Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Domestic violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Domestic violence. Show all posts
Atheist Republic ✐ Two mosques in the United Kingdom were reported to the Charity Commission for recently hosting sermons where they said women should not refuse to have sex with their husbands, adding that a man can hit his wife if she refuses sex and that wives who refuse to have sex with their husbands have no right to receive financial support from their spouses.


An-Noor Masjid and Community Centre in Birmingham and Muhammadi Masjid Bradford recently hosted sermons where they claimed that it is permissible for a man to hit his wife if she refuses to have sex with him and it is not permissible for women to observe a voluntary fast without her husband’s permission since sex is not permitting while fasting during Ramadan.

Both mosques are registered as charities for the purpose of “the advancement of religion.” An-Noor Masjid and Muhammadi Masjid uploaded their sermons to their YouTube channels earlier in September.

Mahamed AbdurRazaq, an Islamic lecturer for the An-Noor Masjid, said during his sermon titled "Detailed Rulings on Marriage" that "hitting" wives who refused to have sex is acceptable.

Continue reading @ Atheist Republic.

UK Mosque Says It's OK To Hit Your Wife!

Catherine McGinty ✒ 'The scariest bit for me is that someone was trying to find out my address' - Domestic violence survivor.
A young Derry mother fleeing domestic violence had her hospital records accessed by an unauthorised Western Health and Social Care Trust (WHSCT) staff member.

The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, received written confirmation of the data breach from WHSCT chief executive, Neil Guckian.

In his letter of apology, Mr Guckian confirmed to the woman her records had been unlawfully accessed by a member of her ex-partner’s family - a Trust employee, seeking to ascertain her address.

Speaking to Derry News, the woman, who was understandably upset, said the “breach of confidentiality and trust has exacerbated the difficulties I face”.

“It has also raised serious concerns about the integrity of the Trust’s operations. I am committed to shedding light on this issue and ensuring others do not suffer similar injustices,” she added.

In his letter of March 24 to the woman, Mr Guckian said there was “evidence” the Trust employee had accessed the Patient Administration System (PAS).

He wrote: “This system allowed [them] access to your address and hospital appointments. 

Continue Reading @ Derry Now.

Hospital Records Of Derry Domestic Violence Survivor Illegally Accessed

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ Manchester United, formerly known as Manchester United Football Club have at last reached a decision on the future of potentially world beating forward, Mason Greenwood. 

In January 2022 Greenwood was accused of assault by his girlfriend, Harriet Robson, and Greater Manchester police launched an investigation. Due to lack of evidence no charges were preferred against the footballer and Mason and Harriet are back together again and she has given birth to their first child. This should surely have been an end to the saga which has dragged out for eighteen months. In any other situation it would have barely made the fifth page of a local newspaper and even then, a tiny column perhaps. 

So why has this become such a long drawn out almost boring saga when in reality there was little to report? The couple appear happy and Mason continues to deny the allegations. His voice appears not to have been listened to apart from by the alleged victim, his partner Harriet Robson! I wish them both well and all this appears to have been a domestic which went terribly wrong as Harriet put on Instagram supposed recordings of Greenwood abusing her and assaulting her persona. Again, and I must emphasise, Mason Greenwood denies all allegations even now when the couple are reconciled.

Manchester United are a transnational conglomerate which happens to have a football team attached and are no different to the other nine so-called European clubs, international conglomerates which wanted to break away and form the ‘European Super League’, an idea which has been shelved and not, as many wishful thinkers would like to believe, scrapped. Manchester City, Liverpool, Arsenal and others are no different, with Newcastle United now joining this conglomerate exclusive set! 

Mason Greenwood has been at Old Trafford since he was seven years of age and he is now twenty-one. Most of his life he has spent at United and showed great potential until this nightmare began. Manchester United have reached a decision having ‘conducted their own investigation’, or so they tell us, into the affair. Mason Greenwood having had no charges brought against him did not therefore go through ‘due process’ because in the eyes of the law there was no need to. Through the Mancunian grapevine it was revealed some days ago that the couple were in fact back together and that appears now to have been ratified. Yet, still the saga goes on! Plenty of clubs would want to secure Mason Greenwood's services and the outcome, as yet unknown, may come back to bite United in the arse!!

