Shame on you female MPs who express no feeling, no concern, no humanity for the terrible damage done to the falesly accused! Shame on you!
Rape defendants to be granted anonymity despite outrage
The Government is to push ahead with plans to grant anonymity to men accused of rape despite anger from women MPs and campaigners, it has been announced
Female Conservative backbenchers threatened to vote against the move, which would mean that men falsely accused of rape could not be named unless they went on to be charged.
In a rare case of the House of Commons dividing on gender lines, male MPs of all parties spoke in support of the move, while their female counterparts joined forces to condemn the Government’s decision as “deeply disturbing”.
The debate followed the announcement by Crispin Blunt, the Justice Minister, that the Government was keen to bring forward legislation as soon as possible, and would not be launching a formal consultation, as had been expected.
Instead, informal talks will be held with the police, children’s organisations, rape crisis charities and the media before a further announcement is made in September.
Campaigners claim that granting anonymity to defendants could put rape victims off from going to the police.
The Government had promised MPs a free vote on the controversial move.
But Mr Blunt told MPs: "The Government is minded to strengthen anonymity up to the point of charge.
“It is alleged that anonymity for defendants would deter victims in general from coming forward.
“One can easily understand the argument that depriving complainants of anonymity would indeed have that effect.
“But it is difficult to understand how the anonymity of a defendant could possibly have any such effect.
“There is an argument that reducing publicity around rape investigations and trial should make it easier for complainants.”
Louise Bagshawe, Conservative MP for Corby, said that by: "singling out rape in this way ministers are sending a negative signal about women and those who accuse men of rape".
Anna Soubry, a Tory MP and former criminal barrister, said she had defended many men accused of rape, and that it was “without a doubt” the case that when an accused’s name was made public other victims often came forward.
She warned that the Government’s plans could leave the Conservative Party open to the accusation that it did not believe in the "proper prosecution" of people accused of rape.
Also for the Tories, Sarah Wollaston, a former forensic medical examiner for Devon and Cornwall Police, said that the "vast majority" of rape crimes went unreported for fear of reprisal, not being believed, misplaced feelings of guilt, or wanting to forget.
She added that many rapists were serial offenders known to the police and warned ministers against adding a "further barrier" to women coming forward and making allegations.
Female Labour MPs also voiced their opposition to the plans. Maria Eagle, the shadow justice minister, said: "One of the reasons people fear that introducing anonymity for defendants just in rape cases will deter reporting by victims is because one is singling out that particular crime for this treatment.
"If one were to suggest extending anonymity to all defendants it might not have that same impact. But by singling out this one particular offence, you are in danger of sending a clear signal to victims: you will not be believed."
But Rehman Chishti, a Conservative backbencher, said that the publication of false rape allegations could have "long-term and far reaching disastrous and unintended consequences".
And Keith Vaz, Labour chair of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, said "whole lives can be destroyed" by false accusations.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "There are arguments on both sides so the Government thinks it is right to have a reasonable debate on the issue."
But Yvette Cooper, shadow minister for women and equalities, said: "It's deeply disturbing that the Government is pushing ahead with these controversial plans which could prove so damaging for rape convictions without any formal consultation.
"Again the Government's failed to give any reason why rape should be treated differently to any other crime – and chose, instead, to send out the very strong signal that women are not to be believed."
Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7558673/Rape-defendants-to-be-granted-anonymity-despite-outrage.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Hooray!
It's becoming clear that the opposition to this isn't just Labour - it's Labour women.
This actually makes sense ... Labour has CHANGED in recent decades, from a traditionally social-democratic party, to adopt a 'new left', feminist, radical egalitarian, identity-politics agenda ...
The influx of women into Labour: cause, or symptom of this? Perhaps both, as Labour has undoubtedly changed WITH the left as a whole, and not independently of it.
Great day indeed - but I still feel some trepidation.
If Labour are re-elected, then repealing this may be top of their agenda.
They would probably even push to publish the names of those accused of rape in the interim period, who were found innocent - yes, they are that fucked in the head.
I worry about Labour ever getting into power again.
Praise be to the coalition government - they seem to be doing everything right, and that's after inheriting an awful situation from Labour.
You know what? I spoiled my ballot paper - I had no idea the other two parties would be any different in their treatment of men.
Rather than cross a box, I simply wrote 'MRA' at the top of the paper.
Looks like I got what I wished for.
After a shitty and stressful day, this makes the world make sense again.
