Activism

Don’t Criminalize Domestic Violence Survivors, Advocates Say

Advocates say, domestic violence must be approached holistically. Every aspect of the issue must be considered. That not only helps to end the criminalization of people who survive it, they explain. It is also a better path to ending the cycle of trauma and dysfunction that triggers and sustains it.

Published

3 years ago

March 15, 2022

Oakland Post

The Anti Police-Terror Project is a Black-led, multi-racial, intergenerational coalition that seeks to build a replicable and sustainable model to eradicate police terror in communities of color.

Charlene Muhammad | The Oakland Post

Problems plaguing people affected by domestic violence are often compartmentalized when law enforcement officers – as well as criminal justice and social welfare authorities — try to solve them. That is a fragmented approach, advocates argue, that helps neither victims nor perpetrators, and it does not lead to lasting solutions to the problem.

Instead, those advocates say, domestic violence must be approached holistically. Every aspect of the issue must be considered. That not only helps to end the criminalization of people who survive it, they explain. It is also a better path to ending the cycle of trauma and dysfunction that triggers and sustains it.

Democratic state Sen. Sydney Kamlager (D-Los Angeles) is one of those advocates.

Kamlager, a former Assemblymember who was elected a state Senator earlier this year, introduced AB 118, or the “CRISES ACT,” in December 2020 when she was still serving in the Assembly. The acronym CRISES stands for “Community Response Initiative to Strengthen Emergency Systems.”

AB 118 seeks to implement a pilot program that would prepare and empower community-based organizations to serve as first responders instead of the police. That would place domestic violence advocates, mental and public health professionals on the frontlines, responding to calls when there are incidents of intimate partner abuse or other acts of violence in people’s homes.

Kamlager initially introduced the CRISES Act as AB 2054 in February 2020.

AB 2054 passed in the Legislature unanimously, but Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed it, saying the Office of Emergency Services was not the appropriate location for the pilot program as proposed in legislation.

However, its legislative successor AB 118 also passed unanimously in the Assembly and is currently being considered in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Cat Brooks, co-founder of the Anti-Police Terror Project in Oakland thinks the bill will pass into law this time around. She owes her optimism to pressure elected officials may be feeling due to a growing movement in the streets of cities, and states across the country, that is pushing for alternatives to badges and guns responding to community crisis.

The Anti Police-Terror Project is a Black-led, multi-racial, intergenerational coalition that seeks to build a replicable and sustainable model to eradicate police terror in communities of color.

“This current political moment sort of creates the perfect storm for bills like the CRISES Act to make it through, so I’m hopeful,” said Brooks.

The organization created the Mental Health First Oakland program, a non-911 mobile crisis response to domestic violence, interpersonal violence, substance abuse, mental health and other community crisis, according to Brooks.

“I’m a survivor of domestic violence, and the police came. And following my husband having beat-the-you-know-what out of me, I’m the one who ended up going to jail,” she recalled.

She was 19, Black, and a woman in Las Vegas, she says. Under the city’s Primary Aggressor Law, police can decide who is responsible for the domestic violence.

“That’s how they took me to jail, even though my husband had not a scratch on him, and I was covered in scratches and bruises and bleeding,” said Brooks. “I was targeted as a Black woman by White law enforcement, and I was sent to jail, and that happens to women over and over and over again.”

Unfortunately, her story is not an exception to the rule, she said. She believes race had less to do with her arrest than gender. “We have to remember that we live in a patriarchy, and we also have to remember that the least believed human being walking America’s streets is the Black woman. The most stereotyped is the Black woman. The image that is portrayed of us is loud-mouthed, crazy, out-of-control, angry, violent,” said Brooks.

How those stereotypes factor into how law enforcement officers treat Black women is not discussed enough in public discourse. But far too often those interactions are deadly or violent, she argued.

Brooks’ personal ordeal, she says, led her to start disbelieving that police officers are her friends, and they would help her. In fact, quite the opposite, they could end up making things much worse, she said.

For the duration of that relationship, she had no one to call, so she said she just took the abuse, which, she says, is true for so many Black, Brown and Indigenous women.

“They don’t call anyone because they don’t want the police to kill them. They don’t want the police to kill their partners. They don’t want to go to jail,” said Brooks.

The tragedy helped propel her into activism and advocacy. Now, the Anti Police-Terror Project is on the verge of releasing its model for responding to interpersonal violence without police, she told California Black Media.

Members have worked closely with many organizations on the frontlines doing domestic violence work, because it must be a local solution, said Brooks.

The organization provides principles and structures, but ultimately, the community must come together, identify where the safe house is, who the trauma responders are going to be, who are going to deal with the perpetrator in a way that’s not violent, and force accountability, without involving law enforcement, she explained.

According to Brooks, the Anti Police-Terror Project does a lot of propaganda and talking to the community, and they have found it interesting that mainstream media’s portrayal of abusers is like the 1984 movie “The Burning Bed” starring Farrah Fawcett. In the movie, after nearly a decade of abuse, Fawcett’s character Francine Hughes douses gasoline over her sleeping husband and lights their bed on fire.

“They don’t think about that some families actually want to stay together, that some families actually want help for everybody. And for us, whether the family decides to stay together or not, we know that services and support and trauma work needs to be done with both the perpetrator and the survivors so those are the kinds of things that we’re advocating for,” said Brooks.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Healing Domestic Violence: “It has to be Heart Stuff’

Don't Miss

How to Solve Domestic Violence: Through the Eyes of Black Men

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Gov. Newsom Approves $170 Million to Fast Track Wildfire Resilience

AB 100 approves major investments in regional conservancies across the state, including over $30 million each for the Sierra Nevada, Santa Monica Mountains, State Coastal, and San Gabriel/Lower LA Rivers and Mountains conservancies. An additional $10 million will support wildfire response and resilience efforts.

