'Safe havens' for women in Melbourne

Scarinae

The lord mayor of Melbourne, Australia has suggested safety zones with CCTV cameras in central areas of the city as a response to concerns about violence against women. He told Morning Ireland that it’s not a direct response to the murder of Jill Meagher, but the issue of violence “is very high in our conscious at the moment so as a city we are looking at creating a safe space where women know they can go late at night which they know is welcoming and which is safe for them”

So what does everyone think? I think it’s a strange move – most violence against women isn’t people jumping out of bushes, it happens much more commonly in the home. Also, what if someone is then attacked outside a safe zone – will people add to the usual victim blaming by saying “What was she doing outside the safe zone anyway?”

Yellow121

According to that thread on being approached when you don't want to in a pub this is a great idea. Women can't go to pubs that attract sleazy men and now in Australia, women can only go to areas where they're safe from rapists.
Soon women will be locked in their rooms to keep them safe!

kylith

I don't understand how it's supposed to help. It's good that they're monitoring the city, but you can't stay inside the monitored area forever; they have to get to it, and then get home from there.

ash23

Jesus, seems like there is no right or wrong that can be done. People were calling for safety measures, they got them. I personally think it's a great idea and as a woman, would welcome more secure areas to be out in late at night.

It's not just for women either. Men are also the victims of assault too.

Anything that makes our streets safer is better surely?

Should they take down the streetlights and stop warning women about being safe when walking home for fear they'll take offense at being told what to do?

Will we stop teaching our daughters about stranger danger and how to stay safe in case we're instilling into them that as women they should stay in safe areas and that is wrong? Will I tell her that it's her right to be able to wait in the middle of the secluded, unlit park where dubious people are know to hang out in order to wait for a taxi? Or will I tell her to have a bit of cop on and wait on the well lit street beside the garda station which is manned by CCTV.


Seriously, this thread has well and truly annoyed me.
I know as a woman walking home I will stick to the main, well lit streets and I feel more comfortable when there is a garda presence. Should I be ashamed of myself for sticking to places I feel safe in?

Of course this is not the only answer. Harsher sentencing for crimes is something else needed, in Ireland at least.

But god, rather than criticising attempts to make our streets safer, welcome them. Let safe streets become the norm. Let women feel safe and let the threat of attack be minimised so that we can go out, have a drink and a dance and stroll home without feeling threatened.

lazygal

Why can't people be told not to rape or attack people? I think the 'stranger danger' approach does a disservice to us, suggesting that if you do the right things you're somehow immune from danger, like there's a talisman effect about doing 'the right' thing. Why should the burden of safety be on those at risk of attack, why can't the message be 'raping women will land you in jail' or 'assaulting men will land you in jail'?

Yellow121

There's already widespread CCTV in Melbourne. It didn't help Jill Meagher. More CCTV is welcome but what areas are excluded from the safe havens?

kylith

lazygal wrote: »

Why can't people be told not to rape or attack people? I think the 'stranger danger' approach does a disservice to us, suggesting that if you do the right things you're somehow immune from danger, like there's a talisman effect about doing 'the right' thing. Why should the burden of safety be on those at risk of attack, why can't the message be 'raping women will land you in jail' or 'assaulting men will land you in jail'?

I think it needs to be a mix of the two, simply because no matter what the punishment is, or how much they're told not to, people do it anyway, see also murder and theft.

Yellow121 wrote: »

There's already widespread CCTV in Melbourne. It didn't help Jill Meagher. More CCTV is welcome but what areas are excluded from the safe havens?

That's what I don't get. If the government announced that Grafton St. was under constant CCTV surveillance, what's to stop the murderers and rapists from just moving to somewhere that's not surveiled? Like I said, you still have to leave the safe areas to get home, unless their plan is that women will sit there and wait for dawn, when it will be safe to walk the streets again.

baby and crumble

I have a number of issues with this plan. Mainly I'm wondering why, if there is a widespread issue with violence, is a whole city approach not being taken? For example cities like NYC went from being dangerous all over to pretty safe all over for everyone, because the violence was being perpetrated against everyone. If there is a problem with any kind of violence in a city, why are only 'pockets' of areas being made safe? It makes no sense.

I think that this has the possibility to ghettoise women and also layer on the victim blaming, as another poster pointed out. "Well, you really should be in the safe zones, madam. And you shouldn't be wearing that short skirt or those heels either."

When are we going to start talking about the perpetrators of this violence? When are people going to start teaching their sons about responsible behaviour, as well as their daughters? Teach the men not to attack women. Teach them not to attack other men. Don't make it the victims fault, because they were 'out of bounds'. It also demonises men, like it's just natural they'd want to run around raping and murdering women willy-nilly because they can.

