Latest news with #abusers
The Independent
09-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Finally, workplace bullies and abusers can no longer buy their victims' silence
When it comes to the years-long, dogged battle to finally ban abusive non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and end the harm they cause, it's been quite a week. On Tuesday, crucial – and significant – new legislation banning them in cases of harassment and discrimination in the workplace was finally agreed. I've been waiting and working relentlessly for many, many years for a moment like this. We've taken a huge step. This legislation broadly means that victims of harassment and discrimination can finally no longer be silenced by their employer or abuser, nor can those who speak out having witnessed wrongdoing. For anyone who has watched their abuser walk free, who has lost their job, their mental health or their future because they dared to speak up, the change in legislation announced by deputy prime minister Angela Rayner was a monumental breakthrough. The widespread, iniquitous use of non-disclosure agreements has for decades protected perpetrators of abuse, harassment and discrimination by buying the silence of victims, permanently gagging them and perpetuating the cycle of wrongdoing. While they were once solely intended for use within trade secret and intellectual property protection, some lawyers now estimate NDAs are present in upwards of 90 per cent of civil settlements, including cases involving claims of sexual assault, race, disabilities, pregnancy and LGBTQ+ discrimination and other workplace misconduct. The issues with these gagging orders run far deeper than the exchange of a signature and a cheque: statistics we collected with our data partner, Speak Out Revolution, gathered during years of campaigning shows that, according to one survey, 93 per cent of those who signed an abusive NDA had had ongoing mental health problems since: it really doesn't end there for the victim. If you can't talk to your friends or family or to a new prospective employer about what has happened to you, the mental toll is huge. I can say for sure that 90 per cent of the victims who get in touch with my campaign group, Can't Buy My Silence UK, say signing a NDA has catastrophically damaged their lives and their career prospects. In fact, the signing of an NDA is the beginning of a worse form of abuse. It's just difficult to understand that unless you've been through it. I have. An NDA from Harvey Weinstein cost me my career and seismically altered my job prospects – a situation that any whistleblower will relate to. I was in my early twenties when I worked as Weinstein's personal assistant and my colleague alleged that he attempted to rape her. I had been advised our only option was to enter into a 'compensation agreement' (notably it was never referred to as an NDA) which contained the most extreme confidentiality clauses many lawyers I've since shown have ever seen. The huge disparity of power and wealth between us and Weinstein really left us with no choice. It felt like, should we breach it – and break the protections around his predatory, criminal behaviour – we would find ourselves and our families in financial ruin or jail. In 2017, two decades after I signed it and as the #MeToo movement really took hold, I did breach it by speaking to The New York Times and, later, the Financial Times. I became one of the first women to break my NDA contract in order to speak out about Weinstein. It was imperative to me that I called out the system that allowed him to continue his abuse with impunity. I felt like this was the key, and that everyone was almost looking in the wrong direction. The following year I also gave testimony to two select committees about how NDAs were being abused in the UK and listened as the Conservative government told me it would 'end NDAs being used unethically'. That was seven years ago. Only now can I say real change has begun. There have been ripples along the way – two other not-insignificant pieces of legislation that gave any victim of crime under NDA the right to speak. So, while this latest isn't the only protection, it's by far the most weighty, and the most consequential. At this point we've secured commitments: that no employer or alleged abuser will be able to pressure a victim into silence. Confidentiality must only come from the victim's choice – not as a condition forced upon them. We've also fought for time limits and opt-out clauses for victims, so they aren't bound forever to silence that continues to harm them. The government has actually gone even further than we expected by broadening the legislation to include all employees, including the likes of freelance contractors and interns. But whether any of this actually becomes law in a meaningful way depends entirely on the regulations now being developed. It has never been about vengeance – it's about justice. After all this time, I can dare to say that it just might be catching up. But despite the headway we've made, we must still be vigilant – there is always room for things to slip. If you'd told me in March that we'd be here today, I wouldn't have believed you. Back then, the answer from the government was a hard 'no'. Dead in the water. I remember the meetings, the pushback, the disappointment. And yet, here we are. So, what changed? If I was being generous I would say that Labour had supported reform on this issue before coming into power. But once in government, I think they got overwhelmed. The Employment Rights Bill ballooned with amendments and reform points. I imagine they saw NDA reform as something that could be quietly dropped. But that wasn't an option for me. Not after seven years. Not after everything survivors – especially whistleblowers – had been through. We were lucky. Harriet Harman brought Louise Haigh into the conversation, and she has been extraordinary. Behind the scenes, several incredible peers, including Frances O'Grady, Helena Kennedy, Susan Kramer, and Helena Morrissey, fought tooth and nail in the Lords. Their push was crucial. I think it finally became clear to the government that this wasn't just politically smart – it was the right thing to do. And it's not like this topic is lacking evidence. There have been consultations, reports, public inquiries – you name it. Honestly, there's enough paperwork on this issue to sink the Titanic. One thing all of that reveals and that I want businesses to understand is this: removing the tool of enforced confidentiality isn't going to hurt you. The data from the US and other countries shows that eliminating NDAs in harassment cases doesn't stop people from settling. It doesn't wreck business. In fact, it's good for business. When you take away the structures that enable secrecy, you force change at the root. You can run as many HR seminars and unconscious bias training sessions as you like, but if people know there's a cover-up system in place, their behaviour won't change. Transparency is what drives accountability. The problem isn't just cultural, it's systemic. It's baked into HR policies and legal practices. Too often, in-house counsel are asked to silence victims – often by the very people who employ them. It puts them in a terrible ethical conflict. Their duty should be to the law and to justice, not to their boss's reputation. But the legal sector has largely failed to act. And still, NDAs continue to be used to protect perpetrators – from charities and corporations to media giants and even public institutions like the post office. Silencing people is no longer reputational risk management. If anything, it's a reputational time bomb. One of the most frequent questions I've been asked since the announcement is: will these new protections be retrospective? The short answer is: no. Not for NDAs already signed under employment law. But in the case of the Victims and Prisoners Act, which would render NDAs void if you are a victim of a crime, we are still pushing hard for retrospective coverage. If the law says a contract is unjust, why shouldn't that apply to agreements signed before the law changed? I wish I could say it was over; I can't: just as it has always been when it comes to NDAs, the devil is in the details – while the government has set its intentions, it's the regulations being written right now that will determine how it comes into practice. We're hoping that this law will be passed through parliament by September, meaning the protections can come into effect next year, but nothing is guaranteed. So onwards we go, still fighting, still shouting as loud as we can. So that one day I can say, finally, without doubt: justice really was served. What does it really feel like to sign an NDA? By Anonymous 'Imagine one of the worst, most damaging experiences you have ever had. Imagine that you cannot talk to a single person about it. That the secrecy brings with it a cloud of shame. With no way of lancing the boil there is a doubling down on its debilitating impact. Imagine the weight of this act of silence, of not naming out loud what has happened and therefore knowing that their truth is louder than yours. Even though you know logically that the organisation would not have paid you or even asked you to sign an NDA if they did not want to hide their treatment of you, it feels like an empty victory. It is. Step back a few years – imagine this: working in an industry for 19 years, slowly climbing the ladder step by step, and finally being offered your dream job. The pinnacle of your career. A moment to be proud of. At first, you're seen, valued, celebrated – and promoted. Annual reviews are glowing. Then the wind shifts. It starts subtly. Small, inexplicable criticisms. Your ideas fall flat. In a meeting, your boss rebukes you publicly. You're singled out as the fall guy on a major project – for reasons that seem petty and personal. You're excluded from key meetings, though no reason is ever given as to why. You're told it's due to your flexible working pattern – though it's been unchanged for years. You begin to notice you're being edged out, and junior colleagues are taking your