Same old Tories
John Redwood (via Ben Brogan):
…none of us want men to rape women, but there is a difference between a man using unreasonable force to assault a woman on the street, and a disagreement between two lovers over whether there was consent on one particular occasion when the two were spending an evening or night together.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but since when has forcing a woman to have sex against her will been just a disagreement?
the next bit is even worse imo: “Labour’s doctrine of equivalence has led to jury scepticism about many rape claims, in situations where it is the man’s word against the woman’s and where they had agreed to spend the evening or night together”
So according to John Redwood, spending some time in a woman’s company entitles him to sex with her?
“So according to John Redwood, spending some time in a woman’s company entitles him to sex with her?”
No that isn’t the correct paraphrasing. By the way Labour’s doctrine of equivalence doesn’t extend to criminalising forced marriage - a vehicle for acquaintance rape if ever there was one - Labour vetoed that bill this year.
Odd phrasing: “a man using unreasonable force to assault a woman on the street…”
Could a man ever use “reasonable force” to assault a woman on the street? Is there a “reasonable force” defence to a rape charge?
(Clue: No.)
Actually it’s worth reading the whole Redwood piece. He starts off by talking about Labour’s decision “to criminalise the hard working and the law abiding” and gives a small number of examples of where he thinks this has happened, making it clear that he sees acquaintance rape as an example of the criminalisation of the hard working and the law abiding.
And look at this:
Young men do not want to have to take a consent form and a lawyer on a date, just as young women have every right to go on a date and to say “No”, having it respected.
1) I have never taken a consent form or a lawyer on a date. This has so far not caused me any problems. It’s surprisingly easy not to rape people.
2) If a woman goes on a date, says “No” and does not have that “No” respected, isn’t that rape? If so, shouldn’t that be a crime? If not, what is it?
Before that, though, his analysis of corporate manslaughter legislation is transparently stupid. He twice characterises this as the creation of an equivalence between accidental death and murder, despite the important clue (i.e. the word “manslaughter” in the term “corporate manslaughter”) that it is explicitly being distinguished from murder. Which means that all of his arguments (apparently, company directors don’t want to kill people, because the victims could be their own relatives - the most rubbish reason for not killing people I have ever heard) are arguments against criminalising manslaughter. Does John Redwood want to legalise manslaughter? Why?
sorry, Praguetory - I don’t see any other way of reading it.
Perhaps you could tell us exactly why “whether they had agreed to spend the evening together” is relevant?