On Monday, United announced that the club had mutually agreed to part ways with Greenwood after completing a six-month investigation into his January arrest. Greenwood denied all allegations. The alleged victim withdrew the allegations and their support from the police’s investigation in April of that year.
Six months later, in October, Greenwood was charged with attempted rape, assault and controlling and coercive behaviour.
But in February, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped all charges against the 21-year-old, allowing United to start an internal investigation. According to the Manchester Evening News, Greenwood cooperated fully with the Greater Manchester police by allowing access to his devices.
United later heard explanations for the images and audio recording posted on Instagram by the alleged victim on Sunday January 30, 2022.

This is where the entire scenario becomes a farce. United do not believe they have “grounds to terminate the forwards £75,000 a week deal.” So, if they are not going to release him from his contract and at the same time “plan to support Greenwood in completing a move away, whether on loan or on a permanent basis” what the fuck have the club being crying out for a forward all summer for? They already have one and a very good one at that in Mason Greenwood! Yet, “United don’t expect him to represent that club again, even if he leaves on loan and returns with one year left on his contract.” This is bizarre to say the very least! Mason Greenwood commented saying:

Today’s decision has been a collaborative process between Manchester United, my family and me, The best decision for us all is for me to continue my football career away from Old Trafford, where my presence will not be a distraction for the club” (source MUFC Express). 

I am not convinced that statement of Greenwoods was not made under some sort of duress. After all, who leaves Manchester United willingly at such a young age with so much promise when the only direction is south on a compass point, downwards? Especially having done nothing wrong, and being reconciled with his partner who made the original allegations. The club have openly stated they did not think the player guilty of the allegations so why let him go? Does the supposed manager have any say in this? Where is Erik ten Hag's voice? He says he needs a forward and goes out paying silly money for one, already injured, why did he not, as Matt Busby would have done tell the board, ‘I decide who comes and who goes’ or do modern managers have no say in the matter? Perhaps we should stop calling them managers, stooges of the owners may be a more appropriate title. Alex Ferguson retired in 2013 and prior to his retirement he would not have stood for such interference from imbeciles who know nothing of the game. Perhaps this was why he retired, as he could see the way the wind was blowing!

Celebrity, Rachel Riley, a supposed Man Utd fan entered the scene in what has become a play William Shakespeare would have been proud of. The celebrity said of Greenwood; “she’ll stop supporting Man Utd if the forward stays.” Well Rachel he is neither staying or going it would appear, but why would you stop supporting the team if a good, potentially great, player stays? Is this a bit of self-publicising stunt? She shared a statement from the charity Women’s Aid; “Greenwood’s departure would be a relief to many survivors of domestic and sexual abuse.” Ordinarily I would agree with this statement fully but this has to be counterbalanced with the fundamental principle of law which is ‘innocent till proved guilty’. Not only was Mason Greenwood not found guilty, it never got that far, with him and his accuser, his partner, are now happily reunited. So surely this abuse aspect does not apply! This is one of the problems with ‘Radical Feminism’, as opposed to ‘Marxist Feminism’ - it is vehemently anti-man. The man is guilty automatically and, in the rare occasion of a battered husband (not as rare as was once thought) they are not interested, a case of Misogyny terrible, rightly so, but as for Misandry, who cares a fuck. Domestic violence by either gender on the other is wrong and must stop, on that I’m sure we all agree but perhaps a little less selective in our choices might be sound advice for these groups? What a great pity Rachel Riley does not lend her celebrity status and voice to support women in shit paid sweat shops and other jobs where they are subjugated to many degrading acts by billionaire male bosses, like Donald Trump: her silence on such issues is deafening. However, I am deviating, perhaps Rachel feels there is not the publicity in supporting women working eighty hours per week for wages well below the minimum wage in the UK?

