Why Aitken had to go
He had to go. Bill Aitken, that is. He had to step down as convener of Holyrood's Justice Committee.
The issue, that of rape, demanded his departure. Even those who tonight are reflecting upon Mr Aitken's hitherto distinguished political career recognise that there was and is a greater imperative.
That is, no woman should have to wonder whether there is even the scintilla of a suspicion that our lawmakers might adhere to the view that rape victims are, to any extent, responsible for attacks upon them.
In his statement tonight, Mr Aitken insists that rape in any circumstances is "an abhorrent, vile violation".
He insists that the comments made to the Sunday Herald with reference to a particular case in Glasgow city centre have been taken out of context and misrepresented.
In the course of a conversation with a reporter, Mr Aitken had raised the issue of the location of the incident, noting in passing that it had been associated in the past with prostitution - while adding that such a comment might be irrelevant to the particular case.
'Entirely unacceptable'
As Mr Aitken put it, this comment "left open" the prospect of misunderstanding. His critics put it rather more bluntly.
Patrick Harvie of the Greens tabled a motion for him to quit the committee, describing his comments as "entirely unacceptable".
The level of criticism rose substantially as Labour's deputy leader Johann Lamont said that Mr Aitken's reported comments were "appalling".
She noted further that nothing must be said which might deter women from coming forward with complaints of rape and sexual assault.
Tonight she said he had done the right thing by resigning. So did the SNP. So did the Liberal Democrats. They are correct.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Fortunately we don't need other people's guesswork as to whether Aitken's comments were misrepresented or not. We can read them
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/02/rape-street-lane-aitken
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry if media pressure has caused this resignation. Like him or loath him, it seems very possible that his comment has been taken out of context and misrepresented, simply by association with the rape assault.
This over reaction is not helpful to the important cause of ridding our country of violence against women., which I'm sure Bill Aitken supports.
Complain about this comment
Sums up Tory attitude to those beneath his 'status' I suppose others do also.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Fife/article/11026/john-park-and-claire-baker-deny-any-wrongdoing-over-me2-communications-printing-work.html
Complain about this comment
I fear many more will fall by tripping over their tongue and investigative journalism, before the May elections.
Complain about this comment
*holds hand up above eyes as if gazing into the distance in disbelief*
Is that you Brian? nah it can't be..
Complain about this comment
In his statement tonight, Mr Aitken insists that rape in any circumstances is "an abhorrent, vile violation".
I doubt that anyone would disagree with that. But I do wonder why we make an exception of rape. With any other crime it is considered perfectly acceptable - totally commonplace, in fact - to examine the role of the victim. When somebody's home is burgled, for example, there is no public uproar when it is pointed out that the victim contributed to the occurrence by leaving a ladder propped against a wall under an open window.
When there is a fatal road accident it would be unthinkable that the investigation should not include forensic examination of those who have dies.
And if a young man suffers an assault he is very likely to be told quite bluntly that he shouldn't have been in a drunken state and hanging about with the "wrong crowd".
More importantly, in the kind of instances referred to above there is never the slightest suggestion that the behaviour of the victim in any way mitigates the culpability of the perpetrator.
Rape is treated very differently. In the case of rape, uniquely as far as I can tell, it is considered totally unacceptable that all the circumstances of the crime should be examined. And one cannot even suggest such a thing without risking accusations of being an "apologist" for rapists. I take that risk even in seeking an academic discussion of the issue.
But I think it is highly relevant to ask why we generally accept this blinkered attitude to rape when we would think it highly odd in other circumstances. If the hope and intention is that rape should be prevented, surely it is essential that we know as much as possible about all aspects of every incident.
A crime is a human interaction. In every crime both the perpetrator and the victim are active participants. Which, of course, does not mean to say that they are willing participants. Both are doing something. Both are behaving in a particular way. It is frankly insulting to the victims of rape that they should be dismissed as powerless ciphers with no effect at all.
Criminals are predators. They select their prey. They do so on the basis of a largely unconscious calculation around the value of the prey and the risk involved in attacking it. They look for signs of wealth and weakness. It is not for no reason that elderly ladies with handbags are common victims of muggings. They look like they are carrying something of value. And they look like they are not capable of putting up serious resistance.
Rapists are among the most vile predators of all. Right up there with child-molesters. Are we to suppose that they do not make similar calculations? Should we simply dismiss the likelihood that they are seeking favoured prey? Is it, therefore, possible to figure out what factors make one individual a more tempting target than another? Could there be a way here of saving large numbers of people, mostly women, from the horrors of rape?
But will this not require that we take a more pragmatic attitude to examining the behaviour of victims?
On a visit to Spain recently I was constantly being given very well-intentioned advice about how to safeguard my belongings against pickpockets. It was mostly a matter of doing very simple things. Or not doing things which, on reflection, would be accepted as rather stupid after the event. Much like putting a ladder under an open window. Wouldn't it be great if by taking a few simple precautions a person could make themselves less of a target for predators?
One of the most common responses to this argument is one which demands to know why women should be constrained in their behaviour by the threat posed by rapists. My answer is that is is for the same reason householders are constrained in their behaviour in order to avoid burglary; road-users are constrained in their behaviour so as to avoid accidents; and I am constrained in my behaviour in the hope of avoiding being the victim of pickpockets.
Once again I ask, why do we make this exception of rape?
Complain about this comment
2. giveusascottishsix
When you posted this comment, the transcript of Aitken's comments hadn't been through modding. What do you think now you've had a chance to read them?
