Harry's Place

Given that some of these “socialists” have made alliances with genital mutilators, then its not surprising they’re a bit touchy.
Perhaps when Newman & co have something to say about girls disappearing from school rolls and forced mutilations, they’ll be taken seriously again.

I wouldn’t agree that Southall Black Sisters are spokeswomen for the interests of women. They’re a group of hard line statist marxists, whose shtick is to build a supposed cultural shared identity between Asian and Afro-Caribbean women. I don’t think they represent anyone much besides themselves. I also think being “against fundamentalism” is a cover for ignorant and sometimes racist and/or anti-semitic propagandising against all separatist religious groups, whilst ignoring their own secularist dogmatism and fundamentalism. Being “against” anything has always been an arid basis for political organization. I don’t think they should be getting public money for their activities and grandstanding.

I’ll take a bet that virtually no-one joins their demonstration. They belong back in the 1970s and 1980s. If they represent socialism, then socialism can give up and go home now.

SBS isn’t just a ‘welfare’ group – it has a left-wing political agenda. The people of Ealing voted for a Conservative council that – astonishingly – doesn’t want to pay for an army of left-wing political activists, race hustlers and grievance mongers.

So sorry for not accepting these groups at their own lofty estimation. Of course we shouldn’t be paying for them – any more than we should be paying for tinpot Islamists. When are we going to hand over taxpayers money to the Southall White Brothers? White men have got special issues around custody and access, don’t you know?

All this sub-Marxist nonsense about oppression of black people and women won’t wash any more. The politics of victimhood stinks. If you want to peddle it then pay for it yourself – or fuck off.

Tim’s comments on “forced mutilations” put him fearlessly and firmly in the same camp as King Ahasuherus of ancient Persia, plus a goodly number of Roman tyrants, and would be successors down to Hitler and Co., who tried to forbid the practice, central to Judaism, of male circumcision in the week following birth. The same religious requirements, albeit with different time requirements, apply to Islam. Female circumcision is not required by any established religion. Needless to say, any regime which has been dedicated to the abolition of religious circumcision has been distinguished by its track record of blood-soaked wholesale murder of its many opponents and their families.

Correct, Judy.
Female mutilation is not required by any religion.
Unfortunately, the Muslim Brotherhood cleric Qaradawi supports it anyway.

“Whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world.”

“They’re a group of hard line statist marxists, whose shtick is to build a supposed cultural shared identity between Asian and Afro-Caribbean women. I don’t think they represent anyone much besides themselves. I also think being “against fundamentalism” is a cover for ignorant and sometimes racist and/or anti-semitic propagandising against all separatist religious groups, whilst ignoring their own secularist dogmatism and fundamentalism. “

Yes, because religious fundamentalists are so nice to everyone it’s hard to imagine anyone being opposed to them.

Whatever their rhetoric (which I have not seen) the campaigns on the website of the Southall Black Sisters seem to me to be entirely worthy. Much of it relates to culturally-founded violence against women of Asian descent, many of whom do not know where to turn for help.

It may be obstensibly worthy, but they are still a racist organisation.

Who wants to start a “Southall Slightly-Blotchey Pink with Freckles that goes Red in any sort of Sunshine Sisters” organisation?

Why should white taxpayers fund the propagation of the lie that they are more racist than black, brown or yellow people?

SBS = dated Marxian claptrap.

So, are Morgoth and Common Sense arguing that if a particular problem besets a particular community and that community is ethnically based, it is ‘racist’ for members of that community to form a group to address the problem?

Amen.

By all means, replace it with a genuine and effective anti-domestic violence and anti-fundamentalist agency (even I would be willing to support public funding for said body). But one which is colourblind.

It may well turn out that most of its focus will be on vulnerable women of Asian and Afro-Carribbean decent. But in its scope and ideology, it must be colourblind.

and that community is ethnically based, it is ‘racist’ for members of that community to form a group to address the problem?

Forming any sort of organisation based on skin colour is racist, Brett. Whither it be black, white, yellow, purple or any colour inbetween. Because it invariably leads to skin colour becoming the most important property of a person. If you wish to tolerate or encourage “Southall Black Sisters”, would you be equally willing to tolerate or encourage “Southall White Sisters”?

The importnat point about SBS’s court case is that they are challenging whether Ealing council followed the correct process of observing a race impact survey.