Thankyou, LibCon coalition. Yes, I'm a fanboy. What can I say? This government has earned it! It's not just this - they seem to be doing everything right ... everything that Labour didn't.
I am now celebrating with some real ale. Here's to JUSTICE and PROTECTION OF THE INNOCENT.
"Again the Government's failed to give any reason why rape should be treated differently to any other crime – and chose, instead, to send out the very strong signal that women are not to be believed."
WOMEN send out that message THEMSELVES with every false accusation that they make.
At this point, with the sheer number of false claims made with shocking regularity, the suggestion that women should be believed is actually LAUGHABLE.
"Again the Government's failed to give any reason why rape should be treated differently to any other crime – and chose, instead, to send out the very strong signal that women are not to be believed."
It is difficult to believe that this assertion is posited in a serious vein. False accusations of rape are qualitatively, and quantitatively, different than any other false allegation. Aside from murder, rape is widely regarded as the most loathsome offense in the entire criminal law canon. In some cultures, rape is regarded as more offensive than murder.
But that is only part of the problem. Because of the nature of a rape claim, where the only physical evidence of an alleged criminal act is often precisely the same physical evidence of an act of love, a false rape accusation is almost impossible to fully disprove, so even when falsely accused men are cleared of rape charges, they often spend the remainder of their lives tainted as the possible perpetrators of the most detestable crime known to mankind.
False accusations of rape have severely stigmatized more human beings than false accusations of any other crime. The public scorn from false rape claims has caused innocent men and boys to be killed and to kill themselves; to be beaten, to be chased, to be spat upon, and to be looked upon with suspicion long after they are cleared of wrongdoing. They lose not only their good names but often their jobs, their businesses, and their friends. It is often impossible for the falsely accused to ever obtain gainful employment once the lie hits the news: for the rest of his life, a falsely accused man will have prospective employers Googling his name and discovering the horrid accusation. The overwhelming evidence suggests that false rape claims are a very serious problem. See footnote one, below.
P.S. The assertion that the government's proposal sends a message to rape victims that they will not be believed is factually erroneous. The proposal sends no such message any more than anonymity for rape accusers sends a message that rape accusers are to be believed over the men and boys they accuse. The message conveyed by anonymity for rape defendants is that the harm of publicly identifying innocent men who are falsely accused is severe and unconscionable, not that women are liars. It is a gross stereotype to insist that the general public is incapable of making that distinction.
"P.S. The assertion that the government's proposal sends a message to rape victims that they will not be believed is factually erroneous."
Yes - and the government isn't buying it, either! As we see from the article
Here's a message I left at the Daily Mail under its article:
The proposal does not send a message that rape victims will not be believed any more than anonymity for rape accusers sends a message that rape accusers should be believed over the men and boys they accuse.
The message conveyed by anonymity is that the harm of publicly identifying falsely accused men is unconscionable, because a rape claim is loathsome and, once alleged, unlike other allegations of criminality, is nearly impossible to completely disprove.
Women will not stop coming forward even when the accused are anonymous. After all, they continue to come forward now even when the accused is a teen male who can't be identified.
In fact, it is likely that more women will come forward if men are anonymous. When women cry rape and the man is identified, it often isn't difficult to infer who the accuser is. It is reasonable to assume that most rape victims would prefer not to have their identities revealed by inference.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38135946/ns/us_news/
Is this just anonymity up to the point of charge, or anonymity up to the point of conviction?
Because the latter is what is necessary to protect the innocent.
"which would mean that men falsely accused of rape could not be named unless they went on to be charged."
Looks like charged, but then it says 'defendants', which one would only become AFTER being charged.
Archivist - have they backpedalled after all?
This is a day when rational equal justice, overshadowed "hysteria".
The hystera's are swollen and flaring up right now, but they will learn one way or the other that mass hysteria cannot rule a judicial system. The days of Klan Rape hysteria are not coming back, no matter how many swollen and flaming hystera's take the microphone.
Did any woman MPs support this measure or is every single one of them a feminazi?
Anon said: Is this just anonymity up to the point of charge, or anonymity up to the point of conviction?
Because the latter is what is necessary to protect the innocent.
this is a very good point, my son was charged but never convicted. It has been a year since his arrest, the DNA can back and cleared him along with the fact that the young women that accused him would not show up for trial. The problem still follows him, everytime he applies for a job, his arrest comes up on his criminal back ground check. He tries to explain, but the answer is always the same "we can not risk it." There must be some way to get this off his record, or he will never be able to get employment. It has caused great depression.
Maybe he could have his record expunged. I know, it's ridiculous that he should have to pay for that...
