Domestic Violence Vs Civil Liberties and Due Process Part 2

In my first article on this issue, I discussed a specific piece of legislation in NSW that erodes civil liberties and due process under the guise of fighting domestic violence.

In this article, I will discuss a more widespread and upcoming threat - efforts to criminalise whatever constitutes coercive control - with states such as Queensland adding ‘coercive control’ to existing domestic violence legislation.

The term coercive control is used to describe a pattern of behaviour in which an individual or group seeks to deprive an individual or group of their freedom and autonomy. It is often used in the context of domestic violence but is sometimes also used to describe political policies such as the Covid-19 vaccine mandates and various future digital ID proposals.

The website of the Australian Attorney General’s Department gives examples of things that could be considered coercive control:

• Controlling who a person sees, what they wear and where they go.

• Monitoring or tracking everything a person does.

• Controlling everyday needs, such as finances, medication, food or exercise.

• Regularly criticising a person, or manipulating or blaming them so they doubt themselves and their experiences.

• Forcing someone to have sex or do sexual things.

• Stopping a person from following their religion or cultural practices.

• Threatening a person, their children, family or friends.

• Manipulating co-parenting arrangements or child support payments after relationship separation.

This list is not claimed to be exhaustive of the things that be considered coercive control. Given this, what is coercive control?

One of the problems with trying to criminalise coercive control is that it is subjective. That means people don’t have a clear way of knowing what is and isn’t lawful. Setting boundaries is a natural and important part of any relationship and different people, including myself, can often have different standards as to what is and isn’t acceptable in a relationship. In many cases people compromise, while others simply won’t get into a relationship if they cannot agree on the terms and conditions.

Who should decide what is acceptable or what constitutes ‘unacceptable controlling behaviour’ in an intimate relationship? The government? Some special interest group?

Is the person who wants sex more often than their partner an abuser? Is telling your partner to stop spending so much shared funds abuse? Are religious expectations abuse? Is there any consideration for nuance? What if the wife agrees to let the husband check her phone because she was caught having an affair and then regrets allowing this later? Does intent matter?

I firmly believe that people should have the right to at least know what they are and are not allowed to do. For example, as much as I oppose the war on drugs, you at least know that possession of x amount of a prohibited substance is illegal and hence can be informed about when you are and aren’t breaking the law. For coercive control, you can’t be sure.

The criminalisation of coercive control encourages significant government intervention and surveillance of our most intimate personal relationships. What was meant to be a tool against abuse becomes a weapon against relationships that are unconventional or that the government, community or your family doesn’t approve of based on stereotypes, assumptions, ignorance or merely hostility.

Whether it is the couple that enjoys BDSM and dirty talk, a relationship with an age gap or perceived power imbalance (such as one person earning more money than the other), the religious couple who have mutually agreed to live by the rules of their religion, the oddballs in a polyamorous sex commune, the willing tradwife, the relationship your family doesn’t approve of, the immigrant family with different cultural expectations, and even same sex couples, if your relationship doesn’t meet the ever-changing standards of what is considered a socially acceptable relationship, then you are at risk of government intervention in your loving relationship ‘for your own good’.

They don’t even require your input or consent since the government has the power to charge your partner with domestic violence over your objection and without your consent, with the intent of tearing your unapproved relationship apart.

Even if your relationship falls within what is socially acceptable today, there is nothing to stop your relationship being judged and prosecuted as abusive in the future, by future standards that you have no way of knowing. You could be in a happy relationship right now but find yourself prosecuted for coercive control because your ex-partner regrets some of the things they agreed to in your past relationship.

This of course isn’t to say that coercive control isn’t a real issue that we shouldn’t be concerned about, given it is a tool used by both abusers and governments to restrict the freedom and autonomy of others. Despite this, current legislation meant to target coercive control is subjective, deprives people of effective prior notice of what they can and cannot do, and ironically erodes personal autonomy.

The desire to tackle domestic violence is genuine, but without proper scrutiny or consideration for civil liberties and due process, legislation intended to stop domestic violence can pave the road to hell.