Dear ol Ken Clarke, the favourite 'Tory' of all left wingers, has somehow got himself emrolied in a row about what he said, and what he meant, when he made a few remarks about Rape yesterday. Clarke was really talking about possible changes to sentencing rules which would see the reward for early confessions of wrong doing increased from a 33% reduction in sentence to a 50% reduction, but the Radio 5 interviewer leapt onto the possibility that such a change could see some convicted rapists serving little more than 1 year in prison before being released.
To be fair, Clarke did not handle the interview well and rather bumbled along, as he is inclined to do but the way in which his words have subsequently been used by socialist politicians and womens' groups to whip up a storm really is contemptible. Why is it that we have to be so extra-sensitive when it comes to anything to do with women when the same women seem so determined to be seen as being 'equal' to men in every respect ?
Rape, in its traditionally understood form when a man uses his extra size and strength to force himself on to an unwilling women, is a disgusting crime that deserves a long prison sentence; full stop. What Ken Clarke attempted to say, not very well, is that even though, in law, Rape is Rape, the courts actually identify different types of rape when it comes to sentencing and it has to be recognised that every case is different.
Sexual intercourse that involves a girl under the age of 16 is Rape, whether or not the girl consents - how many such 'Rapes' occur every day in this country ? I'd suggest that it is many thousand, as young people, supplied with free contraceptives by the State, enjoy each others' company with no thought whatsoever that the boys' actions are illegal. Any suggestion that such instances whould be pursued through the courts as 'Rape' are simply ignored by the police and CPS as being 'not in the public interest' unless there is a very significant age difference between the parties, or the girl is under 14 rather than 16 which is the legal limit.
Instances in which a young woman gets a little carried away, has a bit of a fling and then regrets it, may also be called Rape if she later tells the police she didn't really want it. Is this the same as a Rape in which violence and force is applied ? Worse, instances in which young women go out on Friday or Saturday night, dressed highly provocatively and behaving in a loud and often lewd manner, may lead to liaisons with young men acting in similar fashion. Many of these youngsters go out with the clear intention of getting drunk, some on the look-out for drugs and others with a definite intention of 'getting laid'. When an encounter goes wrong, is this 'Rape' to the same degree as in the case of a sober and soberly dressed woman, dragged off the street and into nearby bushes ?
The lesson from this is that none of us can expect to escape the consequences of our actions. The man who who commits a 'traditional' Rape has no one but himself to blame. The schoolgirl of 15 who finds herself pregnant, having quite happily had sex with her 17 year old boyfriend, is not the victim of anything but her own stupidity; to call such an encounter 'Rape' is simply ridiculous. The girl who meets an old male friend with whom she used to live, has a good time and voluntarily spends the night with him before regretting it the next day, can hardly claim to be a 'victim', any more than can the drunken girl, dressed like a tart who finds she's lost her knickers somewhere, though she's not quite sure where, or who else was involved.
The adage that 'No' means 'No' is fine but inevitably there are rarely more than 2 people involved in a case of Rape, making witnesses difficult to find. Did she really say 'No' ? Was either party in a fit state to know whether or not she said 'No' ? Did she say 'No', but not until the next day, or when she'd thought about it for a while and realised her current partner might find out ? There are innumerable possibilities. The nonsense that the conviction rate for Rape is too low is another piece of lunacy; just because a woman makes an allegation, doesn't make the man guilty, indeed, there has been more than one case of deliberate false accusation in the press in recent times.
None of this is intended to provide any support for rapists but only to try to show that Rape is a complex issue in both society and the law. The idea that women should bear no responsibility, whatever they do and however they behave, cannot be right; if I stand in the middle of the road on a wet, dark night and get run over by a truck, whose fault is that, mine or the truck driver's ? We all have to take responsibiliuty for our own actions and for at least some of the consequences of them. The idea that 'Rape is Rape' is just as silly as saying that 'Murder is Murder'; circumstances and situations are different in every case and it is right that each case is treated on its own merits.
Ken Clarke is certainly guilty of being caught flat-footed by the interviewer and of making some ill-judged comments, but anyone who believes his guilt is any greater than this is an idiot. What politician hasn't been caught out now and again ? If Clarke had been talking about almost any other subject, his words would have gone unnoticed, but he was talking about Rape, which immediately gained the attention of a range of interested parties, and we all know how much the media loves a good juicy story about anything to do with sex.
No comments:
Post a Comment