- All right.
Good morning and good
afternoon to you all.
I see folks are entering the room.
We're gonna give about a
few minutes to allow folks
to get in and get settled
before we get started
with the actual session.
And my name is Nana Brantuo,
and I am the Policy Manager
for the National Domestic
Violence Hotline.
Thank you all so much
for joining us today.
Okay, so good morning to some.
Good afternoon to others.
My name is Nana Brantuo,
and I am the Policy Manager
for the National Domestic
Violence Hotline.
I wanted to extend my
appreciation to all of you
for joining us today for a
critical and timely conversation
on the role of intersectionality
and survivor-centered
advocacy and policymaking.
Before we go into today's agenda,
and before I give brief introductions
of our wonderful speakers,
I wanted to take a moment
to recognize and honor all
of those Black folks whose lives
have been taken as a result
of police violence and brutality,
United States and globally.
I wanted to uplift all those
who are using platforms
in any way possible to amplify
that Black lives matter.
And I wanted to encourage folks
to visit the Movement
for Black Lives  website
to learn more about
the demands and actions
that have been crafted by
the Movement for Black Lives
in defense of Black life.
And today's demand is really central
to our conversation that
we'll be having today,
as it calls for the immediate
relief of our communities
and specifically moving the
development and creation
and implementation of a stimulus package
that has clear material
benefits for Black people.
And I'm going to drop the
link in the chat as well,
just so folks are able to be connected
and to learn more about what's going on.
Before jumping into our conversation,
I wanna take an opportunity
to introduce our speakers.
And then after introducing our speakers,
we'll hear from The Hotline CEO.
Katie Ray-Jones, will talk a bit
about The Hotline's commitment
to intersectionality
and then we'll get right
into the conversation.
So today, starting with Andrea J. Ritchie.
Andrea J. Ritchie is a Black
lesbian immigrant survivor
who is engaged in research, advocacy
and litigation focused on
policing and criminalization
of women and LGBTQ people of color
over the past two decades.
She's the author of, "Invisible No More:
Police Violence Against Black
Women and Women of Color."
And co-author of, "Say Her
Name: Resisting Police Brutality
Against Black Women"
and "Queer Injustice, The Criminalization
"of LGBTQ People in the United States."
She is a nationally
recognized expert on issues
of policing and gender-based violence
and is currently a researcher
of evidence on race, gender
and sexuality and criminalization
at the The Bernard Center
for the Research on Women
in New York City.
Thank you so much for joining us, Andrea.
We are also joined
today by April Jimerson,
who serves at the Director of Training
for the National Domestic
Violence Hotline,
where she develops curriculum
and provides The
Hotline's 95-hour training
on domestic violence,
healthy relationships
and culturally responsive advocacy
to new and tenured advocates year-round.
April completed her Master's
in Counseling Psychology
from Texas A&M International University
and holds over 500 hours of
clinical therapy experience
and over nine years
experience providing training
and education in the helping field,
serving both non-profit and
higher education organizations.
April is invested in the movement
towards violence prevention and reduction
and is dedicated to employing
a social justice lens
to advocate for survivors of abuse
and center the needs of the most affected
and most marginalized populations.
Thank you so much for joining us, April.
That's next followed by Leigh Goodmark.
Leigh Goodmark is a Marjorie
Cook Professor of Law
at the University of Maryland,
Francis King Carey School of Law.
Professor Goodmark directs
the Clinical Law Program,
teaches Family Law, Gender in Law
and Gender Violence in the Law
and directs the Gender Violence Clinic.
Professor Goodmark is the author of
"Decriminalizing Domestic Violence:
A Balanced Policy Approach
to Intimate Partner Violence"
and "A Troubled Marriage:
Domestic Violence
and the Legal System,"
which was named a Choice
Outstanding Academic Title of 2012.
Professor Goodmark's work
on intimate partner violence
has appeared in numerous
journals, law reviews
and publications, including;
"Violence Against Women,"
"The Harvard Civil Rights-Civil
Liberties Law Review,"
"The Yale Journal on Law and Feminism,"
and "The New York Times."
And last, but not least, Mariah Monsanto
who uses she/they pronouns,
is a Black femme queer woman,
all at once and all of the time
and current organizer for
BYP100's National Campaign,
She Safe, We Safe.
BYP100 is a Black autonomous
base-building organization
that believes in
addressing social injustice
using Black queer feminist practices.
The She Safe, We Safe Campaign aims
to end gender-based violence
perpetuated by the state
and experienced by Black
women, girls, femmes
and gender non-conforming
folk by re-allocating funds
from police and into
community-determined programs
and increasing interventions
to address gender violence
independent from law enforcement.
Thank you all so much
for joining us today.
I now would like to pass
it over to Katie Ray-Jones,
The Hotline CEO to talk more
about The Hotline's commitment
to intersectionality.
- Thank you Nana so much
for the introduction
As Nana mentioned, I'm Katie Ray-Jones.
I'm CEO of the National
Domestic Violence Hotline.
It's my honor and privilege
to serve in this role.
I wanna thank you all for
joining our policy team today
to discuss the importance
of intersectionality
in policymaking and advocacy
that center survivors.
In this moment it's crucial
for allies to show up,
for communities closest to the pain,
uplift their efforts and messages
and actively join together
against white supremacy.
We must actively work towards
dismantling the systems
that oppress Black, indigenous
and non-Black communities
of color that far too often
impact many of the survivors
we work with daily.
On that note, I'm glad
that this critical
conversation's happening.
I feel it's way overdue and I apologize
that The Hotline has not had
this conversation sooner.
First things, a few
things about The Hotline,
in February of 1996 the
Hotline took our first call.
Since then we've received and served
over five million callers,
chatters and texts
from across the country
and our US territories
in order to fulfill our vision and mission
which is moving towards a world
in which all relationships
are positive, healthy
and free from violence.
The Hotline has several core
values that guide our work,
including valuing diverse perspectives
and striving to incorporate
an anti-oppression lens
in all aspects of our work.
All of our work begins
and ends with the interest
of survivors of
relationship abuse in mind.
And our commitment to social justice
is also commitment to intersectionality.
Intersectionality helps us better frame
and better address the
needs and experiences
of survivors from underserved,
culturally specific communities.
We are currently in the process
of analyzing our data from our contacts
to track how COVID-19
impacts victims and survivors
of domestic violence, and we
know that any external factors
that add stress, isolation
and financial strain
can create circumstances
where a survivor's safety
is further compromised.
This pandemic has elements of all three.
While you'll have to tune
into our social media
when the full report is released,
here are a few snapshots.
From March 16th to May 16th we answered
over 62,000 contacts
and we had a 9% increase
in total contacts received.
We've heard from survivors
how COVID-19 was being
used by their abusers.
And in one story we heard that a caller
who had tested positive for COVID-19,
their abuser was keeping them in isolation
and preventing them from
contacting their family.
The survivor was on a path
to becoming an American
citizen, but the abuser
continually threatened the
survivor with deportation.
One of the most important services
our amazing advocates offer
is personalized safety planning.
And this is especially critical
as survivors navigate
shelter-in-place orders
and reduced local domestic
violence support services,
because of social distancing.
The long-term impacts of COVID-19
will be far-reaching long
after this pandemic ends
and our top priority remains
keeping our staff safe
while continuing to serve survivors.
We are grateful for all those who
have been sharing our information
and reaching out to
survivors in their lives.
And we wanna thank you
again for joining us
in this necessary conversation
and we look forward
to the questions and
feedback it generates.
Back over to you Nana and
thank you for inviting me.
- Thank you so much, Katie, for sharing.
And now we can jump into the conversation.
I'm ready to give the
first question for today.
And I'm looking forward to
hearing all the panelist's
thoughts and opinions and perspectives.
So Kimberle Crenshaw has
described intersectionality
as, "a prism for seeing the
way in which various forms
"of inequality often operate together
"and exacerbate each other."
