The Rights Of Man

(SOME) HELP IN SCOTLAND FOR MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE

In December last year, this site updated the situation in Scotland where there seemed to have been moves afoot fro some official recognition of male victims of domestic abuse. A petition (PE1307) had been put down in the Scottish Parliament by Jackie Walls and Alison Waugh.

The follow up to this was that a debate then took place before the Petitions Committee on 26th January 2010 where Alison spoke to the committee alongside two men who had been victims. Following the meeting (which also received good media coverage - Scottish TV and BBC) submissions were invited for later discussion.

What was interesting was that the Petitions Commitee made up of Backbench Members of the Scottish Parliament discussed the issue seriously and were clearly moved by the two men who spoke anonymously to them. 

The submissions that were requested showed the extent of the hostility of some organisations to the whole concept of male victims. Made worse as some supposedly believe in equal opportunities but do not want to accept men as equals (see Edinburgh Council's response). The ManKind Initiative response was typically feisty though.

Following this, the Scottish Government launched a help-line for a year (March Press Release, April Press Release of launch) bizarrely with English-based charity, the Men's Advice Line, who as a subgroup of Respect (the perpetrator charity) notoriously look at domestic violence from a feminist perspective (whatever that is). Alison and Jackie's organisation (Abused) Men in Scotland surely should have been considered.

The petition still remains live and was discussed further in May and the whole issue will be discussed on Thursday 10th June between 14.55 to 17.00 GMT and should be available to watch live on Holyrood TV.

At least this issue is starting to be taken seriously in Scotland, though there will inevitably be some resistance and it seems strange that a Scottish group is not running the help-line. With the new Coalition Government for the whole UK, let us hope that they make up the mantle on an issue  disgracefully ignored by the previous UK Government.

SUPPORT THIS EVENT TO RAISE FUNDS AGAINST PROSTATE CANCER

The X Foundation is looking for men to help us drag the issue of prostate cancer into the spotlight by dressing up as a women for The Great Drag Race, a fabulously flamboyant 10.2km sponsored walk/run and afternoon jolly to be held in London Fields on Saturday the 19th of June. The distance represents one long stride for each of the 10,200 men lost to the disease each year, and all sponsorship money raised will go directly to Prostate Cancer Research Foundation and the Prostate Cancer Support Federation.

You can find out more by visiting the website (http://thegreatdragrace.org) or by watching this short clip from the accompanying documentary: http://thexfoundation.org/#/the-great-drag-race-movie/4540140466

Here are 7 things you should know:

1. Prostate cancer kills nearly as many men as breast cancer kills women, yet it receives a tenth of the funding and a fraction of the media coverage. It's time for men to do something about it - even if they have to dress up as women to get the same kind of attention!

2. Many of our chaps will be walking the 10.2km, so you don't need to start an intensive training regime.

3. All sponsorship money raised goes to straight to the charities and will be hugely appreciated, but the main aim in our first year is to persuade as many men as possible to dress up and come along. Just register now, pay the £10 entry fee, and you can take part.

4. It's going to be a lot of fun and you might get into the Guinness Book of World Records.

5. We need women too! Please consider putting your name down to be a steward or helper on the day.

6. You can join the official Facebook group here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=265283035499

7. If you still need convincing, we hope you'll watch this very short film about ten amazing men who'll be taking part: http://thexfoundation.org/#/the-great-drag-race-movie/4540140466.

Click here to sign up as an individual or team: http://thegreatdragrace.org

Please help us spread the word about The Great Drag Race. And, if you really can't make it on June 19th, why not consider making a small donation to our First Eleven: http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/team/firsteleven

Warm regards

The X Foundation

The X Foundation is a social enterprise made up of like-minded individuals, who have chosen to combine their skills, talents, energy and ideas in order to raise funds and awareness for selected causes in highly original ways. You are receiving this message because you have previously communicated with The X Foundation, or because we share a common friend. If you would like to be removed from our mailing list, simply reply to this message, and type the word "scram" in the subject line.

TO THE 58 MPS AGAINST ANONYMITY FOR THOSE FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE (PART TWO)

Despite the points rasied in part one of this piece I do very much respect your democratic right to oppose legislation which would restore fairness in rape cases and I realise your actions might not be be exclusively borne out of misandry nor a lack of understanding of the arguments. There are indeed alternative solutions to such a pressing issue which we might want to try first and it's very easy to simply complain about such other person's proposals instead of solving the problem at hand. Therefore would you please let me know what alternative proposals you had in mind to protect the innocent victims of false rape allegations? Also could you please clarify whether you are against anonymity for anyone for all parities or only for the accused?