This has really aggravated me. Can you imagine what would happen if a city that has racist tensions and violence said "We have created safe zones for the white community." ????

ash23

kylith wrote: »

That's what I don't get. If the government announced that Grafton St. was under constant CCTV surveillance, what's to stop the murderers and rapists from just moving to somewhere that's not surveiled? Like I said, you still have to leave the safe areas to get home, unless their plan is that women will sit there and wait for dawn, when it will be safe to walk the streets again.

I don't think it's ever going to be safe to walk all streets. There will be and always have been areas that are quite simply unsafe.

However, if you live somewhere in the city, how great would it be to be able to walk home and be safe. If you live in the suburbs, how great would it be to have a safe place to wait for a cab or a bus.

And beyond that a certain amount of sense has to come into it. Don't walk on dark unlit streets at night, take a pair of flat shoes with you to walk home, carry an alarm or whistle.
And even then, you're still not guaranteed your safety. But that's true of anyone, man or woman.

Minimising the risk is all we can do.

meeeeh

I think it's brilliant idea. It will be a lot easier to police drunken idiots urinating at the doors or throwing bottles everywhere.

And I also think that some people get offended about everything.

Yellow121

Introduce the death penalty for rapists and other such henious people. There, I said it.

meeeeh

Let's stone them to death. I think we don't even need the trial to prove they are guilty.

baby and crumble

Yellow121 wrote: »

Introduce the death penalty for rapists and other such henious people. There, I said it.

That's not the issue though. Where do you draw the line? And the death penalty isn't a deterrent, or else if it was there would be no violent crime/ murder in countries where there is the death penalty, and that's clearly not the case.

catallus

ash23 wrote: »

I don't think it's ever going to be safe to walk all streets. There will be and always have been areas that are quite simply unsafe.

However, if you live somewhere in the city, how great would it be to be able to walk home and be safe. If you live in the suburbs, how great would it be to have a safe place to wait for a cab or a bus.

And beyond that a certain amount of sense has to come into it. Don't walk on dark unlit streets at night, take a pair of flat shoes with you to walk home, carry an alarm or whistle.
And even then, you're still not guaranteed your safety. But that's true of anyone, man or woman.

Minimising the risk is all we can do.

We can do a hell of a lot more than that.

It is understandable that a lot of people feel that there is no option but cowardly capitulation to the appetites of the predators on our streets. So many of us have been brainwashed to believe that society is being adequately protected by our laws; perversely, it is the police who take the brunt of the blame but it is the sentencing of offenders which has brought us to this sorry pass of actually designating areas as being "safe".

I know it's only an idea being mooted by a mayor in Melbourne, but it is another sad and sorry sign of the complete and abject surrender of the freedom of citizens to do as they please. What angers me is that the underlying message is : These men want to assault and rape and kill you, so watch where you go because we won't help you, so watch your step.

ash23

I did say in my other posts about increasing sentencing etc. But the sad fact is that since the beginning of time, some humans hurt other humans. For various reasons.

We can never completely eradicate violence or threat, we can only minimise it, that was my point. The government have to take action but people also need to protect themselves and make sure they stay as safe as possible. Because even where there is the death penalty, people still murder and rape.

I would think since the beginning of society there have been areas where criminals tend to congregate. Should anyone be able to walk through those areas? Yeah I guess. But we don't live in a Utopia and short of having a garda stationed in every 5 square foot of the country, armed with a gun and a licence to kill or at least a Taser, we won't eradicate crime.
So we need to protect ourselved from predators, much the same as we protect ourselves from other dangers.
We can't (and humans never could) just wander around completely free from danger. Other animals run faster, see better, hear better etc in order to protect themselves.
We use our brains.
Evolution.

catallus

ash23 wrote: »

I did say in my other posts about increasing sentencing etc. But the sad fact is that since the beginning of time, some humans hurt other humans. For various reasons.

We can never completely eradicate violence or threat, we can only minimise it, that was my point. The government have to take action but people also need to protect themselves and make sure they stay as safe as possible. Because even where there is the death penalty, people still murder and rape.

I would think since the beginning of society there have been areas where criminals tend to congregate. Should anyone be able to walk through those areas? Yeah I guess. But we don't live in a Utopia and short of having a garda stationed in every 5 square foot of the country, armed with a gun and a licence to kill or at least a Taser, we won't eradicate crime.
So we need to protect ourselved from predators, much the same as we protect ourselves from other dangers.
We can't (and humans never could) just wander around completely free from danger. Other animals run faster, see better, hear better etc in order to protect themselves.
We use our brains.
Evolution.

I think this actually would eradicate crime!