I wanted to hear more in terms of
when you're centering experiences
and the needs of survivors
in both advocacy and policy,
especially those from
marginalized communities,
why is it so necessary that
our framing is intersectional?
Why is it so necessary
that when we are thinking
through solutions,
we're thinking from an
intersectional lens?
And I wanted to then open up for any
of our panelists to begin discussion.
- I guess I'll jump in.
Um, (chuckling) just 'cause I,
I think from the perspective,
just I'm thinking about it particularly
in the context of police violence
which we're sort of all very
focused on at this moment.
I think my work has been about ensuring
that we take an intersectional
approach to police violence
because if we don't
understand the full scope
of the problem, then we're
not gonna advance solutions
that address the complexity
of what we're facing.
So for instance, in the context
of state violence against Black people,
if we don't understand
Breonna Taylor's case
and Tony McDade's case
as part of our analysis
alongside George Floyd's
then we're not gonna
understand the full range
of how police violence plays out,
what the drivers are and what
kinds of solutions we need.
And that's, to me, the reason that we need
to be looking at it and we can't,
you know, all Black lives matter,
we can't be leaving anyone behind.
And so we can't be looking
at a problem through a lens
that doesn't incorporate the
perspectives of survivors,
Black survivors of
multiple forms of violence.
We can't do it without
looking through the lens
of experiences of Black disabled people,
of Black indigenous
people, of Black migrants.
And if we leave anyone out
then the solutions we come up
with or we pursue are gonna
leave our family behind
and we can't do that.
- Yeah hello everyone.
Thank you so much Andrea for joining us
there for the start.
Definitely what she said
in terms of we say Black lives matter.
All Black lives matter.
There's so many iterations of
Black that cannot be ignored
and we can't afford to not
consider if we're gonna make sure
that everybody victory.
I'm thinking of Black
differently-abled people.
I'm thinking of Black migrant.
I'm thinking of Black neuroatypical folks.
And you know, I'm super
appreciative of the solidarity
that's been shown as
of late on social media
with the social activism,
which is a bit misplaced
in terms of blacking out
was meant to uplift the work
that folks have been doing on the ground.
But what I've also noticed
is a selective choosing
on who deserves to be mourned.
There's plenty of people
who have been memorialized
in beautiful artwork, but
I don't see the Nina Pop's
and I don't see the Tony McDade's as much.
And again, when that happens
it's a moral decision
on who deserves to be
mourned and who deserves
to be cared about.
And so, yeah, intersectionality's gonna
be more important in terms of considering
how we frame our social justice work,
how we frame our policy work
and also when we consider
where our morals and values lie
in terms of city budgets, council budgets
and where the resources
go into our community.
- So I would just add that I also think
that intersectionality
helps us to undo some
of the historical harm
that's been done in the way
that the Anti-Violence
Movement characterized
who was a victim of violence.
In order to make political gains,
this movement said frequently
to anyone who would listen,
you know, this is not just a
problem of people of color.
This is not just a problem of poor people.
It's everybody's problem.
And part of that was about
getting the white people
in power to be willing
to do something about it,
that if they thought it
would be their sisters,
or their daughters, or their mothers
who were being affected,
they would be more likely to do the work.
And while it's not untrue that all people
can be affected by
intimate partner violence,
it is also true that people
are disproportionately affected
and that they are disproportionately
affected by virtue
of race, by virtue of socioeconomic class,
by virtue of disability.
And when we erase those and of the ways
in which people are
disproportionately affected we
then dilute policymaking on behalf
of those folks who are most marginalized.
And so intersectionality lets
us kind of come back from
that historical place of saying,
it's everyone's problem,
to say, well it may be everyone's problem,
but for some folks it's
particularly debilitating,
let's talk about the ways
in which identities create
and reinforce oppression.
- Hello, I'm April and I'm
the Director of Training
at The Hotline, so I can speak to how,
when it comes to advocacy,
without an intersectional framework lens,
we'd be missing the marks significantly.
Even if we bring it to
the most basic model
that is used widely in
the intimate partner
violence field right, the
Power and Control Model,
there's a lot that kinda
comes with a lot of asterisks
when the field is using that model
because it's missing
multiplicities of identities right.
It's a very gendered model.
It's a very heteronormative model.
It assumes it's a relationship
between men and women
and assumes that the abusive partner
is the man in the relationship.
And so if I were to only
use that in the training
for our new advocates we would
be having a huge disservice
for the survivors and we would
not be centering their needs.
And so we have fortunately
been able to pull
from all of the adopted versions
of that Power and Control Model
that include different
populations, so LGBTQ populations.
We have been able to refer to
some that focus specifically
on sex trafficking done by Polaris Project
and we need to kind of
include all of those models
in order to talk about
this one type of violence
and to really have that at the forefront.
Because if we were to stick
to that base Duluth Model,
we'd be not fully taking
in the experience,
or the full experience
of what our survivors are
actually living through.
So what are the multiplicities
of tactics that are being used?
Are there racist tactics
that their abusive partners are using?
We see this a lot with our
migrant survivors as well.
And so without that
intersectionality framework
we'd be not serving everyone who's calling
at the Hotline and meeting their needs.
- Thank you so much for that April.
Thank you to all of you
really for you prospective
and what you're offering,
because it's very important
to keep all of this in
mind, in particular,
in the current moment
throughout the pandemic.
And now I wanted to ask
and I'm hoping April
and Mariah you would be
able to offer insight,
in particular around your
work, working with advocates
and also as an organizer.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic,
what have you heard most from survivors?
And what are their stories
highlighting, in particular
in terms of like their
needs, what they're able
to access and what
they're unable to access?
And why is it important
when we're uplifting
and amplifying these stories
that we're making sure we're addressing
the intersectionality of folk's identities
and the oppressions
that they're faced with?
- Yeah, thank you for that Nana.
I think for in terms of speaking how
we've been moving up
organizers in this moment.
I think what folks don't realize or not,
but the most marginalized
of us are always,
and have always been the ones
taking care of each other.
And BYQ100 is a organization
of all Black folks
and a lot of our members are queer folk
and so we're the ones that this
is impacting the most, you know.
And so a lot of it looks
like how can we be supported?
How do we show up in this moment
and show a part of
ourselves at the same time?
It looks like doing a lot of,
shifting a lot of our work
to mutual aid resources for
ourselves and for our community.
In terms of the stories of survivors
that we've been collecting,
we have this Story Collection Project,
the current aspect of the
We Face, She Face Campaign.
There's definitely been a different level
of communication in terms of
trying to engage with folks.
Folks are just trying to make it.
Folks are really just
trying to survive this time.
And what's been beautiful about it
is it's been proved day by
day that we literally are all
that we need and that we
can take care of ourselves.
And that we don't need policing.
We actually need community
care and that's been showing up
in this moment ever so
much and ever so present
based on how we're
showing up for each other.
- I know at the Hotline
we've been doing our best
to kind of keep track of how
these stories are coming up
and at the beginning when
the Stay At Home Orders
were starting to be in place
and the pandemic really hit the US,
we added a field into our
database in which we were able
to capture when folks were
mentioning COVID-19 as being part
of their experience or
being part of a challenge
that they're facing when trying to come up
with a safety plan or trying to leave
or just survive within
their abusive relationship.
And I think something
that I speak to a lot
in the training is that any vulnerability,
or any perceived vulnerability
that there is can
and will be used against
you by an abusive partner.
And so this global pandemic
is an absolute vulnerability
for everyone involved.
And then if we add the layers
of the financial strain,
we see the escalation of financial abuse,
often right outside of
situations and experiences
like the one we're
collectively experiencing.
So it doesn't come to a surprise for us
how these vulnerabilities
will just be easily turned
into tactics of abuse and we
were able to collect a lot
of just different stories of sentences,
paragraphs that advocates
were kind of sending
to their managers.
