The hostile environment: 10 years of resistance
For many years now, we’ve seen the strengthening of borders used as a popular political tool worldwide, both in discourse and practice. Within this discourse, immigration is constructed as a problem to be solved, an issue to urgently address in order to protect those who are citizens, those “who belong”. Politicians around the world have justified the curtailment of migrants’ rights and entitlements with narratives such as ‘migrant crisis’ or ‘migrants exploiting the welfare system’.
This has even been done at the expense of international obligations in the case of people seeking asylum or who are entitled to support as victims of trafficking and exploitation, with countries coming up with absurd and inhumane policies to limit the access to these rights, and creating a false dichotomy of the deserving and undeserving migrant.
In the UK, the situation is not different but, to a certain extent, more explicit. Ten years ago, in 2012, Theresa May, as Home Secretary, declared the intention to create a ‘really hostile environment’ for migrants without status. Since then, a set of policies and legislation have enshrined restrictions to access basic public services, such as healthcare and welfare support, as well as everyday needs like working, opening a bank account or renting suitable accommodation. It has also meant that many have not been able to report crime to the police safely, access life-saving support such as refuge accommodation for victims of gender-based abuse, or access justice. These policies have affected not only migrants but people from marginalised communities exposed to intersecting inequalities.
For migrant women, embedding immigration controls at the heart of their everyday lives has meant an increased risk of destitution, abuse and exploitation with significant impact on their mental and physical health. Over these ten years, we have witnessed how the hostile environment made migrants, particularly those of colour and with insecure legal status, more vulnerable to becoming victims of crime, susceptible to being over-surveilled, prone to becoming victims of racist attacks and to being discriminated against when in urgent need of support. We often see how state violence in the form of overspread immigration controls forces them to the margins with no options or alternatives to be safe.
There is a wealth of evidence showing that these restrictive policies had not only broken equalities law and breached the UK’s legal duties to safeguard children, but they did not even accomplish their objective to reduce irregular migration. In contrast, during these years, LAWRS have witnessed the devastating human cost of the hostile environment and its dehumanising effects on women who are seen as undeserving of rights because of their immigration status.
Ten years on, organisations such as LAWRS continue to resist and fight the hostile environment, envisioning a future in which migrants and marginalised communities will no longer be targeted and excluded, but able to have their human rights fulfilled.
Photo by: Ana Veintimilla
@anivinti
“No one is safe until everyone is safe”
Why we reject the Immigration Enforcement Migrant Victims’ Protocol
By LAWRS and FLEX
How we got here
In December 2018, Liberty and Southall Black Sisters brought the first ever super-complaint in UK history.[1] The super-complaint was submitted against both the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) and the Home Office and challenged the harmful practice whereby police share victim and witness data with the Home Office for immigration enforcement purposes. This complaint was grounded in a long-recognised concern that prioritising immigration enforcement over safeguarding puts victims and witnesses at risk, causes serious distress and is wholly counterproductive to the prevention of crime.
In response to the super-complaint, the investigative ‘Safe to Share?’ report was published by a group of police watchdogs in December 2020. The report reaffirmed that Home Office and police practice was causing victims and witnesses of crime with insecure or uncertain immigration status to be fearful of coming forward, worsening the risk of abuse and exploitation. Further, it concluded that significant harm is being caused to the public interest and that there is no evidence that data sharing arrangements safeguard victims of domestic abuse. The independent report asked the Home Office to produce a review of this practice and its legal framework.
The Review - failing victims
The Government laid its review of data sharing on migrant victims and witnesses of crime (the Review) before Parliament at the close of 2021. While recognising that data sharing for immigration enforcement can be a contributing factor to victims not reporting crime, and that exploiters and perpetrators ‘often use the victim’s immigration status to exert fear or control’ the Home Office failed to implement the changes that could prevent this. Instead, disregarding the evidence put forward by victims/survivors, by the anti-trafficking sector, and the ending violence against women and girls (VAWG) sector, the Home Office proposed an Immigration Enforcement Migrant Victims’ Protocol (the Protocol). The Protocol, which is yet to be implemented, will prevent immigration enforcement action against victims only while criminal investigations and proceedings are ongoing, and while the victims are being supported. It is unclear how victim status will be determined and there is no process for people who are witness to crime. As said by the Latin American Women's Rights Service and Southhall Black Sisters, the Protocol demonstrates the Home Office’s ‘unwillingness to soften, let alone dispense with, the harmful and discriminatory impact that its immigration policies have on those who are most in need of protection.’