Another point worthy of mention is, where the hell have the Professional Footballers Association (PFA) been throughout this saga? They are the players' trade union and are supposed to represent which, it would appear, they have not done. Now we have a situation where a player has been told he will “never represent the club”, Manchester United, “again”. Essentially the same as any other employer at least in theory, but will not release him from his contract. Manchester United have the best of both worlds here, pacifying the ‘new age supporters’ as I call them, while at the same time deciding when and where their surplus player will be allowed to go to. At the same time the club hypocritically maintain the deception they are trying to help Mason Greenwood “develop his career elsewhere”! If this is the case, put the lad on the transfer list or are they afraid to do this? With Newcastle United and Aston Villa looking in the ascendancy Greenwood may just be the final piece in their jig saw!! The PFA should stand firm here because whether Mason Greenwood agrees, or pretends to agree, with this position of his employers it sets a precedent to other clubs to treat their players the same. Outside the world of football, trade unions everywhere should monitor this situation with alarm. What if every employer decided their employees could not leave their employment but neither could they work?? The potential is frightening!!

Finally, while this apparent glorified domestic argument between Mason Greenwood and Harriet Robson plays out, what is really happening at Old Trafford? Little is heard of the buy-out except I could not help noticing, very briefly, the figure of six billion pounds has suddenly become “seven billion” by the ever-greedy Glazers. This report may be true or well wide of the mark but what is really going on behind this smokescreen? While all appear to have been baying for the blood of young Mason Greenwood, have they all forgotten the real issues, the important ones? I am sure the club have done this on purpose to divert attention away from the activities of the Glazers, after all the protesters appear incapable of processing more than one issue, so why not divert attention, and continue to do so, away from the corrupt institution which was once Manchester United Football Club, my team since the sixties, (and still is along with FC United, the future perhaps, though I have not attended Old Trafford since 2005), and on to Mason Greenwood and Harriet Robson?

It appears to me, and did so as soon as the Mancunian grapevine informed me last week the couple were reunited and had a child, this was a domestic argument which got very much out of hand. If this had not been the case Harriet would surely have had her day in court by bringing a private prosecution against Mason. This did not happen, why not? Anybody reading this blog whose parents never argued even verbally aggressively using unsaintly language towards each other please feel free to let me know. Or, has anybody never argued with their partner? Again, feel free to let me know. Mason Greenwood and Harriet Robson are no exception, it happens, alas, it shouldn’t, but until we perfect the world it does and will continue to do so tragically in some cases, the real situations which need addressing! Unfortunately, Harriet chose, foolishly in hindsight, to put the scene on Instagram and regretted it shortly afterwards. Hereby hangs a lesson to social media addicts!

The question supporters, even today’s variant, should be asking is quite simple really. What are the club’s owners really up to using this unfortunate situation to hide their intentions behind? The next time anybody wants to stand behind a banner stating ‘Greenwood out’ ask yourselves; why? If an offer of ridiculous money comes in possibly from Saudi Arabia for Greenwood's services United will make a mint, and he will get a new life with Harriet and their child. Could this “collaborative process between Manchester United” Greenwood and his family have been planned? Could this be why he agreed with the club’s statement regarding their long drawn out unnecessary ‘investigation’ and he may not have said the words he did under duress at all - could that be the case? Could it have all been about making money, as football appears very much secondary these days, by selling Greenwood to the Saudis or other oil rich interested parties? These are questions, not statements of facts. What I do know is Matt Busby, Wilf McGuinness, Frank O’Farrell, Tommy Docherty and Dave Sexton would all turn in their graves at what is going on in todays so-called game, particularly events at Old Trafford.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Mason Greenwood 🔴 What The Hell Was Going On?

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ A couple of weeks ago I watched a three-part mini-series on Virgin media channel one about a very disturbed young man in Northumbria, England, called Raoul Moat. 
 

Moat was in Durham prison for badly beating his nine-year-old child having been reported. Moat was a man who thought the whole world was against him, especially the police and while inside he discovered his ex-girlfriend was seeing somebody else. He knew this because his former partner, Samantha Stobbart, went to the jail to tell him, diplomatically, that she was seeing another man, Christopher Brown a martial arts teacher. Samantha was under no obligation to do this as her and Moat had been over for some time but, knowing his temperament, she thought it the decent thing to do. Moat went ballistic expressing the violent reaction she had feared. 

