I carry no particular candle, to say the least, either for man-hating old guard of feminism, or for "Stonewall", named as it is after a pederast bar.
But the latter has nominated one of the former, Julie Bindel, for Journalist of the Year. And she is a very greatly preferable to those who have unleashed their fury at that nomination.
Bindel is a leading opponent of prostitution, pornography, lap-dancing clubs, and anonymity for those accused of rape, which I oppose just as I oppose that of their adult accusers, and just as I oppose all other attacks on our open justice system, including the secrecy of the family courts, convictions on anonymous evidence, and both pre-trial convictions and pre-trial acquittals by the Crown Prosecution Service.
She also, and this is what has caused the trouble, opposes the State lying (as if there were not enough of that already) that would be the issuing of new birth certificates to those who have undergone drastic cosmetic surgery in order to give the appearance that their chromosomes might have changed, as of course they cannot.
Good for her.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you think that all gay bars are pederast bars?
ReplyDeleteNo, but I know that the Stonewall Inn was one.
ReplyDeleteIt was also a centre for what are now called "transpeople", let Ms Bindel (who is right on this one) and others of like mind take note.
Interfering with minors and cross-dressing were the specific offences for which the arrests and raids took place.
which I oppose just as I oppose that of their adult accusers
ReplyDeleteIt's humiliating and traumatising enough to be raped without having your name made public too for daring to press charges against your attacker. The rate of reporting for rape is ridiculously low even with the anonymity currently granted to rape victims; removing that anonymity will only reduce reporting further.
If someone makes a demonstrably false accusation, they can be prosecuted for perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice, at which point they would lose their anonymity, so there is a strong incentive not to lie. By the way, a "not guilty" verdict does not mean a false accusation, it just means that the accusation could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
I voted for you at the last local election based on your pro-peace stance: having now read your opinions about rape victims, I won't be voting for you again.
It is traumatic to be the victim of all sorts of things.
ReplyDeleteBut we either have an open justice system or we don't. The adult accused has the aboslute moral right to confront, and to be confronted by, his or her adult accusers in open court. The character of the specific offence alleged is neither here nor there.
Both the conviction rate (certainly) and the reporting rate (probably, although there is no certain way of knowing) have gone down since anonymity was introduced. So it clearly does no good on that score.
It is traumatic to be the victim of all sorts of things.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, rape is a unique form of trauma, involving the body and the mind, often with long-terms effects to both. Rape victims run the risk of contracting STIs (some incurable) or suffering intimate injuries, sometimes so serious as to require stitches. Female rape victims can also become pregnant against their will. (For some reason, large segments of the populace don't regard forcing those risks on someone against their will as a serious matter.) Being raped can lead to anxiety and inhibitions when having sex for years, even decades. It can cost you your partner simply because they cannot cope with the enormity of what has happened to you. It can cause anxiety and even panic attacks (in my case, two decades later) during pelvic exams and smear tests that are very necessary to safeguard one's health, in some cases to the extent that the victim cannot endure these important exams. It is traumatic in a way that no other crime is.
Secondly, rape victims, especially women, are often blamed for what has happened to them or branded liars. If I was to go to the police and I knew that by prosecuting my attacker, my name would be in the papers for all my friends, enemies, colleagues, &c to see, gossip about, and use as ammunition against me, I would not be able to go to court. Even writing here now outside of a courtroom, I do not dare to give my name.
The adult accused has the aboslute moral right to confront, and to be confronted by, his or her adult accusers in open court.
This is the case whether press anonymity is granted or not. The defendant retains his right to defend himself, and currently often uses deeply unfair tactics to do so (such as asking irrelevant questions about the victim's sexual history). The press does not need to know the name of the accuser in order for the defendant to defend himself.
Both the conviction rate (certainly) and the reporting rate (probably, although there is no certain way of knowing) have gone down since anonymity was introduced. So it clearly does no good on that score.
The most recent Government figures were published in a report called "Rape: A Gap or A Chasm" in 2005: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf The executive summary states that conviction rates are dropping, but reporting rates are increasing. I suspect that the drop in conviction rates is because a higher proportion of acquaintance rapes are being reported: these tend to be unsuccessful in court because of the widespread prejudice amongst jurors that only stranger rape constitutes "real rape".
These tend to be unsuccessful in court because they are difficult for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
ReplyDeleteEverything in your first paragraph relates to sexual assault generally, and much of it is taken from 1970s gender politics. Do you believe that all heterosexual sex is rape, or that there should be a curfew on men, also the views of those who published these things, and in some cases still their views today?
"The defendant retains his right to defend himself"
An integarl part of our ancient liberties. He hasn't been convicted.
"irrelevant questions"
If they were, then they would be disallowed from the bench.
"The press does not need to know the name of the accuser in order for the defendant to defend himself"
The whole community needs to know the name both of the adult accuser and of the adult accused. That is how open justice works.