Before we discuss the hateful comments of female MPs opposed to limited anonymity for presumptively innocent men accused of rape until they are charged, let us recap the truth about the proposal for anonymity:
Anonymity does not send a message that rape victims should 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 this very limited anonymity policy is that the harm of publicly identifying falsely accused men is unconscionable, because a rape claim is loathsome and because, once a rape claim is alleged, unlike other allegations of criminality, it is nearly impossible to disprove. The policy granting limited anonymity does not suggest that any particular percentage of rape claimants are liars.
Women will not stop coming forward to report rape even when the accused are anonymous. After all, women continue to come forward now even when the accused is a teen male who is legally anonymous.
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.
Now, for the female MPs who oppose anonymity:
I am dumbfounded.
It is very, very disheartening to learn that the House of Commons divided on gender lines, not party lines, when it came time to discuss the very modest proposal to grant anonymity for presumptively innocent men accused of rape until they are charged -- not convicted, just charged -- of rape. We are more than disappointed that women who do not identify as feminists have chosen to cast their lots with persons who have practiced misandry on a host of issues.
The comments of these women are despicable. None of them acknowledge the singular harm to innocent men falsely accused of rape caused by publicly identifying them. None of them acknowledge that because a rape claim is widely regarded as the most loathsome allegation in our entire criminal jurisprudence, and because a rape claim is nearly impossible to disprove, it casts a lasting stain and a terrible stigma on innocent men that is unique in our culture.
Let us examine the assertions of the women MPs. The misandry at play here is unspeakable:
"Shadow minister Maria Eagle said official figures show more than 2,000 women are raped every week and between 75% and 95% of incidents are not reported." See here.
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. See here
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". See here
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." See here
By giving defendants anonymity in rape cases alone, ministers are in "danger of sending a clear signal to victims: you will not be believed," said Maria Engle. See here.
Anna Soubry, a Tory MP, 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. See here.
The deceit, the Chicken Little fear-mongering of these women is stunning beyond words. The assertions about unreported "rapes" is a grotesque distortion of the facts. To suggest that we "know" how many actual rapes go unreported is simply a lie.
The suggestion that anonymity for the presumptively innocent until they are charged will somehow discourage women from reporting isn't just a leap, it is a Saturn V moonshot. It is so terribly reckless, so flat-out dishonest, that it deserves nothing less than the badge of fraud.
What is behind the misandry? These women can't stand the fact that men dare call members of their gender "victims" in an area where women have arrogated victimhood for themselves.
You've let us down, ladies. You've let us down.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
Not really on the subject of this post, but while we seem to have maybe ..maybe -barring last minute shenanigans- won in Britain, I think the "fix is in" in Baltimore. Notice that some of the victims advocates will have a hand in formulating policy it seems.
http://discussions.baltimoresun.com/20/balnews/bs-md-ci-rape-audit-begins-20100708/10
Clarence
I'm afraid I didn't watch the debate.
To what extent can we be sure things are divided by gender lines? There is some evidence against, for example I've noticed plenty of men form the Labour party signed the EDM opposing anonymity. Are we sure it isn't just a few female Tories speaking out who are in a minority?
Similarly surely it should be noted that at least female Lib Dems (presumably) don't have complete contempt for men (the sole cowardly Lib dem signing the EDM is male)
Seems all that matters to the city is that the police not be slammed in the damn Baltimore Sun. Damn naive, liberal reporters, walking arm-in-arm with misandrists from the sexual grievance industry, will be setting policy. Baltimore is lost.
What is painfully obvious at this point is that these women simply don't care about the destructive impact of false rape accustions.
It isn't that they don't know perfectly well that this is a rampant problem, or that it is one of worse things that can ever be done to a man.
These women are the accomplices of false rape accusers and share their guilt.
Now let's look at the other side of this debate: the men who support anonymity. Unlike politicians in the US -- who are almost completely useless on this issue -- these British gentlemen are willing to pay a political price in order to do the right thing for their fellow men.
I am in awe of them. They are REAL men.
To what extent can we be sure things are divided by gender lines?
All I have to go on is the Telegraph: "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'."
I am hopeful the gender divide is just on the vocal persons who spoke out today.
Anon at 9:35: I said the same thing to my wife earlier. I am proud of these men.
I believe Esther Villar said something in her book The Manipulated Man, published a long time ago, that it is not a good idea to put women in positions of power because if women are in charge of men's wellbeing they will flush it down the toilet.
This is not to generalize that all women are insensitive to men's problems. But the sort of women who are more decent, kind and nurturing are unlikely to be the ones who make it to the highest positions of power.
Another thing is that women often need approval from other women, and this can only be more so when women are promoted even beyond their ability due to affirmative action and political correctness (as groupthink and group solidarity must by definition be the sole means of one's survival). While many women can be quite nice on their own, women are dangerous in groups.
I know it sounds horribly patronizing and chauvinistic, but women often need a measure of male leadership in order to behave responsibly. Whenever women are led by other women, the results are invariably horrible.