Why we reject the Immigration Enforcement Migrant Victim’s Protocol
The Protocol fails to address the key concerns of victims with insecure migration status. Immigration enforcement will always be at odds with victim support and protection. Delaying immigration enforcement action until the post-investigation and proceeding period does not remove the victims’ and witnesses’ fears but merely defers the point at which the harms are triggered in some cases. Nevertheless, the Home Office insists that Immigration Enforcement holds a safeguarding function, going against the findings of the ‘Safe to Share?’ report in relation to domestic abuse victims, and the consistent position of the anti-trafficking and VAWG sectors and victims alike. Prioritising immigration enforcement undermines safeguarding and leaves victims vulnerable to continued exploitation and abuse by dissuading them from seeking help.
The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights’ 2019 research on eight countries including the UK, found that migrant workers rank their insecure status as the main reason they chose not to report exploitation. In this sense, the Home Office’s approach plays into the hands of exploiters who target those with insecure immigration status with impunity. The active involvement of immigration enforcement will have a detrimental effect on victims and witnesses with insecure or uncertain immigration status, leaving them unprotected.
Standing in solidarity with our colleagues supporting migrants and victims in the UK, we reject the Protocol - which only serves to worsen the Government’s hostile environment. As the Home Office is currently approaching organisations to add a fig-leaf of legitimacy to the Protocol despite its known flaws, we join the call to refuse to engage with the Home Office in the development of the Protocol or the campaign to raise awareness around it. No one is safe until everyone is safe.
Secure Reporting Now
The anti-trafficking and ending VAWG sectors recognise the need to establish secure reporting policies and procedures so that individuals with insecure immigration status feel able to engage with authorities in the first instance. In doing so law enforcement and labour market enforcement authorities must end the practice of sharing data on victims’ and witnesses’ migration status with immigration enforcement. As demonstrated by practice and guidance around the world, this is a workable and realistic solution.
Where secure reporting practices are in place, labour market enforcement authority and police referrals would also enable victims to access vital culturally and linguistically appropriate support from specialist organisations. Moreover, it would help them to receive legal advice to regularise their status and access the holistic support they need from those who can provide safe spaces and have expertise in safeguarding. As recognised by the Home Office, victims must be ‘treated first and foremost as victims’[2] regardless of their immigration status.
Where secure reporting pathways do not exist for victims, the provision of support and protection will be limited by increased distrust of authorities, victims not coming forward to report crimes, reduced identification of victims and perpetrators, and ultimately, the continued empowerment of exploiters who have an additional weapon in their arsenal to coerce victims. As set out in the explanatory report to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005 (ECAT), ‘the greater victims’ confidence that their rights and interests are protected, the better the information they will give.’[3]
[1] The police super-complaints system allows designated organisations to raise issues on behalf of the public about harmful patterns or trends in policing.
[2] Home Office, (2021) ‘Guidance - Review of data sharing: migrant victims and witnesses of crime,’ para. 18.
[3] Explanatory Report to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings – CETS 197 – Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, para. 181.
New publication: 'Preventing and Addressing Abuse and Exploitation: A Guide for Police and Labour Inspectors Working with Migrants'
As the Nationality and Borders Bill is making its way through the House of Lords, organisations in the migrants and refugees’, women’s and anti-trafficking sectors remain concerned about the harm that many of the proposals within the Bill would cause to migrant victims of serious crime. The Bill provides an opportunity to enshrine in legislation safeguarding provisions for those victims with insecure immigration status at the point of reporting a crime or accessing support.
In this context, two amendments (140 and 124A) were tabled by the Lord Bishop of London and Lord Coaker supported by the Latin American Women’s Rights Service (LAWRS) and Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX) to ensure that migrant victims of crime can report safely without fear of negative consequences due to their immigration status. Regrettably, both of them were rejected by the government.
Research by LAWRS shows that 1 in 2 migrant victims of violence against women and girls (VAWG) with insecure immigration status do not report abuse to the police for fear of disbelief, destitution, detention and deportation. Perpetrators often exploit women’s insecure status, telling them that if they approach the police they will not be supported and will instead be placed at risk of detention or removal because of their legal status.
In December 2020, in light of the first police super-complaint, independent watchdogs concluded that data sharing between the police and the Home Office harms victims and the public interest, as crimes are not reported and investigated, leaving perpetrators free to continue abusing other victims.
The Government, however, continues to oppose establishing effective safe reporting mechanisms. Instead, it is proposing an Immigration Enforcement (IE) Migrant Victims Protocol, which in our view would further institutionalise, legitimise and consolidate cooperation (through data-sharing) between the police and Immigration Enforcement. We reject this Protocol because we know this approach will not inspire let alone enhance victims’ confidence in reporting a crime. On the contrary, we maintain that the active involvement of Immigration Enforcement will have a harmful effect on migrant victims.
