In the best news we've ever reported on this site, the UK's new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition said today that it would extend anonymity in rape cases from putative rape victims to the presumptively innocent accused of rape. Although officials said details of the change had yet to be decided, it is likely the ban will be lifted once a suspect is convicted.
The move to end the asymmetrical anonymity that currently exists between rape accusers and rape accuseds is enlightened, just, and long overdue, and it should be applauded from the rooftops. The reputational harm to persons accused of rape who turn out to be innocent is among our greatest concerns on this site, and anonymity for the presumptively innocent will go a long way toward protecting men's good names and preventing other terrible harm that is visited on them because of rape lies.
But immediately, and as if on cue to underscore what we have always known, the sexual grievance reaffirmed its policy of unmitigated callousness and indifference to the men suffering the ravages of a false rape accusation. Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, declared the government's decision to grant anonymity to suspects was an "insult." She stated: "More attention needs to be paid to the 94% of reported cases that do not end in conviction rather than the few that are false," she said. "If men accused of rape got special rights to anonymity, it would reinforce the misconception that lots of women who report rape are lying."
I know nothing more about Ms. Hall than is written above, as reported by the BBC. But these attituds are hateful, unjust, and do not advance the interestes of actual rape victims. It is astounding that rape advocates pit the victimization of actual rape victims against the victimization of men falsely accused of rape, as if we are engaged in a zero-sum game. Ms. Hall's principal concern seems to be that the problem of false rape claims is not worthy of attention, given the scale of the problem of actual rape. That concern, in fact, seems to lie at the heart of our entire struggle: it is politically incorrect to advocate for the men and boys falsely accused of rape because that we have been told time and time again that the false rape problem pales in comparison with the rape problem.
Again, that purported concern is both unfounded and hateful, and in the days ahead as this matter is debated in the press, we must be willing to call hatred and lies for what they are. We've demonstrated time and time again that the false rape problem is significant. Anyone who asserts that they know how many rape claims are true or false, and how many actual rapes are unreported, is either grossly mistaken or a liar. But by any measure the false rape problem is significant, and it poses grave, sometimes fatal, problems for those men and boys affected by it.
More importantly, it is both astounding and hateful that members of the sexual grievance industry feel the need to engage in a sort of twisted Oppression Olympics, where it is politically incorrect to exhibit the slightest sympathy for the falsely accused. It would be akin to persons who fight cancer opposing any aid for the victims of heart attacks. When it comes to false rape claims, we are instructed to stand by and cavalierly watch as men and boys are killed, or kill themselves after having been falsely accused. We must blithely look the other way as they are beaten, spat upon, and chased. We must happily tolerate it when they lose their wives, their girlfriends, the love and support of their families, their jobs, their businesses, their life's savings, and their sanity over a false rape claim. We must insist it is perfectly acceptable that a falsely accused man's name is permitted to be splashed all over the news so that any time, for the rest of his life, that anyone -- from lovers to prospective employers -- "Googles" his name, they will learn of the awful accusation. By the way, examples of each of the above are found in news stories reported on this site.
Just as a bell can't be un-rung, just as toothpaste can't be put back into the tube, a false rape claim sticks forever. It is impossible to completely disprove it.
Anyone who suggests that the false claims of other crimes are just as harmful as false rape claims is either a fool or a liar. I challenge anyone to cite examples of false claims involving crimes other than rape that have harmed innocent people. The fact is, false accusations of other crimes are rare, they are almost always easily and immediately disproved, and they hardly ever carry the awful stigma of a false rape claim. That is a fact, irrefutable and not open to question. In contrast, when it comes to rape claims, one need not look back to the Scottsboro boys or even Duke lacroose: I can cite for you hundreds of recent false rape cases that have hurt innocent men and boys, sometimes in the most terrible, even fatal, ways.
It is well to note as an indicia of the unfairness in this area that many times the names of falsely accused men are used in news stories while their false accusers are not named. By any measure, that is not just.
At the core of the sexual grievance industry's objection to this decision, I suspect, is something that goes beyond feminist advocacy. It is something that goes beyond trying to help actual rape victims. At its core, I think, is something downright evil: the insistence that no concern be shown to falsely accused men is a sort of cruel payback against an entire gender. Women who are being raped aren't being helped sufficiently, they assert, so it is improper to show even the slightest concern for the falsely accused, since they are usually of the same gender as women's rapists.
That last paragraph is something I have been loathe to come out and say but for a long time have known in my heart to be true. I have long believed that it is the reason the sexual grievance industry opposes our efforts here and refuses to extend any -- and I do mean "any" -- symptathy to the falsely accused. By any measure, that attitude is morally grotesque.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
60 comments:
I don't think the government could do this in this country, but the discriminatory, monopolistic policies of newspapers could (and should) change.
