Almost two decades ago, I was shot during a partner break-up, but was miraculously saved. I was given life as a gift, but ended up with one less arm and a defective hip. I despair at the murder news in the last few days. Partner homicide is a universal problem, regardless of geography, religion, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, but not regardless of gender. It is the majority of men who kill their partner, especially in the event of a break-up. The media debate so far has revolved around whether the police should impose a violence alarm on women or whether men with a restraining order should wear ankle chains. The debate, in my opinion, barely scratches the surface of the problem of partner murder. The police’s responsibility is placed at the end of the chain of actions that leads to men killing women. But are the police the most important agency that can stop murder? What about the partner murders committed by men who have never been in contact with the police or have a record of violence? Where murder comes like lightning from the blue. Partner murder can also be committed by non-violent vulnerable men for whom life unravels when the break-up is a fact. It can be a long process that leads to such primitive communication as violence and murder. It can be about men who are unable to stand securely in themselves when heartbreak and breakups emotionally take over. Some become sick over time, perhaps lose their job, have poor finances and contact with the social security system. In addition, they may lose their place of residence and start using drugs. They become mentally ill and depressed, and for some the solution is suicide. Once suicide has been decided, the path to killing the ex-partner may initially be short. Life has to end anyway. We know that there are significantly more men than women who take their own lives in Norway. I believe that the debate should be about mentally uplifting offers to these men, and it is hardly the police’s responsibility. Chronicle writer Anne Grethe Solberg was only supposed to sign the divorce papers, but her ex-husband shot her with a shotgun at close range. Watch the program about her in the series “Survivors”. The question is what politicians, society, agencies, institutions, family, friends and neighbors can do to prevent the worst from happening. What can men themselves do to deal with life when their partner leaves? How can these men manage to see that they can build a new life for themselves alone? In other words, the debate should go deeper and wider. It is not only the police and the Ministry of Justice and the Emergency Department with alarms and ankle chains that can stop partner murder. Rather, it is about finding long-term interdisciplinary solutions. The Ministry of Labor and Inclusion, the Ministry of Children and Families and the Ministry of Health and Care will be able to make important contributions to the debate within their areas. The debate should be about methods to locate the at-risk families by using the right and duty of information across professional confidentiality, the Personal Protection Act and the Health Personnel Act. It could be about an inclusive working life, relationship training in families or interdisciplinary communication between different health institutions. In other words, the effort must be directed at the men who can think of killing. We need more scientific knowledge and an overview of who the killers are, how they think, their status and patterns of action in the days before the murder. This knowledge must be broadcast to make known which danger signals it is important to be aware of, and how to work to prevent murder. It is more important than turning this into a feminist project about women’s right not to have a violence alarm. Alternative to Violence (ATV), where men in crisis receive psychological treatment, does a formidable job. But they do not reach everyone. Similar offers with knowledge centers should have a low threshold and shoot up like buds in the surrounding country. The centers should welcome men with feelings of endless emptiness, deep sadness or anger and perhaps give them the opportunity to exchange experiences. We need more telephone services with counselors who dare to say, “I hear you say you want to kill her. What do you think happens after you do it? How would you like it inside then? How will the children get it? How can you imagine both of you continuing to live on each side of you? What do you need to make it happen?” We live in a country with a relatively high rate of break-ups, and we therefore need not only short-term, but also long-term measures. General knowledge of what happens before, during and after a break-up; emotional, practical and financial should become part of our general education. Life is worth living even if the partner chooses to go in a different direction, whether it is out of feelings of dishonor, despair or revenge. Such coping skills can save women’s lives. See the “Debate” about violence alarms: Why do the female victims have to have violence alarms when it is the men who threaten?
ttn-69
Violence alarm is not enough – Statement