Safe reporting is possible
Our new publication in partnership with FLEX, Preventing and Addressing Abuse and Exploitation: A Guide for Police and Labour Inspectors Working with Migrants, outlines practical strategies to increase trust between the police and labour inspectors and migrant communities. Building on international good practice, these strategies aim at enabling migrants to securely reporte abuse and exploitation and allow agencies to access valuable intelligence to prevent and address these crimes.
Relevant decision makers and stakeholders such as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, and the Independent Victims’ Commissioner for London, Claire Waxman OBE, support the establishment of safe reporting mechanisms.
“It would be entirely wrong to frame this problem as insurmountable. As this important briefing outlines, there are clear success stories from around the world where communities have taken the decision to reprioritise and redesign justice. They have invested in constructive relationships between law enforcement and migrant communities; they have marshalled data and intelligence and created safe and secure routes for reporting; they have enabled police to access better intelligence and do their jobs more effectively; they have pushed back on national policies which seek to criminalise victims. Most importantly, they have provided dignity and safety to migrant victims. The issues and policies outlined in this briefing should be a rallying call to all decision makers, that we can and should decide that migrant lives are worth protecting and that the justice system is here for everyone.”
Claire Waxman OBE, Independent Victims’ Commissioner for London
Read the full guide:
Watch our videos on safe/secure reporting for migrant victims of crime:
Joint Response to the "Home Office and Police data sharing arrangements on migrant victims and witnesses of crime with insecure immigration status" Review
Data sharing between the police and Immigration Enforcement is an issue that has raised concerns about its impacts on migrant victims and witnesses of crime for years. It forms part of the government’s ‘hostile environment’ that has led organisations such as the Latin American Women’s Rights Service to report a significant increase in the number of women who are deterred from reporting serious crimes (including domestic abuse and modern slavery) owing to the legitimate fear and real possibility of facing detention and deportation.
In 2018, Southall Black Sisters and Liberty lodged the first-ever super-complaint on data sharing between the Police and the Home Office. In December 2020, the findings of the super-complaint investigation, led by three independent police watchdogs, were published. It concluded that these arrangements are significantly harming not only victims of crime but also the public interest, as crimes are not reported and therefore remain unpunished. The report also confirmed that in domestic abuse cases, data-sharing with Immigration Enforcement does not constitute safeguarding. Among many recommendations made, the police inspectorate bodies called for immediate action to stop this practice and recommended a review of the data-sharing schemes. The aim being to establish safe reporting mechanisms for all migrant victims and witnesses of crime.
In December 2021, the Government published the "Home Office and police data-sharing arrangements on migrant victims and witnesses of crime with insecure immigration status" review. The contents state that data-sharing with Immigration Enforcement (IE) is essential to protect victims. The Review rejects the need to establish a firewall that makes it safer for victims with insecure immigration status to approach the police to report crimes safely. Instead, an IE Migrant Victims Protocol was proposed, this protocol is meant to prevent immigration enforcement action against victims whilst criminal investigations and proceedings are ongoing. The Home Office believes that information sharing between the police and IE is necessary to safeguard and protect vulnerable victims of crime.
LAWRS research shows that victims of VAWG with insecure immigration status are unlikely to approach the police because they believe that the police will prioritise their lack of legal status instead of being protected as victims of serious crimes. These fears are based on years of hostile immigration policies that prevent migrant victims from accessing safety and justice. We, therefore, disagree with the Government’s view that Immigration Enforcement is playing a safeguarding role as it is clear its primary role is to enforce immigration laws, using detention and deportation as its primary tools.
We believe a complete firewall on data-sharing between the police and immigration enforcement is the most appropriate safe reporting mechanism. This would allow victims and witnesses to feel confident in approaching the police to report crimes and are more likely to engage in criminal proceedings which will, in turn, allow the police to hold perpetrators to account and prevent crime. However, the Home Office Review and the Immigration Enforcement (IE) Migrant Victims Protocol have failed to address the harm generated by data-sharing and failed to guarantee safety in reporting to the police without the fear of detention or deportation.
We reject the Protocol. It only serves to continue and heighten the Government’s hostile immigration policy and as such, we will not be engaging with the Home Office in its development. Our commitment is to ensure all victims can be safe, irrespective of their migrant status. We’ll continue to campaign and advocate for appropriate safe reporting mechanisms that are meaningful to the women we serve in forthcoming legislation and policy processes.
Read our full response here.
