Dr Khatidja Chantler University of Central Lancashire

1. Connect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and HarmConnect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and Harm
Coercive Control and Forced Marriage
Dr. Khatidja Chantler
Email:kchantler@uclan.ac.uk

2. Connect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and HarmConnect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and Harm
Coercive Control
• Traditionally thought of as occurring in
heterosexual relationships
• Surveillance and micro regulation as a central
feature
• A gendered liberty crime which attacks a person’s
sense of self-hood and citizenship (Stark, 2007)
• Shifting away from individualised understandings of
coercive control to testing its relevance to cultural,
institutional and structural understandings

3. Connect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and HarmConnect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and Harm
Legal remedies
• New crime of coercive and controlling behaviour
(amendment to the Serious Crime Bill)
• Will this be used in relation to forced marriage?
• Civil Protection (Forced Marriage Civil Protection
Act, 2008)
• Forced Marriage since June 2014 is a specific
criminal offence in England & Wales
• Multi-agency guidance for forced marriage on a
statutory footing since 2008.

4. Connect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and HarmConnect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and Harm
Forced Marriage
 Typically presented in its most extreme forms:
abduction, rape etc.
 Tends to privilege physical/sexual violence
 Other forms of violence e.g. emotional more
hidden
 Forced marriage: up to and after the marriage i.e.
both entry and exit points are included
 Where one (or more parties do not consent) and
where duress is used
 Positioned as different to arranged marriages

5. Connect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and HarmConnect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and Harm
Arranged/Forced Continuum
Slippage between arranged and forced in some cases,
especially when arranged marriage happens at the
level of social expectation.
I had the choice to say, erm I wasn’t forced into saying
yes. But I think my mum, my parents didn’t give me
enough time, or didn’t, they didn’t, even though I was
about fourteen, fifteen, that’s no age to ask a girl
does she want to get engaged to someone
(survivor, FM, Hester et al, 2007)

6. Connect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and HarmConnect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and Harm
FM research in the UK:
Key themes
 Lack of adequate recording of incidents of FM – in
part because of definitional issues (Hester et al 2007)
and what counts as a ‘case’ (Nat Cen 2009)
 Majority of victims are young, South Asian women,
but FM occurs in a range of communities (Hester et
al 2007; Khanum 2008)
 Differences in the conceptualisation of FM: is it
purely cultural (Branden & Hafiz) or is part of gender
based violence (Gangoli et al 2011)
 Lack of professional knowledge and fear of
intervention (Chantler, 2001, MoJ 2009)

7. Connect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and HarmConnect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and Harm
Prevalence of Forced Marriage
 5-8,000 incidents of forced marriage are thought to
occur each year (Kazimirski et al. 2009).
 In 2014, FMU gave support to 1,274 cases
 11% involved victims below 16 years, 11% involved
victims aged 16-17 (i.e. 22% of victims were 17 or
under)
 79% of cases involved female victims and 21%
involved male victims.
 88 different countries were involved

8. Connect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and HarmConnect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and Harm
Dynamics of Coercive Control
 Gendered surveillance pre-marriage: clothes, friends,
going out, being taken to and brought home from
college/school, sexual relationships outside marriage not
permitted
 Community talk: surveillance not just by parents but by
other members of the community – what if someone
sees me?
 Social and cultural expectations of how to behave
 Social and cultural expectations of heteronormativity
 Gendered surveillance post-marriage

9. Connect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and HarmConnect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and Harm
Compulsory Heterosexuality
I will take that one step further and say in what
community do we not see the pressure of marriage,
yeah, I would say that we as a society are trained, from
a very young age to believe that there are particular
roles we need to fulfil and the other aspect of our life is
that we want to fulfil those roles. (Survivor interview)
I guess for me I wouldn’t necessarily see that as just
peculiar to this community …I think that that’s
happened in white communities and majoritised
communities as well…if you get married then that will
iron out all the, the bumps of your sexuality so to speak
and frankly that saying isn’t it, all she needs is a good…
husband wedding.(Focus group participant)
Hester et al, 2007

10. Connect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and HarmConnect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and Harm
Child Marriages
 Promises of marriage made when children are born or
where there is a very large age discrepancy
 Clearly consent is non existent
 Difficult for children/young people to object if it’s
always been talked about (drip-drip effect)
 Understanding motivation of parents/family: as a way
of consolidating resources or redistributing them,
family obligations and loyalty, as a way of
strengthening cultural identifications
 Often (but not always) rooted in poverty

11. Connect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and HarmConnect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and Harm
Reconceptualising Coercive Control
 Unpicking consent: age issues, poverty, unequal gender
relations
 As ‘more than’ male violence and privilege in
heterosexual relationships
 As more than cultural in the context of forced marriage
 As also located within structural arrangements e.g.
poverty, state practices – can these be said to be part
of coercive control?

12. Connect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and HarmConnect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and Harm
Schools as a Key Site
In relation to schools:
 Gaps in monitoring attendance especially where parents
say that their child has moved to another school
 Undertaking training had led to ‘teachers asking a few
more questions’, (Safeguarding lead)
 ‘Staff feel they have more knowledge of the subject, that
this subject needs to be taken more seriously and that in
particular they need to be more vigilant, to listen better
and to report all concerns they may have.’ (Free 2 Choose
2014, p.7)
 Lack of expertise to train teachers but expert agencies
need to be ‘bought in’

13. Connect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and HarmConnect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and Harm
Conclusions
 Coercive control in its expanded form is useful in
understanding the dynamics of forced marriage
 Coercive control helps to re-centre the subtle
ways in which pressure is applied
 Criminalisation of coercive control – but how
will agencies use this? How will they evidence
coercive control?
 Will agencies use it in the context of Forced Marriage?