And I scrolled through
those a few days ago
and we have over 50 pages
of just different paragraphs
from different people's
stories of how COVID-19
has been used as tactics,
which is either fear tactics,
more of a reason to isolate the survivor,
more of a reason to
prevent them from leaving.
Just the other day we
had an advocate share
that there was a survivor who'd
not only had been isolated
because of COVID-19, but
recently, earlier this week,
she was locked out of her house
and the curfew that was used in the state
was being used against her
and he would refuse to
let her in past 8:00 p.m.
So she was scared to call law enforcement,
she was African-American, she was scared
to call law enforcement,
she was scared to leave,
she didn't know where to
go, 'cause she was afraid
of what the curfew meant for her safety.
And so we just see those
compounding effects
when these experiences can be used
as tactics against our survivors.
- Thank you both for that.
It's so significant and
uplifting, these stories,
in particular of marginalized communities.
And it really is sort of telling,
or unfolding and unmasking for some.
While for others who are a part
of a marginalized communities
have known for a long
time the ways in which,
really the government has failed
to speak to us our experiences
and our needs and be held accountable.
I wanted to then in thinking
about those stories,
thinking about how we are personally
and our communities are impacted
and thinking for all of you
all, this is a question:
In thinking about how
COVID-19 has impacted,
in particular, marginalized communities,
what are some of the
immediate policy proposals
or recommendations you have?
And what do you think the outcome
of their implementation could be,
specifically for these communities?
- I think the piece we just heard about
that any vulnerability will be used
is something that policymakers
really need to think through.
And I think even as we were tracking,
and I'll drop this in the chat box,
but there's a website where we're tracking
all the enforcement
orders across the country,
or sorry, all the public health
orders across the country
and how they're being enforced.
You know, a few made
exceptions for DV survivors,
but not all.
So that you have a Shelter In Place Order
that says you can't leave your home
except for an essential
purpose and there's
no exception for if your
home becomes unsafe right.
And so I think that is something
that is definitely a
recommendation in this moment.
I think the same is true for curfews.
We just heard about how a curfew
was used against a survivor.
Curfews basically criminalize
everybody who's outside.
Many of the curfews I've seen, again,
have exceptions for unhoused people,
but the cops get to decide who's unhoused
by their criteria and who's not.
And not for people who after
8:00 p.m. in New York need
to get out of their house
because it's unsafe,
even if it's just for a
walk to get temporary,
come up with a strategy or something.
And so I really think the
piece about what happens
when people test positive,
I think we're moving from
blanket Stay At Home Orders now
to testing, tracking, tracing,
quarantining and containment.
And so as a survivor,
the first thing I thought
is what happens when you test positive,
your abuser finds out
that they are now quarantined for 14 days,
because you tested positive.
I can only imagine the
increased opportunities
for violence that's gonna produce.
And then not complying, because
you don't want your abuser
to find out, or you don't wanna be
in a more violent situation then leads you
to arrest if you leave
a quarantine situation.
A lot of people have already
been arrested for leaving quarantine.
And so I'm very concerned that
we're not centering survivors
in this conversation, except
to say, oh DV's going up.
In this moment we need more of a response,
re: more law enforcement response.
And meanwhile, we're
throwing more law enforcement
and criminalization as a
response to the pandemic
that is trapping
survivors in the same trap
that we keep putting them
in, between no protection
and policing that's actually
making them less safe.
- So I would add to all
of that and yes, yes, yes
to everything Andrea just said,
that there are a couple
of macro-level things
that we can be thinking about too.
One is, it's clear that the pandemic's
gonna cause tremendous economic stress.
The research tells us that
economic stress highly correlates
with intimate partner violence
to the extent that people are
losing jobs or being under
and unemployed, violence
is going to increase.
So rather than putting
money into policing,
why are we not putting
money into job creation,
into job transition, into all of the kinds
of economic stimulus that gets directly
into the hands of people who need it
that could try to alleviate
some of the economic stress
that highly correlates with
intimate partner violence.
Similarly, this experience
of the pandemic coupled
with the experience of
George Floyd's death,
Breonna Taylor's death, I
don't wanna say any for fear
of leaving out any, but all
of the police misuse of force,
excessive use of force,
murdering of people,
is creating trauma.
And all of that trauma
is highly correlated
with the perpetration of
intimate partner violence.
So what are we doing to take resources
and put them into
communities to really address
that trauma in a way that will then help
to decrease rates of violence?
When we look just at the
immediate we're gonna lose some
of the macrostructural stuff and I think
that macrostructural piece is
really important to people.
So it's a both.
And we need to be doing all of that.
The third thing I wanted to add was just
to lift up one particular
community of survivors
that hasn't gotten as much attention
and that's incarcerated people.
That for incarcerated
people, COVID could be,
is for some of them a death sentence.
And so there is lots
of organizing going on
around commutation for
incarcerated people,
particularly for incarcerated
survivors of violence.
Now, you know, for the
vast majority of women
and people who identify as
women, cis women, trans women
in women's facilities,
that's most of them.
But particularly, Survived & Punished
is doing amazing work around this,
both trying to do things like
build resources for commissary
which people aren't getting,
but also trying to get people out.
We are doing it here in Maryland
where we represent the
longest serving woman
in the Maryland prison system who
is an incarcerated survivor of violence.
In any jurisdiction that you're in,
there are people who are
languishing in prisons
who should not be there
and who are exposed
to this virus and we have the opportunity
to do some organizing across,
I dunno, across our silos
for those who don't ordinarily work
with incarcerated people
to try to get them out.
- Thank you both so much.
There's so much that I'm
holding and thinking about
and processing as we're in conversation.
Specifically the conversation
around community care,
but now also thinking around what it means
to embark on the community policymaking.
And what I mean by that is,
how do we know these policies
that are put in place are
working for these communities.
So I wanted pose a
question for all of you,
what would, in terms of
especially within COVID-19,
what do you think to be like the metrics,
or what determines that
policy is effective
in meeting the needs in particular
of marginalized communities?
Like how are we able to
measure intention and impact?
What does it look like for us
to think through transparency,
accountability, especially on
the part of federal lawmakers,
in particular, as people are critiquing
past stimulus packages as not being enough
and not addressing the most
marginalized of our society?
- Yeah so in terms of what
makes policy productive
and successful, I think first and foremost
about what are the current narratives
about how society should
set up and it function.
What are the values and the
understandings that folks have,
lawmakers have, policymakers
have about how society works.
And one of those which
I vehemently disagree
with is that cops keep us safe
and that cops are here for
the protection of people
and not of property.
And so, especially in organizing work,
a big thing of what we try to do
is meet people where they are
and a lot of people are still out of place
where they still see benefits from cops
based on their current environment.
And that's a juxtaposition
of how abolitionist organizations,
abolitionist members
and being told by community
that actually this cop makes me feel safe.
But at the same time we
see very clear instances
of where policing is not the solution
to community violence
and community safety.
I'm thinking back to the time time in 2017
when the NYPD stopped doing their,
I guess they called
them proactive policing.
Proactive policing's
essentially code for profiling.
Essentially the idea is
that you can prevent,
if you prevent the smaller crimes
then larger crimes are less
deterred to be committed.
But what essentially came
out of that was they realized
is that all crimes went down.
All crimes went down
because police weren't
creating the problem.
They weren't going into communities
and actively arresting people
to have crimes to be committed.
And so if policymakers
are not on the same page
of cops don't keep us safe,
there's already a disconnect.
There's already a disconnect,
because it's how's community gonna
put forth community like solutions
that go against the narrative
that we don't need cops.
And so I'm thinking of work I
did within the Durham Chapter
of BYP100 Durham Beyond
Policing Coalition,
SONG: Southerners On New
Ground Durham Chapter,
where we actively mobilized
against the police chief
asking for like 72 new cops
over the course of four years.
And initially, that price point was
about 1.4 million dollars,
which again is also just
an undershot of that,
of this is only gonna
take 1.7 million dollars.