I expect some of you already have completed significant work to help the falsely accused throughout your careers and have ideas on solving the problem. I've taken the time to produce a set of proposals which I'm sure would provide a workable alternative to anonymity for those accused of rape and help to protect innocent men and women. Please indicate if and when you'd be willing to put these proposals forward in the House and what additional measures you feel would be necessary as an alternative or precursor to anonymity.

1. The establishment of a register of proven false rape accusers. First proposed by Judge David Bryant the register would help protect men men by enabling them to avoid contact with false accusers convicted of this offence. As with genuine rapists, false accusers are often serial offenders or target multiple victims.  An alternative would be to place false accusers on the sex offenders register as their crime is clearly a serious offence of a sexual nature.

2. Requiring malicious false accusers to serve the same sentence they attempted to inflict on their victims. At present false accusers generally receive little punishment if any at all. Even when given custodial sentence is given it tends to be suspended or usually amount to a derisory a few months, sentences which are now generally accepted as ineffective and no deterrent. Such a policy would help to send out a message that false accusation are extremely serious crimes thus reducing false allegations and also removing much of the stigma from victims.

3. False accusers to fully refund the taxpayer all funds lost by investigating their false and malicious claims. Recent cases show false rape cases cost the taxpayer as much as £300,000 each.
In an era of large deficits and cuts, surely reclaiming such monies measure would not only provide a disincentive for inventing rape cases but also reduce the need for reducing services elsewhere? Alternatively, such money could be redirected into protecting and assisting genuine rape victims and catching actual rapists.

4. Requiring the media to give greater prominence to news of rape acquittal compared to reports on mere allegations. At present the media loses interest in rape cases once an acquittal occurs as highlighted in the Stern Review meaning victims of false claims are never able to clear their names.
An additional possible proposal might also stop the media (not to mention MPs) from using loaded terminology such as "victims" nor "rapist" until after a guilty verdict is established and the case has been provedd.

5. The removal of anonymity from false rape accusers when the balance of probabilities show their claims to be false. Some false accusers are able to retains and hide behind  anonymity, even if their claims would appear to have caused the death of their victims.

6. Compensation to be paid to victim of false rape allegations. Such a solution would not only help victims to try to return to normal life but also emphasise their status as victims of a quite horrific crime. Any such settlement also would help remove any stigma associated with the offence.

7. A full overhaul of the way false rape data is collected and presented.  False rapes cases should surely be categorised completely differently to actual rapes in crime surveys rather than muddled together, thus preventing gender feminists from using false rape claims as evidence of a lack of success in prosecuting genuine rapes. Such dishonest behaviour by the rape lobby is likely to put of genuine rape victims from coming forward as was the case with the exaggeration of low conviction rates.


Many thanks for your interest in the serious issue of false rape allegations and for taking the time to read this document. I look forward to your response.



John Kimble

TO THE 58 MPS AGAINST ANONYMITY FOR THOSE FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE (PART ONE)

Dear Madams/Sirs

I note with interest you all took the time to sign Early Day Motion 105 opposing anonymity for those accused of rape. Incredibly for some of you (such as certain sponsors) it's the only Early Day Motion motion you've actually supported so far during this Parliament, so it's clear some of you feel very strongly about such issues.

There are also a number of incredibly serious flaws with the motion you have signed up for which were highlighted by the excellent False Rape Society. A revised version of their points with cited examples is enclosed below and I hope you perhaps reconsider your position upon reading them: 

I. The Motion Is Unconscionable Because It Fails To Acknowledge The Damage Of False Rape Claims To Innocent Men
The motion is unconscionable because it fails to acknowledge the harm to innocent men accused of false rape claims. It fails to recognise that rape is perhaps the most loathsome offence in the entire criminal law canon; that in some cultures, rape is regarded as more offensive than murder; and that rape is universally considered worthy of the most severe societal censure and condemnation.  Worse, because of the nature of a rape claim, where the only physical evidence of an alleged criminal act is often precisely the same physical evidence of an act of love, a false rape accusation is almost impossible to disprove.  Even when falsely accused men are cleared of rape charges, they often spend the remainder of their lives tainted as the possible perpetrators of the most loathsome crime known to mankind.

False accusations of rape have severely stigmatised more human beings than false accusations of any other crime. The public scorn from false rape claims has caused innocent men and boys to be killed and to kill themselves; to be beaten, and to be looked upon with suspicion long after they are cleared of wrongdoing. They lose not only their good names but often their jobs, their homes or businesses, and their relationships and marriages. It is often impossible for the falsely accused to ever obtain gainful employment once the lie hits the news: for the rest of his life, a falsely accused man will have prospective employers Googling his name and discovering the horrid accusation even foxing victims to obtain new identities and flee the country.

