Ever since the Coalition Government announced its policy of giving rape defendants anonymity unless found guilty, they have been hounded and hounded by the anti-male feminists who do not want the Government to bring in this provision. Even to the point where hilariously Caroline Flint MP said this measure was the enemy of justice, even though the measure is the friend of equality. Also listen to her interview on the Today programme.
Against this onslaught, the Government is in danger of being faced down by the enemies of equality and men. A flavour of the backtracking can be seen in Parliament on 15th June where the Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke MP, backslides and says nothing is certain. This follows David Cameron's backsliding as well as Clegg's, even though this is essentially a Lib Dem proposal. Clarke's backsliding was covered by the BBC and Daily Mail.
All this flies in the face of the continual damage down to innocent men covered in length here and the constant flow of stories about false accusers (Bernadette Core and here) and even the repercussions of the awful ordeal that Warren Blackwell went through where the police, brainwashed by the anti-male politically correct mafia , prosecuted him and ended up sending him to prison (Daily Mail and BBC) despite the evedience. Maybe Caroline Flint ought to listen to him.
Still others are doing their bit. The ManKind Initiative have written to the Government asking them to stand firm as has Thomas Byrne who also has set up a Facebook Group (if there are others that have written please tell the site).
Since the Coalition Government put forward this policy, the anti-male groups have gone into overdrive and the Coalition has been left floundering and is at risk of losing its nerve. Even the Independent reported they were looking at extending the anonymity issue but this has been met with the usual onslaught.
If the Coalition Government truly believes in equality, it has to face down the opponents on this issue.
If it does not, then the signal is that men will end up with the same rough deal dished out for 13 years by the Labour Government. It will mean that every time they put forward an measure that gives equality to men and women, they will cave in by being shouted down by the anti-male Marxist Feminists like Flint, Harman, the Fawcett Society and everyone else in that camp.
Posted by Skimmington
Really very informative blog which greatly discuss the Real Human Rights. Thanks for sharing.
John
Posted by: online edegra | Monday, 28 June 2010 at 06:43
Two wrongs do not make a Right.
We HAD equality before the Law when both accuser ad the accused stood before their peers, identified themselves and made their cases. The PUBLIC was their judge. That equality needs to be restored.
It was transparent. It was an agreement between the pubic and 'society' that society would conduct the process and procedure of Justice, in the open, so that individuals did not have to seek redress of their own.
The Courts were established as a 'contract' between members of society. The Court's procedures included punishing oath-breakers and decievers who lied to the Court.
For the MRM to seek, on behalf of men, that the accused is given anonymity, is WRONG.
It is self defeating.
It damages Jurisprudence even more than it has been.
The accuser - in these cases, a woman - is given anonymity and THAT should be reversed.
As it is, the accused's family and friends know her and have a Privileged position over all other members of the public. She has a privilege not extended to the accused. But we, men, the MRM, should NOT seek that privilege. It is destructive of Equality before the Law and of Transparancy. It plays into the hands of the corruptors.
We should be demanding Openness, Transparency, Equality before the law, and PUNISHMENT for purjury and calumny.
The more we water down the Principles of Law, the easier it becomes to subvert the Law.
Posted by: amfortas | Monday, 28 June 2010 at 10:46
Thank you to One in Three campaign news page. A class action has been launched in Tasmania against the state gov. Their action fighting the discriminatory operation of the system.
I agree that the interests of justice would be supported best by not having secrecy. However a return to the original position would be equal. The end of anonymity in the original law was wrong, even though experience shows us openness is best in averting false wtness.
Posted by: Groan | Monday, 28 June 2010 at 13:51
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/03/14/133845_scalesofjustice.html
sorry link to story about Tasmania
Posted by: Groan | Monday, 28 June 2010 at 14:02
Write to Cameron detailing your views. I did, you can find the address here: http://www.number10.gov.uk/footer/contact-us
To amfortas - I don't think what you want will ever happen. We are far more likely to get anonymity for men also, and hopefully you agree this at least makes the whole debacle more fair?
Posted by: Jon | Friday, 02 July 2010 at 22:45