‘Control’ in the context of CCC is defined as: a singular act or a collective set of acts that amount to unlawful incidents/crimes as defined within the UK based penal codes, (Civil or Criminal).
  7. 7. ©© 7 SAIMA AFZAL SOLUTIONS: BRIEFING © ‘COMMUNITY COERCION AND CONTROL’ https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach- ment_data/file/322307/HMG_MULTI_AGENCY_PRACTICE_GUIDE- LINES_v1_180614_FINAL.pdf 9.3 Multi-Agency Statutory Guidance on Female Genital Mutilation-April 2016 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach- ment_data/file/512906/Multi_Agency_Statutory_Guidance_on_FGM__-_FINAL.pdf 9.4 National Police Chief Council Strategy for FM, FGM and HBA -2015 http://www.npcc.police.uk/Publication/Final%20NPCC%20HBA%20strat- egy%202015%202018December%202015.pdf 10. DOCUMENT UPDATES 10.1 Public briefing created 2011-Purpose: SAS and TAE training, ‘community’ engage- ment and visual resource development briefing. 10.2 Updated Feb 2014, Sept 2015- Purpose: University of Leeds, MA Gender and Re- ligion input and incorporation of relevant legislative changes 10.3 Updated Dec 2015-Purpose: West Yorkshire PCC briefing 10.4 Updated August and Nov 2016-Purpose: West Yorkshire PCC briefing 10.5 Updated Dec 2016 & Feb 2017-Purpose: College of Policing Fast Track input

×