But out of that we designed
and what we put forth
after a community member
Mama Nia of SpiritHouse
suggested that why not
we do this ourselves,
why don't we take care of ourselves.
Why not we create a community-led safety
and wellness task force and
what does that look like?
It looks like first
responders are the police
and that is not the safest
thing for the majority
of Black and Brown people,
honestly, anybody period.
But it's not safe for the majority
of Black and Brown people.
And so what we've said was,
this money for police is not necessary.
If you want to give, if you wanna ask
for 1.7 million dollars,
if you've magically found
that money for policing,
you can surely find it
for community-invested and
community-led solutions.
So out of that, successfully
super excited to say that
that was not passed, as in
they did not get the money
in order to get those 72 new officers.
The money did go to getting
all part-time city workers $15 an hour.
The money did go to making sure
that folks were able to get a bit more,
or more leeway in terms of pay leave
and making sure that happens.
And it also did put on the books
and have a city council member in charge
of sharing the (mumbles) awareness
of Safety and Wellness Task Force.
I also dropping that in the
chat in terms of our proposal,
but these systems already exist in terms
of what community care looks like
when cops are not involved.
When someone who's
responding to a crisis call
for a survivor doesn't have their hand
on their hip with their gun.
Again, there are ways to
take care of ourselves,
but if we're not starting from:
Can this be done without police?
Then I feel like that
needs to be the jump part
of the conversation in
terms creating policy
for survivors and survivor-led.
- I could not agree more
and my answer was gonna be
that we need to ask survivors themselves
and that's what She Safe, We Safe is doing
through the Story Collection Project.
This assessment where it's
like we do scientific studies
or academic studies or where we're talking
about recidivism and all
kinds of other measures,
we need to ask survivors:
What helped and what didn't?
What worked and what didn't?
And people to be like, yeah sure,
it was better after the
cop than before the cop,
but that doesn't mean I was safe.
It just meant that
maybe something happened
that shifted something in that moment,
or people often say it
was worse after the cop
and frankly that's the
answer I've heard much more.
And I think that the
only thing I wanna add
to what Mariah just said is
what my comrade Mariame Kaba
at Interrupting Criminalization
says often is that,
we are already engaged in the strategies
that She Safe, We Safe is documenting.
There is a vast body of
folks who are engaging
in safety and survival strategies.
We're just the unfunded movement.
We're just the unfunded
anti-violence movement.
There's the funded strategy
and then there's the unfunded strategy.
Those are strategies that
people like SpiritHouse
and other folks are
deploying that are not funded
and certainly resourced to the extent
that the funded strategies that rely on
or are coupled with law enforcement are.
And I think whenever you ask or whenever,
at least what I've seen in
terms of asking folks what
is most helpful to them,
it's the unfunded strategies.
And I think that goes right up to,
I mean we talked about
trafficking and violence
in the sex trades at the
beginning of the call.
We did a study when I was
at the Sex Workers Project
of survivors of trafficking and asked them
what was most helpful and
none of them said police.
They all said, you know, my community
not being criminalized for helping me.
What was not helpful was a cop coming in
and raiding my place of
work, pistol whipping me
and dropping and strip searching
me in front of everybody,
that was so much not helpful.
You know, and it would
have been much more helpful
if I could have reached out
to the taxi driver or a family member
or even that clients
who helped me wouldn't
have been criminalized for
coming forward and so forth.
Or taxi drivers who took
me somewhere weren't
being criminalized in the
name of fighting trafficking.
And I think we just really
need to recognize that we need
to ask survivors themselves
that's how we evaluate things,
that's the only way to evaluate things,
whether it's a diversion
program, a program and we need
to ask folks questions
in such a way that gets
to the question that Mariah
was just asking is like:
Imagine if the response wasn't police,
what would feel most useful?
And that's gonna really
generate so much more
of what people need and want
and those are the
questions BYQ100's asking,
those are the questions
we all need to be asking.
- And I think we need to be thoughtful
about the metrics that people are using.
So for example, you hear all the time
that domestic violence has dropped 63%
since the inception of the
Violence Against Women Act.
Well that's an interesting stat,
when you pull it apart what you find
is that, yes, domestic
violence has dropped,
so has all violence.
Violent crime in the United States
has been dropping for years.
So there's nothing that says
that the hundreds of millions of dollars
that we've been putting into
the criminal legal system
is responsible through the
Violence Against Women Act
is responsible for that drop.
There are lots of reasons
that that drop is happening,
but you'll hear that
used as the justification
for continuing to pour
hundreds of millions of dollars
into the criminal legal system
when in fact for about the first six years
of Violence Against Women Act,
crime and specifically
intimate partner violence
dropped about the same amount.
But for about 15 years after that,
crime actually fell more
than intimate partner violence fell
while we were still pouring
hundreds of millions of dollars
into the criminal legal system.
So you'll hear those metrics right?
The crime rate falling or the rate
of intimate partner violence falling
used as justification for continuing
to fund these failed strategies.
We need to be really thoughtful
and critical about what
those numbers actually mean.
- Oh I have to take a minute.
This was really so needed.
And in particular, Mariah
for sharing that case,
in particular that has
a win for the community
I think is so good to hear,
because oftentimes the idea
is that the fight feels so ongoing.
Sometimes it feels like
is it gonna be successful.
If we organize around this
are we going to, you know.
It's good to hear, like yes.
Like we're able to amplify
our analysis, our experiences,
our demands and be met with a win
and be met with accountability,
and be met with a reallocation of funds,
because it's so necessary in
meeting the needs of survivors.
I wanted to take a moment
to pose another question
to you all, and it's
around the same lines,
but I wanted you all to
provide your perspectives,
your insight on current policy
on current political terrain
and what sort of
opportunities and challenges
there are for intersectional
advocacy and policymaking.
- I think this opportunity
of the number one opportunity
that I'm seeing at this moment
is like a radical reframing
of a public safety need.
So yes, it's a pretty big opportunity.
But it's a moment where
we're in a pandemic,
where we're facing the
biggest economic crisis
of our lifetimes and we
really have to think carefully
about where we're putting our resources
and what strategies we're using.
And I think these uprisings
are about George Floyd,
about Breonna Taylor and about Tony McDade
and about the two men who
were shot by police last night
and about the Black woman who
was shot with a rubber bullet
in the head at a protest
and is still in the ICU
and about the nine-year-old Black girl
who was pepper sprayed in the face
and all of that is what
it's about right now.
But it's also about police budgets
and where our resources are going
in the midst of a pandemic.
It's about people recognizing
that Governor Cuomo cut Medicaid
in the middle of the pandemic
and New York City is cutting everything,
including summer youth
programs in its budget,
except the police department.
And in some cities, including Minneapolis,
people are looking for
increases in police money
while they're facing massive cuts
to budgets from things that people need.
For the things that make up
the unfunded anti-violence
movement, right?
Housing, you know,
community-based responses,
community organizations, mental health,
so community-based mental health services,
health care, income support.
Income support that would
make it possible for someone
in this moment, in this economic crisis,
to be a little bit safer,
to adjust their strategies
of safety in this moment.
And so I think the
challenge is and the demand
that is emerging is to defund police.
I think the challenge that's
coming up for I think a lot
of anti-violence organizations who've
been increasingly embedded
in law enforcement
over the past three decades.
And I was sort of typing in the chat
that as Leigh was talking about reporting
going down since the
Violence Against Women Act.
I mean reporting's going
down because people know
that by reporting to a DV
agency they're reporting
to the police and a lot
of folks are not down
with that for many, many reasons
including their own safety
and fear of deportation or
that of their loved ones
and families or fear of
child welfare involvement.
I mean it's just a very different thing
to call your DV agency
than it was in the 70s now.
And I think DV agencies are
gonna have to take a stand.
And anti-violence agencies are
gonna have to take a stand.
And they're gonna have to recognize that,
yes, defund the police might mean
that the money you're getting
through the police budget
is not gonna come anymore.