Given the increasing use of the voluntary sector for provision of welfare services, then any capricaious decision making by the funding bodies has a big impact on service provision; and from my own experience there is a churn rate of worthy charities operatig for a few years, ,then dropping out of the funding loop and all their expertise being lost. (a good case in point being an excellent charity on Swindon that helped self-harmers, that closed after losing funding last year)

So SBS are raising a legal question about good governence that affects the whole volunantary sector.

It is for this reason that banging their own drum about the funding of religious charities is self-defeating. Especially as religious charities do a lot of the heavy lifting now – for example church going Anglicans are much more likely to help with charity work than the general population.

Brett – no, it’s not racist for communities to form groups. But state funding for racially-exclusive groups IS racist. We’d never allow it for self-proclaimed ‘white’ groups – and quite right too.

It’s even worse when said racially-exclusive group also adheres to, and propagates, an extremist ideology. Marxists and Islamists are destructive nutters and should never be allowed to get their bloody paws on public money.

“….they are challenging whether Ealing council followed the correct process of observing a race impact survey.”

One more Labour crime – imposing a duty on all public bodies to promote racial equality. Of course, this is (a) a bureaucratic minefield that costs large amounts of time and money to enforce (b) a pretext for entrenching anti-white and anti-British policies.

Until a future government sweeps away all Fabian mind-control legislation, this country will never be at ease with itself.

“Forming any sort of organisation based on skin colour is racist, Brett. “

No it isn’t. Racism is a doctrine of racial superiority. It is obvious to me that in situations where a racial group is a relatively disempowered minority facing particular issues, comparing their collective efforts to find a grassroots solution is not the same as a dominant and powerful majority ethnic group practicing exclusion.

I see it as similar to this: It is wrong to compare a club that offers a safe space for gay & lesbian people to meet to one that admits only heterosexual people. The one is an expression of homophobia and the other is a reaction to it. The one case is an example of hostility to gay people, the other is an example of gay people seeking to find a sanctuary from that hostility. It is not an expression of ‘heterophobia’.

“Brett – no, it’s not racist for communities to form groups. But state funding for racially-exclusive groups IS racist. We’d never allow it for self-proclaimed ‘white’ groups – and quite right too.

It’s even worse when said racially-exclusive group also adheres to, and propagates, an extremist ideology. Marxists and Islamists are destructive nutters and should never be allowed to get their bloody paws on public money.
”
With a comment like that there is no more that can be said ! So true.

“We’d never allow it for self-proclaimed ‘white’ groups – and quite right too.”

That’s because society doesn’t marginalise people on the basis of being white.

Would you oppose a group that was only open to women on the basis that it was sexist?

@Judy

Tim’s comments on “forced mutilations” put him fearlessly and firmly in the same camp as King Ahasuherus of ancient Persia, plus a goodly number of Roman tyrants, and would be successors down to Hitler and Co., who tried to forbid the practice, central to Judaism, of male circumcision in the week following birth.

-is this the same Ahasuherus who had a certain fondness for Jewish skirt (i.e. Hadassah)?

Brett – I don’t know if you are a cultural Marxist but you sure as hell sound like one.

Most white people are not part of a ‘dominant’ anything. They are in exactly the same position as their non-white neighbours, workmates and relatives. The myth of black disempowerment has been the cause of more bad policy-making than almost anything else I can think of. By all means oppose discrimination – but not by enacting policies that disadvantage white people just because some other white person a hundred miles away who they don’t even know has ‘power’ in society.

As for the idea of gay people or women forming exclusive societies or creating exclusive spaces, that is their right in a free society. People should be allowed to associate – and they should also be allowed to non-associate – without interference by the state. That’s why I objected to Harman’s proposals to force private clubs to admit women, even though I’d never want to join one.

Sorry, I’m a liberal and I regard Marxists, Fabians and religious busybodies as the real oppressors.

Would you oppose a group that was only open to women on the basis that it was sexist?

They can form a group if they wish, but they shouldn’t get public funding.

“Most white people are not part of a ‘dominant’ anything. They are in exactly the same position as their non-white neighbours, workmates and relatives. “

Look, it is quite obvious that people face discrimination because of their race. Generally speaking, this does not happen to white people.

Of course, white people fac discrimination over other issue, but being white generally isn’t one of them. Perhaps they’re disabled. But it would be rather nasty to attack a self-help group of disabled people on the basis that not only disabled people suffer discrimination. And it would miss the point.

