The Rape Crisis crisis

Nine Rape Crisis Centres have closed in the last five years, 69% describe themselves as unsustainabl

‘Rape Crisis’ – what vision does that conjure up to you? Weeping, hysterical women with torn clothing and mascara running down their face?

In fact, Rape Crisis is a bit of a misnomer – most of the women and girls who contact us have lived with their experiences of rape for many years before they feel able to pick up the phone and tell anyone about it. And its not ‘just’ rape – we are contacted about a wide range of different forms of sexual violence, including those that no-one wants to talk about: women and girls who are forced to have sex with animals; women and girls who are forced to have sex with their brothers; women and girls who were raped when they were babies and toddlers; women and girls whose videos and pictures of abuse exist forever on internet sites making money for abuse profiteers.

Instead, the term Rape Crisis probably best describes the state of the movement at the moment. New research, to be launched tomorrow by Rape Crisis and the Women’s Resource Centre, lists a catalogue of funding failures. It describes the series of hoops Rape Crisis Centres have to jump through, for example the centre that receives its annual funding of £77,000 from a total of 14 separate funders. On the other hand, it describes centres with no or few funders - the centre that had to close for part of the year because it had no income at all and another with just £306 for the year.

Scarily, 69 per cent of centres described themselves as ‘unsustainable’ in the future. Six centres reported situations where they had not been able to pay their staff – but where these staff had continued to work without pay during these periods of financial crisis. But despite this remarkably high level of staff dedication, nine Rape Crisis Centres have closed in the last five years. The research concludes that while Rape Crisis has always been marginalised and suffered from underinvestment, that the crisis point is here, and it’s happening right now.

The real problem of course lies in what all these figures mean. Last year Rape Crisis had almost 135,000 contacts. This is just the tip of the iceberg; we know there are many more women who try to access our services. The longer helplines stay open, the more calls they receive. Telephone line monitoring shows that the women who manage to get through are in the minority. Imagine receiving an engaged tone after lifting up the phone ready to talk about being raped or being told there is a long waiting list for some services. Support for women and girls to rebuild their lives after rape should be a right, not a privilege determined by a postcode lottery.

It doesn’t take a genius to work out the problem. But - and here is the really good news - nor does it take a genius to work out the solution.

In 1997 New Labour put violence against women on the public agenda alongside an elevation in the ‘status’ of victims and witnesses of crime generally. The increase of women in government, appointment of pro-feminist ministers and support from femocrat ‘insiders’ has led to a much needed shift in the way violence against women is understood within Whitehall. A strong policy message has been articulated from the top: that violence against women is not acceptable in modern society and will not be tolerated. Although rape has not received the attention that other forms of violence against women have (described by Liz Kelly last week as ‘the forgotten issue’), attitudes have undoubtedly shifted. Students in my classes find it hard to understand the political climate that allowed men to rape their wives. Many of the women in key government roles today would probably accept the feminist label.

The good news then is that the hard work is done. Rape Crisis has been consulted, researched, visited and evaluated. We’ve been invited to launches, meetings, forums, committees and conferences. The policies, strategies and workplans are in place. We know what works and what women want. Our views are generally listened to and taken seriously. Except when it comes to money.

This is the point at which whoever we’re talking to starts to get that faraway, glazed look in their eyes. Ministers and officials are sick to the back teeth of hearing that our sector is massively under funded. To be perfectly honest, we’re sick of saying it. But we guarantee that we will never to stop saying it until it is fixed.

We are at a unique point in history in terms of partnership working, but without funding for services none of it means anything. If there is a serious commitment – in reality not rhetoric – then why are Rape Crisis Centres scrabbling around for spare coppers every March? Why are 79% of grants for one year or less? Why are Rape Crisis Centres closing down? The hard work is done; it is now time for the government to put its money where its mouth is. It’s been done across the border and Scotland have committed to a Rape Crisis specific ‘ring fenced’ fund that includes funding to establish new centres where there are no existing ones.

We issue this plea to the Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Department of Health: help women and girls access the services they need by placing £5 million in a Rape Crisis specific fund, and do it now while there is still a Rape Crisis movement to save.

