Introduction – The Framework of the International Call to Action
All of the SGUK podcasts to date have been divided into categories, and each category relates to one or more of the key areas of focus listed on the Archewell Foundation website. All of the podcasts and their accompanying articles relate to am Archewell priority area of activity. The largest area percentage wise of topics contained within the podcasts come under the heading of Legal matters, stating areas where the law exists and where there is evidence of a complete disregard to the law when it comes to Harry and Meghan, and no doubt to members of the wider population. All of the behaviour towards the Sussexes, and those responsible for the roll out of such activity, all comes under the main heading of breaches in Human Rights Legislation.
This international Call to Action centres on a number of areas within that framework. Due to the nature and hostility shown to anyone or organisation who is involved with or supports The Sussexes, it is not wise to give out details of this campaign publicly yet, but it will become public in due course I am sure, and it will not be a Sussex supporter that brings matters to light.
It was clear that no one in the UK could be approached for assistance with this campaign, not least because none of the organisations which are officially known to be there to challenge breaches in the law, on a specific area, and where one or both of the Sussexes and their children have been the target of certain activities, have publicly come forward to offer support. As a result, a list of international legal experts, and specialists and advocates, authors and elected officials, community groups doing the work on the ground, along with recognised centres of excellence in Human Rights legislation, based in many countries, will be receiving an Information Pack over the next 3-4 weeks, commencing this week. There are other categories of recipients, but this is just to give the audience an idea.
It is hoped that some or all of these recipients will begin dialogue with others in this formidable group, and in doing so, create another tier of expertise to liaise with the existing International Human Rights forums, to discuss ways in which current practices, can be updated to reflect the growth of such matters as hate groups online, and the implications and risks to their practices, and such areas as stalking, harassment and bullying across borders as well as in the same country as the perpetrators, all need to be addressed. Risk to life is high and increasing, and the knock on effect to mental health provision globally is huge. The majority of those on the receiving end of such treatment are not in a position to defend themselves; they do not have the means to challenge the abuse and suffer in silence or worse. The legislation is there and everyone is entitled to protection under the law. This is a campaign to hopefully generate meaningful cross country discussions which will lead to activity with outcomes.
News networks will also be made aware of the campaign, in as many countries that we can reasonably do so. We already have a group of Networks, based around the world, which will also receive an Information Pack in this first phase and will add to that group as we go along.
As a reminder here is an outline of the context of the legislation that many of us would like to see implemented for everyone under the law, and not a selective few, based on privilege decided by people who have a bested interest in the outcome.
Context of Human Rights Legislation
- What are Human Rights?
- Human Rights are standards that allow all people to live with dignity, freedom, equality, justice and
- Guaranteed to everyone without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
- Human Rights are part of international law, contained in treaties and declarations that spell out specific rights that countries are required to uphold. Some countries incorporate human rights in their own national state and local laws.
- Why are Human Rights important?
- Human rights reflect the minimum standards necessary for people to live with dignity.
- Human Rights give people the freedom to choose how they live, how they express themselves and what kind of government they want to support.
- By guaranteeing life, liberty, equality and security, human rights protect people against abuse by those who are more powerful.
- Human Rights Characteristics
- Where do Human Rights Come From?
International Bill of Rights:-
- The right to equality and freedom from discrimination
- The right to life, liberty and personal security
- Freedom from torture and degrading treatment
- The right to a fair trial
- The right to privacy
- Freedom of belief and religion
- Freedom of opinion
- Right of peaceful assembly and association
- The right to participate in government
- The right to social security
- The right to work
- The right to an adequate standard of living
- The right to education
- The right to health
- The right to food and housing
Who is Responsible for Upholding Human Rights?
ANSWER: Under Human Rights Treaties, governments have the primary responsibility for protecting and promoting human rights. However, governments are not solely responsible for human rights. The UDHR[i] states:-
“Every individual and every organ of society shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international to secure their universe and effective recognition and observance.”
The provision means that not only the government, but also businesses, civil society, and individuals are responsible for promotion and respecting human rights.
When a government ratifies a human rights treaty, it assumes a legal obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights contained in the treaty.
Lets be clear here. I am not saying criminal activity in relation to the coerced control is the template for legal response to the type of activity that has been directed at Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex for the past 5 years. What I am saying is that under the basic tenet of Human Rights legislation, there are many categories of law that run parallel to what is going on with the Sussexes, and where action has been taken against people who are not considered powerful or wealthy. Yet when it comes to people in powerful positions and who have senior professional posts in the business or legal world, or are considered as influencers in certain areas of business or politics, then the world turns a blind eye until things become so serious, or what was once hidden comes to light, the powers that be are forced to respond in some way, even if it is decades too late for the victims of those activities.