This joint response is supported by:
Latin American Women’s Rights Service
Step Up Migrant Women Campaign
Southall Black Sisters
Liberty
Focus on Labour Exploitation
Kalayaan
Middle Eastern Women & Society Organisation
Asian Women’s Resource Centre
The Voice of Domestic Workers
Imkaan
Safety4Sisters North West
Kanlungan Filipino Consortium
The Angelou Centre
Contact: Elizabeth Jiménez-Yáñez
Policy and Communications coordinator on VAWG
elizabeth@lawrs.org.uk
077 1396 7767
Press release: Home Office Review on data-sharing on migrant victims is not fit for purpose, say women’s rights and civil liberties groups
Southall Black Sisters (SBS), Latin American Women’s Rights Service (LAWRS) and Liberty have condemned the Government’s refusal to institute a firewall that would protect victims and witnesses of crime.
Liberty and SBS filed the first ever police super-complaint in December 2018, over the systematic sharing of victim data with immigration enforcement. The super-complaint, accompanied by 50 pages of evidence, showed that this practice was preventing victims of crime, particularly migrant women, from speaking to the police and putting them at risk.
In response, police watchdogs, HMICFRS, the College of Policing (CoP) and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) called for immediate action to stop this practice. Their report made clear that data-sharing acted as a deterrent to victims reporting crime, and that data-sharing caused significant harm to the public interest because of victims’ inability to seek protection or justice.
Today, Wednesday 15 December, the government announced the outcome of a Home Office Review[1] on data sharing between the police and Immigration Enforcement concerning migrant victims and witnesses of crime. The review makes no reference to police watchdogs’ response to SBS’ and Liberty’s super-complaint.
Pragna Patel, director of Southall Black Sisters said: “As organisations that work with some of the most vulnerable and deprived migrant victims of domestic abuse, we reject this Review and its findings.
This Review is the outcome of three years of engagement with the Home Office that has proved itself to be untrustworthy. We have been compelled to engage in meaningless consultations and meetings on data sharing with the Home Office (which we did in good faith) only to be told that the immigration system – in its present cruel, discriminatory and inhuman form – must be maintained at any cost. It makes us question not only the Home Office’s dubious claims to support all victims of abuse but also the very purpose of police-super-complaints mechanism since the outcomes are casually disregarded by the very institutions that we seek to hold accountable.”
Gisela Valle, director of the Latin American Women’s Rights Service said: “We are deeply disappointed to see that once again immigration enforcement takes precedence over the security and support needs of survivors of domestic abuse. It is contradictory for the Police and the Home Office to reiterate that survivors of domestic abuse are treated as a victim first and foremost but only insofar as it doesn’t affect the enforcement of immigration laws. Considering the ample evidence of the manipulation of survivors’ insecure immigration status by perpetrators of domestic abuse, we consider prioritising immigration enforcement over the safety of victims the state amounts to complicity in the coercion and control of migrant victims of domestic abuse.”
Liberty lawyer Lara ten Caten said: “It has never been clearer than during the pandemic – when countless people have been shut off from health services due to the risk of having their health data shared with immigration enforcement – that this practice puts lives at risk.
“The super-complaint brought by Liberty and Southall Black Sisters sought a firewall between police and the home office for immigration enforcement purposes so that victims and witnesses of crime would feel safe in coming forward. This decision by the Home Office not to implement a firewall ignores or plays down the fact that routine police discrimination already makes it harder, even dangerous, for people from marginalised backgrounds to interact with the police. This practice actively puts them, and everyone in society, at risk of crime.
“No one is safe until everyone is safe. We urge the government to reconsider their decision and implement a firewall.”
Pragna Patel, director of SBS, and Gisela Valle, director of LAWRS, added: “The Home Office is trying to re-brand Immigration Enforcement as a ‘safeguarding’ service when data sharing is a key plank of the Government’s hostile environment policy - which we say must be scrapped. This is why we strongly disagree with the proposal to create an Immigration Enforcement Migrant Victims Protocol which will in fact consolidate the sharing of domestic abuse victims' data between the police and immigration enforcement as a standardised practice across all police forces nationally. Safeguarding is clearly incompatible with the Home Office’s immigration enforcement role which is its primary purpose.
The Government told us that it was committed to a full review of the ‘hostile or compliant’ environment following the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, but the outcome of the Home Office Review provides further evidence of its unwillingness to soften, let alone dispense with, the harmful and discriminatory impact that its immigration policies have on those who are most in need of protection. The impact of data sharing has been particularly damaging during the coronavirus pandemic when migrant women experiencing domestic abuse have faced the double threat of being trapped with their attackers but unable to go to the police.”