And you're gonna have
to figure out other ways
of resourcing the work that you do
that don't depend on
policing and the state.
But anti-violence organizations
have been very silent for the most part
around both the demands
around the violence,
that police violence I'm talking about,
particularly about their
support for defund police.
And anti-violence
organizations are gonna have
to go beyond a tweet, a statement,
a blacking out their
social media for a day
and they're gonna have to
act like Black lives matter,
like Black women, queer
and trans lives matter,
which means defund police is the demand.
Get behind it and to the extent that
that affects your resources,
then you're gonna have to really think
about where anti-violence
organizations are embedded
and what needs to shift
and where you need to shift
to align with the priorities
of the intersectional priorities,
the priorities of the
people who are experiencing
this moment at the intersection
of many, many forms
of oppression that require that demand.
So I think that's gonna be the challenge,
is for people to really get behind that
and also to recognize
that that's a demand.
That's not just about
defunding police departments
and then funding a
collaboration with the DV agency
and the police around something, right,
and the money goes to the DV agency,
but it's still going to policing.
No, it means defund policing
no matter who's doing it.
And defund, you know,
things that are clothed
in another name, but
basically the same thing.
And so that's a radical reimagination,
we all have to really deeply sit
and reimagine what safety looks like
and how we take an example that we hear
through the She Safe, We Safe Campaign
and align our work with
that and resource it
and get ourselves the
skills and the relationships
and the structures that are gonna make
that possible on a larger scale.
And be willing to get behind people
who are demanding a radical
change in how we resource
and what we resource and
to recognize that housing,
healthcare, mental health
services, income supports,
migration status, those are
anti-violence strategies.
And I guess the last thing
is Breonna Taylor was killed
in her bed in her home.
I think that if we're a anti-DV agencies
and we care about people
being killed in their homes,
then I'm not sure why I'm not seeing,
you know, anti-violence agencies
kind of at the front lines
of saying Breonna Taylor's name
and making demands that
are not carceral demands.
That are demands, yes, that
officers be terminated,
but also that no-knock warrants be ended
and also the war on drugs
that drove those cops
into her house be ended and that really,
people like Breonna Taylor
need to be safe in their home,
not only from people who live there,
but people coming in from outside
and from all the things
that drive them there.
- Yes to all of that Andrea and I'm also,
really want to convey that,
yes, we know about our wins,
but in reality revolution
does not seem so hard
if we just know our history.
Like we're not, we are not new to this.
This has been happening.
She Safe, We Safe was
created in the footsteps
of organizations like Sister to Sister,
organizations like INCITE!,
of collectives like the
Combahee River Collective.
Like this work has been being done.
It's just that this is, again,
these are not the narratives
and the understandings of how the world is
and how community shows up
and how we exist to be public.
And so I foresee this.
I appreciate everyone for being
on this call for taking the time
to consider what's beyond
and again, what's already been happening.
Because yeah, this is
not inventing the wheel.
This is trying to make
the wheel just be a wheel
and not something else,
not something to be put
to the side, but to be
put in the forefront.
- I would just add a couple of challenges.
So yes to everything and
then a couple of challenges
that I see: One is gonna be retrenchment,
that uprisings make people afraid
and when people are afraid
they turn to police.
And so for us to make this case,
it's really, really important that people
who haven't been part
of the struggle before,
become part of the struggle.
And I think one of the amazing things
that I was seeing on Twitter
this morning was people
in communities that
have never had any kind
of protest against police
brutality are protesting
and so that gives me some faith,
but power doesn't give itself up easily
and we can't underestimate
the power that police unions
and some policymakers, many policymakers,
have to keep that money right where it is.
And so then the second challenge becomes,
can you do it without the money?
And Andrea and Mariah both talked
about the unfunded work that we do.
And if you read the history
of the anti-violence movement,
one of the things that you see,
and I'm gonna over-simplify,
I know it's a lot more complex,
is that the more money that
went into the movement,
the more bureaucratized
the movement became,
the farther it moved away from its roots.
When Andrea talked about
it being very different
to call a shelter in the 70s,
part of that is about the way
that money came into the system.
And so what does it
mean to take that money?
And who controls that money?
And what are the conditions
that come with that money?
We have to be really thoughtful
about how all of that
is gonna work, because if we're not,
we'll just recreate the
same problematic systems
that we have, just with different names.
The last challenge I think,
for me is pushing people
to see that being
anti-racist isn't enough,
that you can talk all day
long about how awful it is
that Black people are treated
the way they are treated in this country.
And if you wanna talk
all day long about that,
that's fine, but it
doesn't change anything.
And I think that's where
anti-violence organizations are.
They're willing to say,
no, this is really bad,
but they're not willing
to say what they're gonna do about it.
And so we've got to help
people get to that next step.
- Yeah I would, to add to that I think
that's exactly where the
conversation has to be.
I know that as far as
challenges and the terrain
that our policy team right
now is kind of facing
is just the history right
where, at least for us,
in the intimate partner violence movement.
What it means, what these
responses have meant,
if people think of
intimate partner violence,
they think of VAWA right?
And when we think of VAWA, it's
truly just the prime example
of what happens when
something is produced through
that sort of carceral feminist lens right.
And how are we gonna bring this back
to what are we actually
seeing on the lines.
So I know that our policy
team has been working
to amplify those voices and those stories
as far as what our
survivors are afraid of,
because I love the question
that you posed earlier Andrea:
Like what if the first response
wasn't law enforcement?
What can we dream of then?
What can we create then.
And that's a direction
we really need to go.
As far as the Hotline, we constantly hear
that over the lines,
the fear that there is,
just reaching out to what is supposed
to be the first response.
And what is the area for
safety when the response
to violence is a system
that represents violence
to you and those you care about.
So we have countless stories
of survivors who are wanting
and needing safety and are
afraid to call the police
for what that might mean for
them; for being arrested,
for just being Black, just
being a person of color,
just being in their community,
or even hearing those
really disheartening stories
of survivors not feeling like
they can call the police,
because they're partner is Black,
because the person who's causing
violence has these systems
of violence just overloaded on them
and that that could be a death sentence,
that there's that
possibility of more danger
and more harm being
caused to their partner
when their partner's the
one causing their harm too.
And so we kinda have to hold that
and balance that in with their experience.
And one of the things that
our policy team has done a lot
is really try to amplify the story logs
that kind of involve
this and illustrate this,
because our advocates have
been hearing these stories
for a very long time.
And it was fairly recently,
about two weeks ago,
or a month ago that we were finally able
to kind of add some fields to our database
that are now gonna allow
us to tell that story
with the rest of the data that we collect.
So we do ask them sort of
general questions sometimes,
'cause like some
demographics and some details
of our survivor's stories
that can include anything,
from maybe our survivor is homeless,
maybe our survivor has experience
with children being involved
or children being part of their story.
And one thing that we never really had
was law enforcement further
than the abusive partners
in law enforcement.
And we've been able to add the fields
that are now gonna capture,
that a survivor is not wanting
to get a police report,
is not wanting to go to court,
or not wanting to get a protective order
or evoke any sort of system,
because of fear of law enforcement.
Or maybe they have called
law enforcement before
and they've been the ones
who've been arrested.
Or just fear in general.
And I think that is really
what we're needing to have
in that policy conversation
is when the first response
is what's bringing on an
exasperating these fears,
what do we have left?
Where do we need to move this?
And we're hoping that
this will help our data
and the stories we need
to be telling on the hill
and get our bills and
policy reflecting that.
- Thank you all so much.
Your comments have
generated several questions
and I actually wanted
to introduce them now,
because I think they're really good.
The first question focused specifically
on figuring out
non-incarceration alternatives
to policing and I think that's
definitely a conversation
in a lot of informal circles,
because it's about the framing as well,
that Mariah, you pointed to earlier.
Oftentimes like this is just
how we're socialized in this country.
The police are here to
protect, but whom or what?