Rape hysteria "Empowers" women, and by extention the whole Gender / Raunch community...of course they are going to manufacture missinformation that says women and girls are being raped behind every closed door (They just aren't telling anyone).
They say it because people believe it, and women (and now the Gender / Raunch community) get "Empowered" by it.
But folks this perversion will eventually come unglued, for the Gender / Raunch leadership is
now leading this country into a quagmire of Raunch many folks find quite vulgar.
The thing that is so hard to stomach about all this is that what is being proposed takes away nothing from women. No-one is advocating that rape accusers lose their anonymity, or that more evidence be allowed to be used against accusers in rape trials, or anything similar.
No real protections for women are being challenged at all, however much some of them may be questionable. All that is being proposed is that men will have a little more protection from having their lives destroyed on the basis of untested allegations.
The people opposing this measure are not even out to protect women. They are simply acting out of spite towards men. It seems their hearts are so full of hatred that they resent even the smallest improvement in men's rights and dignities.
And the argument that women won't come forward with rape accusations is not only unsubstantiated, but in violation of common sense.
Why would it not then be the case that, for example, women would be afraid to file house insurance claims if they knew that they could quite possibly be charged with insurance fraud if the company wanted to accuse her of burning her own house down to collect the money? Somehow the insurance claims keep coming, even though there is a chance that they claimant won't be believed.
I am hopeful the gender divide is just on the vocal persons who spoke out today.
***
I hope so, too.
Let it be a reasonable guide to any man considering marriage to ask his prospective wife's views on the plight of a man falsely accused. Make sure you identify a specific case, where the man is proven innocent, his ordeal well documented, and the malice of his accuser beyond question.
If she cannot bring herself to show any concern, then be assured she's incapable of sincere concern for anyone but herself. She wants a world that's 100% secure for her, and she doesn't care the cost to anyone else.
If you don't dare to test her, you already know the answer. If you still go ahead and marry her, you can't say you weren't warned.
I'm reading the full transcript of the debate and it's not quite as bad as we thought. For one thing I've found comments by "Anna Soubry" who quite brilliantly correct Glenda Jackson who stated rape is "exercised almost exclusively against women" by pointing out that 40% of vicitms were men or children!
here's the link for now:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/10.htm
I believe the document gets edited in a few hours to a more formal transcript.
It seems any dissent from Soubry is that anonymity should apply to anyone accused of any crime and she's introducing proposals to that effect.
I think her point has merit as it means protection from sexual harassment allegations, false domestic violence charges etc etc.
That makes sense.
"I am hopeful the gender divide is just on the vocal persons who spoke out today."
"I hope so, too."
I do like to think the best of women whenever possible. There are numerous women of integrity in my life. But we mislead ourselves if we think that there is not a significant portion of the female population that advocates female privilege, even if they are not Feminists themselves.
The problem is not just a few crackpot Feminists in academia, or a few women in parliament. The problem is a culture.
"Can anyone tell me how they catch serial rapists if the rapist (over 90% of the time the accused is guilty even if not convicted) remains anonymous?"
The same way you catch a serial false accuser. Carefully.
Can anyone tell me how they catch serial rapists if the rapist (over 90% of the time the accused is guilty even if not convicted) remains anonymous?
***
But Posie! The defendent isn't guilty 90% of the time, except in the bucket of pig shit you call a mind. Aren't you fucking banned, anyway?
Anyhow, a better question to ask is: how can we ever capture a serial false rape accuser, if she remains anonymous? And that really is the more important priority, since the serial rapist leaves physical evidence while the liar does not, and since the consequences of false rape accusations greatly outweigh those of a mere rape.
Scratch the word "mere." I meant to emphasize that rape is primarily a physical violation while a false rape accusation is a far more comprehensive and permanent assault on an individual, but using that word is going too far.
Still, let's remember: a FRA has far more terrible consequences than a rape.
And it really is silly to ask questions like that, considering that the name of the defendent will be smeared all over the papers following conviction. At that point his victims (who mysteriously chose not to report him in the first place) can jump up and do their thing, belatedly.
Weird that we keep balancing the rights of innocent defendents against the "need" to convince supposed victims to do what any decent citizen would do automatically: report a crime.
"Weird that we keep balancing the rights of innocent defendents against the "need" to convince supposed victims to do what any decent citizen would do automatically: report a crime."
Exactly.
By the way, I think that this Posie thing is Georgia Girl.
That thing is banned from this site. Please don't respond to her because when we do get around to deleting her idiocy, the responses won't make sense.
I'm guessing most people on this site are from the USA and so you are forgiven for not believing in your judicial system. In the UK our conviction rates are such that we do let rapists go free all of the time and until that balance is redressed I can't see how innocent men are convicted when it's so difficult to convict a guilty one.
The misogynist language on this blog and aggression does you all no favours.
Toodle pip.
"In the UK our conviction rates are such that we do let rapists go free all of the time and until that balance is redressed I can't see how innocent men are convicted when it's so difficult to convict a guilty one."
Anon at 8:02: You are well versed in your ignorance.