You are right, and I am glad you came out and said it. We need to be loud about that message - that their opposition to taking seriously false accusation victims stems from retributive vengeance against a gender.
They are HORRIBLE sexists, of a kind much worse than the most evil patriarchs they conjure up.
Devastatingly evil people - that is all I can think to say.
I do hope the US, and other countries, will follow suit and restore enlightened and civilised principles of justice.
And I do hope that the Lib-Con coalition follows up this legislation with harsher punishments for false rape accusers - enough to deter the crime.
There are now so many false rape accusations that law enforcement will have no other option but to try and deter women and girls from saying they have been beaten and raped when they were not.
I have never smiled so much as when i looked at the newspaper this morning and saw this , they are pushing for more studies on false rape accusations as well this is a massive step forward and i cant help but thing that how the feminist rape advocates respond will shape how they are viewed.
Yaaaaayyyyyy!
As a UK resident (albeit one who has not been formally charged or had his name in the papers) I must applaud this COALITION government, for winding the legal clock back on this issue to the saner times of the 1970 Act.
The ONLY people who object to this are those who, under the guise of rape activism, are actually no more than terrorists who promote the use of hate crime such a false rape accusations.
The pendulum is definitely on the back-swing.
Tomorrow, I will drink some beer.
I realize that the UK is considered a nanny state by many, but as an American, I'm awed by this display of commitment to protect the individual. I can't imagine anything similar being proposed by either major party in my country, where our wonderful "liberal" president doesn't even have the guts to hold torturers accountable.
I'm american too and I could not see this happening here for another 40,000 years....if ever.
"the insistence that no concern be shown to falsely accused men is a sort of cruel payback against an entire gender."
I agree, and it goes further than that. The very prevalence of rape alleged by feminists is "a sort of cruel payback against" men. Such claims as one-in-four women are raped are nothing but vicious lies, as no sane and honest person could reach those conclusions based on the information available.
Lift it up, boys.
I never saw this happening here until it did.
While newspapers could voluntarily change their ridiculous one-sided policy, I do not think such a law would stand in the U.S. because it would be in violation of the First Amendment.
And that's one of the drawbacks of the First Amendment, which is otherwise laudable: it allows very powerful special interests to impose what amount to monopolistic controls over the flow of information. The impact on trials and on the lives of innocent people who are falsely accused is devastating.
Take CNN, for example, which has kept lie-hag Nancy Grace on the air for years, in spite of being a compulsive liar and a magnet for lawsuits. But CNN is far too big to be held to any kind of journalistic standards.
I applaud the UK. Tonight I drink to Her Majesty's health. Perhaps one day I will know what it's like to live in a country that cares about protecting the rights and dignity of innocent people.
If the boys back in 1776 could see where we're at now they just might have been more reasonable!
As a falsely accused American, I find it Mildly Ironic that the UK should lead the United States in granting a basic freedom. While I know it's not in the mission of the False Rape Strike Force to do so, perhaps members of it could contact every member of the US Congress and the Senate to share the news and to advocate our position here at FRS. The new anonymity law in the UK will probably never reach the awareness of the US Congress and Senate unless we bring it to their attention. Making a difference is what FRS is all about. If not the FRSF, I hope someone reading my comment takes me up on this request. What we need is a simple letter outlining our position, faxed to each member of the US Congress and Senate with a copy of the DailyMail.com.uk article attached. The more letters sent, the better! Perhaps Archivist or Steven could draft a letter that everyone could use.
Some helpful hints:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/letterscongress.htm
http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm
.... which brings up a really good point... Archivist: why haven't we sent a letter to every member of Congress and Senate to introduce them to FRS and explain our position? I really would be curious to know how many Senators and Congress critters are totally oblivious to the issue of false rape claims and the impact it has on the accused.
Good work folks!! This site and its activism has played a role here. One little seed planted somewhere, has snowballed into the leadership of the U.K.
Again, good work!!
I have an idea!
I say lets do our own study. We could hire an independent company to call or visit 1000 people to ask them if they have ever been raped, denied it, or falsely accused someone.
Just an idea.
"She stated: "More attention needs to be paid to the 94% of reported cases that do not end in conviction rather than the few that are false," "
Talk about a false mutual exclusivity! We have to choose between focusing on the 94% of cases that don't end in conviction, and those that are false. As if the two are completely separate and distinct categories! As if none of the 94% are false allegations!