As we've seen over the past
five days it feels more so
about protecting property
as opposed to human life.
And when we're talking
about survivors now,
especially within COVID-19,
like how are we thinking
through non-incarceration
alternatives for those who are,
you know, are sheltered in place
or are living with abusive partners?
- May I just drop in the
chat box that there's a lot
of resources at TransformHarm.org
that Mariame Kaba pulled together for us.
And then a lot of those apply now.
I think we just need to
adjust them to this moment.
A lot of them are about figuring out
different interruption
strategies in partnership
with the survivor that many
of them can happen with the mask.
I remember when I was living
above the survivor across the
street from where I am now.
I went and I asked her, I
knew they were both migrants,
I said, what do you want me
to do next time I hear
him throwing you around?
And she said, just make a lot of noise
and he'll know that you're
listening and he'll stop.
And so I can do that with a mask on.
I don't need to, like it's
not a different strategy
because of COVID and the fact
that it's happening
more often during COVID,
which just means I'm home
more often also to witness it.
And so I think that
there's so many strategies
in the resources there
I wanna point folks also
to the Creative Interventions Toolkit
that was put out by Mimi Kim
who many folks know about
and it has just a wealth of tools in there
and just strategies people
have tried and created.
There's the STOP: StoryTelling
Organizing Project, STOP,
that Creative Interventions
did that has stories.
And I think that so much of
the organizing we're doing now
is around mutual aid.
That creates an infrastructure
that can also be turned
to responding to the harm and danger
that people experiencing during COVID.
It's the same infrastructure
that we're creating.
People networks of care.
People looking out for each other.
People asking for help, receiving help
that don't involve the state.
And so let's figure out how
to divert resources to those
and to really invest in those,
not just with our resources,
but with our minds and our
beliefs in what's legitimate
and what's an important
response in this moment.
'cause I do agree what Leigh
said earlier that, you know,
fear means more cops and also this
is a moment where the rise in DV
in the pandemic could
lead to a doubling down
on strategies that we
should be moving away from.
- I also wanted to talk about,
I think somebody
specifically said non-police,
but still said incarceration.
So I'm like I wanna untangle that too,
because I wanna ask folks like:
What is the current function
of jails and of prisons?
And I'm in the belief that
the current function of jails
and prisons is to not deal with an issue.
It's literally to hide what the problem is
and not actually try to change
anything, transform anything.
There is no resolution to
putting people in cages.
There is no correction of harm
to putting people in cages.
There's only like reification
of harm when that happens.
And so in terms of I
appreciate the resources
dropped TransformHarm in the chat,
but also to think about, like again,
the fundamental ways of how
we believe things are working
and are moving and their purpose.
So what is the true outcome
that folks want in
terms of adjusting harm?
Like some survivors don't want resolution
with the people who harmed them.
Sometimes justice looks
like beating somebody,
because they don't, this is what they need
and this is what they want.
And again, in terms of when we're thinking
about survivor-led
solutions and we're thinking
about how to show up for survivors,
part of that is knowing: Are you equipped
to do what the survivor wants, number one?
And then two, do you have the resources
that are needed if transformation
is actually what you want?
Yeah.
- So and my and would be
people are talking a lot
about restorative and
transformative justice these days,
that is a conversation I think
that we need to be having
and we need to be thoughtful
about how we have it.
Restorative justice that happens
in the context of
diversion from prosecution
is not the kind of thing
that we're talking about
in terms of creating real resources
that exist outside of a carceral system.
So when we talk about
RJ and TJ it's important
to be thoughtful about
where that's happening,
what spaces that's happening
in and who's controlling it.
It's also, I think, beyond
kind of the immediate crisis,
we need to be thinking about prevention
and we need to be thinking
about prevention very differently.
We need to be funding
prevention differently.
There is so much work
that we could be doing
on the front end using good research
that exists about what are the correlates
of intimate partner violence.
What is driving violence?
And how do we interrupt
it that doesn't require
after the fact interventions
by police that do nothing
to address the core
causes of this violence.
And we've been tied, this is
something I've said a lot.
We've been tied to this narrative
about what causes
intimate partner violence,
that intimate partner violence
is caused by one person
wanting power and control
over their intimate partner
in the service of the patriarchy.
And that I think is not a definition
that's gonna get us much of anywhere,
because it doesn't allow us
to look at those correlates
like economic stress,
like previous experiences of trauma
that may be driving part of the violence.
So there was something in
the chat about interacting
with those who use violence
and I think that's gotta be
a key part of what we do,
because if that's whose
behavior needs to be change,
we need to think about how
we make that behavior change.
The way that we do batterer intervention
in most places now doesn't do that,
because it cannot admit for itself
that people can be complex.
That they can both have been harmed
and that they can do harm.
And if we don't address
people's underlying trauma
and we don't address the other
conditions in their lives,
we're not gonna stop the violence.
We can also use restorative
programs to prevent harm.
There's great work going on,
for example, in Baltimore City
though the Levitas Initiative working
on using restorative justice
to do sexual violence
prevention with kids.
That's the place where some
of this work needs to be happening.
So there's lots of good stuff out there
that we need to be thinking about.
- Thank you all.
Another question that came
in focused specifically
on what does it look
like for us in this work
to work with abusers and
those who cause harm.
Sort of rethinking what
that means to engage
with community members,
hold people accountable,
so on and so forth, another
question to you all.
I'm sorry, I'm trying to keep
track of, the chat is hot,
which I thoroughly enjoy.
I love that we're having
this conversation.
Leigh I think a lot of
people are thinking through,
well how do we stay in community
with people who cause harm?
What does it mean to go forward?
I was wondering, yeah,
just any of you all who
have sort of any insight
on what that looks like.
- Hard, messy, not fully formed.
I think that, and I'm seeing
some of this in the chat,
you know, I think that the assumption
is that unless we have the
perfect answer over here,
scaled up to a national scale,
that PS we're supposed to
build with no resources,
'cause we're not gonna invest
in it until we know that it's perfect.
No one's gonna shift from what is.
And I think that's not how
transformation works in society.
We have to try things
and some of them will be unsuccessful
and I've been part of
accountability strategies
that have not gone well
and have not felt
satisfactory to the survivor,
have allowed harm or allowed conditions
to persist where harm
continued to be possible
and also that's true with
when the police intervene.
So we can't expect the solution
that we're asking for before we're willing
to shift our thinking to be perfect.
We have to be willing to always,
and this goes back to
this evaluation question,
center survivors and say:
This police thing isn't
working, can we try this?
Okay I just wanna say up front,
like it might not work either,
but we're gonna try and
make it better than that.
And then we're just gonna keep trying
and keep trying and keep
trying, and keep trying.
And we have to recognize that
we're talking about systems
and dominance and control and violence
that are entrenched and
are rooted in many cases
in systems of oppression
that some of us continue
to participate in or benefit from.
And so we're going to
have to just be willing
to keep trying, but we cannot
expect an unresourced movement
to scale up the perfect response,
the shiny thing that we can then point
to then people will be like oh okay,
well now we'll move to that.
That's not how the anti-violence
movement was built.
The anti-violence movement was
built by, come into my house,
I don't know if it's gonna help,
I don't know if it's gonna
hurt, but let's just try.
And we need to be able to do that.
And we need to have the
resources to do that.
And we need to have the
willingness to experiment
in the name of survivors lives and safety
and achieving better results for them
than we're seeing right now,
which includes survivors
being criminalized.
Many of them being incarcerated,
as Leigh was talking about earlier.
Many after mandatory
arrest went into place;
the arrests of women skyrocketed
and the arrests of survivors skyrocketed
and the arrests of LGBTQ
survivors skyrocketed.
I mean that's not an improvement
over what was happening before,
to experience violence
and experience criminalization
and incarceration,
which will then be used
as a weapon against you
to further isolate you in the ways
that April was talking about.