They have backed off "until conviction," so this is only "until charged," which is a very, very slight victory. But the victory is more symbolic -- it is almost impossible to get anything done for the fasely accused so I am very happy.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBkQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3GwjfUFyY6M&ei=kEk2TITAHIii0gSXsLHqCA&usg=AFQjCNFzdsF4ufuWW8RNMG3I5Mr_xAhjiQ
kool and the gang, celebration
We are constantly berated about how much better the world would be if women ran the show.
Better for whom I find myself wondering.
Louise Bagswhore should know that all accused are anonymous so it's only in rape cases where they're named.
Anna Sourbry wants the man to be named in hopes that other females come forward but what ALWAYS happens in this case is that the wackos and attention whores come out of the woodwork. You'll have females then talking to the press (even if they are never taken seriously by the prosecutor) and telling about how the guy is "weird" and that when they were 12 he kissed her once when she really didn't want him to. Don't laugh because this is what happened in that Kennedy Smith case years ago. Luckily he was acquitted but still carries the stigma and as a doctor is prone to have these crazy females make accusations just based on the fact that he was once an accused.
And why isn't Ms Sourby demanding that the accuser's name is released? Perhaps some men will then come forward as witnesses that the female is in the habit of making false allegations and is not credible.
And Maria, ALL defendants should be anonymous.
And Ms. Cooper- rape is not like other crimes and in my opinion should be in a separate category from other crimes.. Having sex is legal so many times the difference between normal sex and "rape" is simply a matter of perception and that's not even considering all the other nasty reasons that females make these false accusations. Of every 100 "rapes" reported to the police, 90 are either dismissed by them or the prosecutor, and of the remaining 10 that go to trial about 1/2 result in a conviction. So only about 6% of all reported "rapes" end in a conviction, and with the current antimale bias I'd be suspicious of even that tiny %.
It's not like any other crime. What % of people who claim they were mugged are lying?
In 1974, the U.S. passed a law that prohibited naming the victims in rape charges. That was a good move, because until then, if victims reported rape, they'd have an "R" etched on their foreheads. As a result, few rapes were officially reported.
However, considering FRAs today, I think the anonymity of rape defendants is a step in the right direction.
It's not a perfect solution, but the new law will help create a balance.
"In 1974, the U.S. passed a law that prohibited naming the victims in rape charges. That was a good move, because until then, if victims reported rape, they'd have an "R" etched on their foreheads."
What the hell kind of whack-ass feminist bullshit is this? Are you on drugs? I'd like to try some of whatever you're on.
Seriously this sounds like an even more bizarro version of the 'rule of thumb' false myth.
I am sure that the feminist textbooks of the future will inform students that when women of the late 20th / early 21st century made a rape complaint, normal protocol was for the judge and all members of the jury to rape them, shit on them, then throw them out into the street.
"Again the Government's failed to give any reason why rape should be treated differently to any other crime – and chose, instead, to send out the very strong signal that women are not to be believed."
Because, Ms. (I'm sure) Cooper, for no other crime, do we give the complainant anonymity.
Anon above me, in 74 in the U.K., a law WAS passed that granted rape complainants anonymity, and removed it for those accused. I'm sure that the anon poster you are insulting, meant the R comment metaphorically.
Honestly, while I understand that emotions can run high over these issues, what the hell is with the automatic shaming language that we seem to get here? How about everyone try to ask for clarification in a polite manner, instead of being jerks about it.
Please.
@gwallan,
I understand that your question was rhetorical, but let's be honest. Feminism has never been about "equality", it has always been about supremecism.
The US never passed a law banning reporting the names of "victims." Such a law would be unconstitutional.
Instead, all of the papers agreed voluntarily on a misandrist, nifongist policy of enabling false rape accusers.
Anyone who thinks that the legal system back in the "good old days" favored male defendents needs to read about the Scottboro Boys:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scottsboro/sb_acct.html
Just because there was no rape shield law back then does not mean that questions about "the victim's" character were allowed! A total scumbag was able to ruin the lives of nine young Africa American men.
Anon,
Agreed that it wasn't the U.S. But the U.K. DID pass a law. So what? So the other anon confused that, and you play the shaming game?
As to the constitutionality of it, if they are willing to do it voluntarily, do you believe they would care about a law mandating it? Somehow, I don't think they would.
"The Government is minded to strengthen anonymity up to the point of charge."
So they've wimped out on their former promise to reveal the man's name only if he is convicted! Hardly a great day, just not a bad one, after all the Duke boys were never convicted yet still got tarred and feathered...