Your comment is flat-out wrong. The rape conviction rate is extremely high in the UK, and your suggestion that it is not is dishonest in the extreme. But you are merely repeated the party line of the sexual grievance industry in the matriarchy also known as Britain. The Home Office, and dishonest politicians seeking to jack up rape convictions, have long cited the attrition rate for rape, which is the number of convictions as a percentage of number of reported crimes. That rate is 6%. But, the Home Office, and everyone, uses the conviction rate (the number of convictions secured against the number of persons brought to trial for that given offence) for all other crimes. The result has been to make it appear that law enforcement is terribly, and uniquely, ineffective when it comes to rape. Please re-read that and make sure you understand it. The UK has insisted that only 6% of "rapists" are convicted, as opposed to the correct figure: 58%. Stern Review, see page 45. Rape is the only crime judged by the attrition rate. All others – murder, assault, robbery, and so on – are assessed by their conviction rates. This is dishonesty of Biblical proportions, and thank you for tapping into it. The Stern Review noted that use of the attrition rate instead of the conviction rate "may well have discouraged some victims from reporting." Stern Review, see page 45.
Spend a few weeks reading through this blog and you will see that innocent men and boys are often unjustly arrested, charged, and yes, even convicted in the UK.
Thank you for your symptathy for the men and boys wrongly accused of rape. Many of them read this blog and your hateful, ignorant comment is triggering to them. We would never dream of saying hateful things on a site dedicated to rape victims, but people of your ilk have no hesitation coming here and spreading your hatred.
Kindly go troll a site that might fall for your misandry. Your misandry, your lack of compassion, your lack of humanity, do you no favors.
Toodle pip.
I am so tired of these women throwing the "misogyny" word around. That's like a black kid accusing the professor who fails him of racism.
Go. To. Hell.
"The ONLY way to allow innocent people, falsely accused, to walk away without a damaged reputation is by making the conviction rates higher. Then the general public will accept that if you are not convicted then you didn't rape anyone."
No.
I'll tell you what the result of that will be. Hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT MEN being raped or killed in prison. And let's be clear, we're not talking about the "general public" here, we're talking about you females,aren't we?
How much male blood is enough to satisfy the thirst of your feminist anti-male lynch mob?
Your suspicion is not about any objective standard related to the reporting or prosecution of rape, it is about your inherent bigotry toward men.
Just admit it, we'll have a lot more respect for you if you stop using your weasel words and just come right out and say that you hate men and want them accused of this horrible crime, with all the attendant stigma,and don't care whether or not they are raped,killed, or beaten by vigilantes.
That is what you are talking about doing, whether you admit your REASONS for doing it or not, so we all know what's going on,anyway.
Just admit it. Tell the truth, and shame the devil.
The ONLY way to allow innocent people, falsely accused, to walk away without a damaged reputation is by making the conviction rates higher. Then the general public will accept that if you are not convicted then you didn't rape anyone.
***
That will only happen if we make the conviction rate higher -- for false rape accusers!
In the US we have a monstrously high rate of rape convictions, and the result certainly isn't that the exonerated are presumed innocent!
We don't damn all women. Quite the contrary: when they are falsely accused we support them, often when no one else will.
"The misogynist language on this blog and aggression does you all no favours."
Actually it seems to be working wonders. You must be unaware of the cumulative effects of sites like these. Here's a clue: what is the coalition government currently proposing to do regarding those accused of rape?
But I'm sure, dear, you'd like us to be like pleading pussycats, rolling over and begging for our human rights ...
Is all this 'male aggression' a little troubling for you, dear?
Only going to get worse. You do not get to systematically violate our rights and get away with it. There will be consequences for this.
Feminists trolls come in here and call us small-dicked, small-brained Neanderthals who hate women because our mummies never loved us and who secretly wish we could rape them, and then pitch a bitch when we call them whores.
First stop calling us names.
You know, what I find really odd, is that if you look at just about any rape support site, they all claim that stranger rape is a very rare thing, and yet they are using stranger rape as thier reasoning behind not granting anonymity to those accused.
Is it me, or is this another case of trying to have it both ways?
They say "why should the accused be treated any differently than any other crime?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the accusers being treated differently? But that's ok, right?
And yes, they do want to have their cake and eat it. The idea that women come forward when they can clearly be linked to accused via his dating history when his name is thrown around publicly, but that they'll shy away if his name is anonymous is utter garbage. What the people countering anonymity for the accused lacked is any kind of *facts*. Lots and lots of emotions and emoting, but zero facts.
Well, isn't it obvious that anyone putting women over men just wants *equality* while putting men over women is a horrible act of bigotry?
Nick S said...
I believe Esther Villar said something in her book The Manipulated Man, published a long time ago, that it is not a good idea to put women in positions of power because if women are in charge of men's wellbeing they will flush it down the toilet.
I believe the quote is correctly attributed to Vilar but it doesn't come from that particular book.
For anybody who is interested in reading The Manipulated Man I have placed a PDF copy here...
The Manipulated Man.
Note that the file name is somewhat weird.
Post a Comment