Like you have to understand
that what's happening now
is not working and I've seen
in the chat some conversations
about prosecutors and people
on this call who know me,
know me that I just, as a defense attorney
and also as someone who feels clear
that prosecutors jobs are
to put people in cages
and there's no way you
can progressive that,
that we have to figure out strategies
that actually center what people need.
And it might be that you work
with a particular prosecutor
to reduce harm, but we have to understand
that prosecutors are still
prosecuting survivors
and criminalizing survivors
and that prisons are sites
of physical and sexual
violence for survivors.
No matter how great their
programming is for survivors,
they're still experiencing sexual violence
on the way to the programming
and on the way back from the programming
and after the programming.
And they should never
be receiving programming
or services in a cage anyway,
because who on this call
goes goes to therapy,
thinks it would be a great
idea to get that in a cage.
So I just feel like there's
so much to say about that,
but I just really want us to,
if we take anything away from this,
that the system as it is
now is harming survivors.
It is not protecting survivors.
And an intersectional
analysis will show that
and will reinforce that
every time we deploy it.
And so the notion that we
have to have a perfect system
before we're able to
move from one that is,
if you take an intersectional
lens to it, harming survivors,
so many of them and not helping them
is a disservice to survivors.
- And to add to that a disservice
to those who cause harm.
I know that that's the question
that constantly gets asked is:
How do we then use this kind
of framework with those
who are causing harm?
And it's messy, you're right.
That's exactly it.
It's interesting how we will turn to that,
wanna focus on the individual
when the the problem
is really that the system
makes issues right.
We can't remove intimate partner violence
if we're not addressing all
the other types of violence
that correlate with it.
So while the focus, I think
it feels almost easier
to focus on the individual.
I see (mumbles) that batterer
intervention programs
themselves are so tied
to the carceral state.
And that's exactly what
we see on the lines
when we get those who
cause harm calling us
needing or wanting support.
And in some states you can only go
to these programs if it is mandated
and that's just the way
that the system is worked.
But if we breakdown the program itself,
it's absolutely problematic,
because it's within that framework of,
that sort of punishment and shaming
and so there's so many
different areas in which we need
to bring it back to that
survivor-centered approach
of what are the systems
that are affecting,
not only the survivor, but
the abusive partners as well.
What is continuing to bring this up,
because focusing on the
individual isn't gonna change,
even if we have the best, perfect plan,
it gets messy and we can't
apply it to all situations
and it doesn't work for all situations.
And we need to keep that in mind.
- I think we also have to
be realistic about the fact
that some survivors still
want a carceral intervention
and that that is a kind of a hard truth
that we need to grapple with.
And in part that's true,
because that's all we've ever offered.
So if the only thing
that you know is justice
is a penal intervention,
as a carceral intervention,
and you don't get it,
then you feel like you
haven't gotten justice.
And part of that ugliness and
messiness in making this kind
of transition I think that we all envision
is trying to make that
move us away from a notion
of penal incarceration or
penal intervention as justice
to a much more expansive vision
of justice that actually
meets survivor's needs.
But there's gonna be ugliness
kind of in the interim
when people say, I'm not getting justice,
because justice for me was punishment.
And I think that's something we really do
have to grapple with.
- I just wanna lift up an example of that,
even from our own organizing,
so I'm gonna drop a link in the chat
of the In Our Names
Network which is a network
of organizations around
the country that work
on police violence against Black women,
queer and trans people.
At our last retreat last summer
at the Highlander Center,
just gonna be frank, we had
conversations with folks
in the room being like,
I'm Black and trans
and if someone kills me,
I really expect you all
to go put their ass in a cage
and if you don't I'm gonna
come back and haunt you.
And I understand the motivation behind it,
because they're saying
we're watching videos
like the one we just saw last night,
a Black trans woman being beaten
with all community watching,
including Black cis women,
or participating, and they're like,
this is not acceptable.
There needs to be some accountability.
And it was about really
shifting the thinking
that you're just describing
Leigh, which all of us,
I'm sure, have experienced,
myself included,
is the notion that the value of my life
is determined by how
long someone else does
in a cage for hurting me.
And that's not how the value
of my life should be determined.
The value of my life should be determined
by how my community shows up for me
and what reparations I
get when someone harms me.
And reparations definitely
mean accountability
for the person who harmed me and repair
and a commitment to not
repeating that behavior
and a commitment by my community
to not letting that behavior repeat.
That doesn't mean, and if
we offer folks something
that is different than
someone going in a cage,
then it might ease that.
And I think we came out of that
In Our Names Network gathering
with a clear commitment collectively,
not just the trans folks in the group,
but everyone of all
gender identities saying,
we are committed to creating systems
of safety for trans people
that don't involve the police,
because if we don't do that,
then our calls for abolition
leave them feeling
unvalued and unprotected.
And to also committing to
advancing and one of our members,
you know, her father was killed
in front of her by police.
I mean she's just like, I don't understand
what you're talking about,
that man has to get punished,
he has to go to jail.
And we had to come back and say,
can we think about reparations?
Can we think about:
Yes, he should be fired.
Yes, he should never have a job
where he has a gun again or power again.
And yes, he should be
made to atone and attend
to your family's pain and hurt
and so should the system
that put him there to do it.
And actually, will that
produce more justice for you?
And we learned that in part
from the work that was done
in Chicago with the
police torture survivors
who really wanted prosecution
of this man who tortured hundreds of them
and sent them to jail for decades,
taking decades of their
lives away from them.
We demanded prosecution for a long time.
They got prosecution.
They got conviction.
They got incarceration.
And at the end, they were like,
but I still lost those 20 years of my life
and my family still lost and
I'm still in the same situation
and this hasn't actually
healed me in any way.
In fact, the process of the prosecution
harmed me more in some ways.
And so we really had to come
up with like what does repair,
what does reparations look like?
And I just saw someone
park in the chat box
and I didn't read the full comment,
'cause it just popped up on the screen
that that's restorative justice.
That's what is coming to be
called restorative justice
is still very much an
individual one-to-one process
and it's one that's more and more mediated
and controlled by courts.
So what I just described, I
don't call restorative justice.
I call that reparations.
And that we can talk about
reparations for survivors
of domestic violence,
survivors of sexual assault,
survivors of police violence on individual
and systemic things at the same time
that are not tied to courts and systems
that are already set up to
kill us and not protect us.
- Thank you all for that.
I wanted to make sure that everyone knows
that this is being recorded
and we'll make this available to you all.
I'm also going to make
sure to save the chat.
Because I have all of
your email addresses,
I'm going to send out an email
to see those folks would
like to stay connected
with each other, just to figure out a way
to sort of take out a lot
of the logistical confusion
that may come through in trying
to coordinate through the chat,
just as something to help us push forward
in keeping on with this
conversation, because it's so good.
I wanted to share another
question that was shared earlier.
There are folks who are
interested in learning more
about working groups or initiatives
that focus specifically
on working with those who
have caused harm and abusers,
because the critique is that,
and it's true, batterer
intervention programs are so tied
to the carceral state.
So maybe in your own personal experience
or different organizations that you know
that have taken on working with abusers
is the question that's being asked.
- In Philadelphia there was
two organizations that work,
Well let's see they are, one
is called Philly's Pissed
and the other one is
called Philly Stands Up
and I can never remember
which one is which,
but they work in tandem,
but one works with the person who did harm
and one works with the survivor
and then they work in
parallel and together.
And so that's a model I
think is really helpful
and I think that in the pod mapping
and transformative strategies,
that Mia Mingus and
other folks have put out,
there is this notion
that you as a larger
community figure out how
to work with both people
in order to come to a process of repair.
- I now wanted to provide an
opportunity for those folks who
have any other questions on the chat
or to any of our participants
if they have questions
to share by the chat or the Q&A function
and I'll be on hold for
a bit, well not on hold,
but I'll be on mute as questions come in.
And also just wanted to take time,
before I even closing
out, thank our speakers,
because this has been such a
great conversation thus far.