To make matters worse, and to frighten him away, she thought, she told the maniac her “new fella was a policeman” which did not go down well with Moat. She said this in all innocence hoping if Moat thought she was seeing a copper it would act as a deterrent. It did not. In fact, it had the opposite affect and made the situation and Moat's rage worse. Moat did not have long to serve and he intimated to his cell mate he intended doing something about the situation with Samantha and her new bloke. The cell mate, somewhat concerned over Moat's remarks informed the prison authorities who could do little as there was no concrete evidence Moat had said anything. They did, however, email Northumbria police warning them of their fears that Moat posed a violent threat. 

The email was either received or acted on too late. This oversight cost Christopher Brown, a decent lad, his life and Samantha Stobbart was seriously wounded. Moat later said he had not wanted to kill his former girlfriend just warn her never to do this again. Moat then went hunting for policemen who he blamed for his predicament. He found PC David Rathband in his patrol car and approached the vehicle, shooting the unarmed officer through the window. Rathband was seriously wounded and lost his sight as a result of the shooting. He committed suicide two years later on 29th February 2012. Moat then went on the run which had been the case since he had shot Christopher and Samantha, except now he vowed to continue his campaign as he saw it first against the police, then he would extend it to civilians. Even the so-called laws of the prison system where it is taboo to go with a serving prisoner’s wife or girlfriend did not apply in this case as the couple had been separated for some time before Moat went to jail. The law of the jungle was non-applicable here, except in Moat's deranged mind.

The Northumbria Police genuinely wanted to take Moat alive and to this end they used an unapproved (by the Home Office) experimental wireless long range electric shock weapon designed to immobilise but not kill the target. There may have been an argument the new weapon, in effect an updated version of the taser, may have jolted Moats fingers into pulling the trigger of the sawn-off shotgun he had to his own head. Moat had been cornered in a field after a tip off about his whereabouts and was threatening to kill himself rather than be taken alive. There may have been a case his demise was accelerated by the jolt of the taser but equally he was going to shoot himself anyway. To me, the outcome would have been the same and I think Moat did indeed shoot himself purposely. I am no lover of the police in a capitalist system but on this occasion they had no choice - a man like Raoul Moat had to be stopped. There were no politics behand Moat and his antics, no glorious cause, just his bitter jealousy of his ex-girlfriend who had met somebody else.

What is as disturbing, if not more so outside those directly involved, was the number of people who saw Moat as a ‘legend’ and some kind of ‘hero.’ One email said; “well done to Raoul Moat, after what that bitch did to him. If it happened to me, I would do the same thing”. What kind of idiot writes something of this nature? This was not the only email or text of this nature, what were they suggesting; that Samantha had no right to start again with another caring partner after her violent experiences with Moat? Were they really advocating this, that she should for the rest of her life be enslaved to this nutter, Moat? Perhaps if she had been engaged to Moat before he went to prison and then she dumped him for another man his anger, but not actions, could be understood on a personal level. However, this was not the case, the pair had not been a couple for months prior to Moat going down. What these hero worshipers were thinking is beyond me, perhaps this society we are pleased to call civilised is anything but! 

One year after Moat was killed on 10th July 2010 people travelled from as far afield as Sussex to pay homage to the ‘legend’ Raoul Moat. For anybody not too sure of the geography of England Northumberland is the most northernly county before Scotland, while Sussex is down south about a three-hundred-mile plus drive. Not exactly local and even if it was, why would anybody want to visit and ‘pay homage’ to a madman like Moat? One woman took her two sons from southern England to pay homage to the ‘legend’ who was, in her eyes, Raoul Moat. What do the feminists make of such a woman?

To add insult to injury once Moat was dead a Twitter account was set up in his support and attracted around 30,000 followers. This might be a drop in the ocean with the population of England around the 55.9 million but on a micro scale it was a sizeable number. It means in England there are 30,000 upwards people, normal everyday people, who thought and still think Raoul Moat is a ‘legend’ a hero. Some people were singing in pubs; ”Raoul Moat is our friend, is our friend, is our friend, Raoul Moat is our friend, he shoots coppers”. This was a remake of an earlier song about police killer Harry Roberts. A man who kills in cold blood for no other reason than his own paranoia is a fucking ‘legend’ in the minds of these imbeciles. If that were the case, and genuine subnormal people be what they really are then it could almost be forgiven because they may know no better, but this was not the case. These people who signed up to this account and, in some cases, travelled the six-hundred-mile round trip to pay homage were/are perfectly normal, sane and adjusted people, suffering no mental deficiencies. 

