Preterition

One of the first meetings I had when Labour was elected to government in 1996 was with professionals working in the field of domestic violence. What they had stressed most was the need for legal protection for victims of this affliction. They explained how, after a victim would have plucked up courage and reported the violence and after they would have started handling the case, "all of a sudden" the victim would "decide" to stop the police from proceeding. Many times this would not be the decision of the victim but of the aggressor who continues to bully, threaten and coerce the victim to stop the procedures.

We soon started working together with a team of experts (social workers, police officers, doctors, lawyers working specifically in this area) on a White Paper to provide legal protection for victims of domestic violence. After a change of government, seven years had to pass for the domestic violence Bill to be discussed in our Parliament. And after seven years, one expected to see an improvement in what was being proposed by Labour. Instead, Parliament has been presented with a Bill which has been, with the passage of years, watered down instead of strengthened.

Various members of Parliament - Nationalist and Labour - pointed out the many sins of preterition during the two-week-long debate on the Bill.

From the outset, even when one looks at the way the amendments to the law have been written, there is cause for concern. For instance, there is no clear definition of domestic violence. It only states "domestic violence means any act of violence, even if only verbal, perpetrated by a household member upon another household member".

Apart from the lack of a clear definition, the words "even if only verbal" mitigate the hardship the victim endures in such cases. The words "even if" give the impression that verbal violence is somehow less serious than physical violence. Various instances were mentioned during the second reading of the Bill to prove that this is very far from reality. A victim who was made to eat lunch from the dog's bowl, on all fours on the floor, while the rest of her family ate at the table, had no scars to show because she was never beaten up. When she finally decided to file a report, it was quite hard for her to convince the authorities of the violence inflicted upon her because she had nothing to show for it.

Another problem is that, even though it is being proposed that a victim now cannot stop procedures in the initial stage and, thus, the police will have to proceed once there is a report, a victim can ask the court to stay procedures at a later stage. Thus, the onus is back on the victim. And because the victim can still ask to stay proceedings, albeit at a later stage, there will be further pressure, and over a longer period of time, on the victim to forgive the aggressor. This will also mean loss of time and resources on public entities (courts, the police, the agency, professionals). If we really are looking at domestic violence as a crime against society, the victim's forgiveness should, of course, be considered by the courts but it should in no way serve as a tool to stop proceedings.

Other issues that have to be addressed include the need for a clear definition of harassment. It is not enough to rely on other definitions in the Gender Equality Act and in the Employment and Industrial Relations Act for instance, where the relationship is between employees or between employer and employee and not of an intimate nature as is the case with the Bill in discussion.

Another hitch is the reference to "reasonable behaviour". What is reasonable? And if we have been talking of no tolerance to violence isn't this moving us away from this very basic principle?

There is nothing in the Bill which gives the victim the right to apply for a protection order. Only the courts will decide on its necessity. Also, no mention is made as to the urgency of the case in the Criminal Code. However, in the Civil Code, the case has to be heard within four days.

Even when it comes to bail, too much discretion is left in the hands of the court.

Another problem is the restriction of the aggressor's access to the victim which is only for a period of six months. Surely this is too short when the period for the protection order is of three years.

Other points such as those of slight or grievous bodily harm, the link with substance abuse, the vulnerability of particular groups, such as the physically and mentally handicapped, proceedings in other courts, have not been clearly addressed.

It certainly is good to see that members of Parliament from both sides of the House have come up with valid suggestions on how the Bill can be strengthened. I presume and augur that for the good of the victims first and foremost and of our society in general the amendments the opposition, and maybe even the parliamentarians on the government benches who have voiced their constructive criticism, will be proposing at the committee stage will be accepted by the government. If not, this law, which is already several years too late for those needing legal protection from the violent reality they live in, will have to go back to the drawing board when Labour is in government.

Mrs Dalli is Labour shadow minister for public function and women's rights.