Today I read a notice of a vigil in memory of an autistic man killed by a family member. The words from it which caught my eye werem’t the ones you’d expect:
“and other victims of domestic violence”.
And it occured to me how rarely I’d see that term used to describe cases like these. I’m aware there is cricism of the terminology itself and I’m insufficiently familiar with the arguments to enter into that discussion, but I do think we need to treat acts of violence against disabled people by family members as falling in the same general category as other violence within the home and family grouping.
There’s a pattern at the moment, and it isn’t good. Someone will defend the abuser on the grounds of there being insufficient services available to them and how they just got desperate. Others will agree. Anyone who wants to advocate for the person on the recieving end can’t even mention the service provision because (understandably) they fear it will play into the idea that it was in some ways justified.
But it’s obvious that in a world where people can’t access needed resources, tragedies happen. And that something needs to be done about it. And that doesn’t negate from the fact that these acts are inexcusable, that there is a clear aggressor, or that our support should be for the person on the recieving end.
I’ve heard many people talk eloquently and knowledgably about the circumstances in which domestic violence is more likely to occur. About the stressors which aggravate it. About how actual change in our society – not just violence at the bottom of the cliff type measures – is the way forward. And they do so without making excuses, without victim blaming. Without ever suggesting that things are okay.
So much of the groundwork has already been done, but some people have been left out of the discussion. We need to change that.