- Domestic violence experts and advocates across the globe have projected the issue has and will worsen during the coronavirus crisis as people are forced to stay home with abusers.
- Many have seen an increase in calls for help and reports being made from victims. Agencies that have seen a drop in calls fear this indicates more abuse is occurring with less freedom to request help.
- On top of economic hardships, some victims have been hesitant to seek medical care and feel forced to choose between leaving an abusive home or risking exposure to the virus.
- Some government officials have tried to curb the rising problem, with Greenland banning alcohol and Spain making exceptions to stay-at-home orders for those seeking help.
Domestic Violence Numbers Rising
As the coronavirus prompts stay-at-home orders around the world and forces more and more people indoors, an increase of another deadly force is being seen: domestic violence.
Reports from all over the world indicate these incidents are on the rise, a phenomenon that has been seen before in the wake of other emergency crises.
“The very technique we are using to protect people from the virus can perversely impact victims of domestic violence,” Anita Bhatia, the Deputy Executive Director of the United Nations Women told TIME.
In Hubei, where the coronavirus originated, reports of domestic violence to law enforcement tripled in one county alone during a February lockdown, from 47 last year to 162 this year, according to what activists told local media outlets.
“According to our statistics, 90% of the causes of violence [in this period] are related to the Covid-19 epidemic,” Wan Fei, a retired police officer who founded a charity to combat abuse, told Sixth Tone website.
A sinister pattern appears to be forming as the coronavirus continues its global spread.
A Brazilian judge specializing in domestic violence speculated that it has increased by up to 50% due to coronavirus-related restrictions. Hotlines in Spain have reported a spike in the number of calls.
Similar reports have been seen in the United States as well. Officials at an abuse shelter in Charlottesville, North Carolina said their calls for domestic incidents have shot up by 40%. Charlotte-Mecklenburg police Sgt. Scott Evett reinforced this notion, saying the department is “looking at a 17 percent increase” in their domestic violence calls.
Many more helplines have reported spikes like these.
“We know that when there’s added stress in the home it can increase the frequency and severity of abuse. We’re trying to prepare survivors for that,” Katie Ray-Jones, chief executive of the National Domestic Violence Hotline, told the Washington Post. “There is a lot of uncertainty about what is even possible right now — if you need to call the police, what does that look like?”
Some police forces have actually seen a drop in domestic violence calls recently, but fear this is an indication that victims are being abused in silence, with less freedom and space from their abuser to report crimes.
Law enforcement agencies are sending out messages reminding people how to trigger silent alerts.
Activists in Italy said they have seen a sharp drop in calls but an influx of requests for help through texts and emails, which can sometimes be sent with more discretion.
“One message was from a woman who had locked herself in the bathroom and wrote to ask for help,” Lella Palladino, who is with an activists’ group for the prevention of violence against women, told the Guardian. “For sure there is an overwhelming emergency right now. There is more desperation as women can’t go out.”
In addition to contributing to an increase in domestic violence, the pandemic is hindering victims’ access to services meant to help them. Some might not leave their abusers because they fear violating stay-at-home orders or risking exposure to COVID-19 in public spaces.
“Maybe their child has special needs or medical needs and they don’t want to be in a group setting, so they’re choosing not to go to a shelter because the risk of their child being infected by the virus is higher than their risk of physical violence, so they’ll manage the risk of staying home through this,” Maureen Curtis, vice president of a victims’ assistance association in New York, told the Washington Post.
Other victims have expressed similar fears, reporting that they haven’t sought medical care for fear of being exposed to the virus in facilities, even after suffering injuries from domestic violence.
Job layoffs and economic hardships also present challenges, as domestic violence victims have a harder time leaving if they are financially dependent on their abuser.
Responses to Spikes
Advocates across the globe are trying to address the added challenges that have risen for those vulnerable to and suffering from domestic violence.
Spain is one of the countries that has been hit hardest by the coronavirus and authorities have been taking their stay-at-home orders extremely seriously, issuing fines to those that violate them by going out. But the government has told women that they will not be penalized for leaving their homes to report abuse.
Katrin Göring-Eckardt, the German Green party’s parliamentary leader, is pushing for the same exceptions in her country. She is also urging the government to allocate money for safe houses where victims can retreat to, suggesting empty hotels be used for this measure.
An Italian prosecutor has ruled that if domestic violence is found in a home, the abuser must leave, not the victim.
Twenty-four U.S. senators — including presidential candidate Bernie Sanders — wrote a letter to officials at the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice in a push to protect domestic violence victims and survivors. The senators requested that organizations set up to help domestic violence victims “have the flexibility, resources, and information needed to continue to provide these critical services during the pandemic.”
Greenland has taken a unique approach in its effort to help those affected by domestic abuse. After the country closed down its schools, forcing children indoors for longer periods of time, it saw a worrisome spike in these numbers, according to the government.
“Unfortunately, in Nuuk, domestic violence has been on the rise in recent weeks,” Health Minister Martha Abelsen said.
Greenland’s government announced a ban on the sale of alcohol in the capital city of Nuuk in an effort to curb violence against children as families are required to shelter in. The World Health Organization has found evidence that alcohol consumption ups the frequency and severity of domestic violence.
“In such a situation, we have to take numerous measures to avoid infection,” government leader Kim Kielsen said in a statement on Saturday. “But at the heart of my decision is the protection of children, they have to have a safe home.”
See what others are saying: (Guardian) (BBC) (Washington Post)
New Zealand Considers Banning Cigarettes For People Born After 2004
- New Zealand announced a series of proposals that aim to outlaw smoking for the next generation with the hopes of being smoke-free by 2025.
- Among the proposed provisions are plans to gradually increase the legal smoking age and possibly prohibit the sale of cigarettes and tobacco products to anyone born after 2004; effectively banning smoking for that generation.
- Beyond that, the level of nicotine in products will likely be significantly reduced, setting a minimum price for tobacco and heavily restricting where it can be sold.
- The proposals have proven to be popular as one in four New Zealand cancer deaths are tobacco-related, but some have criticized them as government overreach and worry a ban could lead to a bigger and more robust black market.
Smoke Free 2025
New Zealand announced sweeping new proposals on Thursday that would effectively phase out the use of tobacco products, a move that is in line with its hopes to become a smoke-free country by 2025.
Among a number of provisions, the proposals include plans to gradually increase the legal smoking age and bar anyone born after 2004 from buying tobacco products. Such a ban would effectively end tobacco sales after a few decades. The government is also considering significantly reducing the level of nicotine allowed in tobacco products, prohibiting filters, restricting locations where tobacco products can be purchased, and setting a steep minimum price for tobacco.
“We need a new approach.” Associate Health Minister Dr. Ayesha Verral said when announcing the changes on Thursday.
“About 4,500 New Zealanders die every year from tobacco, and we need to make accelerated progress to be able to reach [a Smoke Free 2025]. Business-as-usual without a tobacco control program won’t get us there.”
The proposals received a large welcome from public health organizations and local groups. Shane Kawenata Bradbrook, an advocate for smoke-free Maori communities, told The Guardian that the plan “will begin the final demise of tobacco products in this country.”
The Cancer Society pointed out that these proposals would help combat health inequities in the nation, as tobacco stores were four times more likely to be in low-income neighborhoods, where smoking rates are highest.
Not Without Flaws
The proposals weren’t completely without controversy. There are concerns that a complete ban could bankrupt “dairy” store owners (the equivalent to a U.S. convenience store) who rely on tobacco sales to stay afloat.
There are also concerns that prohibition largely doesn’t work, as has been seen in other nations with goods such as alcohol or marijuana. Many believe a blanket ban on tobacco will increase the incentive to smuggle and sell the products on the black market. The government even acknowledged the issue in a document outlining Thursday’s proposals.
“Evidence indicates that the amount of tobacco products being smuggled into New Zealand has increased substantially in recent years and organised criminal groups are involved in large-scale smuggling,” the document said.
Some are also concerned about how much the government is intervening in people’s lives.
“There’s a philosophical principle about adults being able to make decisions for themselves, within reason,” journalist Alex Braae wrote.
The opposition ACT party also added that lowering nicotine content in tobacco products could lead to smokers smoking more, a particular concern as one-in-four cancer cases in New Zealand are tobacco-related.
See what others are saying: (Stuff) (Independent) (The Guardian)
Egypt Seizes Ship That Blocked Suez Canal Until Owners Pay Nearly $1 Billion
- Egyptian authorities seized the Ever Given, a mega-ship that blocked the Suez Canal for nearly a week last month, after a judge ruled Wednesday that the owners must pay $900 million in damages.
- The ship was seized just as it was deemed fit to return to sea after undergoing repairs in the Great Bitter Lake, which sits in the middle of the Suez Canal.
- The vessel’s owners said little about the verdict, but insurance companies covering the ship pushed back against the $900 million price tag, saying it’s far too much for any damage the ship actually caused.
Ever Given Still in Egypt
An Egyptian court blocked the mega-ship known as the Ever Given from leaving the country Wednesday morning unless its owner pays nearly $1 billion in compensation for damages it caused after blocking the Suez Canal for nearly a week last month.
The Ever Given’s ordeal started when it slammed into the side of the canal and became lodged, which caused billions of dollars worth of goods to be held up on both sides of the canal while crews worked round the clock to free the vessel. An Egyptian judge found that the Ever Given becoming stuck caused not only physical damage to the canal that needed to be paid for but also “reputational” damage to Egypt and the Suez Canal Authority.
The ship’s Japanese owner, Shoei Kisen Kaisha, will need to pay $900 million to free the ship and the cargo it held, both of which were seized by authorities after the ship was transported to the Great Bitter Lake in the middle of the canal to undergo now-finished repairs. Shoei Kisen Kaisha doesn’t seem to want to fight the judgment in court just yet. It released a short statement after the ruling, saying that lawyers and insurance companies were working on the claims but refused to comment further.
Pushing Back Against The Claim
While Shoei Kisen Kaisha put in a claim with insurers, those insurance companies aren’t keen on just paying the bill. One of the ship’s insurers, UKP&I, challenged the basis of the $900 million claim, writing in a press release, “The [Suez Canal Authority] has not provided a detailed justification for this extraordinarily large claim, which includes a $300 million claim for a ‘salvage bonus’ and a $300 million claim for ‘loss of reputation.’”
“The grounding resulted in no pollution and no reported injuries. The vessel was re-floated after six days and the Suez Canal promptly resumed their commercial operations.”
It went on to add that the $900 million verdict doesn’t even include payments to the crews that worked to free the ship, meaning that the total price tag of the event could likely be far more for Shoei Kisen Kaisha and the multiple insurance companies it works with.
See what others are saying: (Financial Times) (CNN) (The Telegraph)
Treated Radioactive Water From Japanese Nuclear Power Plant Will Be Released Into Ocean
- The Japanese government confirmed Tuesday that it will officially move forward with plans to dump millions of gallons of radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the ocean.
- The government spent a decade decontaminating the water, only leaving a naturally occurring isotope in it that scientists recognize as safe for people and the environment.
- Despite the safety claims, protesters took to the streets in Tokyo to show disapproval of the decision. Local business owners, in particular, have expressed fears that more municipalities worldwide could ban Fukushima products, including fish, because of distrust in the water.
- Meanwhile, officials have insisted that the dump is necessary as the water takes up a massive amount of space, which is needed to store highly radioactive fuel rods from the remaining cores at the now-defunct nuclear facility.
Editor’s Note: The Japanese government has asked Western outlets to adhere to Japanese naming conventions. To that end, Japanese names will be written as Family Name followed by Given Name.
Radioactive or Bad Publicity?
After years of discussions and debate, the Japanese government announced Tuesday that it will dump radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the ocean.
Government officials consider the move necessary, but it’s facing backlash from local businesses, particularly fisheries, over potential consequences it could have. Many are especially concerned that the decision will create bad press for the region as headlines about it emerge. For instance, a headline from the Guardian on the issue reads, “Japan announces it will dump contaminated water into sea.”
While the water is contaminated and radioactive, it’s not nearly what the headlines make it out to be. The government has spent the last decade decontaminating it, and now it only contains a trace amount of the isotope tritium. That isotope is common in nature and is already found in trace amounts in groundwater throughout the world. Its radiation is so weak that it can’t pierce human skin, meaning one could only possibly get sick by ingesting more than that has ever been recorded.
According to the government, the decontaminated water at Fukushima will be diluted to 1/7 of the WHO’s acceptable radiation levels for drinking water before being released into the ocean over two years.
Something Had To Eventually Be Done
Over the last decade, Japan has proposed this plan and other similar ones, such as evaporating the water, which the International Atomic Energy Agency said last year met global standards.
The water has been sitting in containers for years, so why is there a push to remove it now? Space and leakage seem to be the primary reasons.
The water containers are slowly being filled by groundwater, and the government expects to run out of space relatively soon. Space is sorely needed, as Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide has pointed out in the past that the government wants to use the space to store damaged radioactive fuel rods that still need to be extracted from the plant. Unlike the water, those rods are dangerously radioactive and need proper storage.
Regardless, Suga reportedly recognizes that removing the water is going to end up as a lose-lose situation.
“It is inevitable that there would be reputational damage regardless of how the water will be disposed of, whether into the sea or into the air,” he said at a press conference last week. As expected, the government’s decision did trigger backlash, prompting many demonstrators to take to the streets of Tokyo Tuesday in protest.
To this day, eleven countries and regions still ban many products from the Fukushima prefecture despite massive clean-up efforts that have seen people returning to the area to live.