II. The Motion Is Premised On A Bias That Rape Accusers Are Rape Victims

The motion manifests a disturbing and telling bias that presumes a defendant is guilty of rape based solely on an accusation.  This is evident by its failure even to acknowledge the reality of false rape claims, and in its express language. Specifically, it asserts that the Government's proposal "sends a message to juries and rape victims that the victim is not to be believed."  (Emphasis supplied.)

By branding an accuser a "victim," the motion impliedly asserts that a rape accusation is true based solely on the allegation, before a scrap of evidence is admitted at trial, much less an adjudication of guilt is handed down.  Such a description is grossly unfair to the presumptively innocent who are accused of such crimes since, by necessity, they must be guilty of rape if their accusers are, in fact, "victims." This description also trivialises rape by including among its victims women who might only be false accusers.

III. The Proposal Does Not Send A Message That The Rape Accuser Isn't To Be Believed.
The assertion that the government's proposal "sends a message to juries and rape victims that the victim [sic] is not to be believed" is factually erroneous.  The proposal sends no such message any more than anonymity for rape accusers sends a message that rape accusers are to be believed over the men and boys they accuse. 

The message conveyed by anonymity for rape defendants is that the harm of publicly identifying innocent men who are falsely accused is severe and unconscionable, not that women are liars.  It is a gross stereotype to insist that the general public is so obtuse that it will make such generalisations about rape accusers and rape defendants.
 
IV. Granting Anonymity Will Not Unduly Inhibit The Prosecution of Serial Rapists
The assertion that the government's proposal "could inhibit the effective prosecution of serial rapists" is a snare and a delusion.  The proposal does not prevent the naming of serial rapists, it would simply forbid publicly naming men who have only been accused but not convicted of rape.  A suspect would be identified if he is convicted.

Moreover, anonymity will not inhibit the prosecution of serial rapists. The vast majority of rapes are committed between acquaintances where the identity of the perpetrator is not at issue.  The number of cases where rape victims might be helped to identify their rapist by seeing a man's picture on the television news is minuscule.

It is well to note that many accused rapists are already afforded anonymity by the UK news media: teen boys and certain men whose identities cannot be revealed without necessarily revealing the accuser's identity. It can scarcely be denied that some teen boys and some men whose identities are already shielded must also be serial rapists.  Nevertheless, the identities of accused males who fall within these two classes are shielded because, as a matter of public policy, the benefits of shielding their identities is deemed to outweigh publicising them.  That is so despite any inhibition of the effective prosecution of serial rapists.

Would anonymity for men accused of rape hinder police investigations any more than anonymity for rape accusers hinders police (not to mention innocent men) from learning that a rape accuser has made false rape allegations in the past? The question scarcely survives its statement. Yet, society grants anonymity for women who accuse men and boys of rape because such anonymity is thought to serve other useful purposes, just as anonymity for men would serve important purposes, even if police might prefer to have them publicly named.  The interests of law enforcement should never trump the interests of innocent men in not having their good names destroyed by rape lies.

V. The Proposal Will Not Reverse the Progress Made For Rape Victims, It Will Benefit Rape Victims
There is no basis whatsoever to believe that women will not come forward if the men they accuse are not publicly named.  The one has nothing to do with the other. For example, there is no basis to believe that fewer women come forward when their rapists are teen males whose identities will not be made public, or when their rapists are men whose identities can't be revealed because such revelation would necessarily identify the women. 

Moreover, justice for rape victims does not depend on the public shaming and humiliation of the presumptively innocent, much less the public shaming and humiliation of countless innocent men who are snared by false rape claims.

In fact, it is likely that more women would "come forward" if the men they accused were anonymous. When a woman accuses a male acquaintance of rape and he is publicly identified, it often isn't difficult to infer who the accuser is. It is reasonable to assume that most rape victims would prefer not to have their identities revealed by inference when they accuse an intimate acquaintance of rape. Additionally, any reduction in false allegations form the legislation with strength the position of genuine rape victims

VI.  More Research Would Not Be Helpful
Various studies have been conducted on false rape claims, and every single one that was not conducted by interested and biased persons have revealed that false rape claims are a serious problem. But as discussed in the next section, the exact percentage of false claims is neither known nor knowable, and no further studies will ever pinpoint that percentage with exactitude.

The majority of persons backing the motion opposing anonymity belong to the party that has been in power for the past thirteen years. In all that time, that party was content to not examine the issue it now claims requires more study, for reasons patently political. 

Further studies will shed no light on any issue of material importance.  Publicly naming men accused of rape causes serious problems for countless men who turn out to have been falsely accused.  No further studies will either lessen or justify their pain.