I've learned a lot.
I'm sure other folks are
learning a lot as well
in terms of resources
and how to move forward.
And just extremely grateful
to have you all here with us.
I want now then to leave
you all with a question,
a final question, but
really like just wanted
to learn more about what
thoughts, tools, resources,
anything really that you would like
to leave with participants today
following this conversation.
- Yeah, thank you, thank you
again for having me Nana.
I really appreciate everyone on this panel
and their expertise that
they brought and perspectives
to tell how we can show up for survivors
and making sure we're creating
mechanisms to make sure
that all of us are kept safe.
Yeah, just thinking of a few things
that BYP have done this year
and that we're continuing to do
through the She Safe, We Safe Campaign,
every first Tuesday, except this month
as we forgo the meeting
for the sake of this panel,
but we have a public organizing meeting
for the She Safe, We Safe Campaign.
At that meeting is a
point for folks who want
to know how to get involved to do so,
as well as any updates we
have going on the campaign.
Our May call, was it May?
Yes, 'cause it's June
now, time is very changed
in the COVID times, in our
May call we actually did,
our joint call was with
the Hotline to talk
about when home isn't safe
and talk exactly about the exacerbation
of domestic interpersonal
violence during the time of COVID,
but also talking about when you don't
have a shelter-in-place to be in place at
and how that also is a form of violence.
So yeah, I would encourage
folks who are interested
in getting invested in the campaign,
learning more about the
Story Collection Project
and how you all can be involved,
we are only taking the story
of Black folks i.e. those
of Africans that have experience
with state violence as well
as interpersonal violence
for that survey, but
I'll also drop the links
to those in the chat box.
And again, thank you all
so much for being here.
It's just better to ask
questions than to not.
So really appreciate it.
- I'm just in the chat,
you know the question was:
Do folks think it'll ever change?
Do we have hope?
And I think I definitely have days where
that's the main question that I have
and there's sticker around here somewhere
that has one of Mariame's
quotes on it that:
"Let this radicalize you and
not lead you to despair,"
and I feel like every day
that's what I'm getting up,
something I get up.
But I think also it's remembering
that a lot of what we're seeing right now,
didn't exist 40 years ago in my lifetime.
And so things can shift in my lifetime too
and that it's a slow process,
but there's also moments
of tremendous opening.
And we are in one of those moments.
Now it's a tremendous
opening that white supremacy
and fascism are lining up
to shove their way through
and increasing police
response and carcerality
and investment in prisons and police,
as opposed to the things
that actually keep us safe.
But it's also a moment that
we can shove our dreams into.
And so I think, for me, every day I get up
and just think, you know, what can I do
that will open that
crack a little bit more?
What can I do to fill
that crack with flowers
as opposed to guns?
And what can I do to really embody
and live the community and the
world that I'm dreaming of,
that I may not live to see,
but I'm hoping that Mariah
and all the BYP100
young soldiers will see.
So I think, and my nieces
and nephews and great nieces
and those to come and so I think we have
to just practice one thing at a time.
And for some of you that's
having a conversation
with folks at your agency.
It's about strategizing in the ways
that Nana was talking about,
about how to move this
conversation across the movement.
And also it's getting behind
folks who are taking bold risks
and making bold steps right now.
And you know, we may fall 10 times,
but the 11th time another piece
of the portal's gonna open,
we're gonna move through.
So I really feel like, and
practicing small things,
small things, 'cause it's one intervention
that we talked about
earlier at SpiritHouse
that can give us imagination,
open our imagination.
But wait, what if we did
these 10 other things
this 10 other ways?
And we just really need
to create those spaces
to dream and practice in.
Even when we feel like
the walls are closing in
and everything is getting worse,
there's still a possibility
in the ways protestors
are helping each other
in the middle of an uprising,
you know where someone who
knows some other survivor who's
at the protest is saying,
let's figure out another strategy for you,
right now, right here in this moment.
And if we can build and
multiply those things,
I think we'll see the result.
- So I think, I know that it
can change, because I changed.
When I started doing this
work I was 25 years old,
I was fresh outta law
school and I was convinced
that the only way to address this problem
was through incarceration,
that all people who used
violence were monsters
and that they all needed to be put away
and that was the way to do this work.
And it was really though intersectionality
that I started to grow and change
and understand the problem differently
and understand why my perspective,
which was a white perspective,
which was the only thing that I knew,
was not a good perspective,
a useful perspective
for the vast majority of my clients
who were Black women and Latinx women.
And so learning from
them, growing with them,
doing the reading, putting
the work in, I've changed.
I did not start out an abolition feminist,
I would absolutely call myself one now
and so I know that we can change.
It's not easy and it's not
quick and it requires us
to put the work in, but
we can make this change.
If you had told me even five years ago
when my book first came out
it was pretty hotly debated as
to whether this was something we would
even ever talk about publicly.
If you had told me we'd be
having this particular conversation,
I might have told you you were nuts.
I remember, Andrea, and I
know you'll remember too,
being at a meeting on mandatory
arrest where they were like,
mandatory arrest may not be a good idea
and we were both like: Really, really?
So we're having very
different conversations
in this movement than we were
having even five years ago
or 10 years ago, so I absolutely
believe that we can change.
And so I'll just end with yet
another, Mariame Kaba quote,
which is that, "Hope is a discipline."
And so for us to make that change,
requires us to put that
work in day in and day out.
- I think I just wanna
add to kind of taking
that sort of personal,
individual opportunity
or realization for change and apply it
to the bigger scope for
organizations in the DV field
and how we have to accept
that responsibility
and how we are complacent
in these systems depending
on how we are, where we're
getting our resources from
and where we're getting our trainings from
and where we're supporting
and directing our survivors
to as far as their safety plans
and their direct first responders.
And we need to do that work
actively and intentionally
and we need to be critically thinking
about that sort of
intersectionality of violence,
which has been true forever
in order to have, um,
successful white supremacy
and white colonization,
sexual violence was always used
and it's nothing new to see these types
of violence used as tools
that are just as powerful
as the weapons that were used
against indigenous peoples
and populations all over the
world and we need to know that
in order for this violence,
intimate partner violence,
that so much of our focus is on.
We need to expand that and we
need to expand our analysis
of how it intersects with
violence stemming from racism.
And it's a lot of work and we
need to be very intentional
in how the work in the DV
field needs to shift as well
to really center the needs
of those who are being the most affected
by what's supposed to be supporting them.
And so it's a big responsibility.
And the quote that stood
out to me yesterday
was Angela Davis quote of,
"You have to act as if it were possible
"to radically transform the world,"
and you have to do it every single day
and we have to act that way.
And that's where I'll leave that.
- Thank you all so, so, so very much.
I feel full in a way that I
haven't felt in a long time.
Grateful to you all and grateful
to all of our participants
for all the questions,
for everybody that contributed
to making this webinar a success.
I'm so grateful for this conversation
and feeling much more just motivated,
especially during such a heavy time.
Thank you all once again.
I am saving the chat
right now as we speak,
because I wanna make sure that you all
have access to that.
I'm also making sure that we
all have the recording as well.
But thank you all so much.
And thank you to everybody once again.
I hope you all enjoy the rest of your day.
- Thank you for an incredible posting
and moderation and questions
and just for all the work
that you hold every day, Nana,
particularly today, just
really wanna lift you up
and send you my heart and my sisterhood.
- Absolutely that and
thanks to the Hotline too
for being willing to
host this conversation
and being one of the few
national organizations
that has been out in front on this.
- Yeah history will remember
that you all were here first
and making sure that this
was part of the conversation.
And again, the conversation to be had.
So yes, I'm deeply
appreciative to you Nana
and to The Hotline.
- Yeah, thank you, I'm
thrilled to have been able
to hear from you all and we're
only in this conversation
because of the work that
you all have been doing
on the ground for decades
now, so thank you so much.
- Yes, be well everybody.
Thank you so much.
- Take care and stay safe.
