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.

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 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.

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?

“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…..

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.