Complain about this comment
At least Mr Aitken has stepped down.
Pity that the "organised hypocrites" in New Labour will not do likewise
Complain about this comment
#7 You are quite right. I hadn't known these were off the cuff remarks over the phone, when we can see considerable confusion about the actual facts of the rape. As the First Minister said "I don't think they really represented his views, and in fairness, he did apologise later."
Muddled maybe, but definitely grist to a journalist seeking a story, investigative or not. Ah well, that's more pages filled then. The lesson for others should be "don't fill the role of rentaquote".
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Bill Aitken has been a bit of a pompous Holy Wullie over the years,giving lots of quotable guff for lazy journalists.Lets not mourn him,he got a bit of rope and did the obvious.
Complain about this comment
6. At 7:43pm on 21 Feb 2011, Electric Hermit wrote:
Are we to suppose that they do not make similar calculations?
You dont need to suppose. There are plenty of studies on the topic.
And given the almost total range of age, dress, gender combinations,
and circumstances in which rape occurs it becomes obvious there is
no known precaution.
The victim is just that, a victim.
Complain about this comment
Anyone regardless of age or sex should be free to walk anywhere anytime without fear of attack, sexual or violent. Rape is a cowardly crime and should always be prosecuted to the limit of the law.
I find though it strange that this was the only subject worth blogging on since thursday. I mean its not as if anything else has happened in the world of politics, right???
Complain about this comment
13. peteraberdeenshire
"Anyone regardless of age or sex should be free to walk anywhere anytime without fear of attack, sexual or violent. Rape is a cowardly crime and should always be prosecuted to the limit of the law.
I find though it strange that this was the only subject worth blogging on since thursday. I mean its not as if anything else has happened in the world of politics, right???"
It was the only story as this blog only attacks SNP, Tory or LibDems everything thing else is prima donna, where's Elliot Ness.
Complain about this comment
14. cheesed_off
There are other stories around though. For example, this in the Courier.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Fife/article/11026/john-park-and-claire-baker-deny-any-wrongdoing-over-me2-communications-printing-work.html
Complain about this comment
I should be astonished, but I'm not, that the other (much bigger) political story hasn't been commented on by Brian!
Complain about this comment
Bill Aitken portrayed himself as the "hardman" of Holyrood--on the side of the police all the time.
Except of course when the police were in favour of a minimum price for alcohol to reduce crime, but he voted against the measure. Hypocrite!!!
I see that senior doctors in England have also come out in favour of minimum pricing. Will "call me Dave" get the message and introduce it there? That would nicely undermine the Tories in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
15. reincarnation
Repetition:)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
17 Seanair
I thought wee Ricky Baker was the "Hard Man" of Scottish Politics?
He scares me anyway :)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
13. peteraberdeenshire
"Anyone regardless of age or sex should be free to walk anywhere anytime without fear of attack, sexual or violent."
Indeed! Let's not let harsh reality intrude at all.
13. peteraberdeenshire
"Rape is a cowardly crime and should always be prosecuted to the limit of the law."
No doubt. But for there to be a prosecution there must first be a victim. You focus on retributive justice if that is the best you can do. I would prefer to concentrate on reducing the incidence of rape rather than increasing the number of people incarcerated for it. Because the latter requires that there be more victims.
Complain about this comment
Have just watched Mr Paxman do a fine job on D Alexander on BBC2 What we would give for a journalist in Scotland to do their job so diligently by asking the difficult questions that are crying out to be asked
Complain about this comment
24. fairforfochen
"Have just watched Mr Paxman do a fine job on D Alexander on BBC2 What we would give for a journalist in Scotland to do their job so diligently by asking the difficult questions that are crying out to be asked
"
Isabel Fraser is starting to make a name for herself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/scotland/isabelfraser.shtml
Complain about this comment
15. At 9:29pm on 21 Feb 2011, reincarnation wrote:
14. cheesed_off
There are other stories around though. For example, this in the Courier.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Fife/article/11026/john-park-and-claire-baker-deny-any-wrongdoing-over-me2-communications-printing-work.html
Reincarnation and cheesed off - These are excellent comments and thanks for the link to this political story of great importance.
Could someone tell me who did the actual investigative jolurnalism ?
Bet you can't - Thanks BBC.
Complain about this comment
#25
Yes I agree watching her at the moment but she is only one sheaf of wheat amongst the chaff
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"He had to go. The issue [...] demanded his departure."
So, some issues demand unthinking responses in all cases, do they?
No, no, thrice no.
If you want to talk about whether the particular person's comments in this particular context required a particular response, then fine.
But NO issue is closed to scrutiny.
And, yet again, we have the baying hounds decreeing guilt by accusation - never mind the facts of the matter, an accusation has been made [against Mr Aitken] and so he MUST be guilty and MUST pay the price (with the sacrifice of his political position).
It was easy to divine that an election is in the offing, with the self-important posturing of the Greens' leader - which has cost his party any prospect of my vote in May - pronouncing sentence before the defence had put its case.
There are clearly too many MSPs with too little work to do; either, more powers for Holyrood, or cut the number of MSPs in half.
Complain about this comment
29. No to Charter Renewal
"There are clearly too many MSPs with too little work to do; either, more powers for Holyrood, or cut the number of MSPs in half."
There are 129 MSPs. So your proposal would leave 64 and Iain Gray.
Complain about this comment
Dr No - what on earth are you talking about! His words are there for everyone to see!!