place. Others pick up on the shift. You can feel it, but can't quite name it. Then the awful realisation dawns: this isn't new. Over the past decade, you've watched a dozen brilliant, hard-working people grow quieter, thinner, less certain – until they vanish. You'd even half-believed the narrative: that they just weren't up to the job. But you also know you are working in a culture of fear. If it is happening to someone else, then it isn't happening to you. Until it is. The sickening, silent sidelining consumes your thoughts. You go to HR. They listen with blank faces, saying everything seems fine. You realise they have been here before, and suddenly understand that they are not there to protect you – they're protecting the organisation. You want to fight back. But you're up against a global institution with all the money, all the power. You feel like they want you to disappear quietly. And for a while, that's tempting. But walking away in silence feels like conceding they were right. You decide you have no choice but to speak up. To walk away without challenge is as good as admitting that they are right. If you do not name it and speak the truth about what has happened it will stay with you forever. You see a lawyer you and tell them everything that has happened in every appalling miserable detail, they confirm what you already know: you have a case. You weigh the options and try to figure out which will damage your mental health least. You can't imagine staying, or applying for another job. If you go to a tribunal, maybe you'll never work again. You feel like someone trapped in a toxic relationship with the slow chipping away of self-esteem that comes with that. But you do have a case. The evidence of unfair dismissal and discrimination is clear enough that the organisation offers a large settlement. They admit no wrong doing at all. Yet they insist that you sign an NDA in exchange for the money that you definitely need while you get back on your feet, try to dust yourself off and recover. You have to get away. You just want to make it stop. You feel you have no choice. You sign the NDA. And then it's over. Except, of course, it isn't.'
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
Ohio's innovative approach to protecting domestic violence survivors
A domestic violence awareness ribbon. (Stock photo from Getty Images.) People who are convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic abuse or subject to a qualifying protective order aren't allowed to have firearms according to federal law, but actually separating them from their guns is another matter. Often, abusers can deny having or refuse to surrender their firearms, and in states that have not passed their own versions of the federal ban — which, among other limitations, does not itself mandate how or when subjects should relinquish guns they already have in their possession — the process can be even more precarious. Ohio is one of the states that hang in the balance. Judges in Ohio have the discretion to require the surrender of firearms because of a civil protection order — a temporary order to remove guns from a potentially dangerous person — but there is no legal statute requiring the relinquishment of firearms following an order. In Ohio, more than 188,000 people are victims of intimate partner violence annually, and the state loses $1.2 billion every year because of the pervasive violence, according to a 2025 report by the Ohio Domestic Violence Network. But Ohio is not unique; access to firearms is a key factor in the lethality of intimate partner violence. Research studies estimate that, in instances where a domestic abuser has access to a gun, a victim is five times more likely to die, and the rate of intimate partner firearm homicides in the United States is substantially higher than in other similar-income countries. The Advisory Committee on Domestic Violence through the Supreme Court of Ohio noticed that because of the disconnect in federal and state law, there was a gap in potential abusers surrendering their firearms. The committee came up with an unusual solution: paperwork. Members argued that the lack of legal follow-up after the issuance of protection orders could be remedied by the state's 10-F Form, implemented in 2021. When law enforcement goes to serve a protection order, they use the form to ask a subject if they have access to firearms, securing them if so, keeping them in storage, or noting whether they deny having access to weapons at all. Then the form gets placed in a court's docket, leaving a paper trail if there's a violation later. 'This really is a tool that can be used as a way to clarify, does someone have weapons, and if this person is lying, it could be the basis of another charge or a violation of that protection order,' said Alexandria Ruden, a member of the advisory committee and a supervising attorney with Legal Aid Society of Cleveland. Ruden, who has worked in domestic violence law for four decades, emphasized that shootings are among the most common ways victims are killed. She and her colleagues have participated in training sessions on the 10-F Form across Ohio. But she explained that there are roadblocks to successful implementation, like having a place to store weapons after they have been seized. Though Ruden emphasized the practicality of the form, she said the need for a state statute is crucial to truly protect victims. 