Dr Nicole Westmarland is chair of Rape Crisis (England and Wales) and a rape expert at Durham University

Getty
Show Hide image

The New Times: Brexit, globalisation, the crisis in Labour and the future of the left

With essays by David Miliband, Paul Mason, John Harris, Lisa Nandy, Vince Cable and more.

Once again the “new times” are associated with the ascendancy of the right. The financial crash of 2007-2008 – and the Great Recession and sovereign debt crises that were a consequence of it – were meant to have marked the end of an era of runaway “turbocapitalism”. It never came close to happening. The crash was a crisis of capitalism but not the crisis of capitalism. As Lenin observed, there is “no such thing as an absolutely hopeless situation” for capitalism, and so we discovered again. Instead, the greatest burden of the period of fiscal retrenchment that followed the crash was carried by the poorest in society, those most directly affected by austerity, and this in turn has contributed to a deepening distrust of elites and a wider crisis of governance.

Where are we now and in which direction are we heading?

Some of the contributors to this special issue believe that we have reached the end of the “neoliberal” era. I am more sceptical. In any event, the end of neoliberalism, however you define it, will not lead to a social-democratic revival: it looks as if, in many Western countries, we are entering an age in which centre-left parties cannot form ruling majorities, having leaked support to nationalists, populists and more radical alternatives.

Certainly the British Labour Party, riven by a war between its parliamentary representatives and much of its membership, is in a critical condition. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has inspired a remarkable re-engagement with left-wing politics, even as his party slumps in the polls. His own views may seem frozen in time, but hundreds of thousands of people, many of them young graduates, have responded to his anti-austerity rhetoric, his candour and his shambolic, unspun style.

The EU referendum, in which as much as one-third of Labour supporters voted for Brexit, exposed another chasm in Labour – this time between educated metropolitan liberals and the more socially conservative white working class on whose loyalty the party has long depended. This no longer looks like a viable election-winning coalition, especially after the collapse of Labour in Scotland and the concomitant rise of nationalism in England.

In Marxism Today’s “New Times” issue of October 1988, Stuart Hall wrote: “The left seems not just displaced by Thatcherism, but disabled, flattened, becalmed by the very prospect of change; afraid of rooting itself in ‘the new’ and unable to make the leap of imagination required to engage the future.” Something similar could be said of the left today as it confronts Brexit, the disunities within the United Kingdom, and, in Theresa May, a prime minister who has indicated that she might be prepared to break with the orthodoxies of the past three decades.

The Labour leadership contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith was largely an exercise in nostalgia, both candidates seeking to revive policies that defined an era of mass production and working-class solidarity when Labour was strong. On matters such as immigration, digital disruption, the new gig economy or the power of networks, they had little to say. They proposed a politics of opposition – against austerity, against grammar schools. But what were they for? Neither man seemed capable of embracing the “leading edge of change” or of making the imaginative leap necessary to engage the future.

So is there a politics of the left that will allow us to ride with the currents of these turbulent “new times” and thus shape rather than be flattened by them? Over the next 34 pages 18 writers, offering many perspectives, attempt to answer this and related questions as they analyse the forces shaping a world in which power is shifting to the East, wars rage unchecked in the Middle East, refugees drown en masse in the Mediterranean, technology is outstripping our capacity to understand it, and globalisation begins to fragment.

— Jason Cowley, Editor 

Tom Kibasi on what the left fails to see

Philip Collins on why it's time for Labour to end its crisis

John Harris on why Labour is losing its heartland

Lisa Nandy on how Labour has been halted and hollowed out

David Runciman on networks and the digital revolution

John Gray on why the right, not the left, has grasped the new times

Mariana Mazzucato on why it's time for progressives to rethink capitalism

Robert Ford on why the left must reckon with the anger of those left behind

Ros Wynne-Jones on the people who need a Labour government most

Gary Gerstle on Corbyn, Sanders and the populist surge

Nick Pearce on why the left is haunted by the ghosts of the 1930s

Paul Mason on why the left must be ready to cause a commotion

Neal Lawson on what the new, 21st-century left needs now

Charles Leadbeater explains why we are all existentialists now

John Bew mourns the lost left

Marc Stears on why democracy is a long, hard, slow business

Vince Cable on how a financial crisis empowered the right

David Miliband on why the left needs to move forward, not back

This article first appeared in the 22 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times