Monday, November 8, 2010

Talking out of both sides of their mouths: prosecuting false rape accusers has a chilling effect on real victims, and prosecuting women who falsely retract rape charges has a chilling effect on real victims

It's time to rip the scab off yet another lie in the imaginary "rape culture," and watch the pus ooze out all over us.  This particular canard demonstrates yet again that the war on rape being waged by the feminist sexual grievance industry isn't really about putting rapists behind bars but about exacting gender-based payback for the supposed sins of the patriarchy.

Sound harsh to you?  Read on.

First, regular readers of this blog know that the sexual grievance industry loathes and detests attempts to punish false rape accusers because punishing rape liars supposedly has a chilling effect on real rape victims.  The thinking, such as it is, goes like this: when legitimate rape victims see false accusers charged and tried for their lies, they are reluctant to come forward and report their rapes for fear that they, too, will be punished.

So what about actual rape victims who report their rapes but then falsely try to recant them?   Should they be punished the way anyone else would be punished for lying to police about a serious matter that doesn't involve rape? 

Does punishing those women have a chilling effect on actual rape victims? 

Answer: it doesn't, of course. Despite all the twisting and pounding of the feminist sexual grievance industry, holding rape victims responsible when they try to falsely recant the charges they brought will not prevent a single rape victim from coming forward.

Put it this way: will any rape victims choose not report she's been raped in the first place because she knows she doesn't have the luxury of later lying to police by claiming it didn't happen?  It is insulting to our intelligence to suggest the answer is "yes."  But, hey, the sexual grievance industry never worries about insulting our intelligence, does it?

And if the goal is really to get rapists off the street to -- you know, to protect other women from sexual predators -- why should the state be in the business of countenancing lies that release rapists to prey on other innocent women?

As it turns out, the goal isn't really to stop rape. The goal is to make a point: women are victims of this nebulous patriarchy, and "rape" is patriarchy's signature malefaction since it involves a vile penis and all that.

Women, as nature's victims, can't be guilty of anything when it comes to rape.

Example: in this news story, a 28-year-old woman was given an eight-month sentence after she falsely retracted a rape charge.  A prosecutor alleged that the woman had made a 999 call to police in November of last year, claiming she had been raped six times by her husband. But in January 2010 she told officers she wanted to drop the charges, although she still maintained they were true. Detectives said they would continue with the prosecution. By February 11 the wife changed her mind again, this time saying the original allegations were false.  Police didn't believe her, and she was arrested and charged with perverting the course of justice.  By July 30 she said the rape allegations were true and the retraction was false.  She told police she had been raped by her husband but he and his relatives had convinced her to drop the charges.

Now. Please understand: we don't know if the husband is actually a rapist. There is a damn good chance he isn't.  He's presumptively innocent and has pled not guilty to the charges.  At this stage the police apparently believe there was probable cause to arrest him.

So what is the reaction of the feminist sexual grievance industry?  I'm sure you can guess. The End Violence Against Women Coalition said the verdict sent a "chilling message" to rape victims.  Director Holly Dustin said it also showed parts of the criminal justice system are "still in the dark ages" when it comes to sexual violence.  "The potential threat of prosecution makes it less likely that women will report." (Read that last sentence again -- you may need to read it seven or eight times before it makes sense.)  "Victims of rape already have little confidence that the police and courts will treat them fairly which is why only around one in 10 report the assault to the police." (Tell me, what the hell did that last sentence have to do with the question at issue?) 

Likewise, a spokeswoman for Rape Crisis said: "Rape Crisis are outraged that yet again a woman is being punished and criminalised for choosing not to pursue her case through the criminal justice system (CJS). This flies in the face of any progress that has been made in the last few years around how the CJS responds to women who have been raped.  We are shocked that this woman has received a custodial sentence and by the length of it. It highlights a complete lack of understanding of the complexity and reality of women's experience of violence in their lives."

It's the same old "say anything" blather that's trotted out whenever the sexual grievance industry is upset about a rape ruling.  Logic, rationality, and fairness go out the window in favor of tired clichés about "the reality of women's experience."

We are left standing on the sidelines with our dicks in our hands while The New Order manufactures more feminist stardust wishfulness that is not grounded in fact or truth or anyone's experience.