I think this idea of designating safe-zones is exactly the same as the city designating Not-Safe Zones, it's just that they're totally turning their backs on the problem of crime in some areas and making people feel better about it by giving them safe-zones. It's a slippery slope that we in Ireland can see the effects of only too well.

ash23

catallus wrote: »

I think this actually would eradicate crime!

I think this idea of designating safe-zones is exactly the same as the city designating Not-Safe Zones, it's just that they're totally turning their backs on the problem of crime in some areas and making people feel better about it by giving them safe-zones. It's a slippery slope that we in Ireland can see the effects of only too well.

Except that if you had such a huge population of gardai, you'd find the corrupt ones who are paid to turn a blind eye. Enough of them in one area (which can be arranged by buying the right people)and you've got areas which are unsafe......

Humans are flawed. Crime will never be eradicated.

Yellow121

Ok, maybe the death penalty mighten't work either.
You know, one day this will be completely eradicated. There will be an injection or operation of some sort that will rid everyone's mind of evil. They will find the part of the brain that triggers people doing bad stuff and they will destroy it.
Probably about 100 years away, we need them to come up with the everlastig life pill before then.

Scarinae

ash23 wrote: »

Should they take down the streetlights and stop warning women about being safe when walking home for fear they'll take offense at being told what to do?

meeeeh wrote: »

And I also think that some people get offended about everything.

I never said I was offended by this I just think it’s a weird idea and they’re coming at the problem from the wrong angle.

ash23 wrote: »

Seriously, this thread has well and truly annoyed me.

That’s impressive, considering yours was only the fourth post in the thread - I don’t know why you’ve had such a strong reaction to it. We have different opinions, and that’s fine – that’s why I asked people what they thought, as well as saying what I thought.

ash23

Scarinae wrote: »

I never said I was offended by this I just think it’s a weird idea and they’re coming at the problem from the wrong angle.

That’s impressive, considering yours was only the fourth post in the thread - I don’t know why you’ve had such a strong reaction to it. We have different opinions, and that’s fine – that’s why I asked people what they thought, as well as saying what I thought.

I wasn't just replying to your OP. Like you said mine was the fourth post. I also read the comments in the link you provided.

I don't see why you have a problem with my point of view on the matter? You asked for opinions. I gave mine. And yes, it does annoy me when people are outraged about a woman being attacked, the government do something about it and people are annoyed about that also.

meeeeh

Scarinae wrote: »

I never said I was offended by this I just think it’s a weird idea and they’re coming at the problem from the wrong angle.

What Ash said.

Anyway the cynic in me thinks "female safety" is mentioned for PR reasons. More likely they are hopping to minimize the usual antisocial behavior of drunken idiots.

iwantmydinner

baby and crumble wrote: »

I think that this has the possibility to ghettoise women and also layer on the victim blaming, as another poster pointed out. "Well, you really should be in the safe zones, madam. And you shouldn't be wearing that short skirt or those heels either."

...

This has really aggravated me. Can you imagine what would happen if a city that has racist tensions and violence said "We have created safe zones for the white community." ????

This. Thank you. I was struggling to put my issues with this idea into words but you've done it for me. Especially the bit in bold. It's approaching the problem from the completely wrong angle.

YumCha

Absolutely love this:

After a series of rapes and violence against women in Israel, she (Israeli prime minister Golda Meir) was asked to introduce a curfew for women to protect them from potential rapists – much in the same vein as the "safety zones" proposed by Doyle.

Her answer?

"But it is the men who are attacking the women. If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay at home."

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/carol-hunt-lock-up-men-to-keep-women-safe-at-night-29489542.html

Ilyana 2.0

In an ideal world, people wouldn't assault and rape each other. We would have found a way to educate young people in the importance of respecting each other's safety and bodily integrity.

But the fact is that there will always be rapists out there. Even with these safe areas, someone who wants to rape a woman will just find somewhere else to do it. I understand why people are saying 'Why should the woman have to stick to safe areas? Why can't we just tell these men not to rape?'; and they have a point. But if I was to be out in Melbourne on a Saturday night, I'd be damn grateful to have a safe route home because as deplorable as such behaviour is, there will always be people out there who perpetrate it.

I'm not trying to shift responsibility onto victims, and I'm in no way excusing physical and/or sexual assault, but I see nothing wrong with trying to protect women by providing them with a safer way home at night.

jaffacakesyum

YumCha wrote: »

Absolutely love this:



http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/carol-hunt-lock-up-men-to-keep-women-safe-at-night-29489542.html

That is fantastic Going to be using that one on boards again at some stage I'd imagine. To counter all the "what women should do it..." arguments for preventing rape.