|
|
Allegations of Sexual
Abuse |
|
|
|
|
It wasn't a huge news story.
Police were hunting a man who attacked a woman in a taxi - or at least the
victim thought it was a taxi. But she couldn't be sure. To be honest, she
didn't really know how she got there. Drink had been consumed and her memory
was hazy. She thought she had been helped into the car by a couple who may or
may not have paid her fare. In any case, she fell asleep and woke, some time
later, to find a man indecently assaulting her. This woman is not alone: not in
her drinking habits, nor in finding herself the victim of a sex attacker
while senseless through alcohol. Every Saturday night, Scottish city centres
are heaving with women so drunk they have little hope of finding their way to
the nearest taxi rank; women with bare midriffs sprawled out on benches;
women who are easy prey for sex attackers. Then there are the less clear-cut
cases: women who wake up after a drunken night to find they have had sex with
someone they met, but cannot recall having consented to it. Their experience,
in part, explains not only why the number of rape allegations is rising at a
frightening rate across the country, but also, arguably, why the number of
successful prosecutions remains resolutely low. In Scotland last year, only
39 of 900 reported rapes - less than 5% - resulted in convictions. No-one doubts the current
situation is unacceptable. But to what degree are these women being failed by
the judicial system, and to what degree by a culture that promotes binge
drinking and the objectification of women? More contentiously, should there
be any onus on women to try to avoid placing themselves in risky situations
where sex attacks are more likely? Tony Blair believes the answer is
to afford drunk women more legal protection. Last week, he announced
proposals to change the law so a woman who was drunk, but still conscious,
could be deemed incapable of giving meaningful consent to sex. You can see
what he's getting at. Yet in doing so, he has managed to come up with a
proposal that is impractical, potentially discriminatory to men, and
offensive to a generation of women who, in any other context, would sneer at
the suggestion they were incapable of making their feelings understood. It also seems to be desperately
out of touch with social mores since, let's face it, the vast majority of
sexual encounters between young people take place under the influence of
alcohol. Who does the Prime Minister think is going to determine at which precise
point in the descent into inebriation the capacity to consent is lost? And
how can a jury be expected to determine the degree of drunkenness experienced
by a woman who struggles to recall events herself. Those are the logistical problems,
but there are also ethical ones. In cases where both parties have drunk to
excess, for example, why should the law provide for the fact the woman might
be incapable of giving meaningful consent, but not for the fact that the man
might be incapable of making a judgment on her capacity? And isn't it
possible to conceive of a situation where a woman might carry out a sex act
on a man who was too drunk to say No? The trouble with engaging in a debate
on rape is that it really is the last taboo - just as, until recently, any
criticism of multiculturalism left you open to accusations of racism. So now, questioning whether or not
women should exercise more self-control opens you up to accusations of
misogyny. No-one presumes crime prevention
officers who tell homeowners how to protect their property are condoning
burglary. Yet any suggestion that women should make more effort to protect
themselves is seen as tantamount to claiming that those who do not are asking
for it. Not long ago, Neil Richardson,
assistant chief constable of Lothian and Borders Police, found himself so
maligned when he told this newspaper drink made women more likely to be
targeted by sex attackers, and less able to defend themselves. Trying to encourage women to take
those statistics on board is not misogynistic but pragmatic. There are men
out there who prey on vulnerable women. Rape - like drug dealing and robbery
- is a fact of life that no degree of moral outrage is likely to alter. While
our justice system should underline the rights of women to be safe, we do
them no favours if our laws effectively endorse reckless behaviour. Nor do we advance the cause of
women by protecting the identity of those who make spurious allegations of
rape against innocent men. If rape is a crime that provokes an unparalleled
degree of revulsion from the public, then falsely and maliciously accusing
someone of such a crime is a heinous act that should attract an appropriate
punishment. Lord Campbell-Savours, who last
week used parliamentary privilege to name a woman whose false allegations led
to an innocent man being jailed, was criticised by anti-rape campaigners who
accused the system of being "institutionally sexist". But what is
more sexist than a system that jails men for rape, but allows those who make
repeated, false accusations to go not only unpunished but unidentified? Far
from discouraging victims to go to court, the waiving of anonymity for such
women could actually increase conviction rates, since juries might be more
inclined to believe accusers if they knew those making false claims risked
being exposed as liars. But tinkering with the law will
only ever increase the number of successful prosecutions. It won't stop rape
happening. To do that, we have to address the way women are viewed by men.
And yes, sometimes even the way women view themselves. We must also recognise the part
binge drinking plays in setting the scene for some rapes. Of course, women
have the undisputed right to wear and drink what they want without being
raped. But if we truly want to protect
women, we need to strike a balance between reiterating that rape is wrong in
absolutely every circumstance, and forcing them to face up to stark,
statistical reality. |
