The Home Office paper Setting the Boundaries is available at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/atoz/sex_offence.htm, and our response refers to specific paragraphs within this.
United Kingdom Men's Movement
P.O Box 205
Cheltenham
Glos.GL51 0YL
Tel: 01242 691110
23 Jan 2001
Response to consultation paper: Setting the Boundaries
Summary of Main Points:
This paper is deeply flawed in many respects. Despite the claim by the authors that it is non discriminatory in many respects (para.0.6), a number of key recommendations are, in fact, examples of the purest and most complete anti-male sex discrimination which it is possible to produce. It is noteworthy that while the prior meetings, conferences and respondents included 'victims' that Ms Betty Moxon and her team do not mention responses from those 'falsely accused' of sexual offences. This is a serious omission. Other respondents have established that Ms Moxon does not regard herself as having any remit to take the issues of 'false accusation' into account.
Thus, the high-flown concepts in the Introduction of 'fair, fit & just' are skewed at the very start of this review by the author's own mindset.
Recommendation 1 is sex discriminatory. There have in fact been cases e.g. in Italy where a group of women tied up a man and proceeded to have sexual intercourse with him against his will. Chemical and/or artificial means can in fact be used to produce an erection in such circumstances. The definition of rape used here is unsatisfactory. It should be altered to "sexual intercourse without consent, by man or woman."
This will have the effect of reducing the need for Recommendation 3.
Recommendation 4 must be scrapped altogether. This is an entirely slanted and twisted concept which will lead to much injustice.
Recommendation 5 & 7 would require a new consultation process in itself.
Recommendation 6 betrays the sex discriminatory mindset of the authors. Points 1& 2 of this recommendation constitute what most people understand by rape. The third point is highly contentious. Where two people freely partake of alcohol or drugs and have done so in a social setting where they have any (even fleeting) acquaintance with each other, then both parties must be mutually responsible for their actions. It is a nonsense to state that where intercourse follows from such a social setting that the man ( and only the man) is to be held culpable. This recommendation is part and parcel of the feminist view that females must be able to be regarded in law as both mature adults and then as helpless children on a whim, flip/flopping between either state at will.
Recommendation 14 is highly puzzling. If an individual travels to another country, then whatever they may do there falls within the jurisdiction of that country. To state that their actions in that country constitute an offence in this country even though those actions may be legal in that country is an entirely unwarranted interference in other jurisdictions. Let our domestic law deal with our own national boundaries. Stay out of irrelevant nonsense such as recommendation 14.
Recommendations 49, 52 & 53 are both dubious and out of place here. Given that the authors state that they are not concerned with reviewing prostitution within this document itself, why are they concerned with persons who transport prostitutes around. At its most absurd this recommendation would criminalise a taxi-driver who took a prostitute, at her own request, to a place where she wishes to conduct her business. Recommendation 52 may well be reasonable but only if allied to a review of the criminal offences committed by prostitutes as well. Including it here smacks of 'blame the man, understand the woman' syndrome.
Specific Consultation Points
Foreword:
In any system of criminal or civil law, it is the values, specifically moral values, of a society which are being reflected in that law. The above Review uses phrases like 'it surely cannot be right' and 'it is not morally acceptable' at several points in the document.
Thus, the authors of this document appear to have some moral view which is guiding them, although it is not immediately clear just what this moral stance might be.
It is clearly not a moral stance founded in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, since they propose to remove all distinctions between behaviour which is heterosexual and that which is homosexual. On this point, the authors seem to be highly impressed that around one third of responses to their initial consultation were on the issues surrounding homosexuality and the law.
It may be unwise to be unduly influenced by such a fact, as the Section 28 controversy in Scotland showed that the homosexual lobby organised responses for all over the world, e.g. from Chile & Argentina to be sent to Edinburgh to affect the domestic law in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament cheerfully accepted such responses as counting towards their total.
