It appears that a grave injustice in British law has been corrected. We previously wrote at Glenn Sacks' site about the double standards in the UK's system for compensating even non-forcible rape and sexual assault victims and false rape claim victims. The former class of victims was entitled to compensation, the latter was not. And see here, too. This double-standard was indefensible, by any measure, and finally-- as reported in the news story set forth below -- a court has corrected it. What took them so long?
We previously explained the injustice:
"The UK compensates victims of [even] non-forcible rape and even inappropriate touching over clothing. Consistent with the double standards so prevalent in this area, the UK does not compensate men who were falsely accused of rape, no matter how terrible their victimization.
. . . .
"To verify this, I wrote to the CICA and asked if a false rape claim would be covered, noting that such claims often have the effect of mentally (not to mention financially) destroying the falsely accused. I received a prompt and professional response that included the following: 'Under the terms of our scheme unfortunately this would not be covered. Under the terms of our scheme for eligibility, applicants need to be the victim of a violent crime.'
"It is important to underscore the double-standard here: the victim of a single instance of a sexual act over the clothing is entitled to compensation, but a man falsely accused of rape who is arrested and jailed for weeks, months or even years, and who is subjected to untold mental agonies, the loss of his good name, and all manner of other indignities, is entitled to nothing. The victimization of men falsely accused of rape, no matter how egregious their injuries, is regarded as less worthy of society’s protection than the victimization of non-forcible rape victims, no matter how slight their injuries. The grave inequity of this double-standard is morally grotesque."
But finally a court has said that a man falsely accused of rape can receive compensation. And that is only just and proper, because there is no legitimate way to distinguish between non-forcible rape victims and victims of false rape claims aside from misandry.
Here is the news story:
Ruling backs false rape claim man
A man falsely accused of rape has been told he has grounds for compensation.
A tribunal in Taunton ruled Clive Bishop, of Walton, Somerset, can apply for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA).
In 2007, Mr Bishop was falsely accused of rape by a woman who made up the allegation. She was given a 10-month prison sentence as a result.
The 49-year-old said he lost his taxi business and was shunned by his local community as a result of the claims.
His previous attempts to claim from CICA had been turned down because he did not suffer physical damage.
In February 2007, Mr Bishop was arrested and charged with raping a girl he had picked up in his taxi.
Six weeks later he was told the case would not be proceeding as the girl had dropped her claim and had been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice.
CICA's view that Mr Bishop was not entitled to compensation as he had not been a victim of physical violence was overturned by the court on Wednesday.
A spokeswoman for CICA told BBC News Online said it would not comment on individual cases.
Mr Bishop said: "I feel the way that I was treated - being arrested in my own living room at 4.30 in the morning in front of my wife - I don't think that people understand the distress, the hurt that it caused myself, my wife my family and my friends. It was horrific."
The Taunton tribunal has now ruled that Mr Bishop does have grounds for compensation and should continue with his application.
Lawyers say it is too soon to tell if this will set a precedent for other cases of mental and psychological damage.
Mr Bishop's solicitor Russell Pearce of Pardoes said: "We are absolutely delighted, it is the right result and it means that for the future other people may have the opportunity to make an application, which is very important."
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/8048252.stm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
I wish i would be compensated for the false rape accusation that turned my life upside down.
"Lawyers say it is too soon to tell if this will set a precedent for other cases of mental and psychological damage."
WTF!?!?
Isn't providing the assistance to (supposed) rape victims primarily about helping them to deal with the mental and psychological damage they are believed to have suffered due to being raped?
Does someone sexually assaulted over their clothes suffer any physical harm at all? They're not going to be given a rape examine, nor will they need hospitalization. All they will have possibly suffered is mental and psychological harm.
That statement from the article is flat-out nonsensical.
Better they had just been honest and simply stated, "We're looking at other legal theories by which we will be able to deny men".
Guys, this story may interest you. It concerns a case some years ago where a 19yo hotel worker went to the rooms of some rugby players and had sex with several of them. She laid a complaint 5 days later, the police investigated and didn't press charges. Now it has re-emerged for reasons unknown, and the woman is getting full coverage of her side, and she's getting really vindictive in her language - she claims if she had a gun, she'd shoot them all. One guy has already lost his job over it, other men are being publicly shamed into naming themselves and others involved. They are all getting pilloried by the media, the accuser isn't being questioned.