Published

14 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Courtesy of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Facebook page.

By Bo Tefu
California Black Media

With wildfire season approaching, last week Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 100, unlocking $170 million to fast-track wildfire prevention and forest management projects — many of which directly protect communities of color, who are often hardest hit by climate-driven disasters.

“With this latest round of funding, we’re continuing to increase the speed and size of forest and vegetation management essential to protecting communities,” said Newsom when he announced the funding on April 14.

“We are leaving no stone unturned — including cutting red tape — in our mission to ensure our neighborhoods are protected from destructive wildfires,” he said.

Newsom also signed an executive order suspending certain regulations to allow urgent work to move forward faster.

This funding builds on California’s broader Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, a $2.7 billion effort to reduce fuel loads, increase prescribed burning, and harden communities. The state has also launched new dashboards to keep the public informed and hold agencies accountable.

California has also committed to continue investing $200 million annually through 2028 to expand this effort, ensuring long-term resilience, particularly in vulnerable communities.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Rideshare Drivers and Supporters Step Up Push to Unionize

Today in California, over 600,000 rideshare drivers want the ability to form or join unions for the sole purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. It’s a right, and recently at the State Capitol, a large number of people, including some rideshare drivers and others working in the gig economy, reaffirmed that they want to exercise it.

Published

15 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌
California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌

On July 5, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into federal law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Also known as the “Wagner Act,” the law paved the way for employees to have “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,” and “to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, according to the legislation’s language.

On April 8, the rideshare drivers held a rally with lawmakers to garner support for Assembly Bill (AB) 1340, the “Transportation Network Company Drivers (TNC) Labor Relations Act.”

Authored by Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), AB 1340 would allow drivers to create a union and negotiate contracts with industry leaders like Uber and Lyft.

“All work has dignity, and every worker deserves a voice — especially in these uncertain times,” Wicks said at the rally. “AB 1340 empowers drivers with the choice to join a union and negotiate for better wages, benefits, and protections. When workers stand together, they are one of the most powerful forces for justice in California.”

Wicks and Berman were joined by three members of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC): Assemblymembers Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood), Sade Elhawary (D-Los Angeles), and Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights).

Yvonne Wheeler, president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor; April Verrett, President of Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Tia Orr, Executive Director of SEIU; and a host of others participated in the demonstration on the grounds of the state capitol.

“This is not a gig. This is your life. This is your job,” Bryan said at the rally. “When we organize and fight for our collective needs, it pulls from the people who have so much that they don’t know what to do with it and puts it in the hands of people who are struggling every single day.”

Existing law, the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act,” created by Proposition (Prop) 22, a ballot initiative, categorizes app-based drivers for companies such as Uber and Lyft as independent contractors.

Prop 22 was approved by voters in the November 2020 statewide general election. Since then, Prop 22 has been in court facing challenges from groups trying to overturn it.

However, last July, Prop 22 was upheld by the California Supreme Court last July.

In a 2024, statement after the ruling, Lyft stated that 80% of the rideshare drivers they surveyed acknowledged that Prop 22 “was good for them” and “median hourly earnings of drivers on the Lyft platform in California were 22% higher in 2023 than in 2019.”

Wicks and Berman crafted AB 1340 to circumvent Prop 22.

“With AB 1340, we are putting power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of workers to raise the bar in their industry and create a model for an equitable and innovative partnership in the tech sector,” Berman said.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Holds the Line on DEI as Trump Administration Threatens School Funding

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

Published

15 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Joe W. Bowers Jr
California Black Media

California education leaders are pushing back against the Trump administration’s directive to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in its K-12 public schools — despite threats to take away billions in federal funding.

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

According to Trainor, “DEI programs discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another.”

On April 3, the DOE escalated the pressure, sending a follow-up letter to states demanding that every local educational agency (LEA) certify — within 10 business days — that they were not using federal funds to support “illegal DEI.” The certification requirement, tied to continued federal aid, raised the stakes for California, which receives more than $16 billion annually in federal education funding.

So far, California has refused to comply with the DOE order.

“There is nothing in state or federal law that outlaws the broad concepts of ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion,’” wrote David Schapira, California’s Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, in an April 4 letter to superintendents and charter school administrators. Schapira noted that all of California’s more than 1,000 traditional public school districts submit Title VI compliance assurances annually and are subject to regular oversight by the state and the federal government.

In a formal response to the DOE on April 11, the California Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond collectively rejected the certification demand, calling it vague, legally unsupported, and procedurally improper.

“California and its nearly 2,000 LEAs (including traditional public schools and charter schools) have already provided the requisite guarantee that its programs and services are, and will be, in compliance with Title VI and its implementing regulation,” the letter says.

Thurmond added in a statement, “Today, California affirmed existing and continued compliance with federal laws while we stay the course to move the needle for all students. As our responses to the United States Department of Education state and as the plain text of state and federal laws affirm, there is nothing unlawful about broad core values such as diversity, equity and inclusion. I am proud of our students, educators and school communities who continue to focus on teaching and learning, despite federal actions intended to distract and disrupt.”

California officials say that the federal government cannot change existing civil rights enforcement standards without going through formal rule-making procedures, which require public notice and comment.

Other states are taking a similar approach. In a letter to the DOE, Daniel Morton-Bentley, deputy commissioner and counsel for the New York State Education Department, wrote, “We understand that the current administration seeks to censor anything it deems ‘diversity, equity & inclusion.’ But there are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI.”