I seem to remember, from the last HP post about SBS, that the name is a hangover from the 70s.

As far as I know, any woman of any shade can approach SBS for assistance, the only qualification needed being that you are under threat of violence. Obviously they are geared mainly towards the needs of black and Asian women, but I can think of occasions when a white woman might approach them: if she were being threatened by a black/Asian partner, for instance.

Here it is:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/03/18/save-the-southall-black-sisters/

So what we actually have is an organisation devoted to protecting all women from violence under threat of closure mainly, it seems, because of their name. It also appears that the current commenters can’t get past the name, and are focussing purely on that, as if they haven’t even bothered checking to see what services SBS offer.

As someone (white) who has had some involvement with SBS, I’ve seen their invaluable work in helping Asian victims of domestic violence. There is a huge problem with women being brought over to the UK who can’t speak English facing appalling abuse and being unable to access helping from local authorities, the NHS or police.

My contact with them was limited to a couple of occasions of securing help for women suffering terrible domestic violence, and they did that. I saw no evidence of them being ‘anti-white’ (basically because just about everyone they help is fleeing a violent Asian spouse and his family), nor was a ‘Marxist agenda’ pushed. It’s a domestic violence service. I could see little difference between SBS and Women’s Aid, other than their ability cut through the lanaguage and cultural barriers (which is vitally important given their client group)

While the organisation’s name may be a 70s throwback (and not help them in the quest for funding), their work is quite literally a lifesaver.

While the organisation’s name may be a 70s throwback (and not help them in the quest for funding), their work is quite literally a lifesaver.

Ditch the name, and the racist ideology, and then I’d quite happily support them.

Morgoth

While I agree with you about the name, I’ve not witnessed the ‘racist ideology’ – SBS primarily – but not exclusively – helps ethnic minority women suffering domestic violence within their own community. It’s a ‘niche service’ but it’s not promoting racial superiority or racial hatred.

“All this sub-Marxist nonsense about oppression of black people and women won’t wash any more. The politics of victimhood stinks”

More parroting of spiked’s opinions.

Aren’t the SBS the same group that campaigned to release a woman who was convicted of setting her husband on fire.

“While the organisation’s name may be a 70s throwback (and not help them in the quest for funding), their work is quite literally a lifesaver.”

Indeed.

Interestingly a leading HIV/AIDS charity is caled GMFA. That used to stand for “Gay Men Fighting Aids”. It was set up in the 80s when no one in mainstream society gave a flying fuck about people suffering from AIDS because they thought it was a (deserved) “gay cancer”.

Ironically, if they continued to identify as a gay men’s initiative, they’d be accused of ‘discrimination’ by the same people who forced gay men to self-mobilise in the first place.

“All this sub-Marxist nonsense about oppression of black people and women won’t wash any more. The politics of victimhood stinks”

The SBS are *not* about victimhood. On the contrary, they are about self-reliance; about women tackling a problem that affects them head-on. They’re not sitting back and waiting to be rescued by a male social worker on a white horse.

Anyone who has read the material on their website can see that.

There was talk of an issue with funding Jewish Women’s Aid, but it seems it was just one councillor who made certain remarks.

London Councils say they have no record of this and have approved another 4 year’s funding.

The anecdotal evidence in the report records: “At this meeting, councillors said that … we should not fund single-issue groups like this.

“That was pretty bad, but unfortunately he went on to say that Jewish women do not experience domestic violence and that they are wealthy anyway so they can pay for their services.”

Orthodox Jewish women are more likely to turn to JWA as they are afraid to approach an outside agency because of the taboo on taking scandals outside, and also feel able to stay at their refuge because it is Kosher.

I am sure that there are similar issues for Asian etc women which warrants a body like SBS where they feel more able to seek help.

reading these comments I almost wonder if HP has been infiltrated by the cranks on SU Blog?

why?

because Southall Black Sisters provide essential help and support to disadvantaged women, many of whom may be illiterate or not have a good grasp of English, they may be the victims of domestic violence, forced marriages, etc

the SBS’s work, as difficult as it is, is vital and provides something tangible to disadvantaged women, so it’s difficult to understand why anyone would be against such work?

difficult, but not impossible, if people were misanthropes, sociopathic nonentities or have a loathing of humanity, then they might wish SBS ill, but almost anyone else should hope that they receive funding and could continue their valuable work.

Ditch the name, and the racist ideology, and then I’d quite happily support them.