Contact Gisela Valle at gisela@lawrs.org.uk Pragna Patel at pragna@southallblacksisters.co.uk
Notes to Editors:
- The Home Office report is available atReview of data sharing: migrant victims and witnesses of crime - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). The Review arose out of the first ever police super-complaint that was jointly submitted by Southall Black Sisters and Liberty in 2018 which highlighted how data sharing between the police and Immigration Enforcement deterred migrant women subject to domestic and sexual abuse and other vulnerable victims or witnesses of crime from reporting to the police. Findings from an HMICFRC investigation into the police super-complaint upheld the complaint and made clear that data-sharing was a deterrent; that there were inconsistencies and confusion across police forces about how to deal with victims and witnesses who have insecure immigration status and most significantly that harm was caused to the public interest by the victim’s inability to seek protection or justice. Despite this, the government refused to introduce statutory measures of protection including a fire wall between the police and Immigration Enforcement for migrant victims during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill (now an Act) in Parliament and instead committed to undertaking a Review of the matter.
International Human Rights Day 2021 - By the WARMI collective
Today, 10 December, marks not only the end of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence, but also International Human Rights Day.
As migrant women, experience has taught us that anyone can be a victim of violence, but certain traits that shape our identity, such as gender, race and migration status, increase vulnerability and restrict our ability to obtain support.
The hostile environment towards migrants, which was established more than a decade ago in the UK with the aim of reducing immigration, has led millions of people to see their fundamental rights violated. As a consequence, for example, many migrant women are not accessing medical care, because they are unsure about their rights, because they cannot afford treatment, or because they are afraid of falling into debt.
Because of our immigration status we are also often prevented from working, having to depend economically on other people and increasing our vulnerability, or having access only to exploitative jobs. It is also because of these hostile policies that, as victims, many of us are afraid to seek help from the police, for fear that they will share our personal details with the Home Office, that we will be arrested or deported, or simply that they will not believe us.
This year, according to the United Nations (UN), the theme of Human Rights Day is EQUALITY. According to article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 'all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights'. At WARMI we ask: we all have the same rights, but are we able to exercise them with equality?
We want a State that recognises our value and our rights as human beings. We want our bodies and experiences not to be reduced to stereotypes. We want to report abuse and not to be doubted. We want victims not to become suspects. We want better working conditions and the possibility of economic empowerment. We want safety before status. We want to live without fear.
We have the right to a life free of violence. We have the right to a life of dignity. We have the right to be free from discrimination, to have our culture respected, to be able to live freely in family and community. We have rights, and we are going to assert them.
Below we have created a list of what we want to change in society to achieve respect so that we can live a safe and dignified life.
- We want the British government to officially recognise Latin Americans as an ethnic minority in the UK.
- We want an active fight against discrimination.
- We want to work in decent conditions, with wages that recognise our efforts, and for employers who do not comply with the law to be held accountable.
- We want closer and stricter inspection of companies, for example cleaning companies, separate from immigration enforcement, to ensure that they comply with workers' rights and safety.
- We want more funding for ESOL classes, with availability for people working anti-social hours.
- We want for the National Health Service (NHS) to provide free healthcare for all, including undocumented people.
- We want better funding for local authorities, statutory services and specialised community organisations and fair access to interpreters so migrant women fleeing gender-based violence can safely report their perpetrators.
- We want the police to put our safety before our immigration status and not to share our personal data with the Home Office.
- We want a fair and compassionate asylum system, which protects the rights of refugees, and we firmly oppose the Nationality and Borders Bill’s creation of a tier-system, discriminating asylum seekers according to how they arrive in the UK.
- We want decolonised education that includes and respects Indigenous and African knowledge.
- We want to be at the center of the debate and decisions on immigration and women's protection laws.
Migrant rights are human rights.
The Warmi collective
At Sin Fronteras we take care of ourselves
Sin Fronteras, the LAWRS youth group, presents its first Guide to personal well-being for young women, named: "This is who we are. Taking care of ourselves".
The Guide is launched as part of the 16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence, a feminist activist campaign, which begins on 25 November with the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. This Guide is a contribution to the LAWRS campaign that reminds us the importance of taking care of ourselves as a strategy to prevent all forms of violence against women and girls.
The Guide includes informative content on personal well-being issues (such as healthy relationships, abuse and self-esteem), as well as tips, advice, exercises and resources. It also includes the voices of the young Latin American migrant girls who participate in the Sin Fronteras group, which is the result of a collective creation, compiling what they shared in the well-being group sessions, organised by the Sin Fronteras project and facilitated by the LAWRS youth counselor.
In this way, the girls of the Sin Fronteras group add their voices to the fight for the elimination of violence against women and girls, highlighting the importance of taking care of ourselves.