And those numbers are miles away from the grim reality in the United States. The UK and other industrialized countries do have lower rates of rape convictions, but in this country the justice system run like a conveyer belt, taking both the innocent and the guilty toward conviction. Our plea-bargaining system enables unscrupulous prosecutors to wring guilty pleas out of men who would otherwise be found innocent.
This is great news. To anyone not happy, I've written a song:
Come sisters, fascists and nanny statists throughout the land...
Oh don't you dare criticize what you cannot understand
Your sons and your husbands, they're beyond your command
For the times they are a-changin'
--------------------------------
I'm going to buy some drinks tonight to celebrate with my best friends, and we'll be singing until the wee hours of the morning.
I would suggest that this would never have come about if the Conservatives had been elected with a majority to govern alone (and it goes without saying it wouldn't have happened under a returned Labour government either).
The fact that there was no clear election winner meant the usual cleavage of the electorate into neat halves was unraveling - and that means voters could potentially go anywhere in elections to come.
Nothing forces politicians to re-engage with disaffected voters faster than the prospect that the established parties are threatened with extinction.
For American readers, take note of this dynamic. A clear Republican or Democrat win in your next election will mean more of the same. You have to frighten them with extinction before they'll take any notice of you.
According to Feminist ideology, men and women are separate and antagonistic political classes. Furthermore, rape is not a crime experienced between individuals per se, but is a political crime perpetrated by the dominant class upon the subordinate class.
In other words, men on an individual level do not rape women. Men as a political class do. Thus, even if one man is innocent or guilty, it simply makes no difference, for men as a class are collectively guilty.
This bloodthirsty ideology is the engine of malice driving the assault on the rights of men to due process, which to them means the equivalent of "rights of the rapist."
Thank you very much for this article. Could you please provide a link to the article in the post itself? Here is the article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7132498.ece
Thank you.
Notice how all of the news stories that I see on this the media seems very against it!!
Now you see the media for what they really are. They make lots of money putting guys out there as rapists.
That is why this will NEVER happrn in the united states.
Just think the slime that run cnn probably bought a few news homes in Malibu off the Duke case.
In my area of pittsburgh the local media made probably 80% of their profits this year on Big Ben
Yes it is good news and I think the tide is turning from the abuses of men in the past although there's a lot more to do.
But does this female's statement make any logical sense?
"More attention needs to be paid to the 94% of reported cases that do not end in conviction rather than the few that are false,"
Makes no sense at all and in fact if only 6% of rape allegations even end in a conviction this should tell her that females are almost always lying about rape and a good reason that men should always remain anonymous.
IMO, simple rape should be put into a special legal category because it is the only crime where the act itself is perfectly legal and the only question is if the parties agreed to it. And aside from the usual proof requirement a number of additional proofs should be required before a man can even be arrested.
Anon:
"IMO, simple rape should be put into a special legal category because it is the only crime where the act itself is perfectly legal and the only question is if the parties agreed to it."
I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "simple rape." Rape in general is nonconsensual intercourse...which is illegal.
Could you please explain what you mean?
Saying only 6% end in conviction is a canard.
The actual conviction rate is 55%, if you treat rape LIKE EVERY OTHER CRIME ON THE BOOKS, and count convictions as a percentage of cases that go to trial, and NOT convictions as a percentage of cases reported to the Police.
The OP was also right about the dichotomy and mutual exclusivity of feminazi comments about we must look closer at the 94% that do not end in conviction, but, we must not waste time looking at or for false allegations.
"Saying only 6% end in conviction is a canard.
The actual conviction rate is 55%"
Yes. This occurred to me too, though I forgot to mention it - the whinging feminist is using PHONY FIGURES to justify her opposition to granting men their basic civil rights.
I think it's the same figures Harriet Harman used to use - before she was ordered by a judge to stop lying about rape. Yup, this actually happened. Maybe a judge needs to have a little talk with the feminists from that article too.
There is something that is constantly sidelined by Feminists who insist that the trial conviction rate being low for rape means that rape victims are being treated unfairly. And that is this:
Very few cases of all crimes go to trial. The majority are filtered out of the justice system by plea bargains, which serve to ease caseloads. My criminal justice professor told me that only about 10% of criminal cases in general go to trial. So the idea that the low conviction rate is somehow "unique" to the issue of rape is preposterous. The conviction rates seem to be fairly good, in comparison to other crimes.
The conviction rate for false accusers is about .0001% in the united states!
Another thing that would help besides making heavy penalties for false accusers is to stop giving accusers money to file claims.
The next time some feminist gives anybody bull about how feminism doesn't hurt men, show them this story.