They don’t have a racist ideology, at least not one that I’ve noticed. Does Jewish Women’s Aid have a racist ideology, because it reaches out to Orthodox Jewish women? Probably not. Are women’s shelters sexist because they only allow women and children to stay?

one of the best comments at SU:

“16. Through work around race/gender equality and human rights I’ve been very familiar with the work of SBS over the last 20 years. I know that their work has literally been a matter of life and death to the individuals they have served in the face of reactionary and fundamentalist religious leaders trying to control women’s lives and “solve” problems they have faced within the terms set by those religious leaders.

The work done by SBS is painstakingly careful but determined and uncomprimising and they don’t bandy round terms like “reactionary” or “fundamentalist” lightly.

They and the people they serve have a genuine fear that the kind of service they offer will be sacrificed and replaced by ones much more congenial to reactionary religious leaders of various faiths in the name of “community cohesion”.

Some of these religious leaders are themselves victims of racism in Britain but the left needs to ensure that in fighting against racism it also defends those oppressed by reactionaries within minority communities. That is the principle that SBS has exemplified and their campaign should be supported by socialists and anti-racists.

Comment by David Rosenberg — 9 July, 2008 @ 3:27 pm”

16. Through work around race/gender equality and human rights I’ve been very familiar with the work of SBS over the last 20 years. I know that their work has literally been a matter of life and death to the individuals they have served in the face of reactionary and fundamentalist religious leaders trying to control women’s lives and “solve” problems they have faced within the terms set by those religious leaders.
The work done by SBS is painstakingly careful but determined and uncomprimising and they don’t bandy round terms like “reactionary” or “fundamentalist” lightly.
They and the people they serve have a genuine fear that the kind of service they offer will be sacrificed and replaced by ones much more congenial to reactionary religious leaders of various faiths in the name of “community cohesion”.
Some of these religious leaders are themselves victims of racism in Britain but the left needs to ensure that in fighting against racism it also defends those oppressed by reactionaries within minority communities. That is the principle that SBS has exemplified and their campaign should be supported by socialists and anti-racists.
Comment by David Rosenberg — 9 July, 2008 @ 3:27 pm”

I’ve known of David Rosenberg and his politics and campaigns for well over 20 years and I would question whether he has any credentials whatsoever to pontificate on the quality and/or the appropriateness of SBS work with abused women. He is a militant trotskyist whose main focus is as one of the leaders of the tiny Jewish Socialists’ Group, a group which exists to push the policies and practice of the pre-war Bund; that shows you his judgement as does his and his movement’s total lack of success in recruiting any more than a miniscule handful of British Jews to their campaigns. He is (to put it rather mildly) militantly anti-religious and would view any religious group as by definitiohn “reactionary” in the same way that he and his band of baby revolutionaries have led totally ineffectual campaigns against the Board of Deputies and the religious bodies of British Jews. Of course he views himself and his group as totally “progressive” and free of any taint of dogmatism.

He and SBS are very much birds of a feather. Of course SBS and David Rosenberg don’t bandy words like “reactionary” and “fundamentalist” around lightly. They reserve them exclusively for the religiously observant of the Jewish and Muslim communities. They of course are driven by purely objective and scientific ideas like dialectical materialism, the inevitable progress of socialism, the inevitable collapse of capitalism and the vital role of the vanguard, personified of course in themselves.

Both SBS and David Rosenberg’s Merry Bund of Jewish Socialists have agendas. I had the misfortune to live in a partnership where I suffered abuse for some years. In the end I had to seek refuge. I was lucky to have a friend with enough knowledge of the abuser to know what my situation was, and who had a place she could offer me, so I never had to go to a refuge. But I’m quite sure from having been through that experience, and having spent some years in a support group for women who survived abuse by their partners, that the very last thing you need or want in that situation is some group with their own “revolutionary” agenda who see you as fodder/recruitment material in their struggle for getting grants to help them carry on their “struggle”. They’re not all that different in that respect from Christian missionaries out to convert Jews and other groups by offering “free” medical services.

And any group of marxist revolutionaries are almost the last group in the world to understand and respond to the abuse of power relations that underlies every form of relationship abuse. Because they’re up to their necks in it themselves.

Orthodox Jewish women are more likely to turn to JWA as they are afraid to approach an outside agency because of the taboo on taking scandals outside, and also feel able to stay at their refuge because it is Kosher.
I am sure that there are similar issues for Asian etc women which warrants a body like SBS where they feel more able to seek help.

