Thursday, February 16, 2012

The UK's leading man-indifferent columnist may actually be discouraging rape victims from coming forward

Julie Bindel is perhaps the foremost, screeching voice among the UK's progressive, man-indifferent, daily newspaper columnists. Among her smug, ideologically-driven missions is to insist that rape is rampant and that there is no reason to worry about the police getting it wrong and convicting an innocent man.

She's at it again this week with a column that may well discourage some rape victims from reporting. We'll get to that in a minute.

First, let's tell our readers someting about Bindel.

Meet Julie Bindel

Back in 2010, Bindel had a radical feminist conniption (I know, I know, a redundancy) over the very suggestion that men accused of rape should be granted anonymity until conviction. Why? Bindel said that granting men anonymity would hurt the already slim chance women have to nab their rapists, and she cited the case every UK feminist falls back on when anonymity for men is even hinted at: serial rapist John Worboys. (Feminists claim that those concerned about false rape claims always cite Duke lacrosse even though it's not true. This blog, the leading site dedicated to giving voice to persons wrongly accused of rape, almost never focuses on that case. But trust me, UK feminists are obsessed with Worboys.) 

Now pay attention, something interesting is coming: Bindel insists it was only when Worboys was arrested that his other victims came forward, thus, the need to insure men accused of rape never get anonymity.

But wouldn't anonymity be helpful for innocent men wrongly accused of rape?  Watch Bindel do a 180: Anonymity is not necessary for them, Bindel clucks, because "[m]ost arrests for rape do not get reported in the press unless the accused is famous or the circumstances highly unusual. If such cases do make a brief mention in the local paper it is often no more than the community will already have learned from local gossip."

Stop. Stop. Stop, I'm getting whiplash. Let me get this straight: accused rapists shouldn't be anonymous because we need to publicize rapists; but not having anonymity doesn't hurt the wrongly accused -- because few rape accusations are publicized.

Get it? Neither do I.

Bindel is, of course, full of horseshit. The real reason people like Bindel oppose anonymity for men accused of rape is more sinister. She alludes to it. With anonymity, guilty men would "be able to relax in the knowledge that if, as in the majority of cases, it does not even get to court, no one will be any the wiser."

Hmm. What does that mean? It means that people like Julie Bindel think it's important to punish rapists by publicizing and shaming them in the news media on the basis of nothing more than an accusation. The fact that such publicity also punishes innocent men wrongly accused of rape, often destroying their reputations, their marriages, their social relationships, their businesses, and their chances of ever getting a decent job, is of no concern to Julie Bindel. The accusation becomes it's own conviction, and that's perfectly OK with Bindel and her ilk.

That very attitude, in a nutshell, is the thing this blog is most concerned about.

Julie Bindel May Well Be Discouraging Rape Victims From Coming Forward

This week, Bindel pumps out another screeching rape diatribe. She writes: "Britain has one of the lowest conviction rates of any European country (Only 6.5% of reported rapes end in a conviction on the charge of rape), leading some feminists to consider restorative justice (ie meeting your rapist and hearing him say 'sorry' as an alternative to throwing him in clink) or 'treatment' programmes rather than punishment. Then there is the impression, thanks to the extensive media coverage of such cases, that we are more concerned about women making 'false allegations' of rape than of convicting actual rapists."

Bindel uses the term "conviction rate" when she really means the "attrition rate." For a long time in the UK, the Home Office and politicians allied with anti-rape activists, have talked about the success rate in prosecuting rape by disingenuously citing the attrition rate for alleged rape, which is the number of convictions as a percentage of number of reported crimes. That rate is approximately 6.5%. But, the Home Office, and everyone else, 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 – murder, assault, robbery, and so on. In fact, the conviction rate for rape is approximately 58%. Stern Review, page 45.

The chasm between 58% and 6.5% represents dishonesty of Biblical proportions. The result of such dishonest advocacy has made it appear that law enforcement is terribly, and uniquely, ineffective when it comes to rape.

Importantly, the Stern Review noted that the wrongful use of the attrition rate instead of the conviction rate "may well have discouraged some victims from reporting." Id.

By repeating this figure, Julie Bindel's fear-mongering well be discouraging some victims from reporting. But what else is new?  People like Julie Bindel don't care if their Chicken Little shtick puts off rape victims from reporting because there is a more important issue to them: proving that women are oppressed because rape isn't taken seriously. Individual victims be damned.

It is well to note that the only place rape victims are hearing that they can't get justice and won't be believed is from people like Bindel.

We saw a crass example of this sort of irresponsible fear-mongering after the charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn were dropped last summer and they claimed that rape victims won't come forward because the case proved that women who report rape have to be "perfect" to get justice. One newspaper reported: ". . . for many feminists and victims' advocates, the victory for Strauss-Kahn is a defeat for women who have been sexually assaulted or raped, and who may already have been nervous about coming forward."

Those "feminists and victims' advocates" were being grossly dishonest. They failed to tell the whole story, and by publicly insisting that women can't get justice unless they are "perfect," they, themselves, improperly discouraged rape victims from coming forward. The accuser in the DSK case wasn't just not perfect; according to the very prosecutors who arrested and charged DSK (and forced him to take a humiliating and high profile "perp walk"), she was "persistently" and "inexplicably" untruthful to prosecutors, so unbelievable, in fact, that the prosecutors concluded she had no credibility.  See here.

Julie Bindel is just another gender-divisive purveyor of lock-the-doors-and-hide-the-daughters rape hysteria who systematically foment irrational fears and encourage women to see sexual predation oozing from every male zipper. For the past 30 years or more, we have been subjected to this vile, mind-numbing tom-tom that slanders the entire male gender. These people care not a whit about painting innocent men as rapists, and their tawdry operatics in insisting rape victims can't get justice do no favors for women.

That's everything you need to know about Julie Bindel.