Following Trevor Phillips warm words for David Cameron's immigration speech a couple of weeks ago (however quickly undermined they were by that idiot Hastilow), it'll be interesting to see if his speech to the Conservative Woman's Organisation yesterday on rape and sexual violence will be similarly commended by victim support organisations and those campaigning for improvements to rape convictions - it certainly deserves to be.
Cameron identified three areas where significant improvements are needed - convictions and sentencing, victim support and cultural change. In today's Guardian Beatrix Campbell takes a slightly partisan pop at Cameron (really just for the order he put these in) but does point out that addressing the cultural aspects of this phenomenon are far more important (and difficult) than addressing sentencing policy or victim support issues. One aspect of this debate that's often subject to the wrong sort of attention is the nature of the victims dress and / or behaviour prior to the attack.
Although progress has been made in this area Cameron cites some horrifying statistics and a particularly depressing story to demonstrate that the misogynistic attitudes that used to characterise any discussion of rape haven't yet disappeared. Lindsay Armstrong was driven to suicide after being subjected to a brutal cross-examination including discussion of the underwear she was wearing at the time of the attack. An Amnesty International study found one in four think it is acceptable for a boy to 'expect to have sex with a girl' if the girl has been 'very flirtatious'. Cameron's 'moral collapse' theme may be a bit extreme but for anyone trying to address sexual violence these are worrying statistics. I don't have the legal experience to frame this argument properly but to my mind everything possible should be done to prevent lawyers (usually male) from using the victims dress and/or behaviour to muddy the waters over responsibility for the attack. When stories like the one Cameron cites become public knowledge, the would-be rapist is effectively supplied with a victim profile, a set of characteristics that say - 'attack this woman and your chances of escaping justice are improved'. The legal system needs to find a way not only of making dress / behaviour immaterial to the crime but to do so publicly.
The difficulty however is that the legal standing we should accord these things (i.e. none) is different to the common sense, every-day outlook that most women probably adopt and most parents urge on their daughters. How do we resolve the tension between removing any legal defence built on a woman's dress or behaviour while at the same time recognising that these factors clearly have some impact on the likelihood of being the victim of an attack? In the past people who have simply tried to point this out have been labelled sexist (or worse) in the mistaken belief that they're attributing some sort of blame for the attack to the victim. We need to find a way to make the law clear and unambiguous without eroding common sense.
Cameron identified three areas where significant improvements are needed - convictions and sentencing, victim support and cultural change. In today's Guardian Beatrix Campbell takes a slightly partisan pop at Cameron (really just for the order he put these in) but does point out that addressing the cultural aspects of this phenomenon are far more important (and difficult) than addressing sentencing policy or victim support issues. One aspect of this debate that's often subject to the wrong sort of attention is the nature of the victims dress and / or behaviour prior to the attack.
Although progress has been made in this area Cameron cites some horrifying statistics and a particularly depressing story to demonstrate that the misogynistic attitudes that used to characterise any discussion of rape haven't yet disappeared. Lindsay Armstrong was driven to suicide after being subjected to a brutal cross-examination including discussion of the underwear she was wearing at the time of the attack. An Amnesty International study found one in four think it is acceptable for a boy to 'expect to have sex with a girl' if the girl has been 'very flirtatious'. Cameron's 'moral collapse' theme may be a bit extreme but for anyone trying to address sexual violence these are worrying statistics. I don't have the legal experience to frame this argument properly but to my mind everything possible should be done to prevent lawyers (usually male) from using the victims dress and/or behaviour to muddy the waters over responsibility for the attack. When stories like the one Cameron cites become public knowledge, the would-be rapist is effectively supplied with a victim profile, a set of characteristics that say - 'attack this woman and your chances of escaping justice are improved'. The legal system needs to find a way not only of making dress / behaviour immaterial to the crime but to do so publicly.
The difficulty however is that the legal standing we should accord these things (i.e. none) is different to the common sense, every-day outlook that most women probably adopt and most parents urge on their daughters. How do we resolve the tension between removing any legal defence built on a woman's dress or behaviour while at the same time recognising that these factors clearly have some impact on the likelihood of being the victim of an attack? In the past people who have simply tried to point this out have been labelled sexist (or worse) in the mistaken belief that they're attributing some sort of blame for the attack to the victim. We need to find a way to make the law clear and unambiguous without eroding common sense.
Labels: Ethics
Email | Link |-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|