'If we were able to codify federal law regarding qualifying protection orders, and the qualifying misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, then the implementation of this form would be much easier to work with,' Ruden said. The difference in state approaches can have significant consequences for victims. 'The place you live, not only the state but the county that you live in, can dictate what protections under the law that you have, and how safe you will be,' said Dr. April Zeoli, a professor at the University of Michigan School of Public Health who has researched the relationship between firearm access and intimate partner violence. 'We see these differences when it comes to domestic violence protection order firearm restrictions,' Zeoli told me. 'States that have these restrictions see decreases in domestic violence partner homicide compared to states that don't, and that is very frustrating.' Different states are implementing strategies to address intimate partner gun violence. In 2017, Washington became the first state to alert domestic violence survivors when an abuser tries to buy a gun. Other recent efforts have focused on securing financial support for those at risk, like Colorado's voter-approved gun tax to fund services for domestic violence victims. Earlier this year, Illinois passed a law clarifying the surrender process, requiring law enforcement to quickly seize firearms from people with protection orders against them. In Louisiana, even as federal laws have weakened, local leaders are still committed to keeping firearms out of the hands of abusers. Lafourche Parish Sheriff's Lieutenant Valerie Martinez-Jordan spearheaded an innovative firearm divestiture program that has since spread across the deep-red state. (Read my colleague Alma Beauvais's story for more.) These varied approaches are innovative, but as in Ohio, they are not being implemented without challenges. Some of the Trump administration's recent budget cuts have targeted domestic violence services. The actions on the federal level will have residual effects for organizations throughout the country. Still, the state actions show momentum for addressing the relationship between firearm violence and domestic violence. The 10-F form is just one example of recent efforts that are focused on less punitive approaches. Ruden, who has worked in intimate partner violence law since the Domestic Violence Act was enacted in 1979, told me that she looks forward to the day that she's 'out of a job,' but that there's a lot of work left to do. Often, she said, creating policies to counter intimate partner violence is a process that takes two steps back after taking a step forward. Still, these innovations represent hope. 'I am hopeful even now that what we are able to do with this particular piece is to focus on getting law enforcement to ask' about guns when a protection order is served, Ruden said. ''Do you have weapons?' or 'Let me take your weapons.'' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Forbes
09-06-2025
- General
- Forbes
3 Ways Abusers Co-Opt Your Healing Language — By A Psychologist
From Instagram captions to dating app bios, it's heartening to see people becoming more emotionally literate. Words like 'boundaries,' 'trauma,' 'emotional safety' and 'self-care' are now part of everyday conversations. Ideally, this shared language should support healthier relationships. But like any powerful tool, healing language can also be misused, especially by those with manipulative or abusive tendencies. Abusers are increasingly cloaking controlling behavior in therapeutic jargon, confusing their partners and making it harder to recognize harm. Here are three ways abusers often co-opt healing language, and what to watch out for. Boundaries are meant to protect emotional well-being. At their best, they're an act of care, a way to express what feels safe, what doesn't, and what we need to stay connected with ourselves and others. But in the hands of someone emotionally avoidant or manipulative, the idea of 'boundaries' can be twisted into a tool for distance and control. You might hear things like: At first glance, these statements sound empowered, like someone doing the essential work of self-care. But often, what's happening beneath the surface is emotional withholding. This isn't always a person protecting their peace. This could be them avoiding vulnerability or evading accountability, especially in situations where it's reasonable to expect emotional availability. In emotionally manipulative dynamics, this can leave the other person confused and unsettled. You might start second-guessing whether your needs are too much or whether asking for reassurance is somehow a violation. Because on paper, it all sounds