VII. The Motion Ignores That False Rape Claims Are A Significant Problem
The motion ignores the fact that the overriding evidence suggests that false rape claims are a significant problem, and that the victims of false claims are not rarities. No one knows for certain the percentage of false rape claims. A leading feminist legal scholar recently acknowledged: ". . . the statistics on false rape accusation widely vary and 'as a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown.'" A. Gruber, Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime, 84 Wash. L. Rev. 581, 595-600 (November 2009) (citation omitted). 

But it is erroneous to assert that only a tiny percentage of rape claims are false because no one can make that assertion with any degree of certainty.  The prevalence of false rape claims is neither known nor knowable. Here is why: for every rape claim reported, only a relatively small percentage can be definitively called "rape." This is beyond dispute.  Approximately fifteen percent end in conviction and of those we know that some innocent men and boys are convicted. We also know that some claims reported (the numbers vary depending on the study) are outright false. But in between the claims we are reasonably certain were actual rapes, and the ones we are reasonably certain were false claims, is a vast grey area consisting of a group of claims that cannot properly be classified as "rapes" -- because we just don't know. That's the nature of a rape claim. The claims in this vast grey middle area often suffer from evidentiary infirmities. For example, for some such claims, while the claimant herself might think a rape occurred, her outward manifestations of assent did not match her subjective disinclination to engage in sex, so it wasn't rape.

Regardless of what the actual number might be, every impartial, objective study ever conducted on the subject shows false rape claims are a serious problem. As reported by "False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12), Professor Kanin’s major study of a mid-size Midwestern U.S. city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities, and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false (without the use of polygraphs). In addition, a landmark Air Force study in 1985 studied 556 rape allegations. It found that 27% of the accusers recanted, and an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64. See also, "Until Proven Innocent," the widely praised (praised even by the New York Times, which the book skewers -- as well as almost every other major U.S. news source) and painstaking study of the Duke Lacrosse non-rape case. Authors Stuart Taylor and Professor K.C. Johnson explain that the exact number of false claims is elusive but "[t]he standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent" or sexual assault claims "are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book 'Against Our Will,' is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data. These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half" of all sexual assault claims "are false . . . ." (Page 374.)

ATTACK ON LACK OF FEMALE CABINET MEMBERS IS ANTI-MALE AND ANTI-MERITOCRATIC

The coalition of anti-male feminists that were brought together under the previous anti-male Labour Government were completely embedded into Britain's body politics including the media, government, and the public sector.

It allowed them free rein to not only berate men at every turn but also bring in a whole host of measures that undermined and discriminated against men. Men were just ignored. On top of this by creating this polictial framework it allowed the anti-male feminists to continually plead for special treatment above and beyond any concept of equality of treatment.

Their reaction to the measure outline by the Coalition Government on the equality of treatment for people accused of rape (covered here) but also in the hoo-hah about the lack of female representation in the Cabinet are sure signs of how they work. The larger the tears, the more about equality a measure is likely to be. 

The issue on the gender make-up of the Cabinet has witnessed some of the most pathetic special pleading I would say has ever been seen in British politics. The special pleading from the Fawcett Society is truly woeful and demeaning to all women this anti-male organisation allegedly represents (see here - 1, 2)

The new Cabinet is made up of 19 men and 4 women, a ratio of 4 to 1 (there are 138 women MP's up from 129, out of 647 in total - a ratio of surprise surprise 4 to 1, this despite all the action to stop men from being candidates but mainly driven by Labour not winning seats in their all women short-lists).

The slew of complaints that British politics is still too male has been unceasing from the anti-male feminists but they fail to answer the question anyone who truly believes in equality and meritocracy would ask:

Are there any women who should be in the Coalition's Cabinet on merit and are not?

When this question was asked on Radio 5 Live last week by the presenter to a gaggle of anti-male feminists, they could not answer. Honestly. There was just silence but that silence spoke volumes.

All those who complain about the lack of women in the Cabinet do so based on sexism, special pleading and special treatment.

What they want is a political system (they have done their best to get it with all women shortlists, 'A-lists' and quotas) where gender is more important than ability. Where those who go into politics to represent us are not chosen because of their capabilities but on whether they are a man or a woman. Where too many men is seen as sexist but not of course if the boot was on the other foot.

This inherent sexism is completely anti-equality. Britain needs the best people in its Cabinet, irrelevant of gender. If there was a 100% female Cabinet, so what, so long as they were there on merit.  But merit is a dirty word that the Fawcett Society, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Harman, Flint, The Guardian, The TImes (see why below) and many others want to see abolished.   

Media Articles- A pathetic and well and truly lambasted (see the article's Comments section) Katharine Viner in her Guardian is Free column but with a great antidote by Michael White in The Guardian, The Times and The Daily Telegraph.

Posted by Skimmington