When you read about these examples, if you replace “partner, ex partner, spouse” etc with all those groups of people who have abused the Sussexes, eg the Royal Family, the tabloid press Royal Reporters, Government by their silence are complicit, keyboard warriors, the hillbilly clan headed up by the Sperm Donor – they are behaving like an ex partner who refuses to accept that the marriage is over, and are now becoming dangerously obsessed with pursuing them and putting their lives at risk.
If on the rare occasion the abusers are powerful and/or wealthy, and their victims are in a similar category, there seems to be a position taken that say to anyone caring to watch, that it is best to let them sort it out between themselves. No need for us to be interested. It is just rich folk doing their thing. If the victim is a person of colour, then it seems it matters even less. The view seems to be, the victim has the financial means to pay for multiple legal actions, and can move home several times in order to try and remain safe, can afford to pay for top class security teams etc etc.
Everyone knows deep down if the perpetrators were POC, it rarely takes decades for legal professionals to step in. If the victims are poor Caucasians and their abusers are wealthy and powerful etc, no one is interested, until the abusers have long since passed on. The basic aspect of everyone is entitled to protection under the law, seems to be pushed to one side. The danger with that is that victims are left to suffer, and if the abuse continues for years, the cost to the individuals concerned is more than financial, and therefore the damage to the authorities and the countries concerned is not easily repaired.
“Abusive men are just as likely to be lawyers, accountants and judges
as they are to be unemployed. It is about power and control.”
Sandra Horley CEO of Refuge.
Todays podcast is using the framework of Coercive Control and how it can apply to describing what has been and continues to be done against Harry and Meghan. “Experts have thus often used the non-injury model of “coercive control” to explain the dynamics of intimate partner violence. The term was first popularized in 2007 by the work of Dr. Evan Stark, who described coercive control as a pattern through which abusive partners–typically males–employ combinations of violence, intimidation, isolation, humiliation, and control”[ii] I list reference material and websites at the end of the articles, to help you on a journey of discovery of some of these topics. I try to give you a user friendly starting point.[iii]I have done the same with this one.
Sussex Global UK Podcast Topics To Date
Here is a chart of all the SGUK podcasts since its formation in June 2021. Here you can see the topics discussed and the general themes of the discussions.
Note the percentage split of the main grouping. Legal aspects forms the highest percentage with structured group activity, mainly online but also involving UK media both printed and televised, all discussing the same topics most days; it is not accidental. The impact on Mental Health is a growing concern, and a higher percentage than the Mental Health aspects is the VFM of the UK Monarchy and its input into and with societal groups deemed to be in positions of power, and therefore influencing etc.
The impression is that very few legal experts appear to want to get involved in UK Royal business, not least because it is considered that working class people have more to worry about than when rich people fall out. What too many are missing is that it is happening outside and most people cannot afford to take on the establishment, and in particular the media, so they suffer in silence, or in the case of some individuals , give up all together.
There is quite a lot of discussion that has taken place around the podcasts and one area as part of Human Rights legislation and its breaches, is Coercive Control. Again, for the same reasons I mentioned at the start, I am not going to list lots of detail here, but everything stated in previous podcasts is backed up by evidence, and it is my wish that many if not all of those people and organisations who will receive the Information Pack, that they remind themselves of the frameworks, and think of the experiences of The Sussexes as a family, and not as an affluent family. Lets not dehumanize people because of their access or lack of access to wealth, when they are being abused by another or others using a systematic process that has been in place for many many years.
Here is an extract from one Aid organisation when talking about Coercive Control.
“Abusive men are just as likely to be lawyers, accountants and judges
as they are to be unemployed. It is about power and control.”
Sandra Horley CEO of Refuge.
As someone who has worked with womens groups for many years, including survivors of various forms of abuse, my antennae goes up when I feel that someone is being abused, in whatever form, and is being maligned because they are prepared to speak their truth. Another example, which is ongoing, relates to Brittany Spears. Another situation which has been going on for over a decade, and whose voice was ignored, in favour of family members who used her money to pay for legal experts to ensure that Brittany had no voice, but the abusers continued to profit from her continual earnings for their benefit, not Brittany.
Those of you who know my work and publications, know that I like to use academic theory and models to help show how many topics can be explained in a user friendly way. I regard the treatment of Meghan and Harry, Meghan in particular like that of a person in a violent marriage. The abuser continually trying to erode the self esteem of their victim, and telling them how they could be nothing without them etc., and to put fear in their minds about leaving. When that victim manages to escape, the abuser then goes on the defensive, trying to justify their actions, and ultimately try to make life so difficult outside of the marital home that the victim returns and becomes compliant, and in fact inevitably the level of abuse is worse than before.
