TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE AT

I had previously mentioned in a blog that human failings, particularly in respect of violence and abuse, has long been the subject of law. The prohibition of violence, and the punishments which follow from the breach of that rule, were carved in stone as early as 3000 BCE. Civilisation has moved on since then, but the evolution of society has not changed the view that violence and abuse are to be energetically condemned and laws prohibiting such actions are to be vigorously and strictly enforced.  Various “Offences Against the Person Acts” have consolidated and defined the variable forms of behaviour which can cause injury to the person, and in some instances, there are specific types of victims who are singled out for protection from assault.

Nonetheless, there are still certain nation states around the world which are seriously deficient in allowing for human rights, those very rights which are thought to be unalienable. Indeed, despite having their own laws against offences to the person, the state itself resorts to violence and abuse of its citizens in order to maintain its hold on power. Some even claim, for religious reasons in particular, the right to abuse women, although they may not see what they do is abuse.

In the current world, given its geography and topography, no single nation can subsist without interaction with other nations. In order for states to survive, economic and trade links are unavoidable.  Nations are no longer self sufficient, although the size of some gives them the illusion that they can be. Those nations which are more prosperous however, can have some influence on nations with a smaller economy. They can, and do, at times, exert influence. Whether for good or bad, I refrain from giving an opinion.

According to the World Bank, the United States, for instance, has the largest economy with a GDP of $21,433,226 million and the United Kingdom is sixth with $2,829,108 million. You will note that the US has nearly 10 times the GDP of the United Kingdom; however, the UK has over twice the GDP of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates combined, and ten times that of Iran. So both nations, who have a so called special relationship, have some considerable influence over parts of the world where I believe women are subject to considerable difficulties, to put it mildly. (It isn't only the Middle East)

So where are we now?

We now have the British Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs stating that the United Kingdom will trade with states which do not meet human rights standards, all the while claiming that the UK is a ‘force for good’ in the world.

We also have the Prime Minister, ‘Just Boris’ apparently agreeing with the leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer, that the murder of Sarah Everard should be a ‘turning point’ in the fight for safety for women and girls.

Mr Starmer claims it is a ‘watershed moment’ and urged the PM to press ahead with swift legislation to deal with the epidemic of violence faced by women. The Prime Minister agreed, saying he believed that “frankly, unless and until we have a change in our culture that acknowledges and understands that women currently do not feel they are being heard, we will not fix this problem”

According to the Office of National Statistics in 2019 there were 1,394,000 incidents of violent crime reported – that’s 3,819 per day. Which one could be considered a watershed moment in 2019?  How many thousand violent incidents a day, over just the past 50 years, qualify as a watershed moment?

Please explain to me how trading with regimes that condone violence and abuse of women is being a force for good and how that leads to an understanding that women do not feel they are being heard, and please explain to me what swift legislation will be more effective than the legislation against violence that has existed for a millennium?

I really would like to know.