Ami, following on from my previous comment, I very much doubt whether SBS is a group from whom Asian women would find it congenial to seek help. If they are themselves religiously observant, they’re going to find themselves in the hands of a group who campaign against their beliefs and label them “militant” and “reactionary”. Jewish women would be appalled if their local authority were funding the Jewish Socialists Group or one of its now defunct fellow bunch of militant anti-religious Trotskyists, Women Against Fundamentalism, were to be given funding to run the only refuge aimed at Jewish women. Why should it be seen as OK for the equivalent to be funded for Asian religiously observant women? How did SBS get itself entrenched in the first place? Grants from Ken Livingstone’s GLC. (As indeed was the case for the Jewish Socialists’ Group). And it was no more representative of any group of women then other than the trotskyist vanguard of the time that believed that the “black struggle” was going to bring about the revolution than it is now.

do you know what I find extraordinary about these exchanges?

firstly, that some people disagree with the SBS, simply because of their name, and make no attempt to understand what they are doing (form over substance?) and how they are helping people

secondly, that potshots are taken at the SBS because of some alleged “agenda”, in both cases these criticisms consciously ignore the good work done by the SBS and how they have helped many disadvantaged women, faced with violence and abuse.

all in all, wouldn’t it e better to concentrate on the positive side of the SBS’s work?

it is very easy to snipe in a mindless way, as the comment at SU about SBS’s alleged “Islamophobia” illustrates but that doesn’t achieve much, apart from venting one’s anger and doesn’t address the issue of who would help disadvantaged women in ethnic communities if SBS wasn’t there?

answer: no one

it is very easy to snipe in a mindless way, as the comment at SU about SBS’s alleged “Islamophobia” illustrates but that doesn’t achieve much, apart from venting one’s anger and doesn’t address the issue of who would help disadvantaged women in ethnic communities if SBS wasn’t there?

For a start, there are a great many women from the ethnic communities who have training in counselling, assertiveness training, recovery programmes, housing and self-help and who have no poilitical agenda. Jewish Women’s Aid was founded by just such women (the two main founders were a former community worker and a senior housing officer), and has grown through building networks within the mainstream Jewish community and making links to train the religious authorities of all the different Jewish religious groups, from the Haredi to the reform and liberals. They initially set up a telephone help line which runs to this day. They also worked with Barnet local authority through councillors and through their social services department to set up a housing refuge, which came to pass–it exists today. They still work on a similar basis. A large lunching and dinner holding network which sustains and recruits women within the community whose main contribution will be financial and low-level political; a programme of leafleting and events to ensure that their services are advertised in every Jewish venue; training programmes for telephone volunteers, rabbis, community workers and local authorities.

Marxist revolutionary groups with their “struggle”/revolutionary agendas are not the people to do this. We don’t need to keep funding SBS on the basis that no-one will help disadvantaged and abused Asian women if they’re not getting the grants. We should support action to ensure that abused women of every community are given or enabled to set up their own services that don’t have other agendas, and don’t present themselves as in militant opposition to their own community.

“For a start, there are a great many women from the ethnic communities who have training in counselling, assertiveness training, recovery programmes, housing and self-help and who have no poilitical agenda.”

perhaps I shouldn’t have posed it has a hypothetical question?

lets turn it around, are there a significant number of women’s groups who are likely and capable of replicating the work of the SBS?

those replacements would need to speak a range of languages from the Asian subcontinent, also would need to be familiar with various cultural issues and sensitivities

are they available?

and if so, are they working in Southall nowadays?

Working in a college, with a high level of non uk born students, SBS has been a life saver to many of my students who do not have access to many of the services and friends that you and i take for granted. Is any one aware here of how difficult it is to get to a CAB and if you can you are restricted greatly by times that they are available. When it is a matter of life or death waiting until wednesday is just not good enough.

The Council has made much of the need to reflect the racial diversity of Ealing (meaning the white majority population) in the interests of ‘cohesion’. ……….Evidence from around the UK suggests that organisations in the firing line tend to be the more progressive black and minority and feminist projects. At the same time, reactionary, sometimes fundamentalist religious organisations are being given financial support to provide ‘welfare services’, even at the risk of undermining the human rights of the most vulnerable in our communities. The subcontracting of third sector services is also contributing to the decimation of groups like SBS. What this demonstrates is a political attack on the notion of positive action and on the right to self organisation underpinned by secular, anti-racist and progressive values.