Complain about this comment
"That is, no woman should have to wonder whether there is even the scintilla of a suspicion that our lawmakers might adhere to the view that rape victims are, to any extent, responsible for attacks upon them."
Yep, but let's be practical.
I live a few miles from the town centre in Hayes, Middx. During the day, there is no safety issue. Indeed, three years ago, the Queen visited! Us locals had a good laugh about it. "She is definitely coming when its still light" was a common comment.
Hayes has a growing immigrant population. In itself this might not be an issue, but with SRO (Single Room Occupancy) through flag-waving council projects and state-supported YMCA accomodation, the concentration of residents with a lack of grass-roots money-in-pocket (but with the ambition to acquire some) is definitely an issue. This poverty promotes drug use, drug dealing, and crime.
My daughters boyfriend is no wimp. At 22, he is built like a brick condomininium (let alone outhouse) and, being also in the prime of his life, is a very physically capable chap. A little while ago in Hayes, one evening he was mugged.
This is not a one-off incident. Last week, reportedly at 2.00AM, a 15 year old boy was stabbed to death. There is example upon example of this.
Local parks have been re-designed to cope with this gang menace, local alleyways have been closed, and millions of pounds have been invested in re-development.
But in the evenings and night-time, Hayes remains a very dangerous place!
I'm fairly streetwise, but I would be very careful going there late at night - its simply not safe.
But what happens if someone did venture there? If they did, and they got mugged or stabbed, naturally our sympathy would be for the innocent victim. However, surely we would also wonder why they had taken leave of their senses and deliberately placed themselves at risk in an area known to be dangerous after dark.
Finally, why is offensive to wonder the same way if the poor victim had not been stabbed, but instead had been raped?
This is NOT to excuse what a despicable attacker might do, but simply to say to women that they should be careful. Suggesting that they do not contribute to the attack by walking in known blackspots may be fine when assigning guilt, but saving them from harm must surely take precedence?
Complain about this comment
6. Electric Hermit
"One of the most common responses to this argument is one which demands to know why women should be constrained in their behaviour by the threat posed by rapists. My answer is that is is for the same reason householders are constrained in their behaviour in order to avoid burglary; road-users are constrained in their behaviour so as to avoid accidents; and I am constrained in my behaviour in the hope of avoiding being the victim of pickpockets.
Once again I ask, why do we make this exception of rape?"
BECAUSE householders are not bludgeoned with accusations of being whores.
Complain about this comment
26. Astonished
"Reincarnation and cheesed off - These are excellent comments and thanks for the link to this political story of great importance.
Could someone tell me who did the actual investigative jolurnalism ?
"
An excellent question. This is indeed an important news item. Has BBC decided to carry it yet?
Complain about this comment
29. No to Charter Renewal
"It was easy to divine that an election is in the offing, with the self-important posturing of the Greens' leader - which has cost his party any prospect of my vote in May - pronouncing sentence before the defence had put its case."
The only defence was reading the interview. It was freely available verbatim. Did you bother to read it before leaping to his defence?
I did. His comments were beyond reprehensible.
Complain about this comment
23. Electric Hermit
"No doubt. But for there to be a prosecution there must first be a victim. You focus on retributive justice if that is the best you can do. I would prefer to concentrate on reducing the incidence of rape rather than increasing the number of people incarcerated for it. Because the latter requires that there be more victims.
"
Oh, but first of course, it is alright to smear any woman in the press and elsewhere. Well, THAT will keep men out of jail for it since women will once again fear to report it.
Read his comments and tell me again what he was implying about this woman he didn't even know? It was not that she walked down the wrong street.
Hypocrisy at its best.
Complain about this comment
Electric Hermit, re your surprising post #6
"And one cannot even suggest such a thing without risking accusations of being an "apologist" for rapists. I take that risk even in seeking an academic discussion of the issue."
Your superficially reasoned arguments cannot excuse or mitigate, due to the victim's behavior, the heinous crime of rape in ANY and ALL circumstances. Rape is truly indefensible. Rape is defined by lack of consent, not by appearance or poor judgement.
There is really no need for discussion, academic or otherwise. If rape is an exception, as you assert, it's because it is an exceptional crime.
Would you defend marital rape? Would you defend child rape? Would you defend rape of wives and children in wartime? Are these simply examples of "being in the wrong place at the wrong time"? Where do you draw the line in the victim's contribution or culpability?
I know you know better than this. This is not an accusation, just a comment on what we should expect in a civilised society.
Complain about this comment
Such experienced politicians as Aitken are well versed in the nuances and language expected of them, especially when dealing with such topics as this.
He said what he was thinking. He undoubtedly knew the ramifications of the comment and perhaps was of the opinion that it was inconsequential.
Well he knows now that it wasn't.
What chances the BBC picking up on the Labour printing story?
Probably somewhere between slim and nil.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Bill Aitken was clearly not content to slide quietly off the stage, right. Some would view him as a conscientious MSP over the years, who fought his party’s corner reasonably well, never an easy job for a Scottish Tory.
A fully paid up member of the Engelander Volkische Beobachter Hang and Flog Tendency, he’s always been first in with a subject-no-object quote, although, (unlike His Lardship the List Member for the Lothians and his understudy Wee Ricky Baker), Bill has on the whole been reasoned and logical (for a Scottish Tory) and even occasionally very nearly almost right.
His words, which have not been “mis-reported” or “taken out of context” or “misunderstood”
demonstrates an attitude towards the crime of Rape that is unacceptable whatever party or creed you follow.