It is this final point which must raise an eyebrow at least. How many people out there really would behave as did Moat if their partner ended a relationship while they were serving a prison sentence? I know the golden rule ‘thou shalt not court a prisoner's wife or girlfriend’ but how far can retribution for this crime, if it is a crime, be taken? Everybody has emotions, anger certainly, and such an issue as being locked up while somebody you trusted plays away would be hard. Samantha Stobbart did not fit into this category and even if she did, does it justify killing in cold blood? If a relationship is over, heart-breaking as it may be, it has to be accepted, nobody has the right to kill in cold blood as Moat thought he had and he was certainly not a ‘legend’ or hero as some nutters obviously thought and probably still think.

🖼 Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Raoul Moat

National Secular Society ✒ has welcomed the inclusion of religious courts in updated guidance for prosecutors working on domestic abuse cases.


The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is consulting on updates to its legal guidance on domestic abuse to help prosecutors "ensure the delivery of justice" for victims.

In its section on 'race and religion', the updated guidance says prosecutors "should be aware of community courts/arbitration forums in some Jewish and Muslim communities" used by victims and perpetrators.

It adds prosecutors "will be aware that they should not be used as an alternative to criminal proceedings" and that some perpetrators "may use these mechanisms to make a case for staying with their partner, thereby enabling the abuse to be continued".

The NSS, which campaigns to ensure religious courts do not undermine secular justice or women's rights, said it 'strongly supports' the inclusion of this information in its response to its consultation.

It highlighted how Islamic sharia councils and Jewish councils (beth dins) reinforce patriarchal norms, and that beth dins play a role in religious 'divorce' refusal which has recently been recognised as a form of domestic abuse.

The NSS also welcomed the guidance's inclusion of issues such as forced marriage, 'honour' violence and female genital mutilation ...


Continue reading @ National Secular Society.


NSS Welcomes Inclusion Of Religious Courts In Domestic Abuse Guidance

Andrea Redmond ✒ The tragic murder of Ashling Murphy, a vibrant, talented young teacher who was killed while out for her daily jog, has brought a groundswell of anger from people across Ireland.

It reminds me of the same response after the unnecessary death of Savita Halappanavar.

Sadly sexual and domestic violence kill women in Ireland on a weekly basis and their faces and stories are quickly forgotten. But for most women, the deaths remind them of their own vulnerability. So many of the women of Ireland have been through some sort of sexual and/or domestic assault: witness the Me Too Movement, where women across the Globe came forward to relate stories of sexual abuse.

We women have had these movements before. In the 1970s I was one of those women who participated in the Take Back the Night Marches, where women protested about the violence and murders of women. The marches began in 1975 after the death of Susan Speeth, a microbiologist who was stabbed to death while walking home at night. The year I was studying for my Bachelor’s degree, a sexual predator was targeting women students at night and attacking them. Women devised strategies themselves to keep safe. My sister Lauren and I attended classes together, walked at night through a poorly lit campus to our car after class. The University did little, the local women’ group set up self-defence courses. I was 7 months pregnant with my oldest son Pearse and felt particularly at risk. No woman walks or runs during the day or night without the thought of her safety. We all feel vulnerable and that fear never goes away. That fear often comes as threats from those we love within the home, meaning that for many home is not a safe place. In Europe one woman in three, aged 15 or above reported having experienced physical or sexual violence (one in six boys).

Domestic violence has been called a “shadow pandemic” before the outbreak of Covid, and cyber violence is a growing issue with ordinary women, particularly those in public life - journalists, politicians experiencing disproportionally higher rates of gender based online violence, with the impact on their abilities to express their views.

When I first moved to Belfast in 1983, I was stopped along Beechmount Avenue, on my way home to Cavendish Street, by a British Army patrol. I was brought into the enclosed garage and threatened with rape and other acts of sexual violence. I have no memory of getting to the top of the street such was the horror of the incident. That wasn’t my first experience of violence or the last, and sadly I am not alone. During the Troubles women suffered at the hands of both the security forces and those we loved. Actors of the State in uniform have used sexual violence as a tool of war and colonization for millennia.