It seems then, that the views which enlighten this document belong to the realm of moral relativism.
The perpetual problem here is that one person's relative moral stance cannot, by definition, be morally superior to any other person's stance. If it is felt that deciding morality by a show of hands is the way ahead, then more frequent referenda ought to be held.
It is time to look in detail at few of the areas covered by this review.
Rape & sexual assault - honest belief in free agreement (para. 2.13.14)
Rape has been regarded as a serious offence through much of recorded history. The reasons why this was so are illuminating. In settled societies in many parts of the world, a female's standing and prospects depended largely on her reproductive abilities and marriageability. Then and now, female virginity was prized for practical, health and religious reasons.
To this day, in many parts of the Middle East, and also in parts of South America, a medical certificate of virginity may be demanded before a bridegroom will marry his bride. In these societies, raping a woman was virtually to 'murder' her prospects in life, and was accordingly a serious offence.
In Britain, and countries once colonised by Britain, the same was true.
During W.W.II, the South African army executed a number of soldiers for rape.
Our former Prime Minister, Edward Heath, has recounted how he was the officer in charge of a firing squad in Britain which shot a Polish soldier for rape during W.W.II.
The days when a certitude of virginity was highly prized in Britain as a prerequisite to marriage have long gone, however. It is certainly not true that 'rape' would preclude any British female from marriage or a stable relationship with a man.
It is interesting to compare the range of sentences, all the way up to life imprisonment for rape, defined as 'penetration by penis' in the current review, with the sentences for 'penetration by knife'.
A recent case involved a man who was walking along the road when a complete stranger ran up behind him and 'penetrated' him with a knife blade to a depth of several inches. The culprit was caught and sentenced to 200 hours of community service.
Given the psychological trauma which can accompany such an attack (some victims are too scared to venture out for years afterwards), not to mention the fact that it is only by mere chance that vital organs were not damaged, we feel that there is a staggering discrepancy in the range of sentences here.
It seems that the historical basis behind the length of rape sentences has lingered on into completely different modern conditions.
This discrepancy shows up even more when one looks at the largest increase in allegations of rape, and it is vital to grasp firmly the concept that an allegation is just that.
It is in the arena of acquaintance rape allegations that inconsistencies appear to show up most strikingly. In this area, the authors appear to be complete off-beam in their recommendations.
An attack by a stranger, whether sexual or an armed assault with a knife etc. is a shocking experience for almost every victim.
However, an event which occurs almost always in private between two acquaintances and often without any corroboration, is much harder to determine in law.
Let us look at the following portrayal of a pair of young people on an evening out …
Johnny and Jeannie have just met in the pub. Things go well and they finish the evening off at 'Ravers', a popular night spot. It plays all their favourite sounds; garage, techno, hip-hop, house. It's hot , busy and loud. Johnny and Jeannie both drink copious expensive bottles of strong foreign lagers, drinking straight from the bottle, (it's the trend, you know!). At some point in the evening, a young man sidles over and sells them a couple of coloured pills. Johnny and Jeannie take one each and the throbbing music seems much more intense. Hey, life's great. It's the 21st Century and we're all equal!
Sometime, the next morning or, let's face it, more likely the next afternoon, Johnny and Jeannie come to. They're in Johnny's flat, or maybe Jeannie's flat. They turn to look at each other. Neither is wearing any clothing. Johnny thinks, "Who is this beside me? I must have got on great last night". Jeannie thinks, " Who is this beside me? I must have been RAPED!"
All of a sudden, 'equality' seems to disappear. If Johnny goes down to the police station to say that Jeannie raped him, then, according to this oh-so- sexually non -discriminatory review, he can get nowhere. However, if Jeannie goes down to complain, Johnny will be arrested and charged and face a possible life sentence!
As for the alcohol which they have both consumed, it has also had a remarkable effect. Consuming alcohol absolves Jeannie for any responsibility for her actions BUT according to the recommendations in this Review, consuming alcohol cannot be used as a defence by Johnny. Should these bottles of lager carry a 'Warning by HM Government' ?