Will his departure from the Convenership of the Justice Committee affect the Parliament or the Governance of this Scotland ?
No. So in that sense his resignation is crocodile tears. He’ll be off to pick up his parliamentary pension in 8 weeks, with doubtless dreams of translation to the Lords in the Birthday Honours.
A lesson, therefore, for the blasting foghorns and publicity seekers of all parties. Don’t Rent-A-Quote.
Goodbye Bill. I hesitate to say “Good Riddance”, but rather, “Will ye PLEASE NO Come Back Again”.
PS: Brian, Was there a story in the DUNDEE Courier that you maybe should be blogging on ? I think that there may be a few links to it on these pages. If not, you could always look on a profane site where the news is always of net interest to Scotland.
Complain about this comment
37. At 03:51am on 22 Feb 2011, scotnatus wrote:
"Electric Hermit, re your surprising post #6
"And one cannot even suggest such a thing without risking accusations of being an "apologist" for rapists. I take that risk even in seeking an academic discussion of the issue."
Your superficially reasoned arguments cannot excuse or mitigate, due to the victim's behavior, the heinous crime of rape in ANY and ALL circumstances."
I have read re-read Electric's comments and can find nothing in them that tries to excuse or mitigate the heinous crime of rape.
"I know you know better than this. This is not an accusation, just a comment on what we should expect in a civilised society."
We expect many things from a civilised society but the truth is we very often get the reverse and everyone should be aware of this and avoid putting themselves at risk as much as they can.
I had a female workmate who had travelled the world and was 'street wise' she would have agreed with Electric 100% and any suggestion that she was sanctioning the crime or the criminals who commit these acts in any shape or form would be ludicrous.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@43, Yyrkoon opined:
"Bill Aitken [...] should never, ever be in a position of power.
That's OK; he's a Scottory - and they never, ever will be!
Complain about this comment
I think that it is quite clear that by referring to past activities in the lane, he was referring to the type of man that may be found around the lane rather than the victim per see.
Don't like Aitken's policies, but it just goes to show that if the media want their man, then they can always manafacture a way of getting him.
I can see that he was thinking out loud, and given the way that the reporter prompted him with incorrect information, he was right to question that, and if anything it shows that he was not a dumb rent a quote that so many of our politiciians are.
Maybe he should have kept his though process to himself, but I don't think that this is a cause for resignation.
John
Complain about this comment
@35, JRMacClure opined:
"The only defence was reading the interview."
Clearly ascribing a much higher standard of conduct to journalists than I would. And, also, deciding that one side of the story is sufficient to reach a balanced view of the rights and wrongs of the case.
The contention is whether the journalist/editor accurately and legitimately reported, and why Mr Aitken's attempt to clarify was rejected by the newspaper (or backtrack, if you prefer, as the MSP saw his political career in flames):
Mr Aitken said he had "left himself open to misrepresentation" by asking a journalist about the circumstances of the case.
"That is my fault and that is why I immediately issued a full and unreserved apology for any misunderstanding or distress it caused," he said.
"Unfortunately, the newspaper chose not to publish my full statement.
"It also decided not to publish any quotes from my second telephone call from the journalist during which I made my position clear."
A 'good' story that would have been ruined by measured reporting.
The best rule of thumb for journalism could be learned from Joe Friday: "Just the facts, ma'am."
Complain about this comment
Brian,
I agree with both you and the vast majority here that he had to go, but I'm surprised at two things about the BBC report you link to:
Containing comments from the Scottish Greens, the Labour party, the L-Ds and others, although the L-D's "Aitken had been an excellent convener" might well have been removed here as being "off-topic", is it not bizarre that it contains not a word of any reaction from the Conservative party and manages to avoid entirely the words Scottish government and SNP?
I can imagine that the blue tories might have initially refused to comment or issued a "holding" statement, but would that in itself not have been newsworthy?
Even you manage to write the three letters SNP, albeit as an afterthought, at the very end of your piece, but is not the the attitude and response of the party which forms the Scottish government relevant to the situation? We know that they have one thanks to the link to the New Statesman provided by reincarnation's #1, which has direct quotes from the FM.
Complain about this comment
36. JRMacClure
"Oh, but first of course, it is alright to smear any woman in the press and elsewhere. "
It most certainly is not. But while people like you bleat about the difficulty of prosecuting rape you also think it is "alright" to attack anybody who so much as hints at trying to find an approach which might either reduce the number of victims or improve the prosecution/conviction rate.
It occurs to me to wonder, for example, whether it might not be better to get rid of the word "rape" altogether and with it all the negative associations that deter women from reporting attacks and giving testimony. Perhaps if rape cases were prosecuted as serious assaults fewer cases would go to trial and giving giving evidence would not be such an ordeal for the victim.
This would certainly be better than other approaches which often involve eroding the rights of the accused or reducing the standard of proof. A very dangerous precedent to set.
But, as I noted earlier, even to try to discuss rape without resorting to highly emotive language puts one at risk of knee-jerk condemnation from certain quarters.
Complain about this comment
Electric Hermit has a point, although its slightly moot. With rape, as far as the victim is concerned the means never mitigate the ends. In court (if it ever got to that point) you can't for example take into consideration the actions of the victim when sentencing the perpetrator.
However, what I think you should be able to say, with out fear of vilification is whether the victim (male or female) did anything that put him or her more at risk. If we can't say something; are we not allowing it to go on unchecked?
