Paternalism

A subject that doesn't really affect me, but still annoys the shit out of me.



I see that Neil and Christine Hamilton have been exonerated of all wrongdoing today. Well, not *all* wrongdoing obviously, but certainly they can now hold their heads up high and say in a strong and clear voice "We are not rapists! Corrupt liars and thieves we may be, but rapists we are not!"

Of course, were it not for a silly bitch screaming "Rape" in the name of earning a fast buck, I would not have been placed in the lamentable position of having sympathy for a couple whom I regard as a decaying and slightly smelly blood clot on the tampon of life. Nadine Milroy-Sloane, the woman who made the accusations, has gone on record as saying that she is "devastated". I can hardly blame her; not only has she had all of her assets frozen and not only is she doomed to financial ruin (because the Hamiltons will pursue her in the courts in an effort to find the cash to pay off their rather sizable debts to Mohammed Al Fayed) but she has managed to strike a blow for rapists everywhere. Now a man can rape away to his hearts content, safe in the knowledge that the actions of just one brain-dead money whore has ensured that the 1 out of every 10 rape victims who are courageous enough to report what has happened to the police will think twice before doing so. After all, they're already putting themselves forward for the humiliation and pain of reliving the experience in a police interview room and in court. The additional incentive of the very people whom are fighting your corner wondering at the back of their minds whether or not you are making it up for reasons of your own gives that extra frisson of horror to the whole experience. God bless you Miss Sloane; your complete lack of anything even remotely resembling a scruple will ensure that wherever a sexually inadequate, violent man and a woman are gathered together with no witnesses, the man will surely bless your name and actions.

However, one thing that the Hamiltons have raised during their numerous media briefings is how disgusted they felt that their accuser could remain anonymous whilst they were paraded around for all to see (the fact that it was they who caused and propagated the media circus by their daily updates to anyone who'd listen seems to have passed them by...). As such, they have called for a change in the law to remove the right of anonymity for the victim. This is, of course, an extraordinarily bad idea. Possibly it's the only thing that is would cause more rejoicing among the rapist community than the actions of Miss Sloane. However, it does raise one thing concerning our rape laws; their paternalism. That is to say, the fact that they favour women but only by treating them like sweet little things whom, if their DNA were to be mapped, would be found to contain sugar, spice, and all things nice.

As the law stands, the accuser is granted anonymity whilst the accused is not. For the record, I happen to believe that both parties should remain anonymous unless there is a conviction. The current law works entirely on the assumption that the victim is female (male rape has only been recognised as a crime in the last decade) and therefore a weak and fragile little creature whose abominable suffering means that she cannot be relied on as a witness. Any disagreements on that? If so, why not have a swift glance at the conviction rates in rape cases where the victim is also the only witness. They're not very high needless to say, and this is because of a marked reluctance from the police and CPS to proceed to court where the only evidence is that of the victim. This paternalism can also work in favour of a woman courageous enough to push for charges to be brought, or a woman like Miss Sloan (whom, by the way, represents the vast minority of people who say that they have been raped) who can get a case taken further than it should be because the legal system assumes that women are too free of guile to lie or to make accusations for reasons of revenge or money.

So then; the paternalism of our rape laws can work either for or against the victim, but the fact is that it shouldn't do either. It shouldn't even be present, but it is. And it is by no means the only example. Take divorce laws; I know from experience that if a man wants to come out of a divorce settlement and not be on the "losing" side (that is, the side who has lost most financially) then he should immediately take steps to secure a sex change. There is *always* a presumption in favour of the woman in a divorce case. If there is a house in joint names, it is she who will get it. If there are bills or credit agreements in joint names, it is he who will get them. The judge will almost always work on the idea that the man has to provide for this poor woman whom he mistreated to the point that she felt the need to divorce him. And they will do this regardless of what the facts may be. Out of the divorce cases that I was involved in during my brief tenure in the legal profession, I would say that the financial circumstances of the man were better than those of the woman perhaps 15% of the time. Otherwise they were either equals or, occasionally, the woman's circumstances were better. Yet I have never ever either sat in on, or heard about from a colleague, a case where the man was given fair and equal treatment and where his soon to be former wife was given exactly the same.

And why am I so completely opposed to this sort of thing? Well, it is not (as you may think) because I am a sexist pig who thinks that women should be returned to the kitchen. Quite the opposite in fact; I believe that women should be treated completely 100% equally with men. That's not to say that I think men and women are both exactly the same (I think anti-feminism is something to rant about another day. If you take issue with that last point I shall give ample opportunity for disagreement at a later point.) because they're not, but that doesn't mean that being different means "not as good". Therefore, I'd like to see complete equality in society's treatment of men and women. The paternalistic attitude of the law and many other facets of society prevent this.

A paternalistic society is nothing new in itself. However, it is a very visible example of our increasing acceptance of "Positive Discrimination" into society. This is a strange beast as it seems to be telling us that two wrongs make a right. Whilst it is wrong to discriminate against someone from an ethnic minority so that they do not get a job for which they are eminently qualified, it is apparently quite correct to discriminate in their favour. I'm sure you're familiar with the "Ethnicity" forms that come with every job application these days. You know; the ones that ask you for your cultural and racial background so that they can fill a certain quota of jobs according to race, gender, or sexual orientation. Don't these things strike anyone as...well, rather offensive? I'd like to know that I got a job on my merits or, if I didn't I would rather it was because there was someone better qualified for the job. I'd be less than impressed knowing that I'd got a job solely because I was a crippled black homosexual and that fills out 3 different quota's in one. I'm being facetious of course, but I do find it a little sad that we have to enshrine this sort of thing in law. If we have to write our ethics laws down and enforce them then we don't really have any ethics as a society. A Company can have the most small-minded bigot in the world selecting their staff and not have his attitudes addressed because as long as he fills a quota of minorities or women, then he will be considered an equal opportunities employer. Call me idealistic, but I would have thought that the whole point of laws designed to stop Racial discrimination would have concentrated on educating people about why being racist or sexist immediately marks one out as a knuckle dragging Neanderthal with little or no place in the 21st century. I wouldn't have expected it to claim that racism and sexism are on the decline purely because the figures say so. (Incidentally, I think I can claim to be completely free of sexism or racism; I care not for your racial makeup, sexual orientation, gender, or functionality of your limbs. Whoever you are, rest assured that I hold you all in equal contempt.)

As things stand we are making no effort whatsoever to reduce the causes of discrimination. What we are doing is masking most of the visible effects, and we are doing it in a way that is itself discriminatory. True equality cannot be forced on people( and more is the pity because I for one would love to see the discomfort of an average neighbourhood Nazi being forced to live with and work with, for example, an Asian Les-Bi-Gay association. Now *that* would make good reality TV...), it needs to be nurtured. What we have smacks of a quick fix so that the government of the day can claim to be doing more to reduce discrimination than ever before. If there was a long term plan to educate people from school age about the evil of discrimination, and also to ensure that employers are fair and equal without having to rely on an ethnicity form, perhaps even to reform the law and it's practitioners in order to help them see women as humans rather than objects to be protected, then perhaps discrimination of any kind will be consigned to history.

If you're thinking "...and pigs might fly" in postscript to that, I would hardly blame you.