The Rights Of Man

PEOPLE WHO EAT LEEKS ARE NO BETTER THAN PAEDOPHILES

This site recently revealed details of an Early Day Motion which opposes anonymity for those falsely accused of rape. Such an offensive an illiberal proposal was produced by Labour's Fiona MacTaggart and it would very much appear she's able to give Harriet Harman as run for her money in the New Labour misandry contest.

In addition to a contempt for victims of false accusations, MacTaggart also fits the feminist stereotype of inventing statistics to suit her arguments as we discussed previously. However we can also reveal the MP for Slough also has some particularly distasteful not to mention preposterous views on men who pay for sex.

In an interview with the Observer newspaper, the MP stated "I don't think most men who use prostitutes think of themselves as child abusers, but they are". She went on to describe the use of prostitutes as "the most common form of child abuse", though offering no statistics to back up her arguments (invented or otherwise).

MacTaggart's argument appears to be that some prostitutes begin to enter the profession before adulthood and some are cored into it or controlled by pimps/traffickers. This somehow leads her to the conclusion that all men who pay for sex are somehow responsible for all these wrongs rather than the actual perpetrators of the offences. MacTaggart ignores the fact that drug use and/or the prospect of earning easy money are attractive options in the deprived parts of Britain (a country in which inequalities between rich and poor widened significantly under her party's governance). Neither does it occur to Ms MacTaggart that there are a variety of catalysts for girls engaging in harmful practices at a young age, one of the most obvious being the absence of her father again an issue on which her government refused to act). It's also apparent that MacTaggart doesn't bother to make any distinction between children and adults, nor does she actually care about the issue of consent. Contrary to her false claim that 80% of prostitutes are controlled by pimps and work against their will, most are in fact consenting adults.

One adult paying another for sex is in itself an entirely consensual activity. It might be a somewhat distasteful transaction to some, but in a free society adult men and women should be free to do as they wish with their own bodies. It goes without saying that we should crack down extremely hard on violent and controlling pimps, on people traffickers and of course actual child abusers grooming girls for prostitution, but none of these awful crimes form any sort of intrinsic or compulsory aspect of sex work. Whilst there are indeed parts of the country where the grooming of girls for prostitution is an issue, there's actually evidence the Labour government and the police failed to protect the victims of such crimes to the racial component of many such offences.

MacTaggart is perfectly happy to make sexist comments falsely proclaiming three million men to be no better than baby rapists, somehow holding them account for other people's crimes occurring perhaps a decade previously or, as in the vast majority of cases, not at all. At the same time any common link in terms of the identity of actual perpetrators of the crimes she's supposedly so concerned about (other than gender) is strictly taboo.

Similarly off limits is any mention of the fact that women use prostitutes. Why? Well the gender feminists like to pretend women don't commit any sort of abuse and therefore any time a woman pays for sex it must therefore be an entirely consensual act (I'm sure it is in most cases too). However if so many men are voluntarily engaged in such a profession than it surely follows that plenty of women are similarly happy working in the sex industry? (or fully willing participants at the very least). Mactaggart's points are yet another attempt to infatalise women as completely unable to consent to anything or make rational decisions, a view which is actually a huge barrier to women achieving full equality.

If we take MacTaggart's arguments to their logical conclusion and apply it to other areas then it surely means all sorts of other consumers are guilty of serious offences too? Contrary to McTaggart's claims, evidence from arrests shows most people trafficking involves the agricultural sector. Given cases such as this one, MacTaggart presumably feels that all people who eat leeks must be automatically be guilty of violence, abuse and trafficking and they should certainly put a stop to their disgraceful consumption of such vegetables. I expect some of the victims come form disadvantaged backgrounds and were possibly even sexually abused when they were younger so perhaps all Leek eaters are paedophiles too? MacTaggarts system of finding the worst practices in any given industry, assuming they apply across the board and then delving into the victim's childhood to find more issues to which she holds consumers accountable you can link any person to any crime if you try hard enough.