I read some of the comments on the newstatesman article and I think someone mentioned it here. Anyone should be able to walk anywhere in safety, however, reality dictates that in certain areas; you can't. To put it in stark terms, by ignoring that reality; you're putting yourself at risk.
As I said, that never justifies anything that might happen but it can cast a different light over things.
I also read the transcript of the telephone call between Aitken and the Herald. He had to go, his tone was all wrong. You would think a career politician would know to be more discreet in a freeform chat with the press.
Complain about this comment
PS to my previous statement.
I know that I am prone to foot in mouth disease. Sometimes what comes out my mouth is misinterpreted, and so I have sympathy for someone who has been (wilfully) misinterpreted.
His comments to me appear to be detached from the emotion of the case (is he a lawyer in past life?) and factually correct. He correctly questions the scenario put to him by the reporter as it is based on something happening that does not seem plausible (a woman being dragged half a mile through glasgow city centre without this being noticed). He offers two alternative scenarios: she was not in the street that the reporter said she was on, or she willingly went down the lane. As the second alternative seems unlikely, he expands on this by giving the history of that lane. He does not at any point imply that the woman "deserved" to be raped, or was somehow in the "wrong" street as some above suggest, he is just making it clear to the reporter that the facts as given to him to not completely tally up. The fact that the statement that he gives to the reporter at the end of the interview as the statement that should be his quote includes nothing about the specifics of the case show that he was unwilling to put on record anything about the specifics without knowing more.
I fail to see what is wrong with his statement, but then I am a more factual than emotional person.
John
Complain about this comment
37. scotnatus
"Your superficially reasoned arguments cannot excuse or mitigate, due to the victim's behavior, the heinous crime of rape in ANY and ALL circumstances. Rape is truly indefensible. Rape is defined by lack of consent, not by appearance or poor judgement."
I did not suggest any such thing. In fact, I very explicitly rejected it. So I'm not sure why you find it necessary to repeat the glaringly obvious.
37. scotnatus
"There is really no need for discussion, academic or otherwise."
There very evidently is such a need. That people can hold and express such attitudes as Bill Aitken is being pilloried for is evidence enough of that. More importantly, the appallingly low incidence of reporting/prosecution/conviction in rape cases screams out at us that we are doing something wrong and need to re-think the way we go about it.
Your attitude is an obstacle to the kind of discussion that might find more effective ways of getting cases to court and putting the perpetrators behind bars. Or, preferably, preventing attacks happening in the first place.
37. scotnatus
"Would you defend marital rape? Would you defend child rape? Would you defend rape of wives and children in wartime?"
I would not "defend" any form of rape. The crime is morally indefensible. But seeing through the red mist of anger and indignation we perceive that it is still a crime and therefore must be subject to a criminal defence. And, like other crimes, it may be to some extent preventable.
37. scotnatus
"Where do you draw the line in the victim's contribution or culpability?"
Again with the irrational emotional response! I have not suggested the victim is in any sense culpable. The very idea is nonsensical and abhorrent. To say that women are effective actors in their own lives in no way implies that they are culpable for the crimes committed against them. Women have suffered many wrongs at the hands of society over the centuries. A sane person would no more suggest that they were culpable for these wrongs than they would suggest that women are ineffective automatons incapable of self-determined action. The history of the suffrage and feminist movement(s) most emphatically tells us this is not so.
The tendency to treat women as "natural" victims is, to me, every bit as offensive as saying they are in any degree culpable for the crimes committed against them. Accepting that women have an inalienable right to control their own lives at least to the same extent that men can then it is perfectly valid - in fact, obligatory - to ask whether there ability to do so might be improved. In the context of this discussion this means improving their ability to prevent rape and their ability to defend themselves as well as their ability to get justice when all else fails.
You may disagree, but I consider such things worthy of reasoned discussion.
Complain about this comment
49. At 12:12pm on 22 Feb 2011, pa_broon74 wrote:
the victim did anything that put him or her more at risk
The victim in this crime is a victim not an accomplice.
For instance, for rape there is greater risk at home with known
people than on the street late at night with strangers, so how does
one reduce risk by avoiding night time streets and strangers?.
Complain about this comment
Al I can say is he had to go but I'm not telling where.
Complain about this comment
"52. At 12:47pm on 22 Feb 2011, Anagach wrote:
For instance, for rape there is greater risk at home with known
people than on the street late at night with strangers, so how does
one reduce risk by avoiding night time streets and strangers?."
The two things are not mutually exclusive. By not putting yourself at risk while abroad of an evening you are still reducing the risk of attack, your reasoning is flawed.
Unless you're saying there isn't any point in avoiding those dark alleys and known trouble spots because you could very well end up being a victim of crime in your own home?
Which to me seems an odd position to take.
Complain about this comment
Re. Electric Hermit's point.
On discussion and research. Is it not the case that by gagging such discussion we fail to address (and this will be contentious) an important contributory factor in rape-crime?
Is it the case we cannot for example carry out geographical research about where rapes are most common then advise women not to go into those areas? (baring the reality of police commitments & life in general in mind?)
Over-emotional outbursts and an over enthusiastic urge to be offended, in my view more often than not stands in the way of real progress.
