• Family

    • Earwicga
    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Freedom Charity
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    This is rape culture


    by earwicga on 23rd June, 2010 at 6:53 pm    

    From Hansard, 15 June 2010:

    Kenneth Clarke: We shall also have to consider the arguments on the other side, where a woman can make an anonymous complaint, the man can eventually be convicted, after going through a long and probably rather destructive ordeal, and the woman retains her anonymity as she walks away, with her ex-boyfriend or ex-husband left to live with the consequences.

    Hon. Members: What?

    That’s right, the convicted rapist having had to go through a ‘destructive ordeal’ who has to ‘live with the consequences’ has the sympathy of Kenneth Clarke, QC,  Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, Secretary of State for Justice, and Lord Chancellor.

    Perhaps the revolting Clarke could say this to Ribz (trigger warning) or even come and say to my face that my rapists have his sympathy.  A good time would be half eleven on a Wednesday then he can also meet my Rape Crisis counsellor.  Or perhaps he could just do his job, or even better, just die and rid the world of another hideous misogynist.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Current affairs






    37 Comments below   |   Add your own

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. sunny hundal

      Blog post:: This is rape culture http://bit.ly/avvmJC


    2. Heitzman

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: This is rape culture http://bit.ly/avvmJC


    3. Sian Blake

      RT @ sunny_hundal Blog post:: This is rape culture http://bit.ly/avvmJC >> This is what I've been dreading from this Government :(


    4. Nicolas Redfern

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: This is rape culture http://bit.ly/avvmJC << bloody hell Ken Clarke you cunt.


    5. CathElliott

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: This is rape culture http://bit.ly/avvmJC


    6. Karen Wiltshire

      RT @CathElliott: RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: This is rape culture http://bit.ly/avvmJC


    7. Carrie Dunn

      RT @CathElliott: RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: This is rape culture http://bit.ly/avvmJC


    8. Becky Walker

      Speechless. RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: This is rape culture http://bit.ly/avvmJC


    9. Jamie Potter

      Kenneth Clarke is a ____ RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: This is rape culture http://bit.ly/avvmJC


    10. Cory Hazlehurst

      RT @CathElliott RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post: This is rape culture http://bit.ly/avvmJC Absolutely ABOMINABLE remarks from Ken Clarke.


    11. Roxanne Ellis

      RT @CollectorManiac: Speechless. RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: This is rape culture http://bit.ly/avvmJC


    12. Amir Rashid

      RT @sunny_hundal This is rape culture http://bit.ly/ciSrwM can't believe that even a Tory would say this. No such thing as a moderate Tory


    13. Becky Walker

      Ken Clarke (http://bit.ly/avvmJC) should lend this an ear. http://youtu.be/2cEc3aQOP-o


    14. Jason Mcintyre

      RT @CollectorManiac: Ken Clarke (http://bit.ly/avvmJC) should lend this an ear. http://youtu.be/2cEc3aQOP-o


    15. Duncan Stott

      I really hope Ken Clarke meant to say "acquitted" rather than "convicted" http://bit.ly/avvmJC


    16. The Daily Quail

      Words fail. RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: This is rape culture http://bit.ly/avvmJC


    17. skittledog

      RT @DailyQuail: Words fail. RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: This is rape culture http://bit.ly/avvmJC


    18. Phil Hatchard

      Ken Clarke you should be ashamed. Sickening. RT: @DailyQuail: Words fail. RT @sunny_hundal: This is rape culture http://bit.ly/avvmJC




    1. Thomas Byrne — on 23rd June, 2010 at 7:41 pm  

      I think it’s quite clear that if you watch the clip he mixes up his words as only Ken can.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8732000/8732574.stm

      49 minutes in.

    2. earwicga — on 23rd June, 2010 at 8:01 pm  

      Sure Thomas, perhaps it was a slip of the tongue. Perhaps the first action by the ConDems on rape was to single out rape claimants as liars was actually a slip of the tongue. Perhaps the figures which show most rape victims don’t report rape, the figures that show that investigations are shite, that most rapists are not convicted, are also slips of the tongue. Perhaps rape is just a slip of the penis, eh? Poor penis having to go through such a ‘destructive ordeal’.

    3. Thomas Byrne — on 23rd June, 2010 at 8:17 pm  

      I support the proposal.