MacTaggart's illogical, not to mention offensive comments aren't all bad though. They actually help us to understand her motivation for blocking measures to help victims of false rape allegations and perhaps those of her Labour colleagues. As with so many other such highly privileged and wealthy gender feminists, she demonstrates no real understanding of the issues. Her "arguments" suggest she has no actual interest in helping rape victims nor protecting prostitutes from dangerous clients and pimps. Anyone wanting to help sex workers would have introduced a New Zealand style system of brothels by now to ensure the workers were all adults, working voluntarily and in safety. Similarly anyone concerned with the plight of the many genuine rape victims out there would be demanding far stronger sanctions against false accusers and the removal of any legislation facilitating or encouraging their crimes, most notably the ability to ruin the lives of their victims before trial. Instead she prefers to brush the issue under the carpet, with her Early Day Motion pretending all accusers are in fact victims who's accusations should automatically be believed regardless of the evidence.

MacTaggart's hysterical attitudes to consensual sex illustrate exactly why false rape accusations present such a problem today. Rather than help the victims of such offences who have their lives ruined she prefers to play politics with such issues in order to further her anti-male, anti-sex agenda. Her comments on prostitution are in fact little short of false rape allegations themselves, though aimed at the male population as a whole rather than one specific victim. It's little wonder she's so opposed protecting people from such offences given that she shares so much in common with false accusers herself.

by John Kimble

SIGN THE PETITION SUPPORTING ANONYMITY FOR THOSE ACCUSED OF RAPE

Recently a petition has been established supporting the coalition government's proposals for anonymity for those accused of rape. The policy was democratically agreed at the Liberal Democrat Conference in 2006 and was was also announced as an official coalition policy last month.

A number of gender feminists have come out strongly against protecting vicitms of false rape allegations and it would be a real tragedy is such desperately needed civil liberties legislation was watered down due to pressure from anti-male groups. There's even an Early Day Motion in Parliament against the proposals, with some of the usual suspects opposing protecting such vulnerable men. For more on why such a policy is needed I strongly recommend reading some of our recent articles on the issue or visiting the excellent False Rape Society website.

Please sign the petition and to ask friends and colleagues to do the same.

by John Kimble

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.)

THE 53 SEXIST MPS OPPOSING CIVIL LIBERTIES AND JUSTICE

On 26 May an Early Day Motion was introduced into Parliament by Fiona MacTaggart MP opposing the proposal to give anonymity to those accused of rape. Interestingly, the motion was put forward at almost exactly the same time as the case of Olumide Fadayomi, a victim of a serial accuser. Mr Fadayomi almost committed suicide over the issue whereas the previous victim fared even worse and the incident ultimately resulted in his death.

Aside from the insensitive timing, lets examine the content of the motion to show exactly why it is so fundamentally flawed, illogical and offensive:

1. "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"

Complete nonsense. The process of naming those accused of rape in the newspapers before their trial actually undermines the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It enables false accusers to effectively gain a conviction in their communities merely by publicising the accusation and through the concept of "no smoke without fire". Naming those accused of rape is a big incentive for making false allegations as it is the best way to ruin the victim's life. By granting anonymity we take away such power from false accusers, thus encouraging less of them to come forward. Therefore any laws discouraging false accusations actually strengthens the cases of genuine rape victims and means they are more likely to be believed, not less.

2. "fears that this could inhibit the effective prosecution of serial rapists"

A very dishonest statement. Anyone guilty of rape is still going to have their name and picture plastered all over the newspapers once they're found guilty. Further victims can come forward at that stage just as easily.

3. "is further concerned that this will reverse the progress made on the prosecution of rape cases noted in the independent Stern Review"

I'm not exactly sure what to make of this statement. If the MPs are honestly suggesting our justice system and all the progress we've made somehow relies on a trial by media and ruining the lives of innocent men is an inevitable byproduct of achieving justice for others then either they're stupid or we've got the most hopeless justice system on the planet. As stated in point one the proposal will reduce the number of false allegations out there, thus meaning a increase conversion rate of allegations into convictions.