It's weak, but it's better than nothing. It's a start.
I'm glad that these clucking hens couldn't get their way.
And this really needs to be said: a single falsely convicted man suffers a hundred times more than a typical rape victim. I'm tired of hearing about how protecting the innocent is somehow not as utilitarian as punishing the guilty. That's ridiculous.
"And this really needs to be said: a single falsely convicted man suffers a hundred times more than a typical rape victim. I'm tired of hearing about how protecting the innocent is somehow not as utilitarian as punishing the guilty. That's ridiculous."
Are you saying that a man falsely accused suffers more than someone who has had been forced to have sex?
Just about sums up this site.
@ Anonymous Jul 9, 2010 8:08:00 AM
"Are you saying that a man falsely accused suffers more than someone who has had been forced to have sex?
Just about sums up this site."
Hogwash. Obviously you haven't read much of anything on this site. The falsely accused suffer as much (and perhaps more) than actual, valid, extant rape victims as there are entire industries dedicated to taking care of people who have been raped. The falsely accused have nothing. Absolutely nothing. There are no "falsely accused crisis centers", no monetary compensation policies, no viable legal means of reclaiming one's good name and reputation once one is falsely accused. The point is that most societies in the Anglosphere do not view the falsely accused as "victims" of anything and the gender feminists view the falsely accused as non-entities that got what they deserved. So, I would say you are neither a critical thinker nor a good mathematician. Go sum up your own biased views. Until you've been falsely accused AND had a family member raped (as I have), I don't think you have the background to comment on this subject. You have no idea. No clue.
Are you saying that a man falsely accused suffers more than someone who has had been forced to have sex?
Just about sums up this site.
***
The victim of a FRA suffers immeasurably more than a typical rape victim.
Consider the following:
***
Impact: The moment of discovery.
Can last from 2 hours to several days.
Reactions include shock, disbelief, denial, inappropriate laughter, feeling defiled or dirty, shame or embarrassment.
Recoil:
Can last for several weeks or months, especially as other instances of theft are uncovered.
Physical and psychological symptoms may include: heart palpitations, chest discomfort, breathing difficulties (i.e., shortness of breath, hyperventilation), dizziness, clumsiness, sweating, hot and cold flashes, elevated blood pressure, feeling jumpy or jittery, shaking, diarrhea, easily fatigued, muscle aches, dry mouth, lump in throat, pallor, heightened sensory awareness, headaches, skin rashes, nausea, sexual dysfunction, sleep disturbance.
It is not uncommon for victims to frequently search through events trying to pinpoint what they did to contribute to this crime.
Anger, rage, tearfulness, overwhelming sadness, loss of sense of humor, an inability to concentrate, hyper-protectiveness, and a deep need to withdraw are all part of the psychological reactions to identity theft.
You may misplace anger on others, especially loved ones causing family discord. Those who tend to lean on unhealthy habits such as under or overeating, smoking, alcohol or drugs may be drawn to those addictions for comfort.
During recoil, victims may experience a sensation of grief. They may grieve the loss of: financial security, sense of fairness, trust in the media, trust in people/humankind and society, trust in law enforcement and criminal justice systems, trust in employer (especially in workplace identity theft), trust in caregivers and loved ones, faith, family equilibrium, sense of invulnerability and sense of safety, hopes/dream and aspirations for the future.
At one point or another, almost all victims will also grieve a loss of innocence, sense of control, sense of empowerment, sense of self and identity, and sense of self worth.
***
Now get ready for a surprise: are those the psychological problems caused by false rape accusations? NO.
Those symptoms are caused by IDENTITY THEFT -- a crime somewhat similar to the false rape accusation but infinitely more mild! If mere identity theft-- a minor inconvenience when compared to the nightmare of a false rape accusation -- has such a terrible effect then just imagine what the victims of FRAs suffer.
Actually, I don't have to imagine. I've been there.
http://www.idtheftcenter.org/artman2/publish/v_fact_sheets/Fact_Sheet_108_Overcoming_The_Emotional_Impact.shtml
Victims of malicious rape accusations, on average, suffer far more than victims of rape - especially since 'rape' can now mean 'sex that I regretted the next day when he didn't call me again', among other trivialities.
But even compared to 'real' rape, FRAs are far far worse.
If that sums up this site, then GOOD - I'm glad that the truth sums up this site. I'm glad that considering men to be human beings sums up this site. Archivists are clearly doing a good job.
Post a Comment