Speech to “DV Snapshots” Forum 26.11.2015: Violence and People with Disabilities
26/11/2015
Kelly Vincent addressing audience at the DV Snapshots forum.
It is estimated that people with disabilities are two times more likely to experience physical and sexual violence than those without. And the risk increases according to factors such as type of disability, age, and gender. In fact, according to research by Frohmander in 2002, 90 percent of women with intellectual disabilities have been sexually abused, and 68 percent of those people will be subjected to sexual abuse before the age of 18.
There are many reasons for this, and many factors which limit the response when violence is perpetrated against us. It is a challenge to fit all of them into eight minutes, so I would like to focus on only two of them: education about what abuse looks like, and access to support services if abuse does occur.
Firstly, many people with disabilities miss out on the education that many others take for granted, especially education about relationships and sexuality, and personal safety. We are often infantilised, or it is assumed that we will not need to know about these things, because our disabilities render us undesirable to others. Often this infantilising happens out of a desire to keep us safe. But it is my unfortunate observation that it actually does the exact opposite, since not being educated about relationships will not take away our desire to enter into them. Only negate our ability to negotiate them safely. Often, what would be otherwise plainly recognised as abuse is thought to be a natural part of the service or support provision. since the person with disability knows no different.
Even when education about the subject is provided, it often seems to assume a prior level of knowledge which may not be true of everyone – whether because of cognitive disability, age or cultural background for example.
To illustrate what this looks like and what it can lead to, I recently heard a story about a group of people, all of whom had intellectual disability, living together in a share house. They were shown how to put on a condom using a broomstick. One morning a support worker came into one of the bedrooms to find two residents naked in bed together, with one broomstick with a condom on the end of it at each side of the bed.
So, the first step to solving the problem is recognising that people with disabilities do enter into, and have the right to enter into friendships, romantic relationships, and everything in between, and making sure that families, friends, and service providers equip us with the support, including information that suits our needs, to do that safely. And to start seeing it as their responsibility to do so, rather than putting it in the ‘too hard basket’.
The next step is allowing people greater choice and control over which supports we access. And I mean this in two ways. Greater control over the services we might already be accessing. And allowing us to enter those services we currently cannot.
For some people with disabilities, particularly those with cognitive disability, and/or, those living in what are known as Supported Residential Facilities, the greatest choice they may get to exercise in their day to day lives, is choosing whether to have coffee, or tea, with breakfast. If they even get to choose that. We need to assume that everyone has capacity to make decisions about the things that affect their day to day lives, and support them to do that. Rather than presuming incapacity.
Allowing people to interview and select their own support workers, for example, is one relatively simple way to ensure that control, and that the support is provided by someone liked and trusted.
However, it would, of course, be remiss of me not to mention the fact that much of the abuse perpetrated against people with disabilities, as with those without, is done by people already known to the victim. Often when a person with disability attempts to disclose abuse, they are not believed, because they are supported to speak out, or, they are undereducated, as we discussed earlier. Or the abuse is downplayed because of the real or perceived strain or pressure that is on the person providing support. I do not deny that in particular, unpaid family supporters of people with disabilities can be under a great deal of strain. However, this does not equate to the right to abuse, or even end the life of, another person.
Many factors can make it difficult for a person with disability not only to identify, but to leave, and abusive situation.
For example, you are a mobility aid user. You do not drive, and there is no accessible public transport where you live. Your options for escape may be limited.
Or, perhaps the local support service has no accessible bedrooms or bathrooms, making it very difficult, if not impossible, for you to stay there overnight.
Or, if you are deaf, and your primary language is sign language. You may attempt to call a support service using the National Relay Service. The person on the other end of the phone does not know how to work in this way, and hangs up mid conversation.
Or, you are blind, but you are told that you cannot bring your guide dog with you to emergency accommodation.
Sadly, these are just some of the examples I could use.
I am frustrated by what I call ‘the cycle of inaccessibility’. This is where: the service is not accessible to people with disabilities. Therefore we do not come to that service. As a result, the service provider does not see the need to make themselves accessible. So they don’t. And then we go back to the beginning. I ask those of you here today last service providers or even running a business of any kind, to think about not only how you can make your service better for your current consumers, but also ask yourself who is not currently accessing the service, and why that might be.
Dignity for Disability has achieved a great deal with legislative changes to make the justice system, namely the courts and police force, more accessible to people with disabilities. Particularly people whose disabilities may affect the way they communicate. Among the key changes is the fact that someone who needs to use an assistive device to communicate their evidence in court, either as an alleged victim, perpetrator, or a witness, will be able to use that. And have an objective assistant help them communicate their evidence if needed. But there is still a long way to go. In particular, we would like to see more frequent and widespread training of the general police force, not just specialist officers, in how to recognise, and holistically and respectfully respond to, disability.
I am coming to the end of my time now. So, in closing, I argue that any measure society more accessible to people with disabilities –from transport, to accommodation and housing, to education and to control – is in itself a measure to combat the violence the face. Because it helps close the gaps which leave us marginalised, and susceptible.
There is no such thing as people who are truly voiceless. Only those people to whom we have not yet learned to listen. So please:
Educate us.
And let us educate you.
Believe in us.
and
Believe us.
Thank you very much.
