Earlier this year I was one of the many, possibly millions, who couldn’t believe my eyes. Photos were published of the English chef and celebrated domestic goddess Nigella Lawson being clutched around the neck by her husband, the wealthy art collector and businessman, Charles Saatchi. Everything about it was shocking. The fear in Lawson’s eyes. The grip of his hand. That it happened. That it happened in public. That no one intervened. That the photos published were invariably of her – the victim – rather than of him – the perpetrator.
The images and incident confirmed that domestic violence doesn’t discriminate. Being supremely wealthy, famous or successful does not make a person impervious to being abused. It can – and does – happen to anyone.
Many issues in this day and age are steeped in shades of grey. Domestic violence is not one of them. This is simple. It is never — ever — acceptable for a man to clutch the throat of a woman. To physically incite fear the way Saatchi visibly did. The circumstances do not matter. There is nothing that can mitigate or justify why Saatchi – who dismissed it as a ‘playful tiff’ — was assaulting his wife. Nothing.
Which is why an article I read yesterday is entirely abhorrent. (As is the fact an Australian newspaper republished it today).
Lawson and Saatchi, now divorced, are currently embroiled in legal action with two of their former personal assistants over the fraudulent use of their funds. Allegations – which have not been substantiated — have emerged from this case that Lawson regularly uses drugs.
In response to these allegations and the incident earlier this year, British author and journalist, Allison Pearson wrote:
“What if this villain of the piece [Saatchi] was actually trying to save his destructive wife from herself? What if Saatchi lamely excusing the fight outside Scott’s as ”a playful tiff” was not trying to protect his own reputation, but Lawson’s? Physical violence is never excusable, but what if a frustrated Saatchi was shaking his wife and saying: ”Wake up, woman! Look what you’re doing to yourself and our family”? What if that tweak on her nose was not aggressive and patronising, as we all supposed, but a dig at her cocaine habit? What if Lawson’s tears, as she fled the restaurant, were not of fear, but guilt?”
Everything in that paragraph contradicts the line that “physical violence is never excusable”. Because what Pearson is effectively saying is this: Saatchi’s act of physical violence is excusable if Lawson took drugs. Because if she took drugs (and, you know, misled the entire population about her blissful domestic-goddess-like existence) he had cause to be frustrated with her and that she is therefore somewhat deserving of his assault. That is the crux of Pearson’s article and it is an example of classic and blatant victim-blaming. Ideally we shouldn’t exert physical force on another but if there are extenuating circumstances then it might make sense. It does not make sense. Ever.
Even attempting to make sense of it in the manner that Pearson does is damaging. Because once again it sets up the context that abuse isn’t really acceptable except if it happens to someone who deserves it. And guess who that message rings the truest for? The victims themselves and the victims of the future who struggle to understand – even years after the fact – that they are not deserving of abuse.
But aside from perpetuating the notion that some domestic violence victims deserve to be abused, there is another gaping hole in Pearson’s column. If Saatchi was to come out and say ‘Allison you hit the nail on the head – I was physically abusing my wife to save her from herself’, then why not ask this:
“Charles, if your former wife did, or does, have a drug habit that was causing major problems for either of you, did you attempt to have a conversation with her without resorting to violence? With the admirable intention of protecting her and her reputation from scandal did you consider other means for supporting your wife through a difficult time? Anything aside from grasping her around the neck in a restaurant? Did you seek out help? Did you enlist any professionals to help her or help you? Did you consider, if it really was too difficult, just leaving? Because just leaving would be better than assaulting her”.
Frankly if Lawson is or was suffering from a drug addiction it is all the more reason why Saatchi’s behaviour is entirely unacceptable. Not the other way around. Honestly I don’t know how Pearson could write otherwise.