"Talking about these issues is very important, especially in these stressful times. It's good to be able to focus on mental health and how we are affected if we don't take care of ourselves".
Participant of the Sin Fronteras Group - LAWRS.
In our Sin Fronteras group, we know that well-being is important for our mental health, and physical and emotional growth; and this Guide is an effort to reach out to those girls and young women who need to hear this message of encouragement.
"It is important to know that you are not alone! You are not the only one who has felt sad".
Participant of the Sin Fronteras Group - LAWRS.
This Guide was prepared with love for all of them and to remind them that: you are not alone!
Special thanks to all the young women who attended the well-being group sessions. Thank you for sharing your experiences, opinions, feelings, and love, for nurturing the conversation, and for being supportive of each other.
Download here the Guide "This is who we are. Taking care of ourselves":
*Document available in Spanish.
--
Join us
If you are a young Latin American woman, between 14 and 24 years old, and you want to participate in our free activities, or join our Sin Fronteras group: sign up on our Google form or contact us for more information:
Whatsapp: 07802 645001
Instagram: @sin_fronteras_lawrs
www.lawrs.org.uk/sin-fronteras/
Hi, this is Julia from LAWRS, is it safe for you to speak?
Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and the beginning of the 16 days of Activism. We’re kicking off a series of activities to increase awareness of the barriers and needs of the Latin American women experiencing VAWG in the UK with this blog post about the unique journey that every victim/survivor has and the support our team of VAWG caseworkers can offer them.
Being a Latin American VAWG caseworker
There are procedures and guidelines that we follow when calling a survivor of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) for the first time. But survivors of abuse have different experiences and they might be in distinct moments of their journeys. Even though we are prepared for this, what happens after a survivor picks up the phone is quite unpredictable.
Women experiencing VAWG sometimes feel there is something wrong in their relationship but they cannot quite name it. So they come to LAWRS to have someone listen to them and to perhaps learn more about violence against women and girls as a whole. Usually, once we start the conversation about the types and cycle of abuse, they recognise themselves as victims of domestic abuse. This can be a very difficult moment. What happens next depends on what their needs and priorities are.
Others come to our service fully aware of their situation and able to name it: I’m a survivor of domestic abuse. They might not be ready to leave their perpetrator, but they want to understand their options. They come to LAWRS in search of advice on different issues: how to report a crime to the police, protective orders, parental rights and consequences to their children, how to get a divorce, what happens with their immigration status, emotional support, English lessons, booking an appointment with their GP, access to interpreters and so on.
In some cases, women come to us at the point where they need to flee the house and escape the abuse because the violence has escalated. They might be homeless, destitute, in need of medical help and feeling like they are stuck in a horrible and endless situation. We explore their options together and discuss their plans.
In the Latin American community, due to a lack of support network, structural inequalities, the language barrier, the lack of knowledge of the system, the isolation and insecure immigration status, many women endure violence and abuse for extensive periods, and often until it becomes a high risk situation, because they think they don’t have other options. Perpetrators will exploit the victim’s vulnerability, including in some cases their insecure immigration status, to manipulate and further abuse them.
“If you report me to the police, I will report you to the Home Office”
“If you leave me, you will be deported and I will keep the children”
“If you don’t do what I want, I will call immigration control on you”.
Our role at LAWRS is to listen to the victim/survivor, to remind her that this is not her fault and that we believe her. We also connect them with relevant services for further necessary information and support. We walk alongside them in their journey, always understanding and accepting that what happens after that initial phone call, depends on the survivor’s needs and priorities. This means that she decides what to do with the information she now has. Women are experts of their experience; they know what’s best for them. Our duty is to support them to get there and to make sure they don’t walk alone.
Do you know how to identify sexual harassment in the workplace?
Almost every woman, trans or non-binary person you know can, unfortunately, tell you about an experience in which they have been a victim of gender-based violence – from being catcalled to sexual assault. If you are a woman, trans or non-binary person yourself, this is most likely not news to you.
Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) is embedded in our society’s patriarchal structure in which men have traditionally controlled the power. It is present in all the spheres of our lives, especially in our relationships – whether they are with family members, partners or colleagues. It affects all of us, but its effects can be more harmful for those who are part of minority groups (migrants, women of colour, LGBTQ+, undocumented people, etc.).
Sexual harassment is a form of VAWG which may also occur in the workplace.
It can manifest itself in sexist practices, ranging from “casual” and seemingly harmless habits – such as a joke or a gesture – to sexual assault and even feminicide – the killing of a woman on the basis of her gender. Certain behaviours have become so normalised that, sometimes, we fail to recognize that they are acts of violence.