Male dominated institutions like the Catholic Church have been actors in violence and abuse against women and girls. The depths of abuses caused by clerics across the globe and the further abuse by the continuing cover-ups by the church hierarchy in the deaths of First Nation Children in Residential schools in Canada and the horrors of The Magdalen Laundries, is indicative of the misogyny of power and state.

In recent years we have seen incidents of women being murdered by police officers in the Met. Sarah Everard was walking home when abducted and murdered by Metropolitan police officer Wayne Couzens in 2021. Sportsmen stand accused of rape and the numbers of women and children murdered or sexually abused is growing, with perpetrators suffering little in the way of stiff sentences. Victims largely don’t report due to stigma and shame and a lack of confidence in the State and judiciary to support them.

I had hoped through my years of working in a Rape Crisis Centre and women’s groups that it would help it get better for my daughter and now granddaughter, but sadly it hasn’t.

The issue itself is societal - we all have a responsibility particularly as Republicans in seeking a just society. This means we need to collectively face that there was abuse and violence perpetrated by our Comrades and we need to support the survivors who have had the courage to come forward, such as Mairia Cahill and Aine Dahlstrom. We need to acknowledge there was often negligent handling of their cases and things should have been done much differently. The continuing maligning of Cahill, in particular, from some quarters in the Movement must cease immediately.

In the wake of Savita’s unnecessary death the country mobilised to repeal the 8th Amendment of the Constitution to legislate for women’s right to bodily integrity. We must all mobilise once again in Ashling’s name to create change and we as Republicans must be there.

⏩Andrea Redmond is Feminist-Republican holding a PhD in Anthropology. She is the only female Republican Belfast women's muralist and community artist. A member of Sile na Gig she is now an artist living in Donegal and is volunteering in Community Development in the village of Doochary.

Ashling Murphy ✑ The Spectre of Murderous Violence Against Women

From Dnyuz, the story of the horrific decapitation of a teenage girl by her father. 

Before he beheaded his 14-year-old daughter with a farming sickle, Reza Ashrafi called a lawyer.

His daughter, Romina, was going to dishonor the family by running off with her 29-year-old boyfriend, he said. What kind of punishment, he asked the lawyer, would he get for killing her?

The lawyer assured him that as the girl’s guardian he would not face capital punishment but at most 3 to 10 years in jail, Mr. Ashrafi’s relatives told an Iranian newspaper.

Three weeks later, Mr. Ashrafi, a 37-year-old farmer, marched into the bedroom where the girl was sleeping and decapitated her.

The so-called honor killing last month, in a small village in the rolling green hills of northern Iran, has shaken the country and set off a nationwide debate over the rights of women and children and the failure of the country’s social, religious and legal systems to protect them.

It has also prompted a me-too moment on social media of women pouring out their own stories of abuse at the hands of male relatives in hopes of shedding light on a problem that is usually kept quiet. 
Continue reading @ Dnyuz.

A Daughter Is Beheaded, And Iran Asks If Women Have A Right To Safety

From the Guardian: Social isolation from coronavirus is fuelling a rise in domestic abuse cases - and leading charities to shift their support online 

By Sian Norris

Alison* is glad the sun came out at the same time the coronavirus lockdown arrived. “I’m spending all day on the balcony to keep away,” she explains. “I’m lucky I have one.”

Alison’s balcony offers her a small degree of distance from her partner, whose behaviour has become increasingly erratic since the coronavirus crisis began. For the estimated 1.6 million women who experienced domestic abuse in England and Wales last year, home isn’t a place of safety. Rather than a chance to catch up on a boxset or long delayed DIY project, self isolation for women in coercive or violent relationships means being trapped indoors with your abuser.

Alison assures me her partner won’t hurt her. “He’s had these episodes before,” she tells me over a messaging app, referring to bouts of heavy drinking that have intensified since the government introduced social distancing measures. “But he’s the worst I’ve known him for a long time.” She connects her partner’s moods with the pandemic. He “gets angry with me for being super careful about wiping things down and insisting he washes his hands,” she explains. “He thinks I’m being over the top. He’s angry with me for acting like a ‘mad person’, and calls me paranoid. But he’s putting my health at risk, too.” 

*Names have been changed.

Continue reading @ the Guardian.

For People With An Abusive Partner, Lockdown Means Captivity

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)