4. "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."

This last point is the most valid aspect of the motion. There is something of a lack of research on this issues, yet you'll notice that the vast majority of this listed below who signed the motion are member of the Labour Party and have therefore been in power for the last 13 years. These politicians had all that time to conduct this research yet they've refused to even discuss the issue of innocent people having their lives completely ruined by false accusers. In fact it's worse than this, the Labour government created and nurtured a hysterical gender feminist climate in which the issue became almost completely taboo, so it's little wonder we're lacking in decent research on the issue. This is quite clearly a problem of their own making so it's quite pathetic to bring up such a point now.

Although such research would be most welcome here we don't exactly need it to pass such a law anyway. It's blatantly obvious that naming the accused in a criminal case whilst their accusers hides under the blanket of anonymity is totally unfair and unjust. The statistics would be very interesting, but ultimately it really doesn't matter whether the law is going to help to protect 800 or 8,000 innocent people every year. People are dying as a result of false rape allegations and have others have their lives completely ruined or are forced out of the country. Delaying the proposal will inevitably cost innocent people their careers, their marriages, their sanity and even their lives. Further research should surely only be a pre-requisite if a proposal wished to create an unfair one-sided situation where only one party was granted anonymity such as is the case at present?

The only legitimate argument against the law would be that it isn't appropriate to conduct criminal matters in secret and that anonymity shouldn't be granted to anyone in court cases and so the law would be making a bad situation even worse. I don't necessary share such a position and believe both parties should have anonymity but we should perhaps bear this last argument in mind when considering the last of names below as there may well be one or two who subscribe to this more rational position rather than the specific content of the motion itself.

In summary, almost the entire motion is poorly argued, illiberal, dishonest and ultimately quite dangerous. Those who created it talk about how "the victim is not to be believed" but such a position is a fundamental part of our justice system. If we suddenly automatically believe every single word of every defendant then why even bother with what would be a show-trial? it would be cheaper and no different to lock up the "rapist" as soon as  their accuser demanded it if factors such as evidence and giving a believable testimony are no longer of any relevance. People are innocent until proven guilty in this country and any jury should have a healthy scepticism of any testimony in court, regardless of whether given by the accused or the accuser and regardless of race or gender.

It's obvious that both men and women lie. Just look at Ms Fiona MacTarggart herself for example. She's known for being rather economical with the truth even on gender issues stating that "something like 80% of women in prostitution are controlled by their drug dealer, their pimp, or their trafficker." When challenged by the BBC on her claim she still insisted it "came from an official Government publication into prostitution and the sex trade". In reality the Home Office themselves state they have "neither made nor cited this calculation." and BBC research into the issue actually came to the conclusion "it is impossible to find that number in any research done on this subject" Should we somehow just believe this nonsense because MacTaggart is female?

Of course there are alternative solutions to reducing the issue of false rape allegations which would reduce any need for anonymity. For example, malicious accusers should serve the same sentence they attempt to inflict not heir victims, should repay the cost of any investigations to the police and should placed on the sex offenders register to ensure the safety of possible future victims. Perhaps some of those listed below are enthusiastic supporters of such proposals though I'm not aware of any of them trying to introduce such legislation or even mentioning such solutions. I certainly can't imagine Ms MacTaggart doing so. Therefore until such evidence comes to light, here are the names of what should be considered the 53 worst MPs in Parliament. People who detest civil liberties to such an extent the believe false accusers should be able to hide behind a blanket of anonymity not afforded to their victims, who couldn't care less about the devastating impact of false accusations and believe in guilty until proven innocent:

