Ken Clarke's 'Serious Rape' Interview
May. 18th, 2011 06:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
indigoneutrinoUK Justice Secretary has got himself into rather a lot of trouble today after comments he made in an interview on BBC Radio5 Live about rape sentencing. There's been quite a lot of backlash against him, even from members of his own party, and several people, including Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband, have called for his resignation. I can understand why people have reacted this way. Ken Clarke's comments showed insensitivity and ignorance towards the feelings of rape victims, and it was particularly shocking when he started talking about 'serious rape' and 'classic rape' as if they were significantly worse than 'date rape'. However, I don't think he meant to imply what he seemed to be implying. He later clarified that he considered all rape to be a serious crime, but would not apologize. He doesn't seem to understand quite how offensive what he said was, saying that he was amazed at the way people have react and that he thinks it's been blown out of proportion. On the one hand I can understand this, since he seems to be unable to make sense of people's reactions in the same way he couldn't see what was wrong with it in the first place. On the other hand, he should be able to see that in order to get people to react so strongly and to have his own party leader fail to defend him at PMQs he must have done something wrong. But I think his refusal to apologize just displays more of the arrogance that he showed in the original interview, as he kept trying to assert that his proposals for plea bargaining would benefit rape victims, although he admitted he'd never actually consulted any rape victims for their thoughts on the issue.
The interview can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/victoriad
Listening to it, I don't get the impression Mr Clarke is actually a misogynist or is trying to imply that there is such thing as non-serious rape, I just think he doesn't really know what he's talking about and is struggling to express himself clearly. He's probably thinking in legal terms when trying to draw the distinctions between different kinds of rape, but is unable to realise that to a broader audience it's coming across as if he's trying to trivialise some cases of rape and imply that rape is only serious when 'violence is used against an unwilling woman'. That suggests he doesn't understand the definition of rape, but I think it's just an error of expression and he hasn't made his meaning clear. He seems to be trying to draw the distinction between rape and a minor having sex with someone just over the age of consent, but that shows he's missed the point the interviewer is trying to get at. I could be wrong, but I thought that was classed as indecent assault rather than rape anyway, but I don't think that's the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not it is right for people who have committed rape should be able to plea bargain to have their sentence reduced. We aren't talking about teenage partners having consensual sex when there's an age difference between them: if that's considered rape then I think it needs to be reclassified. We're talking about when a man violently attacks a woman and forces sex on her. That is always serious, whether it's date rape or not, and whether or not he actually thinks it is always serious Mr Clarke seemed to be implying that sometimes it's not. I was particularly bothered by the way he was talking to the rape victim who phoned in, as he seemed to be rather insensitive towards her and didn't seem to actually be listening to what she was saying about his proposals. That said, I still don't think he's a misogynist or a 'dinosaur' like some people have been accusing him of, I just think he was ill-prepared, failed to understand the real issue people were getting at and communicated his meaning very poorly.
On the issue of whether or not he should be sacked, I'm still undecided. If I thought he genuinely meant what he seemed to mean then in my opinion he should most definitely lose his job, but I don't think he actually believes that not all rape is serious. However, I still think the fact a Secretary of State was so unable to explain himself or his proposals adequately and caused so much offense is a major issue. What's more, he's refused to apologize, and was even chuckling about the issue when interviewed about it by Nick Robinson. I think this shows how he isn't taking it as seriously as he ought to, and the attitude displayed in the interview towards rape victims' opinions on his proposals shows how he may not be up to the task of dealing with such an important issue that requires a lot of thought, sensitivity and needs to be taken seriously. However, if we look at this issue as just being an isolated case of Ken Clarke displaying a degree of incompetence, it may not really be enough to merit sacking him. I'm still undecided on the issue, but I do believe at the very least he should apologize for the upset and offense he's caused through being so thoughtless and tactless, and unless he's sincere in his apology I'm definitely going to be leaning much more towards him losing his job.
UPDATE: After watching BBC Question Time last night, Mr Clarke has admitted that he used an appalling choice of language, seems to understand why people were upset and has apologized for it, and has now explained what he meant better when discussing aggravating factors in rape trials and average sentences. I think this is all fair enough and he should be allowed to remain Justice Secretary. Even though he was quite clearly ill-prepared for the first interview, I'll admit Victoria Derbyshire can be hard to handle and I don't think he should pay just for being tactless and clumsy with his job.
The interview can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/victoriad
Listening to it, I don't get the impression Mr Clarke is actually a misogynist or is trying to imply that there is such thing as non-serious rape, I just think he doesn't really know what he's talking about and is struggling to express himself clearly. He's probably thinking in legal terms when trying to draw the distinctions between different kinds of rape, but is unable to realise that to a broader audience it's coming across as if he's trying to trivialise some cases of rape and imply that rape is only serious when 'violence is used against an unwilling woman'. That suggests he doesn't understand the definition of rape, but I think it's just an error of expression and he hasn't made his meaning clear. He seems to be trying to draw the distinction between rape and a minor having sex with someone just over the age of consent, but that shows he's missed the point the interviewer is trying to get at. I could be wrong, but I thought that was classed as indecent assault rather than rape anyway, but I don't think that's the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not it is right for people who have committed rape should be able to plea bargain to have their sentence reduced. We aren't talking about teenage partners having consensual sex when there's an age difference between them: if that's considered rape then I think it needs to be reclassified. We're talking about when a man violently attacks a woman and forces sex on her. That is always serious, whether it's date rape or not, and whether or not he actually thinks it is always serious Mr Clarke seemed to be implying that sometimes it's not. I was particularly bothered by the way he was talking to the rape victim who phoned in, as he seemed to be rather insensitive towards her and didn't seem to actually be listening to what she was saying about his proposals. That said, I still don't think he's a misogynist or a 'dinosaur' like some people have been accusing him of, I just think he was ill-prepared, failed to understand the real issue people were getting at and communicated his meaning very poorly.
On the issue of whether or not he should be sacked, I'm still undecided. If I thought he genuinely meant what he seemed to mean then in my opinion he should most definitely lose his job, but I don't think he actually believes that not all rape is serious. However, I still think the fact a Secretary of State was so unable to explain himself or his proposals adequately and caused so much offense is a major issue. What's more, he's refused to apologize, and was even chuckling about the issue when interviewed about it by Nick Robinson. I think this shows how he isn't taking it as seriously as he ought to, and the attitude displayed in the interview towards rape victims' opinions on his proposals shows how he may not be up to the task of dealing with such an important issue that requires a lot of thought, sensitivity and needs to be taken seriously. However, if we look at this issue as just being an isolated case of Ken Clarke displaying a degree of incompetence, it may not really be enough to merit sacking him. I'm still undecided on the issue, but I do believe at the very least he should apologize for the upset and offense he's caused through being so thoughtless and tactless, and unless he's sincere in his apology I'm definitely going to be leaning much more towards him losing his job.
UPDATE: After watching BBC Question Time last night, Mr Clarke has admitted that he used an appalling choice of language, seems to understand why people were upset and has apologized for it, and has now explained what he meant better when discussing aggravating factors in rape trials and average sentences. I think this is all fair enough and he should be allowed to remain Justice Secretary. Even though he was quite clearly ill-prepared for the first interview, I'll admit Victoria Derbyshire can be hard to handle and I don't think he should pay just for being tactless and clumsy with his job.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Интересно почитать
Date: 2011-07-19 06:49 am (UTC)