This snippet is provoked by  the criticism by the group 'Rights of Women' of the withdrawal of legal aid from domestic disputes -except where they involve g domestic violence - on the grounds that the definition of DV for this purpose is far too narrow. It only encmpasses physical violence.

There are a lot of unpleasant things people could be on the wrong end of, but that does not mean they are 'violent'. Some of them surely are unacceptable even if not violent, and some surely need to be sanctioned.

But the particular loathing for 'violence' is based on the vileness of deliberately inflicting physical pain or injury, or getting one's way by putting people in fear of that.

And that was Gandhi's message. He organised obstructions, boycotts, defiance, witholding of money, refusals to recognise what others regarded as their 'rights'. Some of them were pretty robust. They were clearly 'abusive', and pretty unpleasant to be the recipient of - at least from the point of view of their 'victims'. But his moral authority came from refusal to use physical force.

So cut to - for example - the listing of what constitutes 'domestic violence' to, for example, Women's Aid. Yes, of course, and rightly, it includes assault, rape, intimidation, threats. But its far wider, for example withholding money, sulking, walking away when being spoken to. This last in interesting, for its one of the things people on 'anger management' courses are told to do when they think they may lose their temper and lash out.

Excuse me,  but some of these are no more violent than Gandhi was.

Lets back the government in its refreshing stance that 'violence' be taken back to its proper meaning.

While - to repeat - acknowledging that violence is not the only objectional behaviour.