But the police insist there is no case to answer and that no crime was committed.
Now another woman, a co-worker of the one who claims she was raped, is saying the "victim" was boasting the day after about her escapade with rugby stars, and showed no signs of trauma or remorse.
It's truly blood-chilling to see how many ordinary people interviewed by the media are so ready to believe her entirely and destroy these men. Many of these "outraged citizens" look as if they're simply acting out some conditioned response instilled into them over the many years of man-hatred we've all been exposed to.
anonymous, these folk are just reacting to the faulty and inflamatory hate speech that has come from the gender feminist / law enforcemnent missinformation Alliance.
Thats why i say, very little will change, until we first target the root of the perversion, which is the "gender feminist /law enforcement misinformation Alliance".
This "Alliance" is not written in the powers that the constitution of the united states gives them. This Alliance is a perversion.
Since my false rape accusation, i have not had been near women. I live in a heavilly gender feminist dominated area, and know the gender feminist / law enforcement ALLIANCE, is very dominant here.
In gender feminist dominated areas (with alot of agitation propaganda everywhere you look) it has almost become par for the course, that if you are the one to break it off with you're girlfriend,"Watch out", because she may just say you raped her.
Guys if you think I'm joking, you are not paying attention to these very real stories.
slwerner, I would prefer the honesty, myself. However, when I read that, my first thought is they were speaking about the mental and psychological damage the falsely accused endure. If that is the case, then maybe this is a good step.
Anon,
Thanks for the link. It will be interesting to see how it turns out. I have to wonder if it will turn out to be another case of regret, or if there are maybe monetary reasons for the change.
You're welcome Archivist. I will post all false rape reports,and anything related, as I find them.
won't all the fems jump on this possible bandwagon? they'll say women are entitled for claims to psychological damage if they are called 'whores' or something, as might be a crime if it is determined to be hate speech or 'verbal assault' or something.
I'm sure there are other possible scenarios as well.
living on campus, eh scott? my sympathies are with you.
Norm, you might want to read this
http://www.cahro.org/html/augsept98-5.html
It looks like feminists are already trying to do it.
thanks anon. I was already somewhat familiar with the issue.
calling a given woman a "bi***" is a hate crime? 1984 has arrived!
"Men who assault their wives are living up to cherished Western cultural prescriptions -- aggressiveness, male dominance, and female subordination and they are using physical force as a means to enforce that dominance. Taking these crimes out of the realm of the individual and into the collective realm requires looking at how our society sanctions men's control of women."
There is a legal term for this argument: horseshit.
Certainly a crime against a woman might be a "hate crime," but not because the perpetrator was married to the victim. If the perpetrator were gay, it is fair to say he might have targeted his male partner. And if a father beats his son and his daughter, is the beating of the daughter alone a "hate crime"?
The effort by radical feminists to elevate certain crimes into symbols of male oppression of females is an attempt to impose collective guilt on all men for the malefactions of a few. Such a concept is the height of bigotry (specifically, misandry). Crimes are motivated by all manner of terrible things, and it is a feminist wet dream to ignore all the real motivations in order to insist that every act of male violence against a woman is a manifestation of the oppression of women. It is a manifestation of the oppression of the strong agaist the weak, and some women also fall into the oppressor category, and a lot of males fall into the weak category.
This nonsense simply feeds into a radical feminist world view that the vast majority of people don't buy. It is horseshit raised to an artform. We must not allow it. It is defamtion of the entire male gender.
I've never heard an answer to this simple question: what is the nature of this "power" men (supposedly) have over women? It has never been properly explained. All people do is spout syptoms or outcomes of it, which really doesn't answer the question.
In fact, from and evolutionary biological perspective, it does not even make sense for one sex to have 'power' over the other.
I think that here feminists are appealing to what is probably peoples' (unconscious?) inference that greater physical strength confers some sort of psychological power. Our current culture of misandry and the implication that all men are potentially violent, only serves to reinforce the idea.
Post a Comment