Our Tradition: Struggle not Submission
These are immensely worrying developments for all those concerned about the threat to progressive notions of equality and justice.

SBS unintentionally tells you with the words of its own press release why they are not suitable to run refuges for women from minority ethnic and religious communities who have suffered abuse. For one, in their eyes, this is all about “struggle not submission”. No, that’s not what refuges and getting away from abusive relationships are all about. They’re about practical help and no-agenda psychological, medical and emotional support for women and their children to escape and be safe from abusive partners. Not about getting recruited into some marxist groupuscule’s notion of “struggle”.

SBS seems to regard only their definition of “black” as the only ethnic group who merit diversity funding. Clearly no-one white legitimately comes within the sphere of ethnic diversity in their thinking– it’s all a ruse to give the money to white people in their eyes. Clearly abused women from the large Chinese, Irish, Polish and other Eastern European migrants of Ealing don’t merit the funding that Ealing is thinking of diverting towards them from SBS. They’re white. So they can’t possibly merit the funding that SBS claims in the name of Afro-Caribbean and Asian women who never chose them as their representatives in the first place. And as for Jewish women? Well, wouldn’t SBS regard them as yet more privileged white women (like the Barnet Councillor).?

Why does Southall need a unique provision for abused Asian religious minority women which assumes that the best women for them to share it with are Afro-Caribbean women? What is it that these two groups have in common that Ealing should offer them this particular form of exclusive provision? Why should they have to receive support from a group which in the publicity I’ve quoted clearly regards all groups as “reactionary” and labels some of them “fundamentalist”. How will practising Muslim women who’ve been abused find support in an organization which proclaims its “secular, progressive and anti-racist” values? What sort of discourse is SBS likely to provide that will make them feel safe and still part of their own community?

Modernity’s suggestion is rather like that of Ken Livingstone’s supporters who predicted that London’s administration would fall apart if King Newt were not allowed what he regarded as his entitlement to another four years of generous funding for his pseudo revolutionary, self-serving politics. SBS should join him in a somewhat overdue retirement.

I’m absolutely at one with Modernity here who has stated extremely clearly the vital role that SBS plays.

I don’t know what’s getting Judy’s goat but it is quite clear she is completely ignorant about the job that SBS has been doing and knows nothing about the dedicated individuals who have been doing it. And she doesn’t seem to know that SBS established themselves before Ken Livngstone’s GLC came along or that they have consistently worked with, and been supported by, Jewish women among other anti-racist and feminist activists throughout the years of their existence.

Rather than respond to what I’ve said about SBS and the consistent stand it has taken in solidarity with those those oppressed by racism and by “community leaders”, she throws a few darts at me like “Bundist” and “Trotskyist”. Make your mind up Judy, Trotsky and the Bund were not exactly the best of chums.

Whatever you think of me or Modernity I sincerely hope you are never in the situation that the women that SBS have helped/rescued over the years have been in. And I hope that when some of the knee-jerk anti-left contributors here look into the issue a bit more seriously, they will see that this is an organisation that anyone concerned with equality and human rights ought to be supporting.

tim

“Given that some of these “socialists” have made alliances with genital mutilators, then its not surprising they’re a bit touchy”

Only on Harry’s Place…..

He and SBS are very much birds of a feather. Of course SBS and David Rosenberg don’t bandy words like “reactionary” and “fundamentalist” around lightly. They reserve them exclusively for the religiously observant of the Jewish and Muslim communities.

Actually a huge chunk of the women helped by SBS are Hindu or Sikh – they don’t just protect women from reactionaries in the Muslim community.

I’ve absolutely no idea why Judy is pushing the idea that SBS is somehow anti-semitic – it’s a niche service aimed at Asian women, and has nothing to do with Jews. It doesn’t exclude Jews, and I’m sure if approached by a Jewish woman experiencing abuse they would try to assist or refer on to a more appropriate service such as Jewish Women’s Aid.

Why does Southall need a unique provision for abused Asian religious minority women which assumes that the best women for them to share it with are Afro-Caribbean women? What is it that these two groups have in common that Ealing should offer them this particular form of exclusive provision? Why should they have to receive support from a group which in the publicity I’ve quoted clearly regards all groups as “reactionary” and labels some of them “fundamentalist”. How will practising Muslim women who’ve been abused find support in an organization which proclaims its “secular, progressive and anti-racist” values?