Complain about this comment
Most interesting that so few have anything to say about this super – charged subject; thankfully EH has crossed the boundary into (literally) unspeakable territory - many tread very carefully in there, and for very good reason …
The temptation can be overwhelmingly great, for despite the logic of the argument we are in the realm of biological imperatives; and no amount of window – dressing (even Dutch – style) can hide that …
The myth of rape being about power has fortunately been consigned to the dustbin of right – thinking, feminist history; rape is about sex, and we need to understand and accept that … Once accepted we can begin the real argument; how should we act to minimise the occurrence of what is (legally) just another crime, for we cannot minimise the urge or impulse (no matter how unacceptable that statement may seem) … The acting here is for both lawmakers and individuals; my instinct is that the lawmakers have failed, or capitulated, in the face of a tide of ‘permissiveness’, and the helpless individual can only fall back on (taught) knowledge of what’s right and wrong; again thankfully, we have mostly signed the Social Contract … Lawmakers everyday face decisions that matter in this respect; planning requests, film – classifications, watershed limits, etc., and it appears that most of the time things become more available, less restricted … So pressure on the individual has increased over time …
We all know this of course; but that’s different from knowing what, if anything, to do about it …
The explosive addition of alcohol to this already heady mix simply serves to stretch to breaking - point the taught thread that is the line between self – imposed discipline and irrepressible urge … The Scottish Government’s Web Site lays bare the raw statistics that testify to the grim reality of this in our Country …
The really real issue, access to precious reproductive resources, makes this a crime where the (please just accept it) real differences between Man and Woman are exposed …
It is a good idea to consider re – classifying (I hesitate to say ‘re – branding’) the terms used here; perhaps that’s for another day, but the point is well –made that ‘rape’ is pejorative and has become stigmatised to the point of being, like ‘race’, virtually unutterable …
EH is surely right to insist that, in this all – too – real world, a relative increase in Justice (as opposed to dreaming of a perfect society, or the perfectibility of Man) must be the goal here; if anything can be done to reduce the incidence of rape, from the reversal/limitation of the permissive society (who can see that happening ???) to increases in street lighting, then is should; that is the response of a responsible legislature and each and every one of us …
Until we accept that rape is an inevitable consequence of the clash between our designed society and our innate biology then we will be unable to have EH’s ‘reasoned discussion’ … Every billboard, magazine, TV programme, film, newspaper is filled with the same, basic message (of course they are); increase your biological fitness (reduce those lines, lose that fat, highlight those cheekbones, drive this car), for that’s ultimately what will get your genes into the next generation (an imperative so strong it dictates the vast majority of our everyday actions) … Those may not be the actual words, but we react to the images precisely as if they were …
Complain about this comment
54. At 2:15pm on 22 Feb 2011, pa_broon74 wrote:
The two things are not mutually exclusive. By not putting yourself at risk while abroad of an evening you are still reducing the risk of attack, your reasoning is flawed.
So rather than go out - you stay in.
Where the risk of rape is higher.
So you are not reducing risk.
What I am pointing to is that the crime occurs everywhere in
society across all genders and age groups and there is no
guarenteed risk reduction strategy - even being dead is not one.
Your reduction arguement is True only if you can be both
not out, and not in at the same time.
The victim is the victim. All the responsability is with the
attacker.
Complain about this comment
As I said earlier, another one gone today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-12541212
Complain about this comment
57. At 3:12pm on 22 Feb 2011, Anagach wrote
With respect, I think you're over-analysing the point with the in/out at the same time shtick.
It seems logical to me, if you are out of an even (this counts for both male and female revellers) and you see a handy shortcut which happens to be very dark and secluded and a known trouble spot, you can choose to go another way and by so doing, reduce your risk of attack.
I must confess, I don't follow your logic generally. The vast majority of people sit in with their partners etc without fear of harrassement. There is a risk inherent in being alive (not sure about being dead right enough.)
I'm not sure the risk of rape is higher if you stay in (not sure where you're getting those facts/figures) although, if you happen to be co-habiting with a convicted rapist then I accept that would be the case. Dare I say it, bringing us back round to the beginning, although it wouldn't detract from the evil of the act; would you not have to accept living with such an individual was a risk, one that could be reduced by choosing to live elsewhere?
My 'reduction argument' is True because all things are not equal; life is not a bolean equation. By walking in a known trouble spot you increase your risk of attack, not doing so there-for reduces the risk over-all.
Complain about this comment
58. Sizzy
Another example of Gladstonian behaviour?
Complain about this comment
Brian, why is it that apart from the original subject matter on this blog an MSP opening his facial orifice then complaining that he was taken out of context.
Just how many of the current bunch in Holyrood are all intent in jumping ship in May for so many nefarious reasons and collect their resettlement and termination allowances tax free of course, could it be that these allowances are about to be slashed?
A bit like a great number of the contributors to this blog, who are always taken out of context?
Complain about this comment
Anagach
"The victim is the victim. All the responsability is with the
attacker"
I recognise the fact that I am going to annoy some people here, but that is simply not true. I am not going to go down the road of "she was asking for it" because I think that that is an equally wrong statement, but what I will say is that the victim can share some of the blame. It does not mitigate the crime, but if more people acted responsibly then maybe fewer crimes would be committed.
I will try to explain it two ways:
1: to avoid getting mugged or attacked on a saturday night, I do not wander round the city centre alone. If I am drunk I get a taxi home, and make sure I have enough money for that. If I have to walk, I stick to main streets, and well lit areas. This is called acting responsibly. A person cannot fail to take reasonable precautions and then blame society alone. There are nasty people out there, if you don't actively avoid them then one day one of them might find you.
2: If you are in prison, and see some soap on the floor of the shower, then you know the possible consequences if you bend down to pick it up. At home I do not think twice about picking up soap from the floor of my shower (bath actually). What is a innocent action in one place is just not done in another.
