Anti-Male Politics in Parliament
The Early Day Motion (No. 105), submitted on 26 May 2010, is as follows:
"EDM 105: ANONYMITY FOR DEFENDANTS IN RAPE CASES: 26.05.2010All right, to belabour the obvious: Fiona Mactaggart and her accomplices feel that a man who has not been found guilty of rape ought to have his name freely published, and be made known to the world as a "rape defendant". These parliamentarians see nothing wrong with such a proceeding; they figure it is quite jim-dandy to do this! I don't know about you, but I think these parliamentarians are despicable jackasses and shameless moral imbeciles. They have no business being in Parliament where they can get their filthy hands upon the vital business of the nation. Sack the lot forthwith, I say, and put them to work as toilet cleaners in the parliamentary "privy chambers". That is the ONLY government work they are fitted to be doing!
"That this House believes that the Government's proposal to grant anonymity to defendants in rape cases sends a message to juries and rape victims that the victim is not to be believed; fears that this could inhibit the effective prosecution of serial rapists; is further concerned that this will reverse the progress made on the prosecution of rape cases noted in the independent Stern Review; is further concerned that the Government has put forward the proposal without any research, evidence or examination of these issues; and calls on the Government to withdraw its proposal."
Seriously now, how in the bloody hell does shielding a rape defendant's name "send a message to juries and rape victims that the victim is not to be believed"? There is absolutely no rhyme, reason or sense whatsoever to such a statement— and nobody with their head screwed on straight, man or woman, could possibly think so!
Furthermore, did you notice how the plaintiff is called the VICTIM? Fiona Mactaggart has jumped the gun and shot herself in the foot! That lapse alone is proof positive of either mental laziness or moral intransigence, neither of which are acceptable traits in a public servant. It also offers a subtle clue to understanding such an incredible statement as "send a message . . . that the victim is not to be believed." For if the plaintiff is classified as a "victim", it would follow that she MUST be telling the truth because the language itself asserts a priori knowledge—as if the case had ALREADY been proven! That is what it means to call the plaintiff a "victim" prior to the verdict: it implies that you already know for a fact that they are telling the truth; it implies that the trial has already been held; it implies that the case has already been adjudicated—even though nothing of the sort has happened yet!
One more thing: notice that even though the plaintiff is called "the victim", the defendant is STILL called the defendant! So in the mind of Fiona Mactaggart, the plaintiff doesn't even need to be a "plaintiff" any more, and yet . . . the defendant is still the defendant! And yet. . . under color of strict consistency, you could as warrantably call him "the falsely accused". . couldn't you?
And whatever is happening in the mind of Fiona Mactaggart is happening similarly in the minds of all those other MPs who put their names to the petition! None of them understands or respects the notion of innocent until proven guilty! In fact, none of them truly gives a crap if justice is actually done, or if any injustice gets committed. If you are merely charged with rape, then as far as they're concerned you might as well be guilty of rape—and therefore you don't deserve normal criminal justice procedure.
So fire all 53 of those parliamentary morons, instruct them to clean out their desks, and issue them their toilet brushes!
Very well. On a different note, Steven of the False Rape Society has given thought to all of this, and has recently submitted the following as a comment. I think this material is important and ought to be prominently exposed for general consideration:
"I've been trying to post the following everywhere I can, so I hope you don't mind:
"I have read quite a few statements from those who oppose this measure, stating that why is it necessary to grant anonymity to men (people?) accused of this one crime, and not others?
"Here is my response:
"Why is it, that we grant anonymity to accusers of this one crime, and no others? To pull out the line that feminists love to use when it is to their advantage, it's called "equality".
"For no other class of crime, do we grant the accuser anonymity. So if this one crime is so special, or so horrific, then all involved should be anonymous, or none should, and a crime this special or horrific, will carry a stigma, regardless of the veracity of the complaint.
"All the best,
"E. Steven Berkimer"
Finally, I will send you to the Rights of Man blog for the following letter which the blogger has drafted to be sent to the offending MPs.
TO THE 58 MPS AGAINST ANONYMITY FOR THOSE FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE
(PART ONE): http://tinyurl.com/2c96yas
(PART TWO): http://tinyurl.com/2dkmway
I will post more on all of this as things develop.
The following was left as a comment (by Aimee) on the post just before this. It refers briefly to the online petition linked in that post, and goes on to talk about other things which, I think, shed light on the matter given in the present post:
"I signed it. I think this makes sense as the mere accusation of rape or sexual misconduct can ruin a man's reputation forever even if he is innocent. This happened to a man in my church who was my Sunday School teacher as well as a junior high school teacher. Two students who were angry with him for bad grades accused him of molesting them.
"It was a horrible time for him and his family and our church. My father was the minister and our family stood by him because we knew he was innocent. But many people left the church because they assumed the accusations must be true. He also lost his teaching job. He was asked to resign. Eventually, the girls recanted their accusations but this man's life was ruined. That stain of presumed guilt never goes away.
"Considering the magnitude of damage these kinds of accusations can do, I think it is important to keep anonymity for the accused. And it's important from a justice standpoint as well to ensure a fair trial and protect the accused from public condemnation. It's supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" but I find that is rarely the case. People make their judgements before knowing the facts."