Mactaggart, Fiona
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Griffith, Nia
Phillipson, Bridget
Green, Kate
Blears, Hazel
Hodge, Margaret
Jones, Helen
Lazarowicz, Mark
McDonagh, Siobhain
McKechin, Ann
Miller, Andrew
Osborne, Sandra
Coffey, Ann
Curran, Margaret
Eagle, Angela
Efford, Clive
Flint, Caroline
Abbott, Diane
Begg, Anne
Twigg, Stephen
Walley, Joan
Winterton, Rosie
Hodgson, Sharon
Clark, Katy
Cooper, Rosie
Engel, Natascha
Johnson, Diana R
Keeley, Barbara
McCarthy, Kerry
Seabeck, Alison
Glindon, Mary
Alexander, Heidi
Greenwood, Lilian
Berger, Luciana
Hilling, Julie
Jones, Graham
Creasy, Stella
Onwurah, Chinyelu
Reynolds, Jonathan
Umunna, Chuka
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
McKinnell, Catherine
Fovargue, Yvonne
Ali, Rushanara
Skinner, Dennis
Hopkins, Kelvin
Glass, Pat
Vaz, Valerie
Kendall, Liz
Edwards, Jonathan
Mearns, Ian

by John Kimble

UKIP TO EQUALISE RETIREMENT AGES?

The fourth manifesto I've decided to review is that of the UK Independence Party.

The manifesto is a relatively brief and uncontroversial document. Unlike the three manifestos I've reviewed so far there's nothing remotely discriminatory or offensive in the UKIP policies and the document actually seems more concerned with all people rather than just specific identity politics. This is reflected in the section on pensions, which merely promises £130 to everyone over the age of 65. It's not stated explicitly, but this suggests they'll be equalising the retirement age, which certainly puts them ahead of the other parties and in particular the Conservatives who want to widen the gap. This really would be a really positive step if true.

Other positives to the manifesto is their promise to cull political correctness and to focus on manufacturing jobs rather than unnecessary "non-jobs", clearly something that would help the huge number of unemployed men who are the real victims of the recession. There's also a strong recognition that the education system is failing, with the party noting the reduction in standards and quality of teachers.

The most noticeable negative aspect of the manifesto is the how the party completely fails to mention the issue of family breakdown, never mind offering any solutions. Even New Labour have been forced to admit there might be something wrong with their Family Courts, yet the UKIP seem so obsessed with Europe that the issues has passed them by. Similarly, issues such as male life expectancy, healthcare, domestic violence and false allegations are completely ignored.

Clearly the manifesto is rather right-wing, with the obvious downside of this being the party's approach to crime. There's no mention of civil liberties or innocent prisoners, and given that the party is ignorant of family breakdown issues then the vast numbers of new prisons they want to build will almost certainly be filled with disadvantage young men from single parent or no-parent families and perhaps more Fathers 4 Justice protesters.

Really there isn't much on offer in the manifesto either way in terms of equality. Incredibly, that alone actually makes UKIP preferable to the offerings of the Labour party or the Greens and perhaps even the Conservatives. Ultimately it's rather uninspiring stuff - more the sort of document that makes you just want to stay at home and watch TV instead of actually bothering to visit the polling station.

John Kimble

LABOUR'S SEXIST MANIFESTO FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION

Most major parties have now published their manifestos for the 2010 General Election. Over the next week we'll be reviewing the proposals of the various parties analysing any obvious misandry as well as pro gender equality content. Let's start by taking a look at Labour's plans for the next five years.

Given their track record since 1997, not to mention their sexist MPs, and the use of All Women Shortlists, the Labour Party is a almost certainly the most sexist party in Britain. However, for the purpose of this post, lets stick solely to the content of the manifesto as we are going to do with the other parties. The first sign of sexism is their boasts regarding the disastrous Equality Act. This legislation allows employers to discriminate on the basis of gender when recruiting staff instead of choosing the best person for the job. Legalising sex discrimination really isn't a valid method of promoting "fairness across our society" as they claim. The manifesto cites how the Equality Act will increase equality of opportunity when it's actually reducing equality and pushing unfair equal outcomes instead.