"Notice how all of the news stories that I see on this the media seems very against it!!"
I say...its called the "media Lace curtain", and it seems the Main stream American media system is more like " News Entertainment" than objective news.
Not to be contradictory, but I think the aim of her statement wasn't merely about a lack of concern with false claims of rape against men, but rather something slightly different.
I believe her implicit point was that by giving the suspect anonymity, there is a presumption, however weak, that the suspect is actually innocent.
Proceeding as follows: 1) If the person is convicted they won't be anonymous. 2) If the person is accused and the person is telling the truth, then the person is likely guilty, rather than it being a mistake by the accuser.
Assumption: people who accuse are more likely to tell the truth than lie (her 94% comment).
Conclusion: Anonymity ends up not being justified in most cases.
Corollary: If anonymity is given to all, then anonymity will be given to people, most of whom are actually rapists.
Contradictory?
her sole grievance is that this is another nail in the coffin of the sexual grievance industry as a well paid career job.
Falsely accused men and actually raped women don't even appear on her radar...
http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Rape-claim-teenager--guilty.6307899.jp
"I believe her implicit point was that by giving the suspect anonymity, there is a presumption, however weak, that the suspect is actually innocent."
Yes, there should be a presumption of innocence, but she does not want to admit that.
Regardless, concluding that most accusations are true because the conviction rate is so low, does not make any sense whatsoever.
"Makes no sense at all and in fact if only 6% of rape allegations even end in a conviction this should tell her that females are almost always lying about rape and a good reason that men should always remain anonymous."
Exactly.
Feminists often make two complaints: That the percentage of reports that end in conviction is too low. And that the percentage of rapes that are unreported is too high.
If you had to choose one sex whose behavior was more responsible for those two alleged problems, which would it be?
Both over-reporting and under-reporting are two sides of the same coin: Women being dishonest about rape.
"I believe her implicit point was that by giving the suspect anonymity, there is a presumption, however weak, that the suspect is actually innocent."
You mean something like ... 'innocent until proven guilty', one of the bedrocks of a civilised justice system?
Couldn't agree more! The presumption of innocence is a wonderful thing which has been restored to the United Kingdom by an enlightened coalition.
Anon at 8:51: sorry, that analysis does nothing for me. The entire point of the rape advocate's comments was to elevate gynocentric concerns over the concerns of the presumptively innocent, who too often turn out to have been falsely accused. Her blatant indifference to the presumptively innocent accused of this crime that leaves such a terrible stigma is paradigmatic evil. One can't ignore suffering of the type we highlight here without promoting hatred, evil, and injustice.
Let's make this clear: this is "the big one," and the forces of misandry know it. We need to stop justifying our position -- our position is irretuably just. There is no honorable basis for the position advocated by the rape advocate. None. People of her illk seem more intent on punishing a gender than in helping rape victims. Anonymity for men accused of rape does nothing to hurt rape victims. In fact, if anything it could lead to police more freely charging men (and that's a side effect we need to watch carefully, because it wouldn't be especially favorable). Their position is grounded in hatred. Period.
Innocent until proven guilty in all cases. No crime deserves a special exception to this rule, full stop.
For the moment you make one, you are no longer a just government, and instead have become a tyrant.
Archivist said...
We need to stop justifying our position -- our position is irretuably just.
***************************
Just wanted to hear those words again :)
Anon at 3 02:
it is the only crime where the act itself is perfectly legal and the only question is if the parties agreed to it.
-----
I'm not sure I buy this. I could borrow my friend's mercedes with his consent, or I could steal my friend's mercedes. Same act, one with consent, one not.
Another thing that would help besides making heavy penalties for false accusers is to stop giving accusers money to file claims.
May 21, 2010 3:48:00 AM
This i would agree with you about.
But if you had stolen the Mercedes, it would soon become fairly obvious when you tried to sell it, or took it out of state, or never returned it to your friend. On the other hand, fifteen minutes of sex is fifteen minutes of sex -- how do you prove it was non-consensual unless there is physical evidence?
I was told today by a family law advocate here in the UK that accusations of rape, sexual abuse, and child molestation have become so common in divorce / separation / child custody hearings that advocates now expect them as a matter of course.
Such an allegation, together with an ex-parte hearing, all of which take place while the man is still in blissful ignorance, still serve to effectively cost the man his home and his children and his job, even with a total lack of criminal charges and with total anonymity.
This is a *great* thing that has happened here, but it is still *way* too early to call half time.
We have a *lot* further to go than we have come.
Amen to that, brother.
