Wednesday, 20 January 2010

Another Crocodile-Feeder Learns A Hard Lesson...

Peter Tatchell in CiF has his knickers in a twist over the recent case of the rape case dropped by the prosecution over fears about credibility:
Watch out. If you have ever had fantasies about group sex and shared them with another person, you have forfeited your right to say no to sex and can be lawfully raped.
Really? No-one else seems to be drawing that conclusion, it must be said…
… I am stunned that such sexist and moralistic thinking still exists in our courts in the 21st century. The judge and prosecutor appear to have come close to suggesting that the alleged victim had, by sharing her group sex fantasies, invited the rape; that given her racy sexual mores she had only herself to blame. Having heard she was open to the idea of an orgy, the five men were, it seems, entitled to believe that she was theirs for the taking. They could not be expected to restrain themselves, even after she allegedly said "no".
Good lord! Ease back on the frothing indignation, will you?

No-one has suggested anything of the kind, simply that in order to proceed with these sort of ‘she said/they said’ type case, where no-one disputes that sex took place, but they dispute consent, the credibility of the alleged victim is going to be key. And if she’s failed to mention something germane to their defence, of course it’s going to collapse like a pack of cards…
It was often suggested in the 1970s that women should modify their behaviour to ensure they didn't tempt the uncontrollable lusts of men. Isn't this case an echo of that mentality? Based on the news reports, the decision to drop the rape charges seems to be riddled with misogyny.
‘Seems to be’…

To Peter, at least. And no doubt to the many fruitloops out there who believe that women never lie about rape.

But not to people living in the real world…
Harmless sexual imaginings should not be allowed to interfere with the dispensing of justice by our courts.
And they haven’t, so far.

But what is pretty rich is Tatchell, who has made a living with the pushing of ‘thought crimes’ onto the legislative agenda, railing against people being judged on their thoughts here.

As commenter FuriusCamillus points out:
“The Government judges us on our thoughts all the time - that's why it's passed laws on so-called "hate crimes", e.g. regarding assault as aggravated if shown to be racially or homophobically motivated. That's why "hate speech" is now a criminal offence. Personally, I think the laws against smacking someone in the face were quite sufficient already, but what do I know? You support this sort of Labour thought-policing in other areas, so don't be surprised when it produces results you don't like...”

8 comments:

dickiebo said...

Furious Camillus puts it so well!

Nick39 said...

I see this is another group sex / gang rape case involving a certain... ahem.... demographic.

But will this skank be charged with a false allegation? Maybe she doesn't deserve it, but the evidence that it's a malicious allegation is at least as strong as that there was a rape.

I see the commentors are almost uniformly disgusted by the CIF writer. This is an emerging trend and shows how social opinion has shifted strongly right wing of late.

As for Peter, just looking at his photo is all you need to know. He has "beta herb mangina" written into his very fibre.

Anonymous said...

Julia, you've probably seen this before, but in case not, here's the quite brilliant Theodore Dalrymple on liberals and rape:

"It is curious how, when it comes to rape, the liberal press, and presumably liberals themselves, suddenly appreciate the value of punishment. They do not say of rape that we must understand the causes of rape before we punish it; that we must understand how men develop into rapists before we lock them away, preferably for a long time; that prison does not work. It is as if, when speaking of rape, it suddenly becomes time to put away childish things, and (to change the metaphor slightly) to talk the only kind of language that rapists understand.

They quiver with outrage when they learn that the clear-up rate for rape cases is only 6.5 per cent, though this in fact is very similar to the clear-up rate of all crimes. They are appalled at cases where rapists are left free to commit more of their crimes because of police and Crown Prosecution Service incompetence, which is itself the natural result of the policy of successive governments. But it is important for their self-respect as liberals that their outrage should not be generalised, that they should not let it spill over into consideration of other categories of crime, where the same bureaucratic levity and frivolity is likewise demonstrated. For, as every decent person knows, there are far too many prisoners in this country already, and prison does not work."

The whole piece is here.

(And a free extract from his new book 'Second Opinion' here.

Ross said...

"It was often suggested in the 1970s that women should modify their behaviour to ensure they didn't tempt the uncontrollable lusts of men. "

I've never understood why that is so outrageous. It isn't blaming the victim to urge people not to put themselves in dangerous situations. When it comes to any other crime no one would bat an eyelid at the suggestion that people adjust their behaviour to reduce their chances of being victims.

Anonymous said...

The Police, in my part of town, have just given up. Their contribution to crime prevention is a number of posters, hanging precariously from lamp-posts, warning:

'Hide it, or lose it'.

We're on our own.

Mike said...

Please accept that the judge instructed the jury as a consequence of the prosecution offering no evidence of rape. The judge's opinions, I accept, are unrelated in his duty to instruct a jury in this way if no evidence is provided in respect of any allegation.

The prosecution decided to not produce evidence after receiving facts that had been withheld for unknown reasons until after the charges had been brought. That is, her public declarations also communicated directly to the accused detailing a desire and implied consent to group sex with strangers.

No-one can consent to rape as os quite rightly identified. However unpalatable a person can consent to having sex with strangers. Knowing the identity of the person someone has sex with is not a requirement in law. The consent is to sex not knowledge of identity. In fact DNA provides all the evidence of identity we need in most sexual acts.

Finally, there is still a failure in satisfying points about anonymity for the accused and the accuser until and if a conviction is handed down. Or recovering the costs to those who are falsely accused, those who have determined that those accused (ie the tax payer) are not guilty and last but not least rape victims that have and will be as a consequence of the effect of false allegations of rape less likely to receive justice, why?

Milky_Udders said...

And the crazy goes on and on and on..

Didn't he notice that word "Allegedly"?g

JuliaM said...

"I see this is another group sex / gang rape case involving a certain... ahem.... demographic."

Yes. And one report said they travelled from Ireland to meet up for this! They don't have these adventurous sorts back home?

Maybe the rain cools their ardour...

"Julia, you've probably seen this before, but in case not, here's the quite brilliant Theodore Dalrymple..."

Ooh, I hadn't. Thanks for the link.
Much sense is talked there.

"When it comes to any other crime no one would bat an eyelid at the suggestion that people adjust their behaviour to reduce their chances of being victims."

Indeed. As Edgar points out, when it comes to theft, the police are already shifting the burden of blame onto the person who posesses something worth stealing...

"...there is still a failure in satisfying points about anonymity for the accused and the accuser until and if a conviction is handed down."

The feminuts claim that this would 'prevent other women hearing about the arrest and coming forward with their own stories'.

The fact that they can't see the huge glaring flaw there sticking out at them makes me doubt everything else they say on this subject...