Further notable sexism in Labour's manifesto concerns the area of domestic violence. Section 5:3 concerning domestic violence states "we are committed to zero tolerance of violence against women". Whilst such a commitment is impressive, we mustn't forget that Home Office figures show that 40% of domestic violence vicitms are men. It's quite sickening that so many domestic violence vicitms dont' even get the slightest mention, nevermind any sort of commitment to their well-being or deal with their attackers. The party do at least note how domestic violence had fallen by 50%, though unsurprisingly, under New Labour the number of male vicitms bucked the trend and actually risen significantly! Clearly the number of male vicitms is likely to continue to rise under a Labour government given such a willingness to pretend that female perpetrators don't exist.

Perhaps the most offensive part of labour's plans for the next five years is the section titled "Punishment and Reform". On the one hand it talks about giving longer sentences to the most violent and serious offenders, yet the next sentence makes a commitment to  "work to reduce the number of women, young and mentally ill people in prison". Given that violence by females is on of the fastest growing crimes in society and that the number of male domestic violence vicitms is increasing, then surely the two statements are completely contradictory? Further still, given that the police have largely ignored female paedophiles until recently and caught a shamefully small proportion of them, is the party suggesting that raping children isn't a serious crime? A Labour candidate yesterday suggested the Liberal Democrats would be giving the vote to the likes of Vanessa George, yet given the content of the manifesto, presumably his own party is going to go further and release her altogether!

We should note that the policies proposed here aren't just misandric, the manifestos is also extremely offensive and damaging to women. Labour are also lumping in adult females with children and the mentally ill. There's a clear suggestion that women aren't at all equal to men, instead they're some sort of child like and mentally deficient beings, incapable of telling right from wrong and thus immune from punishment. Ending such infantalisation of women would do far more for equality in the workplace than any so called "positive" discrimination or pay audits.

Labour talk about a commitment to "always put the victim first" in criminal cases, yet there's no mention of how they' will protect men form false allegation allegations and put a stop to the deadly consequences of such incredibly serious offences.

In the interests of balance, we should examine any positive aspects of the manifesto in terms of commitments to gender equality. However, having read the documents I saw no mention of the gender education gap, the suicide rate, deaths at work, men's health and poor life expectancy, nor even any mention of equal parenting. It's all very well Labour proposing slightly more time off for fathers, but if they can't actually get to see their kids or if requires the mother's permission then they're basically just rubbing salt into the wound for so many dads. Further still, proposing four week's paternity leave for fathers, and 52 for mothers seems strange at best. The only positive aspects of the document are the recognition of the importance of marriage and that the Family Courts are in need of review. Yet even when talking about issues such as helping parents back to work, they bizarrely continue their misandry by stating the importance of "especially" helping mothers out of poverty.

Rather tellingly, Labour's manifesto doesn't' even restrict misandry to these shores, there's also a commitment to doubling funding to the new UN Women's Agency. I'm not exactly sure what the point of that is as most of the UN tend to be only concerned with the needs of women as it is, even going as far as denying food to male earthquake vicitms. If nothing else this certainly demonstrates quite clearly Labour's contempt for men, not only at home, but abroad too.

DOES THE MOON REALLY EXIST?

"Does the moon really exist?" That's the question the quite brilliant Ali G put to Buzz Aldrin during this comedy interview. Now I'm all for challenging conventions and asking unfashionable questions, but clearly questioning the existence of the moon is ridiculous. People holding such a view would either be stupid, or immature and would not be taken at all seriously.

However, questioning such obvious and demonstrably true phenomena is actually a far from alien concept to many gender feminists too. For example, when discussing the possibility of setting up a false rape claim register in 1999, our female namesake group "Rights of Women" told the BBC: "given that the law is already so weighted against women, we should be looking at protecting them rather than targeting the few, if any, women who make false allegations". In other words, false rape claims are incredibly rare and there's a very good chance that they quite simply do not exist at all!

Think about that for a second. False rape claims are the perfect weapon for any women looking to gain revenge on a male and ruin his life. Yet despite this weapon being in every single woman's hands, somehow they're all so saintly that not a single one would ever be tempted to use it. Women are good, men are bad, and no exceptions either! False allegations happily exist for other crimes, how can any sane person possibly suggest they don't exist for rape, a crime which is a classic case of one person's word against another. As so many cases have shown, no evidence is even required, and we've got a government so friendly towards false rape accusers they want to make their activities even easier by lowering the burden of proof.