John
Complain about this comment
62. At 4:35pm on 22 Feb 2011, john wrote:
I recognise the fact that I am going to annoy some people here, but that is simply not true.
I think the two examples you give when compared to the reality of
violence on a saturday night and attacks in prison show the flaw in
this avenue of thinking.
Complain about this comment
Foot & Mouth disease has surfaced again! I always suspected that you could catch it from phone moouth pieces....These people are suppossed to be at the top of their game aka captains of politics, or is the selection panels just not up to it....NEWS just in I hear that another lesser captain of politics in LOON town has just resigned, something to do with QUINES, hope this captain of politics was wearing a jacket! I just wish something like the succesful STILL GAME would be on the BOX that mirrored oor captains of politics....
Complain about this comment
#63
Anagach
I fail to see your point: what flaw in the argument? where risk is evident, avoid it. that is all I am saying. the fact that the examples I am giving are extreme cases does not lessen the basic truth of the argument.
John
Complain about this comment
The only issue here is the truth or otherwise of the New Statesman article!!
If that's a verbatim report, then the Tories in Scotland have a major problem on their hands.
Not just in terms of what BA said to the reporter but, more importantly, in terms of how he tried to wiggle out of the issue saying he has been misrepresented.
If the NS report is true, then BA, despite being a 'hang em high' Tory, should be booted out of the Scottish Parliament RIGHT NOW!!
Will Auntie Anna, or even less likely, the Tory Presiding officer, have the SHEER BASIC HONESTY to do this??
Complain about this comment
23. At 10:55pm on 21 Feb 2011, Electric Hermit wrote
No doubt. But for there to be a prosecution there must first be a victim. You focus on retributive justice if that is the best you can do. I would prefer to concentrate on reducing the incidence of rape rather than increasing the number of people incarcerated for it. Because the latter requires that there be more victims.
If that is how you wish to interpret my comment fine, I am not of the hang em flog em brigade, but why should innocent peiople have to change their routine or lives to prevent becoming a victim of any crime?
Yes a reduction of instances of all crimes is desireable and that is what i meant, but at the same time if someone commits a crime then yes they should be suitably punished, whetehr it is a custodial sentence, community service or whatever.
Complain about this comment
65. At 5:40pm on 22 Feb 2011, john wrote:
where risk is evident, avoid it.
You mean like, dont go on holiday to Libya.
But if you meant rape, I quote from Rape Crisis summary of the
Home Office and police studies over the last two decades.
The suggestion of avoiding walking alone, especially at night is a common suggestion to avoiding sexual assault. However, only 9% of rapes are committed by 'strangers'. Women are raped in their homes and in their work places where they are less likely to be believed and even less likely to report. This myth can control movements and restricts freedom. This can feel like women are living under a 'curfew' and that it is a woman's responsibility to be either in or out at certain times. More than 80% of rapes are committed by known men.
Complain about this comment
55. pa_broon74
"Over-emotional outbursts and an over enthusiastic urge to be offended, in my view more often than not stands in the way of real progress."
This would be my concern. Although I fully sympathise with those whose response may be considered "over-emotional", I just don't think such an approach is helpful. It does more to "celebrate" the crime than prevent it. By which I mean that it takes the crime out of the realm of normal, rational discourse and puts it into a special category labelled, "TOO SERIOUS - DO NOT DISCUSS".
Complain about this comment
66. djmac7
"The only issue here is the truth or otherwise of the New Statesman article!!"
The only issue? I don't think many of the contributors here see things in such simplistic terms.
Complain about this comment
70, EH
When you conduct a valid poll of the views of the posters on this board, perhaps you should publish them before making such a sweeping statement!!
Without doubt there are serious issues raised by this matter, but the subject of Brian's post is one BillA and whether it was right or not for him to resign.
Sticking to the subject matter, I just re-iterate my view that the Scottish Parliament and the Conservative Party should be considering exiting BA from both organisations without hesitation.
Complain about this comment
67. peteraberdeenshire
"If that is how you wish to interpret my comment fine, I am not of the hang em flog em brigade, but why should innocent peiople have to change their routine or lives to prevent becoming a victim of any crime?"
Everybody adapts to the realities of their lives. I see no reason why anybody should be an exception to this. I am fortunate in that my appearance alone deters would-be attackers. But I still think twice before putting myself in certain situations. All I am suggesting is that those who might be targeted by rapists do likewise.
It is not a choice between living a "normal" life and being a lock-in. It is just a matter of taking sensible precautions. For example, if a young woman is going out intending to consume an amount of alcohol that might end up making her more appealing to predators, then she should try to ensure that she is never alone and thus more vulnerable.
This is not rocket science. It's just simple precautions. It is perverse to insist that suggesting such precautions is somehow placing an unjustifiable burden on the potential victim. Those who take this line should consider how sensible it would be to insist upon the home-owner's "right" to leave a ladder under an open window.
Complain about this comment
68. Anagach
"The suggestion of avoiding walking alone, especially at night is a common suggestion to avoiding sexual assault. However, only 9% of rapes are committed by 'strangers'. Women are raped in their homes and in their work places where they are less likely to be believed and even less likely to report. This myth can control movements and restricts freedom. This can feel like women are living under a 'curfew' and that it is a woman's responsibility to be either in or out at certain times. More than 80% of rapes are committed by known men. "
I appreciate this. But I still insist that even if taking sensible precautions is only relevant in a small percentage of instances then the horrific nature of rape makes even such a small risk-reduction strategy worthwhile. It makes no sense to reject a measure simply because it is not 100% effective.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid wee Aitken just opened his mouth and let his belly rumble.The same thing happened to Gordon Broon when he forgot his mic was still on and after a brass-neck grovelling going back to the wee wummin's hoose she forgave him. But then the BBC commentators and journalists even said he didnae mean it...sorry if it comes from YOUR mouth YOU mean it!!