So, what is sexual harassment in the workplace?
It is any unwelcome sexual behaviour that creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or humiliating working environment and which has the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a worker.
To better understand the presence of these elements, you should also take into account that:
- A sexual behaviour may comprise physical, verbal, and non-verbal conducts (e.g., texts and images);
- It doesn’t matter if the perpetrator alleges they didn’t intend to make the victim feel uncomfortable;
- Free and valid consent is key in any adult sexual contact;
- The victim doesn’t need to have a written contract from their employer to receive protection;
- When one’s dignity is affected, it may lead to feelings of shame, humiliation, fear, frustration, vulnerability; and
- A hostile environment may be intimidating, degrading, humiliating or offensive.
Can you recognise sexual harassment in the workplace?
Sexual harassment in the workplace can be a serious incident of sexual assault, but it can also be a less obvious conduct which makes you uncomfortable. It may be sexual comments or jokes about yourself or a colleague; physical behaviour, including unwelcome sexual advances – such as touching, hugging or kissing, and various forms of sexual assault. It also includes displaying pictures, photos or drawings of a sexual nature – such as circulating pornography, by email or WhatsApp, or having pictures of naked/semi-naked women in the workplace. It could be, as well, requests or demands for sexual favours, or even leering or staring inappropriately.
If you are unsure whether you have been a victim of sexual harassment, or you want to protect yourself or a colleague from it, you can ask yourself the following questions:
- Have I been exposed to a conduct of a sexual nature in the workplace coming from a superior or colleague?
- Has such behaviour been undesired and/or unrequested by me?
- Has such behaviour affected my dignity as a person?
- Has the situation created a hostile environment in my workplace?
It is important to know that sexual harassment in the workplace, and other forms of abuse of power and VAWG, are illegal – most of them punishable by law. The UK has a legal system containing rules that protect you from these behaviours, and that enshrine your rights, especially those ensuring you can live your life with dignity and free of violence.
You can promote the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace, by requesting your employer to have a clear, comprehensive policy in place against sexual harassment. In case of an alleged sexual harassment case, this policy will alert all parties to their rights, roles and responsibilities. It should also set out how to promptly and efficiently deal with a sexual harassment claim.
If you think that you or a friend or colleague have been victim of sexual harassment in the workplace, you can contact your Union’s Women Officer and/ or representative. They can guide you on what to do next. You can also contact specialist organisations such as the Latin American Women’s Rights Service (LAWRS), through our Helpline 0808- 145-4909 or by email: info@lawrs.org.uk.
If the harassment is very serious, it might also be a crime. If a colleague or supervisor has sexually assaulted you or made physical threats, or you are worried about your safety, you can contact the police or the National Health Service (NHS). You have a right to ask for an interpreter when you speak to them.
Always remember that you are not alone, and that it is not your fault.
Family courts and migrant women
In 2019, LAWRS and the Step Up Migrant Women campaign published The Right to be Believed, accounting for the barriers that prevent victims with insecure immigration status from reporting abuse to the police. Among the multiple testimonies collected for the report, Katia* told us that her perpetrator 'inch by inch used the system', referring to how he used the knowledge he had of the system to prolong the abuse towards her. From our frontline work, we know that the way perpetrators exploit their knowledge of the system to abuse women is present at every stage of a victims' pathway to safety, including accessing the family justice system.
The Harm Report published in 2020 found that four main overarching barriers negatively shape the responses and outcomes for victims of domestic abuse when accessing the family courts system: resource constraints, pro-contact culture, working in silos and an adversarial system. For migrant women, these barriers are magnified by structural inequalities. They encounter multiple and overlapping obstacles to accessing redress such as discrimination, racism, hostile policies, lack of knowledge of their rights when attending court, and difficulties understanding the complexity of the legal system in the UK.
LAWRS’ service users often feel that the family courts are an extension of the abuse they sought to escape when leaving perpetrators. They feel disempowered in a system that they perceive as undermining their experiences of domestic abuse, does not provide them with tools to defend themselves in court on equal grounds, and denies them their right to live free from violence. In many cases, migrant women are discriminated against because of protected characteristics and because of their immigration status. As detailed in the Harm Report, this situation is particularly acute in the resolution of custody and child contact arrangements, as evidenced by cases of migrant women who lose custody of their children to their perpetrators, despite the allegations of domestic abuse.
Access to information and rights
A critical barrier for abused migrant women in accessing justice is the lack of understanding of the system. As part of the cycles of abuse, migrant victims are isolated and given false information about their rights. This limited access to information is critical because it prevents them from knowing their entitlement to provisions they can access when entering the family court system.