Spreading such falsehoods is bad enough given all of the above, but the flip-side of her statement regarding the saintliness of woman is to deny the existence of any victims of false rape accusations too. False rape claims are such a disgusting and serious crime in term of the impact they have. They ruin the victims' careers, relationships, self-esteem and reputations, even resulting in fleeing the country or committing suicide. In other words they're just as heinous an offence as rape itself. What then, if someone had instead being sick enough deny the existence of victims of rape instead of those of false rape? Such views wouldn't be tolerated if they came form a random individual, yet here we have a government funded charity happily belittling all these false rape victims with any consequences or comment whatsoever.

There is of course an alternative possibility; perhaps Rights of Women do indeed accept that these victims exist, they just don't believe their side of the story. I.e. all supposed victims of false rape accusations are in fact liars and they are guilty as hell of rape regardless of what the evidence shows. Whichever is the position, it's equally abhorrent.

These tactics of denying the most basic of facts are very popular with gender feminists, perhaps even an intrinsic part of their movement. In order to stifle debate and draw attention away from their agenda and the damage they've caused, they attempt to refute the most fundamental of truths and attempt to turn reality on its head. For example, those such as Catherine Comins willing to admit that false rapes do in indeed occur, instead take the position that the falsely accused somehow gain from the experience. She helpfully lists describes how they can go through "a process of self-exploration" and lists hypothetical questions they might end up asking themselves about their relationships with women and whether they could have committed the crime had the circumstance been different. No matter the realities of the situation of course - I suppose it's something to pass the time whilst rotting in prison if nothing else.

For the benefit of those at Rights of Women, false rape accusers do indeed exist (and the moon does too for that matter). Further still, they're not just used in stereotypical high-stakes situations such as gaining revenge over an slightly unpleasant ex-partner or getting the upper hand in a custody dispute or divorce, they're actually used for increasingly trivial reasons these days.

Just this week a man was falsely accused of rape for to despicable act of bumping into a woman's car. Another was similarly accused as a result of being stabbed in the leg! Financial gain is often a motive too - some women see them as a method of gaining taxpayer payouts via the victims compensation scheme. Alternatively, some many false accuser are rather less ambitious, willing to use the weapon in lieu of paying a taxi fare.

it's worth remembering that these are only the cases we know about - they just the ones that actually made it all the way to court. Is your average taxi driver honestly going to stand up to a false accuser and risk a lengthy court case, possible violence and even their career? Surely in the vast majority of cases where women threaten them with false rape they simply take in on the chin and move onto the next fare?

It's pretty obvious that from being absolutely non existent, the problem false rape claims is more akin to an epidemic not incomparable to the problem of rape itself. Luckily public opinion is slowly changing and today's news show even many women now recognise the extent of the problem of false rape claims despite the government and police constantly sweeping them under the carpet. Lets hope hope more judges are brave enough to speak out so we can finally establish a register of false accusers so men can be afforded the same protection offered to women against sex offences.

SICKENING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MURDER AND TORTURE CASE

Last month saw one of the most sickening domestic violence cases I've ever come across. You may well have missed the story given the relative lack of coverage it received in the media, undoubtedly it would certainly be be front page material if the victim were female. The case involved Clare Nicolls torturing her partner Andrew Gardner ove several week, eventually resulting in his murder.

Although she was assisted by others, it's clear from the sentencing and evidence that she was the primary offender in the case and the dominant figure in the household. There's such a huge catalogue of abuses the victim suffered that I can't really include them all and you have to read several news articles to get something close to the full picture. In summary Mr Gardner:

• Had 100 injuries including 21 broken ribs, burns, cuts, abrasions, a massive head injury, bleeding on the brain and blood poisoning.
• Suffered whipping and cuts with a knife.
• Had karate practised on him by Nicholls.
• Was marked as a result of people playing horrific games of noughts on crosses on his body.
• Had abuse written on his body using nail varnish.
• Suffered starvation and further beatings any time he tried to "steal food".
• Was deprived of sleep, being beaten any time he should fall asleep.