Complain about this comment
71. djmac7
"Without doubt there are serious issues raised by this matter, but the subject of Brian's post is one BillA and whether it was right or not for him to resign."
But is this not irreducibly bound up with attitudes to rape? I have made a point of NOT reading the transcript of Bill Aiken's conversation because I intended to come at the issue from a wider perspective than just the possibly ill-advised utterances of one individual. I seriously believe that our whole attitude to the criminal aspect of rape may need to be re-thought. I see plenty of people spouting all manner of worthy sentiments on the issue. But I also see rapists getting of scot-free and their victims being subjected to court proceedings which are all too often little short of abuse.
I want to change that. Others merely want to rage against it - and against those who want change.
Complain about this comment
75 EH,
Your points may have validity in another forum and you can debate them there!
In this thread, your persistance to divert the subject matter is known as thread-hijacking. And fair enough to you.
I want to stick with the subject matter - and promote the thought that the democratic process in Edinburgh, and around our political parties will not be exercised if BA gets away with this as things stand.
That's it. Your battles are for another forum!!
Complain about this comment
Off topic, but I nearly fell off my laptop at the following quote in today's Scottish Review article about Robin Harper. It refers to the setting up of the Scottish Parliament.
" It has been the politicians that have depressed me most. We were all worried that Labour would be sending over their lumbering lard mountains from Strathclyde with their slow eyes and stabbing fingers, and over they came. Good grief, there are people in that parliament that you would hide yer weans from."
Complain about this comment
68. Anagach
"t. This myth can control movements and restricts freedom. This can feel like women are living under a 'curfew' and that it is a woman's responsibility to be either in or out at certain times. More than 80% of rapes are committed by known men. "
This is EXACTLY what is involved and is part of the perpetration of the attitude (see EH's comments) that whenever a woman is raped it is her fault rather than the fault of the rapist.
If I forget and leave my house unlocked and am robbed, it is highly unlikely that I will be accused of being a whore who was inviting thieves into my house. The same can not be said about rape--obviously, from the offensive (yes, offensive) remarks both by this politician and by certain people on this forum.
Complain about this comment
73. Electric Hermit
"I appreciate this. But I still insist that even if taking sensible precautions is only relevant in a small percentage of instances then the horrific nature of rape makes even such a small risk-reduction strategy worthwhile. It makes no sense to reject a measure simply because it is not 100% effective.
"
Which translates into "she didn't take a sensible precaution so it was all right for her to be publicly humiliated by this politician..."
No.
Complain about this comment
72. Electric Hermit
"Those who take this line should consider how sensible it would be to insist upon the home-owner's "right" to leave a ladder under an open window.
"
I DO have a right to leave a ladder under an open window. And if I suffer for it no one at a trial for a thief would say that this was an invitation for the thief to come in!
The same MUST be said for victims of rape. You are trying (without success) to conflait two entirely different issues.
Complain about this comment
Aitken is just part of the right wing Tory speak.
Complain about this comment
62. john
"1: to avoid getting mugged or attacked on a saturday night, I do not wander round the city centre alone. If I am drunk I get a taxi home, and make sure I have enough money for that. If I have to walk, I stick to main streets, and well lit areas. This is called acting responsibly. A person cannot fail to take reasonable precautions and then blame society alone. There are nasty people out there, if you don't actively avoid them then one day one of them might find you. "
And if you are still attacked on your way to that taxi, no politician is going to say it was your fault because since you were in an area where prostitution goes on you must have been asking for it.
You're male. It won't happen.
Complain about this comment
55. pa_broon74
"baring the reality of police commitments & life in general in mind?"
No.
I refuse to be told where I can and can not go--including "for my own good". And the next step would be that if I DO go there the crime would be mine and not the rapist's. I am a citizen of the US. The VICTIM of the crime the politician was so eager to dismiss as her fault is a citizen of Scotland. She has the right to the full benefit of the protection of the law.
No.
Complain about this comment
41. Sheneval
"I had a female workmate who had travelled the world and was 'street wise' she would have agreed with Electric 100% and any suggestion that she was sanctioning the crime or the criminals who commit these acts in any shape or form would be ludicrous.
"
That it is wise for everyone to take precautions has NOTHING to do with having the right to attack women who have been raped as being at fault in the crime perpetrated against them. As a man, if you go down a dark street and get mugged, while the cop may give you a stern lecture, NO ONE will say you don't have a right to prosecute or accuse you of having given the mugger the right to beat and rob you. You will not be held up to derision and scorn by politicians or be accused of being a street-walker.
The same must be true for women who are the victim of rapes.
Only with rape are people told, "It was your own fault. It wouldn't happen if you stayed home."
Of course, this is a lie anyway, but that is another discussion.
Complain about this comment
Aitken comes from the 60's mentality 'gagging for it' only he has never grown up and realised that the world has moved on from his childish imperialist parties past. Mind you its a pity that the Labour party doesn't have his realisation that his situation was untenable when Wendy can insult economic professors during her biased convenorship of the damaging Scotland Bill for personal reasons.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS