Briana Blackett takes a look at the bigger problem behind the use of one simple word.
It’s one of Australia's most influential current affairs shows. The ABC’s weekly Q&A programme is much-loved for its ability to dive into key issues with guest panellists.
A recent episode tackled the disturbing realities of violence against women. Central to the discussion was a report compiled by Australian feminist icon, Anne Summers, who was also a panelist on the show.
As with the usual format, the guests answered questions from the audience. One of those came from CEO of Women With Disabilities Australia ACT, Kat Reed. Reed asked what was being done to protect and support women with disability who experience violence in greater numbers and ways than non-disabled women.
It was Summers’ answer, and the host’s decision not to challenge it, that lit up twitter.
In her reply, Summers confirmed statistics showing that women with disability are more likely than others to experience abuse. She went on to say, “I think we need urgent study, urgent investigation into the extent to which the disabilities are the result of domestic violence.”
No-one would argue with either of these points but it’s what came next that set alarm bells ringing throughout the disability community.
“They also can then become a cause of domestic violence,” Summers continued, “because we know that women who experience disabilities … often that triggers violence in their partner, even if he’s the person, or particularly if he’s the person, that caused the disability in the first place.”
To the disability community, this sounds a lot like victim-blaming.
Many, including me, were in disbelief that it was so openly said. I was also surprised that it was left unchallenged by the show’s host, Virginia Trioli. I had assumed she would at least ask Summers to clarify what she meant. The veteran ABC presenter instead commented on the need for more research and moved on to the next question.
Whether intentional or not, the suggestion that someone’s disability (as with their gender or race) could “trigger” a person into abusing them is damaging on many fronts. It also perpetuates a form of ableism so entrenched that even one of our most respected journalists didn’t think to call it out. Nor did the experts on the panel.
As a veteran journalist myself, who is also mum to two disabled kids, it is exactly this kind of situation that ‘triggered’ me into action, resulting in the creation of the Disability Reporting Handbook.
Produced after months of intense collaboration with Disabled People’s Organisations, advocates and media professionals, the handbook has a chapter dedicated to helping journalists report on violence against people with disability. It even cautions against this type of victim-blaming.
That chapter drew heavily on input from Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA), so I reached out to Kat Reed, who is on WWDA’s national Board and who posed the ill-fated question on Q&A.
I asked for Reed’s response to Summers’ answer, specifically the use of the word ‘trigger’.
REED: I can understand maybe what she was trying to say here, but I really do think that the word trigger was definitely the wrong word to use, because it does come across as victim blaming. You are saying that someone's disability can be the cause of their violence and that it's their fault for having that disability. But really, I think what she was meaning to say, and maybe I'm putting my own thought into this, is that women with disabilities, and people with disabilities in general, are potentially more vulnerable - and perpetrators might decide to prey on people with disabilities because they know they are vulnerable.
The fact that we do have such a high rate of people with disability experiencing violence and not a lot of avenues for safety, nor many avenues for perpetrators to be held accountable, means that a lot of those perpetrators might be able to get away with that violence, which is horrifying.
BLACKETT: Hopefully it is the case that it was just a clunky answer. But the fact remains, there was no attempt to clarify it at the time. The host didn't pull her up and say, “what do you mean by that?”. What responsibility does the media have in this kind of situation?
REED: I think this is a great example of why we need to be so careful and so conscious of how we talk about these things. We don't want to reinforce anyone's idea that a person with a disability deserves violence in any way, because that is definitely not the case. And using words like “trigger” that validate the perpetrator and the perpetrators perspective is really, really dangerous. It puts people's lives at risk. And it makes women with disability feel like they are the problem, which they're not. If it makes them feel like they can't come forward, makes them feel like they can't find safety, and makes them feel that if they did try to get the kind of support and help they need to escape violence,that ultimately no one will believe them.
So we need to be careful. If she [Summers] meant to say that or if she didn't mean to say that, we don't know. But it should have been clarified and we should think about how we use these words.
BLACKETT: What did you think about Anne Summers' response to your question in general?
REID: I think she does bring up a good point about some women who can acquire a disability through violence. But I think, for me, it missed the point of the fact that women with disability are vulnerable and are not adequately accounted for in these kinds of reports.
In the disability space we talk about it as ‘violence’ rather than ‘domestic and family violence’. Because for a lot of people with disability, domestic can mean a lot of different things. It can mean parents. It can mean carers. It can mean partners. But it can also mean the setting that they live in. If they live in supported independent living situations, for example.”
BLACKETT: Can you outline for us why the systems we have in place to support people experiencing violence aren’t necessarily suitable for women with disability?
REID: A lot of people with disability require some extra supports. That might be physical supports, it might be other kinds of supports. But oftentimes, a lot of women with disability in particular come to us saying that they feel like they can't leave [an abusive relationship] because they're not sure if their supports are going to be provided for.
For example, I work primarily in the ACT and in the ACT there is a lack of women's shelters that are physically accessible. That's just on the physical aspect. But keep in mind that disability is really broad and there are all sorts of different kinds of disability that someone might have. The likelihood of them being able to find the supports they need to just exist and have a dignified existence after violence is significantly low.
If we start thinking about financial support as well, a lot of women with disability feel that if they're in a relationship, for example, with their abuser and their abuser has been using some of their NDIS funding or their disability support pension, there is a real concern for a lot of people with disability that they won't be able to financially recover as well.
And for a lot of people with disability whose carer is their abuser, it feels like someone else has got control over their life. It's really hard [for them] to understand that this is a choice that can be made without including that person in their lives.
You can read more about WWDA’s policy and research on violence against women with disability on their website.
Briana Blackett
Briana Blackett is a journalist and advocate for her two children with disability. After more than 20 years in TV news, she now works for Hireup as part of its Communications and Advocacy team.