Any time gender feminists seeks to belittle and refuse to help male domestic violence victims I strongly suggest referring to cases such as this. Of particular note is the fact Nichols actually got other members of the household to restrain the victim whilst she carried out the beatings. In fact, she even encouraged their children to attack the victim too!

The only good news from the case case is that Nicolls actually received a sizeable life sentence for her deeds as opposed to the usual female sentencing discount we see all to often in such cases. Of course not everything is equal though - there are no quotes from any domestic violence charities in any of the coverage as would occur with your typical female victim, and the term "domestic violence" is of course totally omitted from ant articles on the case.

It's little wonder we fail to help people such as Mr Gardner when the term "domestic violence" is strictly reserved for female vicitms.

Clare Nicholls has admitted killing 35-year-old

Court told of lover's words after final attack

Torture victim had 100 injuries, court told

Life sentences for Chilton torture murderers

WILL 2010 BE THE YEAR OF EQUALITY FOR BRITISH MEN?

As a new year starts, it is worth reviewing the events of the past year and look forward to 2010 to see what hope there is for male equality in 2010.

2009 was a mixed bag. We had the awfulness of the Equalities Bill trundling through Parliament allowing men to be discriminated in the workplace and the recession taking its toll in increasing male unemployment (and the associated depression), particularly damaging for young men who cannot get on the job ladder and hampered by their lack of academic achievement at all levels compared to women. The Coalition on Men and Boys produced an awful paper that basically said that men are bad and are to blame for everything that affects them.

We had the continuing and wilful ignorance of male issues from the Labour Government and its acolytes at the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. In fact, both organisations did all they could spin the myths that women were more affected by the recession, that the Gender Pay Gap was leading to more discrimination against women and the refusal to accept that men are also affected by domestic violence.

On the other hand, there has been a greater awareness of the issues affecting men. The Men's Health Forum continue their good work (with others in the prostate cancer field), Families Need Fathers have opened up new centres with a growing recognition of the bias of the family courts and the ManKind Initiative speaking with more authority on the plight of male victims of domestic violence. The NPSCC also produced some authoritative work showing that abuse at home affected boys as well as girls highlighting that mothers were as involved in this than just fathers.

We also have seen what I would call an epidemic in the numbers of women falsely accusing men of rape, a concern for the men accused as well as those poor women who are attacked.  

But does 2010 bring any hope?

The only answer that can be offered is that it may do and this is dependent in large measure to the result of the General Election.

The odds are that it looks like a hung Parliament or a small Conservative majority. Whatever happens, as long as Labour, the most anti-male Government in the history of the United Kingdom, are turfed out then that has to be something positive. In addition, this will tend to allow a change in the mindset of the civil service and other public servants to one based on genuine equality not on Labour's and the Equalities Commission's Animal Farm meaning of Equality ("everyone is equal but some are more equal than otehrs") .

We can hope that the recession ends and that men (and women) can find themselves back in work. We can hope that family law reforms such as a presumption fo share parenting come to fruition and that the needs of men in education, health and domestic violence find themselves higher up the political agenda. The need for a Minister for Men (if there is to be the continuation of a Minister for Women) should be at the very least the first step (this site will be updating its manifesto this month).

We really do need some politicians especially female politicians (they are mothers, sisters and wives to men) taking the lead on this. With so many new politicians coming into Parliament whoever wins, let us hope so.

There is a risk of course that David Cameron as part of his touchy feely positioning continues to only concentrate on the needs of women and not on men. He has not made a good start with the threat of using All-Women short lists.

Whatever happens, groups wanting genuine equality for men will continue to fight and express their views, we hope that in 2010, politicians and public servants actually make the changes necessary. We just have to keep going and hope that the plight of British Men starts to receive the recognition needed. Now that would be EQUALITY.