Content Warning: Curfew for men

Speaking in the House of Lords during a debate on the Domestic Abuse Bill, she said: “In the week that Sarah Everard was abducted, and we suppose killed because remains have been found in a woodland in Kent, I would argue that at the next opportunity for any bill that’s appropriate I might actually put in an amendment to create a curfew for men on the streets after 6pm, which I feel would make women a lot safer and discrimination of all kinds would be lessened.”

Baroness Jones said she was “really happy” her comments have ignited a debate.

“Nobody makes a fuss when the police suggest women stay at home, but when I suggest it, men are up in arms … men don’t understand the pressure women are under,” she told Sky News on Friday morning.

“If this has sparked intense scrutiny, I’m really happy.”

The life peer also said she had received several messages from women who said they would feel “free and safe” with a curfew.

She said, however, that the comment was “not an entirely serious suggestion” and reiterated that a ban on men leaving their house was not Green Party policy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sarah-everard-men-curfew-green-party-peer-b1816267.html

Even though she has said that it is not an entirely serious suggestion - do you think that there could be a workable version of this idea?

It’s clearly not workable but I love how she’s highlighted the double standard!

Well if a man is intent on harming a,woman outside their house what is to stop them harming their partner at home?

Don't get the logic of the curfew, is it going to just change the time they will commit their intended crime? Are they going to say to themselves 'oh I was going to harm that woman but I won't now' may just move them online more

I wish I had the faith in humanity to believe people would understand the double standard

Well if a man is intent on harming a,woman outside their house what is to stop them harming their partner at home?

Don't get the logic of the curfew, is it going to just change the time they will commit their intended crime? Are they going to say to themselves 'oh I was going to harm that woman but I won't now' may just move them online more

I suspect many men would be too spineless to try to commit the same crimes in the light of day with more potential witnesses, women less likely to be alone and vulnerable, no ability to pick them up drunk from pubs or clubs etc. When it comes to dv, obviously no, the violence would continue inside the home, though a woman may be able to "escape" outside more easily

I've thought this is a great idea for years. Not a practical idea, but it would be nice if it could be done.

Women are more likely to be assaulted by someone they know, in their home or workplace. Not sure how such a curfew would help.

I've often thought that locking men away would solve a lot of problems. But locking them in their homes to take their frustration and anger out on their partner is a disaster in the making.

And yes, I love the highlighting of the double standard.

Masha Vucotic was murdered in broad daylight. Then her killer popped into a bookshop to rape a woman, also in daylight, becuase he knew he was going to prison.

People like this are not the norm, but they're the ones committing these crimes, and they would happily break a curfew to do it.

I do like this idea just as a tool to point out the double standard though.

The thing is that many, many many women are not out there at the times these 'under cover of darkness' crimes are being committed. Even at 60 I didn't run after dark. Mind you that had as much to do with not wanting to break anything with osteopenia, but I certainly didn't rule out 'stranger danger'.

We can talk about the exceptions that happen in daylight, but most happen when it's dark.

It's a completely separate issue from intimate partner violence, which has different solutions, and you couldn't work on one without the other.

It's o.k. to say that trapping violent men in their homes isn't a good idea (i.e. the ones who are only violent to their partners), but I don't think it's o.k. to say that because most violence to women is from someone they know, that we can't ALSO address the causes and find the solutions for violence committed to women by strangers.

The thing is that many, many many women are not out there at the times these 'under cover of darkness' crimes are being committed. Even at 60 I didn't run after dark. Mind you that had as much to do with not wanting to break anything with osteopenia, but I certainly didn't rule out 'stranger danger'.

We can talk about the exceptions that happen in daylight, but most happen when it's dark.

It's a completely separate issue from intimate partner violence, which has different solutions, and you couldn't work on one without the other.

It's o.k. to say that trapping violent men in their homes isn't a good idea (i.e. the ones who are only violent to their partners), but I don't think it's o.k. to say that because most violence to women is from someone they know, that we can't ALSO address the causes and find the solutions for violence committed to women by strangers.

I don't think anybody is saying that; they're saying a curfew wouldn't be one of those solutions.

The thing is that many, many many women are not out there at the times these 'under cover of darkness' crimes are being committed. Even at 60 I didn't run after dark. Mind you that had as much to do with not wanting to break anything with osteopenia, but I certainly didn't rule out 'stranger danger'.

We can talk about the exceptions that happen in daylight, but most happen when it's dark.

It's a completely separate issue from intimate partner violence, which has different solutions, and you couldn't work on one without the other.

It's o.k. to say that trapping violent men in their homes isn't a good idea (i.e. the ones who are only violent to their partners), but I don't think it's o.k. to say that because most violence to women is from someone they know, that we can't ALSO address the causes and find the solutions for violence committed to women by strangers.

 

I don't think anybody is saying that; they're saying a curfew wouldn't be one of those solutions.