A specialist domestic violence service for Asian women is needed because there is an issue with DV in the Asian community, particularly around the area of imported brides. In many cases they cannot approach the police, medical services or social services as community members within them will report them back to their families, or there is a language barrier. If they’re flagging themselves up as secular and progressive it’s probably to indicate to Muslim, Sikh and Hindu women that they are ’safe’ to approach, but will understand the cultural and linguistic issues that DV in the Asian community throws up.

The cases I’ve personally referred to SBS were outside the Southall area. And everyone I dealt with there was Asian, not black. And I doubt that any of them were siblings. Again, I think that people are hung up on the name and not the job they do.

If you’re going to play a crude game of finances, giving a grant to SBS saves the NHS money by preventing admissions to hospital of abused women, and saves the state the cost of murder trials.

Serious question: Can anyone provide evidence of an anti-white or anti-semitic statements from SBS and can anyone provide proof of the claims that DV victims are provided with Marxist indoctrination rather than appropriate support?

I was involved in organising an event for Jewish Women’s Network some years ago in which SBS participated and neither in the preparations or the event itself was any agenda presented which was other than helping women in the way David Rosenberg describes. I don’t know anything about their politics but my perception was they are very brave and dedicated women.

Sorry- I meant to write helping women in the way Catkins describes

The evidence, Catkins, is in their own press release, where they state what their policy is–including their blanket labelling of all religious groups as “reactionary” and sometimes fundamentalist. They themselves proclaim that they taking a “secular, progressive, anti-racist approach”. Their very reason for organizing demonstrations is so that they can go on doing so, since they suggest that anything organized within the religious communities concerned is bound to be “reactionary” and sometimes(=when they’re Muslim) fundamentalist. As I’ve said, as someone who’s been in the position of experiencing partner abuse, this is not an appropriate approach to providing for abused women and their children who see themselves as part of a religious community. By the way, it seems SBS don’t actually run any refuges, they provide a counselling and advice service. Theirs is not a professionally neutral and client-oriented service totally focused on supporting the women and their families and with no other agenda. I certainly wouldn’t want to find that my local authority was giving money for counselling and advice services for vulnerable women (or vulnerable men) to a marxist activist group.

It seems to me to be incredible ignorance (as suggested by Catkins) that being a secularist and (**declaredly anti-religious***) group is going to reassure Muslim,Hindu and Sikh women that this makes them somehow neutral and non-threatening. How patronising and condescending is that? Yeah, I can hear them saying. So they’re not just anti-us, they’re against all the other religions too. That really does make me feel safe…..

Again, behind Catkins’ post is an assumption that (a) there are no women within those religious communities who can support and maintain confidentiality and (b) the communities themselves are delinquent–the professionals amongst them shop them to their communities etc etc. So we n We are in the land of the Daily Mail and Ann Cryer here. The only difference is, according to the prescription of SBS, Catkins and David Rosenberg, they need a marxist group dedicated to Struggle Not Submission to come sort them out. If you listen to Woman’s Hour, you will find they regularly feature women from within those communities who work to support and combat abuses of the marriage and kin system, as Jewish Women’s Aid does within the Jewish community.

Sure, SBS is staffed by women who are Asian and Afro-Caribbean. But that’s not quite the point. They’re self selected or employed to support the SBS line in promoting the “secular, progressive, anti-racist” line, including the assumed refocus of Asian or Afro Caribbean, Hindu and Muslim identity into a seemless “black” identity. I wouldn’t want any service to the Jewish community to be provided by the Jewish Socialists’ Group or Women Against Fundamentalism, even if every single member was Jewish.

Catkins is spot on on one point though. SBS would regard Hinduism and Sikhism as just as reactionary as Islam. They do say that religious groups are reactionary (without qualification) so I was quite wrong to say they reserve the use of the words “reactionary’ and “fundamentalist” only for Muslim and Jewish groups. I stand corrected.

And as for David Rosenberg, he seems not to have read my earlier post where I did indeed acknowledge that I had indeed been in a similar position to the abused women for whom Ealing is trying to provide and in whose name SBS wants the funding. That’s why I’m confident–and also on the basis of my years of experience of being in a post-abuse self help group with other partners of abusers– that SBS and groups like it should not be getting the money to provide such support services. Oh, plus my experience of being slagged off and watching it happen to others in marxist groups of every type, including self-proclaimed socialist feminist ones. Collective moral coercion is the name of the game. Ritual denunciations are just one of the methods. Just what abused women need. This is one area where the testimony of Sue Blackwell (of boycott-Israel fame) is invaluable. Her account of why she left the SWP is an absolute classic. And it certainly goes for other marxist groupuscule variants as well.