    4. Rumbold — on 23rd June, 2010 at 8:41 pm  

      Earwiga:

      I checked the original source and his words are far more balanced then the excerpt suggests. What he does is raise the pros and cons of naming defendants:

      There will undoubtedly sometimes be cases where the publication of the name of the accused person gives rise to other people coming forward with well-founded complaints against that person. We will have to see whether there is any evidence that such cases are a significant proportion of the total cases of rape. We shall also have to consider the arguments on the other side, where a woman can make an anonymous complaint, the man can eventually be convicted, after going through a long and probably rather destructive ordeal, and the woman retains her anonymity as she walks away, with her ex-boyfriend or ex-husband left to live with the consequences.

      In other words, does the possibility of other victims coming forward to testify (which we know has happened), outweigh the damage done to innocent men who are the subject of false allegations (which we also know happens) and are convicted? Hardly an endorsement of rape culture. What he is asking for is the %s of each instance.

    5. earwicga — on 23rd June, 2010 at 8:44 pm  

      Thanks for the video link Thomas. It shows Clarke started to say acquitted then corrected himself and clearly said CONVICTED. There is nothing to show he felt he was wrong in this and there is nothing shown in hansard either (as I checked earlier). I rather think that Clarke QC, understands the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. But, thanks for stopping by and don’t bang your head in the door as you retreat.

    6. earwicga — on 23rd June, 2010 at 8:51 pm  

      I completely disagree with you Rumbold. I see no balance in his words at all. He is talking about a CONVICTED rapist - and he deliberately chose to use the word convicted - not an innocent man.

    7. earwicga — on 23rd June, 2010 at 9:05 pm  

      Furthermore Rumbold, why the emphasis on rape convictions and the dog whistle that these convictions are more unsafe than any other conviction?

    8. Rumbold — on 23rd June, 2010 at 9:17 pm  

      Earwiga:

      I see no balance in his words at all. He is talking about a CONVICTED rapist – and he deliberately chose to use the word convicted – not an innocent man.

      If you read the whole of his words on the matter, he doesn’t support anonymity for those accused of rape, and he is raising the point about men being falsely convicted and the impact being named has on them. He also said ‘can’, i.e. could be, implying that was not the only outcome.

      Furthermore Rumbold, why the emphasis on rape convictions and the dog whistle that these convictions are more unsafe than any other conviction?

      But the debate was about rape convictions wasn’t it? The problem with rape convictions, like other sexual offences, is that it often comes down to whether a jury believes person A or person B (on the basis of the fact that most rapes are carried out by someone the victims knows, so he has an instant reason for being there).

    9. cim — on 23rd June, 2010 at 9:20 pm  

      Rumbold: I don’t see, for instance, Clarke asking similar questions about trials for other crimes. Generally, the Conservatives in fact try to present themselves on the party that will lock up criminals and give them a harsh time in prison, not the sort that will worry if prison sentences might ruin their lives.

      The only crime they seem concerned with defendants rights on is rape; the only reason they are concerned there is that they believe that most alleged rapists are innocent - and Clarke apparently believes that some significant number of the convicted ones are too. What’s that if not rape culture?

      For what it’s worth, based on the large study of rape cases undertaken by Kelly, Lovett and Regan, fewer than 15 men go to court as a result of false accusations each year, of whom maybe 5 will be convicted, and of those 15 perhaps one will have their reputation partially protected by the proposed anonymity laws (calculations assuming a false allegation rate at the upper bound of 10%; divide figures by three for the more likely 3% rate). Given the average number of victims a serial rapist has, you only need to be able to convict maybe three more serial rapists, or one serious one, to have a net reduction in the number of victims.

      It would have been a speech deserving of the “full of rape culture” tag even if he’d said “acquitted”, given those numbers. If you don’t believe it is even with “convicted”, I have to wonder what you do think is a sign of rape culture.

      earwicga: Quite. He does mis-speak a bit, but he also usually corrects himself pretty quickly. Given the reaction from the opposition benches, if he’d actually not intended to say that, he has had plenty of opportunity to set the record straight. (And it’s not as if his speech would have improved that much even if he’d said acquitted, given the relative prevalence and impact of false accusations versus rape itself)

    10. Rumbold — on 23rd June, 2010 at 9:27 pm  

      Cim:

      The debate started when a female Labour MP asked a question on rape convictions:

      17. Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op): What the conviction rate was for cases of rape reported in Liverpool, Wavertree constituency in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [2232]

      Ken Clarke responded.

      Given the average number of victims a serial rapist has, you only need to be able to convict maybe three more serial rapists, or one serious one, to have a net reduction in the number of victims.

      Which is the sort of analysis Clarke is asking for. How did the study know whether or not they were false allegations?

      I have to wonder what you do think is a sign of rape culture.