Snark: the 6% conviction rate that I refer to is based on all allegations of rape made to the police. Most are simply dismissed by the police or prosecutors as having no basis in fact to even be taken seriously. And I'm sure that in a lot of cases the female is either drunk or a local crazy known to the cops and they just tell her to go home. There may actually be a lot more false allegations made that we don't know of.The conviction rate at trial is only about half and these are the cases that the prosecutor feels she can win. Half is actaully a very bad conviction rate when you consider that in any other crime that gets to trial the rate of conviction is almost always close to 100%. A conviction rate of 1/2 is no better than chance which tells me that prosecutors are pushing cases to trial in hopes of getting some convictions just based on chance and that even these convictions should be suspect.
@gogo- by simple rape I meant the typical case where the female has suffered no physical harm and just claims that some man had sex with her when she didn't want to.
That's not the same as where some stranger had broken into her house and beat her up in her bed and raped her (this is rare as far as rape allegations go)
Michael: take your medication and think about what you're writing before you publish a comment. The example you gave about borrowing a friend's car doesn't make any sense at all. If you're friends with someone you sort of know or have some unwritten rule that he wouldn't mind if you used his car so it is not a crime.If you borrow the car with the INTENT to sell it then this may be a crime.
I would apply the friend rule when it comes to sex with a female. If you've had sex with her before then it's safe to assume that she wouldn't object if you did it again and that she may never accuse you of rape unless she recinds her implied consent in writing.
Is it wrong that I have more sympathy for a person falsely accused of rape than I do for someone who has actually been raped?
My heart goes out to both, but the thought of being falsely accused sends a chill down my spine, and god help me if it ever happens to me.
Scary times.
I swear I would rather be accused of murder than rape.
"Snark: the 6% conviction rate that I refer to"
My reference to a statistic being false was about the statistic quoted in the article, not cited by anyone commenting here.
"A conviction rate of 1/2 is no better than chance which tells me that prosecutors are pushing cases to trial in hopes of getting some convictions just based on chance and that even these convictions should be suspect."
Yes, indeed. We do see this happening. The outgoing Labour government had proposed conviction quotas for rape. Can you imagine anything more sick than that?
FALSE ACCUSATIONS
Very many persons accused of assault, especially sexual assault, are either innocent or having been found guilty by a Court, are later found to have been innocent all along.
Under current legislation the accuser's identity is protected, whereas the accused is not. Where the majority of persons accused turn out to be innocent, during the period they are under suspicion, they are reported in the press, with an assumption of guilt, which usually ruins their lives: relationships and businesses. This particularly applies to Carers or Teachers, or those involved in such professions.
The man in the street is particularly vulnerable when entering into a relationship, since he or she has no body to turn to for advice and is not in any event tuned into the potential dangers. Those most at risk include males joining single parent families with children, and most especially young girls who are most likely to hurl accusations and usually where a relationship is not working or is breaking down.
http://www.solarnavigator.net/embassies/lord_peter_henry_goldsmith_QC_attorney_general.htm
Anonymous said...
And those numbers are miles away from the grim reality in the United States. The UK and other industrialized countries do have lower rates of rape convictions, but in this country the justice system run like a conveyer belt, taking both the innocent and the guilty toward conviction. Our plea-bargaining system enables unscrupulous prosecutors to wring guilty pleas out of men who would otherwise be found innocent.
May 20, 2010 10:36:00 PM
http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2005/02/plea_bargaining.html
http://www.lawmall.com/pleabarg/
www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n3/v26n3-7.pdf
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/murphy5.html
Providing anonymity for the defendants is good news for the defendants, but it might not be such good news for men, in much the same way that family court secrecy is not good news for men.
Without the names of those concerned, the media will become uninterested in false accusation stories; which will allow governments to further stack rape trials against men.
Well done,UK!
I hope your progress can serve as a beacon for our own elected leaders.
Providing anonymity for the defendants is good news for the defendants, but it might not be such good news for men, in much the same way that family court secrecy is not good news for men.
Without the names of those concerned, the media will become uninterested in false accusation stories; which will allow governments to further stack rape trials against men.
****
This is vast improvement over one-sided secrecy, however. When you put a man's name out there but not the woman's, you basically make it a one-armed pissing contest.
Two guesses as to who loses those.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?
Anon @7.45- The man can still talk to the press and give his side And remain anonymous if he chooses. There's nothing in the law from preventing him from doing this.
If a false rape accusation is made in the woods and no feminist is around to enable it, will she still call for castration?
Anonymous said...
If a false rape accusation is made in the woods and no feminist is around to enable it, will she still call for castration?
May 24, 2010 1:39:00 PM
Yes, she/he will and, worse.
Post a Comment