I have used the Kubler Ross 7 Stages of Grief Model in the past, to show how the British Royal Family, the Royal Reporters working for the tabloids, but who have an ‘invisible’ contract with the Monarchy to always give them positive press coverage, in return to access to the Royals for exclusive scoops etc. I include Government in the analogy, aristocracy and keyboard warriors in the frame. It is a very useful model for a number of things.
Post Separation Control
- Is a form of abuse, that a male ex partner uses to maintain power and control over a woman, long after the marriage/relationship is over. Gender can be either. Think of all the groups I have mentioned, particularly the Royal Family, and its partners in the media, behaving as though they are trying to keep control over what Harry and Meghan do in life. Still desperately trying to cling on to power over their actions. The BRF never once anticipated that Harry would leave with his family. The aim was clearly to destroy Meghan, in any way it panned out, and if she remained alive, she would get up and walk away. No one thought that Harry would leave too. The next step was to take away their security and to reveal their location in Canada, and then again in USA (Tyler Perry’s property). Charles was responsible for the security leak and the details of their location, along with stopping funding early on in the 12 month transition period that the Royal family themselves insisted on having in the first place. Charles was willing to place his own son in danger in an effort to force him home and to secure more years for the Monarchy. They would never risk the life to the heir to the throne, but the “Spare” was expendable. What a family. The irony of a black man, from an industry that the UK constantly malign as of no importance, stepped forward and provided security and a home for the Sussexes, and sent a private plane to collect the Sussex family from Canada and take them to the LA property, is not wasted on me. Gives me joy every time I think about it. God Bless Tyler Perry. An angel on this earth.
- Often when the abuser is in a position of power, the abuse is not physical – not least because of the potential for reputational damage. The control is often “psychological and emotional terrorism”, which is harder to prove.
- One example:- control tactics using the legal system to repeatedly drag women through expensive litigation, or launching a defamation campaign, in an attempt to silence or discredit the victim and to preserve the reputation of the abuser/s.
There is much much more, but no need to repeat it all today. It is just a way of letting you know that this is happening, and that all the activity is contained in the podcasts, and the accompanying articles in the Blog section of my website. All listed in the Reference material and in the Slides that are part of the podcast.
I hope that enough recipients on this list do commence conversation with their counterparts elsewhere, and move discussions onto action. We have to update processes and procedures, and sometimes the law, to keep up to speed with changing methods and behaviours in society globally. In order for those types of outcomes to materialise, their needs to be discussions which move on to action. Those International Legal Forums must not be deterred when perpetrators are affluent, or not. It is about the abuse and the rights of the abused.
California Approved a New Bill on Sept 29th 2020 including Coercive Control as part of the Domestic Violence legislation
A Little Information on this remarkable lady, Laura Richards:-
Laura Richards, BSc, MSc, MBPsS
Laura is a renowned international expert on domestic violence, stalking, sexual violence, homicide and risk assessment. After a decade of analysing violent crime at New Scotland Yard Laura became the violence adviser to the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC). Trained by world leaders as a criminal behavioural analyst at the Behavioural Analysis Unit, National Centre for the Analysis of Violent Crime at the FBI and New Scotland Yard, Laura has applied her psychology degrees to analyse violent crime from a behavioural and preventative perspective. Laura has a BSc in Psychology and Sociology and an MSc in Forensic and Legal Psychology, and with a background in intelligence-led policing, has been the architect of law reform to better protect victims on six occasions. Laura is Founder of Paladin, the world’s first National Stalking Advocacy Service. Paladin was set up following the highly successful All Party Parliamentary Stalking Law Reform Campaign spearheaded by Laura, which led to stalking becoming a criminal offence in 2012.
More recently Laura spearheaded the Domestic Violence Law Reform Campaign to criminalise coercive control. Laura helped draft the new law and the statutory guidance and developed and delivered the first training on the new law in the UK.
Professor Evan Stark is a forensic social worker, author of Coercive Control (Oxford, 2007) and a lecturer who has taught at Yale and Rutgers University and held appointments at the University of Essex, Bristol University and the University of Edinburgh. Professor Stark’s award-winning book was the original source of the coercive control model when the United Kingdom’s Home Office widened the definition of domestic violence and he played a major role in the consultation that led to the drafting of the new Coercive Control law in the United Kingdom. (FreedomProgramme.co.uk)
In the United States, Professor Stark, the world renowned expert on Coercive Control is consulted by state governments, domestic violence organizations and the media on this mostly unknown method in the United States of intimate partner abuse through controlling and psychological manipulation and terror.
[i] Universal Declaration of Human Rights:- all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and