      Victim blaming, attempting to excuse rapists, calling rape sex, saying non-violent rape isn’t rape.

    11. cim — on 23rd June, 2010 at 9:33 pm  

      Rumbold: “If you read the whole of his words on the matter, he doesn’t support anonymity for those accused of rape”

      “There is a perfectly serious case to be made on both sides of the argument, and the coalition agreement has contemplated going back to anonymity. [...] voted in favour of anonymity [last time]“ - Clarke, earlier in the same debate, and there were many other times during that debate where it was clear that he personally favoured anonymity.

      But the debate was about rape convictions wasn’t it?

      Are we then to conclude that the Justice Secretary of the “tough on crime” party is equally concerned for the wrongly convicted now in jail on every other charge (who will vastly outnumber the wrongly convicted rapists, but are unlikely to be having a more pleasant experience).

    12. Rumbold — on 23rd June, 2010 at 9:37 pm  

      The curse of partial quoting again:

      I voted in favour of anonymity then, but we are now listening to the arguments.

      In other words, this is what I used to think, but I don’t have a public position at present.

      Are we then to conclude that the Justice Secretary of the “tough on crime” party is equally concerned for the wrongly convicted now in jail on every other charge (who will vastly outnumber the wrongly convicted rapists, but are unlikely to be having a more pleasant experience).

      I don’t know. I never claimed that he did. I merely pointed out that he was responding to a question about rape convictions.

    13. cim — on 23rd June, 2010 at 9:45 pm  

      How did the study know whether or not they were false allegations?

      Read it yourself for the full details, but in summary, anything classed by the police or CPS as such (higher 10% figure, correctly and consistently applying criteria gives the lower 3% figure). I note here why higher false reporting rates are really implausible. That study covered around 2,600 cases, which I’ve scaled up to the number reported annually to get the estimate of less than 15.

    14. cim — on 23rd June, 2010 at 9:53 pm  

      In other words, this is what [KC] used to think, but [KC] don’t have a public position at present.

      I don’t think that’s credible. This was written down in the coalition’s programme for government. In so far as the coalition can be said to have manifesto commitments, this is one of them.

      And yet every single government Minister who has spoken on this in the Commons has said something vague about “wanting a full debate and to see what’s best”. As Kevin Brennan MP says, this is “Green Paper” language, not manifesto commitment, and no Minister has been standing up and saying “yes, I wholeheartedly support this, that’s why it’s in the programme for government”.

      Clarke quite clearly from what he says in this debate and elsewhere supports the proposal going ahead in some form.

      I merely pointed out that he was responding to a question about rape convictions.

      Right, but we must either believe that he thinks this applies generally to all crime, which would be incredibly surprising if true, or that he believes it only about rape, which is a fairly clear expression of disbelieving of rape victims - you can get a conviction and still Clarke won’t be sure he did it, which is an interesting reversal of the usual claim by proponents of defendant anonymity that acquittals are not believed.

    15. Rumbold — on 23rd June, 2010 at 9:53 pm  

      Cim:

      Would you be able to point to the relevant section in the report if you know it please? I shall read it in the morning.

      Goodnight, and thank you for debating (you too Earwiga).

    16. cim — on 23rd June, 2010 at 10:04 pm  

      Table 4.2 on page 56 of the PDF has the general attrition rates. False allegations are covered on pages 63 and 64 of the PDF in more detail, though there are mentions elsewhere as well.

      The whole report is worth reading if you have time, since it’s a very comprehensive and recent study on attrition in the UK.

    17. theRibz — on 24th June, 2010 at 6:30 pm  

      Thank you for tagging me in your post, it pleases me to know people can relate to my experience, but it shames me to know some take such a traumatizing event in one’s life so lightly, as to sympathize with an such a beast…

    18. ukliberty — on 24th June, 2010 at 8:46 pm  

      Cim,

      Right, but we must either believe that he thinks this applies generally to all crime, which would be incredibly surprising if true, or that he believes it only about rape, which is a fairly clear expression of disbelieving of rape victims – you can get a conviction and still Clarke won’t be sure he did it, which is an interesting reversal of the usual claim by proponents of defendant anonymity that acquittals are not believed.

      Ken Clarke,

      No, the nature of the issue before the jury is very different in such cases. The best analogy is with other sexual offence complaints made against teachers and others, in which anonymity is given to the victim but not to the person accused, and some Members have argued for that to be reconsidered.

      Hansard

    19. earwicga — on 24th June, 2010 at 8:48 pm  

      I hear you Ribz!