But people DO say that the vast majority of violence towards women happens in the home so why the focus on strangers?

You would have to look at the individuals and see whether they were ALSO violent to the people they knew. Some are, some aren't. Look at the number of times people are incredibly shocked that a person they knew was a murderer. Other times every man and their dog have suspicions about the person.

Same end result, but different causes call for different solutions.

The thing is that many, many many women are not out there at the times these 'under cover of darkness' crimes are being committed. Even at 60 I didn't run after dark. Mind you that had as much to do with not wanting to break anything with osteopenia, but I certainly didn't rule out 'stranger danger'.

We can talk about the exceptions that happen in daylight, but most happen when it's dark.

It's a completely separate issue from intimate partner violence, which has different solutions, and you couldn't work on one without the other.

It's o.k. to say that trapping violent men in their homes isn't a good idea (i.e. the ones who are only violent to their partners), but I don't think it's o.k. to say that because most violence to women is from someone they know, that we can't ALSO address the causes and find the solutions for violence committed to women by strangers.

 

I don't think anybody is saying that; they're saying a curfew wouldn't be one of those solutions.

 

But people DO say that the vast majority of violence towards women happens in the home so why the focus on strangers?

You would have to look at the individuals and see whether they were ALSO violent to the people they knew. Some are, some aren't. Look at the number of times people are incredibly shocked that a person they knew was a murderer. Other times every man and their dog have suspicions about the person.

Same end result, but different causes call for different solutions.

I guess we see that with everything, that you focus on protecting the majority, or preventing the majority of bad things/behaviours from happening. That's how most public health or criminal justice campaigns go.

I think also because there's still the idea/misconception that a woman whose partner is violent to her has some element of control over the situation, i.e., she could stay or leave him, she could report him to police or not, she could protect herself or not. That's not what I believe, but many people do. Whereas literally just walking home from a night out, I have no control what someone chooses to do to me.

I don't think anybody is saying that; they're saying a curfew wouldn't be one of those solutions.

 

But people DO say that the vast majority of violence towards women happens in the home so why the focus on strangers?

You would have to look at the individuals and see whether they were ALSO violent to the people they knew. Some are, some aren't. Look at the number of times people are incredibly shocked that a person they knew was a murderer. Other times every man and their dog have suspicions about the person.

Same end result, but different causes call for different solutions.

 

I guess we see that with everything, that you focus on protecting the majority, or preventing the majority of bad things/behaviours from happening. That's how most public health or criminal justice campaigns go.

I think also because there's still the idea/misconception that a woman whose partner is violent to her has some element of control over the situation, i.e., she could stay or leave him, she could report him to police or not, she could protect herself or not. That's not what I believe, but many people do. Whereas literally just walking home from a night out, I have no control what someone chooses to do to me.

That's very true, and I have absolutely no difficulty recognising where the vast majority of violence to women comes from.

You're right that by focusing on 'stranger danger' we may lose sight of the bigger battle, which is actually not from strangers.

We probably need a dozen different solutions, but they need to be worked on at the same time, and make sure that one group protected from violence, doesn't just move the violence.

Obviously peoples' personal experiences are going to focus their attention on what happened to them, too. Plus violence, particularly those that can make headlines because the woman's been missing for a few days, can make it look like it's the bigger issue.

I just don't want the issue of stranger danger to be responded to with 'but ...'.

Of the 18,300 sexual assaults recorded by police against people aged 15 and over in 2018:

• more than 3 in 5 (64%, or 11,600) occurred in a residential area—primarily in a private dwelling (91%, or 10,600 assaults)

• almost 1 in 5 (18%, or 3,400) occurred in a community setting. This can include at an education facility, on transport, in open space or on a street/footpath.

Data from recorded crime align with the PSS finding that male sexual assault perpetrators are more common than female perpetrators. Around 1.7 million Australian adults have experienced sexual assault by a male perpetrator since the age of 15—6 times the number of people who have experienced sexual assault by a female perpetrator (299,000) (ABS 2017). Perpetrators of sexual assault are often known to the victim. According to the PSS, 1.7 million people experienced sexual assault by a known person since the age of 15—this is 4 times as high as the number of people who experienced sexual assault by a stranger (458,000) (ABS 2017). Data from ABS Recorded Crime - Victims also indicate that, for states and territories where the relationship between victim and offender was recorded (excluding Western Australia), more sexual assaults of people aged 15 and over involved an offender who was known to the victim (77%) than a stranger (23%). Around 1 in 3 (35%) known offenders were classified as a family member, which included spouse or domestic partners, parent, child, sibling, boyfriend/girlfriend and other family members. All other known offenders (65%) were classified as non-family members, which can include other relationships, ex-spouses or domestic partners and ex-boyfriend/girlfriend.

(Infocus, AIHW, "Sexual Assault" link: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/0375553f-0395-46cc-9574-d54c74fa601a/aihw-fdv-5.pdf.aspx?inline=true)