The above situation, which is what would result if this Review went ahead as planned, is plainly absurd, and totally sex discriminatory. Scenarios such as portrayed above probably occur every week in the pubs and clubs of Britain.
The scenario below is drawn from recent real life. Names have been changed.
William and Angie had been living together for some time. William was an enthusiastic folk musician. They both shared a loosely New Age approach to life. After some years, William and Angie decided to get married. Since they already shared a flat, they held the ceremony in a Registry Office and they and a couple of dozen friends returned to the flat to celebrate. Large quantifies of alcohol were consumed. Much later, when all present were fairly drunk, people began to stretch out in the flat for the night. William ended up with Mary, the bridesmaid, behind a curtain where they both had sex in a semi-drunken stupor.
Various reactions are possible on reading the above story. One might conclude that William & Angie should have thought better of getting married. On the other hand, one could have a relaxed view to the revolving wheel of these people's sexual habits. However, if the next morning, Angie had demanded an explanation, and Mary, embarrassed at the events of the previous night, had complained that she had not consented to sex, the present review's recommendations would leave William bereft of any defence. A very unequal law, indeed!
Why should the man be the only party to have to be responsible for sexual encounters?
Thus, we propose a recommendation that, should it transpire that both parties have freely partaken of quantities of alcohol and/or mind-altering substances, then should the woman complain of rape, and there is no other corroboration then the case must be dismissed since it is impossible for a court to determine the truth of the issue. This is an essential measure, since, clearly, in order to give coherent evidence in court, a party must have been compus mentis otherwise, no reliance can be placed on their testimony and , thus, the issue would fail to be determinable by the judicial process. Automatically, such a case could not and must not proceed to trial.
Other Offences - exposure by women should not form part of an offence of indecent exposure (para. 8.2.8)
Oh, why not? The reasons put forward by the authors betray a lack of balance. It is noteworthy that the authors of this document are all female. The constant thread running through this paper are that men would end up being criminalised but not women. Some link here, perhaps?
The authors state that very few women expose themselves such as to cause alarm or distress. Maybe so, but this is insufficient reason to put forward yet another sex discriminatory proposal. In point of fact, there was a news item in the recent past where an area in Birmingham was starting to be colonised by prostitutes on street corners, attracting kerb-crawlers and other criminal elements to the area. The area was largely Asian & Muslim. After things deteriorated, a number of the Muslim men started a pavement protest to deter these prostitutes. They were given considerable verbal abuse and threats from both the prostitutes and their minders. On one occasion, one of the prostitutes shouted at them and then stripped naked on the pavement and paraded in front of them. She was of course, causing alarm & distress to these civic minded men who were trying to keep their area decent and safe.
According to Ms Moxon & co. this was not an offence by the prostitute. Why not ?
Dealing with False Rape Allegations: A Proposal
As many men and their families suffer great injustice due to false allegations of rape, we feel that the following should be incorporated into law by Parliament,
- in the interests of protecting the innocent from unjust stigma, and to give equality, that men who are accused of rape be given the anonymity currently extended to a woman who alleges rape;
- that a new crime of False Rape Allegation be recognised and legislated for, with proven malicious accusers to face a sentence equal in length to that which their victim would have faced if justice had miscarried;
- a register of False Rape Accusers to be kept, similar to the Register of Sexual Offenders;
- a neutral and objective study to be made of all rape cases, and where it is clear there were false allegations made, the action taken by police, fiscals, and judges to be recorded. the results of such study to be published annually. This to include cases where police took no further action, or where the fiscal abandoned the case at any point, or where the jury returned a "not guilty" verdict to assess the likely number of false rape allegations.
Conclusion:
The document "Setting the Boundaries" is riddled with sexist assumptions. A further rethink is essential if fairness and equal treatment before the law are to be applied.