For migrant women whose first language is not English, language barriers play a significant obstacle in accessing justice. In combination with the lack of understanding of the system, women might not be aware of their right to access interpreters, a situation that puts victims in a disadvantaged position when opposing perpetrators that speak English. Moreover, even in cases where women request interpreters, these are not provided.
Recently, we supported Laura* and her child, who were denied help by the police and the local authority because of their insecure immigration status. After she fled her household, the perpetrator took her to family court. During the first emergency hearing, she was not provided with an interpreter, despite the request made by her caseworker. As a result, she did not have a real chance to make her case and adequately disclose the abuse she and her child have been subjected to. In contrast, her perpetrator had no issue in expressing himself in court. Furthermore, this situation negatively affected Laura's mental well-being. She felt utterly vulnerable as she did not understand any of the allegations the perpetrator made against her.
In addition, the judge centred the session on questioning Laura about her immigration status and whether she was applying to regularise it. The judge did not consider that Laura's irregular status is a consequence of her perpetrator's coercive and controlling behaviour, who refused to make an application for Laura and her child. This is a clear example of the adversarial system migrant women subjected to abuse experience when accessing the family courts. Furthermore, it illustrates how the lack of a gender perspective within the justice system can obstruct the understanding of a case and negatively impact those who are already at a disadvantage.
Court system as an extension of abuse
Our evidence shows that perpetrators further exert coercion and control through the family courts. This is related to the adversarial nature of the system that forces women to face perpetrators under uneven conditions. The complexity of navigating the court system is compounded by the difficulties in accessing legal aid for victims of abuse. In a number of cases, our service users have had to represent themselves despite their vulnerability, owing to imposed structural barriers and the effects of having endured abuse for extended periods of time.
Cuts to legal aid and the increased restrictions to access it have had a significant impact on migrant victims who, as mentioned above, are usually unaware of the way the legal system operates in the UK in contrast to perpetrators having the upper hand in knowing the system better than women and therefore using this as an advantage to manipulate the system in their favour.
Maria* endured more than 7 years of multiple forms of abuse. In 2020, she lost custody of her child. Contrary to Maria, who did not manage to have legal representation due to the difficulties of accessing legal aid, her perpetrator had the means to pay for a solicitor to represent him at court. Maria came to our service asking for support as she felt her voice was not heard and the abuse exerted towards her was not considered when giving custody of her child to her perpetrator.
Furthermore, as the Harm report shows, our service users face threats of being taken to court, exposing them to further victimisation, as their vulnerabilities are not taken into consideration.
Luisa* came to our service as her perpetrator used the family court as a tool to continue abusing her. He often took her to court accusing her of harassment when she raised concerns about anything related to their child. He also made false allegations against Maria’s mental health and accused her of parental alienation.
Undermining of domestic abuse in family courts
The Harm Report shone a light on the difficulties that victims face in their experiences of domestic abuse being considered when the family courts make decisions such as child contact arrangements. The evidence that informed the report shows the way that domestic abuse is minimised and not properly considered in family courts. In the case of migrant women, our experience shows that in a number of cases frontline professionals and judges focus their interventions on denying support or questioning women's legal status rather than treating them as victims first and foremost. Resulting from hostile environment policies, migrant victims are seen first as potential immigration offenders who are “playing the system”. As a result of this narrative, migrant victims are punished and disbelieved despite the fact that in many cases their irregular status is a consequence of the abuse they experience.
Pro-contact culture
In cases where the women we support manage to retain the custody of their children, abuse is further exerted through child contact arrangements. This situation worsened during the Covid-19 pandemic when perpetrators exploited lockdowns to extend abuse to victims through child contact. We agree with the report findings showing that priority on ensuring contact with the non-resident parent can risk the wellbeing of victims and children.
Since the beginning of the first lockdown, Ana*, who held custody of her child, has experienced emotional and psychological abuse through child contact. As the pandemic worsened, Ana worried that the lack of care from her perpetrator could impact her and her child's health as he did not take any measures to protect himself from the virus. Lately, he refused to share his new address with her, despite taking her child with him. Ana is scared to take him back to the family courts as he has threatened her with challenging the custody of the child if they go back to the family court, as he is a UK citizen. As the case portrays, the pro-contact culture represents a risk of extended abuse and risk of neglect of children from perpetrators.
Conclusion
In general, family courts have been shown not to be spaces in which migrant victims feel safe and can access justice. Victims with insecure immigration status are continuously told by perpetrators that they will be disbelieved and that any intervention will be focused on their legal status. This fear is not unfounded, as the evidence presented here shows. Imposed structural barriers play a critical role in aggravating the negative experiences of migrant women.
*Names have been changed