Surely there is roon for religious and non-religious organisations to provide aid, practical and moral to battered women? It is unfortunate that there should be such an unmet need, but I’m afraid that’s the way it is. Removing one organisation is not going to help those women who need it. It also seems to me that a religious group of women, committed to patriarchy and the integrity of the family, may try to reconcile a woman with her violent partner not assist her to escape. Let’s be frank, we are talking about (dis)honour killings here, and there must be no suspicion that a woman/girl would be returned to that situation.

Judy

The evidence, Catkins, is in their own press release, where they state what their policy is–including their blanket labelling of all religious groups as “reactionary” and sometimes fundamentalist.

The press does raise concerns about “reactionary, sometimes fundamentalist religious organisations [who] are being given financial support to provide ‘welfare services’, even at the risk of undermining the human rights of the most vulnerable in our communities”, but that’s not the same as labelling all religions and their associated organisations as bigotted.

Again, behind Catkins’ post is an assumption that (a) there are no women within those religious communities who can support and maintain confidentiality and (b) the communities themselves are delinquent–the professionals amongst them shop them to their communities etc etc. So we n We are in the land of the Daily Mail and Ann Cryer here.

Sigh. I’m clearly not making assumption (a) as you suggest and as for (b) even the Association of Chief Police Officers has said the same in the last week. See
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2213863/Forced-marriage-victims-being-betrayed-by-doctors.html

I’m quite happy to be aligned with Ann Cryer by the way, even if you think that’s an insult.

The only difference is, according to the prescription of SBS, Catkins and David Rosenberg, they need a marxist group dedicated to Struggle Not Submission to come sort them out.

I am genuinely puzzled by your attempts to twist and misrepresent clear statements by those with whom you disagree. Earlier in this thread I asked for any evidence that SBS is racist and anti-semitic, and provides Marxist indocrination rather than DV support. Yes, I support them in their work becuase of my experiences with them – but I reconsider that support them if you could provide evidence of your claims. Can you actually do that?

It also seems to me that a religious group of women, committed to patriarchy and the integrity of the family, may try to reconcile a woman with her violent partner not assist her to escape. Let’s be frank, we are talking about (dis)honour killings here, and there must be no suspicion that a woman/girl would be returned to that situation.

Basically, Sue R, what you’re doing here is making a case to exclude by definition any religiously observant individual or group from being involved in supporting women suffering abuse, and implying that all such people are automatically under suspicion and have to do the impossible and prove that they would not return a woman or her family to any situation where she faced killing.

If that’s not illegal discrimination, I don’t know what is.

And in any case, there is no shortage of cases where mainstream secular schools, social work departments and police officers have assisted in the return of women and/or their children to the homes of abusers. And lest you think that that’s a case for funding marxist or radical groups because they’ll never do that, think again. I’ve heard marxist radicals defending a very well known radical media researcher on his track record of hitting women involved with him on the grounds that “he’s a passionate man”. And there was no shortage of defenders of Louis Althusser when he murdered his wife. Plus try reading the unfortunately difficult-to-track-down “Naming the Violence” which is an anthology by US-based battered lesbians who describe the hostility and isolation they faced within their own “radical” community when they tried to talk about abuse they were suffering at the hands of their lesbian partners.

Your post also insults the track record of Jewish Women’s Aid (and the mainstream Jewish Norwood social services agency) with its blanket suggestion that they ( as “a religious group of women committed to patriarchy”) might try to reconcile women with their violent partners.

A smear and in their case, a lie.

Marxist groups, as we all know, are completely free of all links to patriarchy and never practice any form of male domination of females.

Calm down, Judy. i know you told us that you have experienced domestic abuse adn so you take this issue very personally. All I am saying is that I do not see why (in an ideal world) a woman wouldn’t be able to have a choice. I had absolutely no intention of insulting any woman or any woman’s group who is involved in assisting women in vunerable positions and I deeply resent that suggestion. Fine, if there are religious based groups that don’t talk a woman into returning to an abusive situation, fine….actually I don’t knodw hodw to proceed because this is obviously a very difficult issue for you and I don’t want to upset you.