psychologically sound, but in your body, it feels like rejection. And over time, this dynamic has consequences. A recent study on emotional abuse and self-concealment found that people in emotionally abusive relationships often tend to suppress their feelings and retreat inward. Simply put, the more someone's vulnerability is shut down, the more likely they are to silence themselves. What's framed as 'boundary setting' can slowly teach someone that their emotions are unwelcome and inconvenient for the other. So how do you tell the difference between a healthy boundary and a defensive wall? Ask yourself: Real boundaries are relational. They're consistent, co-created and leave space for dialogue and repair. They don't ask you to disappear in order for someone else to feel safe. The rise of therapy-informed language was meant to bring more compassion into relationships. But unfortunately, in some cases, it's made them harder to navigate, especially when words meant for healing are used to hurt. In unhealthy dynamics, psychological language becomes a weapon. Instead of nurturing curiosity or compassion, it's used to pathologize you and shut down valid feedback. You might hear: These statements sound insightful, as if someone is doing deep emotional work. But they're actually not. They're a strategy to silence you. The language mimics therapy, but the intention is control. Your needs get framed as dysfunction. Your hurt becomes evidence that you are the problem. Suddenly, the conversation isn't about what happened, it's about what's 'wrong with you.' What makes this especially confusing is that it sounds like it draws from therapy without honoring its ethics. In fact, a study published in Frontiers in Psychology noted how many therapy terms such as, 'narcissist,' 'gaslighting' and 'projection,' are what are called 'open concepts.' Meaning, their definitions are fuzzy, context-dependent and easily misused. When taken out of clinical context, they lose precision, and worse, they can be used to undermine real emotional experiences. In relationships, this shows up as weaponized self-help: instead of holding space for your feelings, you're handed a diagnosis mid-sentence. The conversation stops being about repair and becomes about their need to be right, and your supposed pathology. So what do you do when this happens? Don't try to win the terminology war because that's the trap. Instead, come back to your internal compass. Ask yourself: And then, remind yourself that healthy relationships don't make you doubt your sanity. They allow room for your feelings, even when they're messy. And they certainly don't use psychology to silence you. Healing is quiet and deeply personal. It involves introspection and meaningful change over time. But when 'healing' is used to avoid accountability, it stops being about growth. You might hear these common phrases: In many cases, if you look closer, you'll see the pattern: these phrases often show up at moments when harm has been caused, and repair is needed. Instead of owning their impact, the person centers their healing, and conveniently chooses to sideline yours. This tactic mirrors DARVO, a manipulative response pattern where a person Denies wrongdoing, Attacks the confronter and Reverses the Victim and Offender roles. A first-of-its-kind study published in the Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma found that people often use this strategy when confronted about the harm they've caused. Not only is it common, it's also effective at making the other person feel confused and self-blaming. In the study, those exposed to DARVO were significantly more likely to internalize blame. That's the risk here. When someone positions your request for repair as an attack, or insists that you're too 'unhealed' to understand their process, the focus shifts away from the harm, and onto your supposed shortcomings. Eventually, this can affect your self-trust. You may find yourself leaving these conversations doubting your right to your feelings, wondering if you were the one standing in the way of their growth. But real healing doesn't silence the people you've hurt. It's more of a call for you to repair and be present, especially when it's uncomfortable. So how do you tell the difference? Pay attention to the gap between language and behavior. Ask yourself: Because deep healing is meant for you to feel it in your body, unlike an announcement that is used to morally out-rank you. And if someone's 'healing journey' always results in you being the one hurt, that's a red flag. Psychological terms can offer clarity but when misused, they do the opposite. This kind of misuse is especially harmful because the very language meant to empower and protect ends up being turned against you. So, make it a quiet ritual to remind yourself of this: And trust your 'felt sense.' If the language sounds right but feels wrong, it probably is. Healing should feel like a softening, not a silencing. Can you safely bring your authentic self to your relationships? Take the Authenticity In Relationships Scale to find out.
