John Redwood and his comments

[Roxsie]

John Redwood has apparently undermined the Conservative party's commitment to tackling sexual violence against women by insinuating that date rape is not as serious as stranger rape.

Writing in his blog, Redwood states that there is "a difference" between a man attacking a woman on the street and a "disagreement" over consent:

"...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..."

The government and anti-rape groups have urged David Cameron to distance himself and the party from the comments, which come weeks after the Cameron said more must be done to increase the rape conviction rate.

Home office minister Vernon Coaker countered that the vast majority of rapes are committed by men who know their victims, "so this type of rape is the biggest problem we have to deal with – not something to be dismissed as a lesser crime".

Underlining the fact that "rape is rape, wherever it happens," Mr Coaker called on Mr Cameron to demand a retraction from Redwood, the MP for Wokingham.

Mr Coaker said: "It is just a month since David Cameron said that too many men were committing rape because they think they can get away with it ... if Cameron is truly serious about this issue he should immediately apologise for these remarks and call on John Redwood to issue a retraction."

Mr Redwood last night insisted that he would not be retracting his statements, saying that his comments were not at odds with Tory policy.

He said: "I will not be retracting my statement. I’ve not said anything that David disagrees with. It is the courts that are making this distinction."

Comments like these serve only to discourage genuine victims of rapes from coming forward and attempting to get justice for the crimes perpetrated against them. They send the message that rape is "OK" in some cases and should not be classed as a serious crime.

Rape is a violation. It is an act of domination and humiliation and must not be tolerated by a society in which equality and consent are part of our basic human rights.

Redwood's comments are an insult to the victims of sexual crimes and an affront to decent men and women.


http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2007/12/15/a-better-class-of-criminal/
http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2007/12/18/now-we-know-what-home-office-ministers-do-all-day/

So is stranger rape worse than date rape?
Do you agree with Redwood?

Personally i find these comments appalling and a throwback to pre-feminist times. They also reinforce my general hatred for Conservatives and their attempts to make themselves more saleable to the general public while keeping their true policies and beliefs hidden until they are elected. I'm going to be completely honest here and declare that yes i am a Labour supporter and i am exceedingly proud that Vernon Coaker is my MP. However even if you aren't a Labour supporter or indeed support the Tories surely you can see how disgusting and vile these comments are, and these are the people who want to run the country! These are the self same people who at their Conservative Students national council wore t-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "Hang Nelson Mandela" and their views have not changed no matter what "Dave" says or does.

Rape is rape and there should be no distinction in sentencing between stranger rape or date rape yes "Young men do not want to have to take a consent form and a lawyer on a date" however young women also do not want to have to take pepper spray, a chastity belt or other form of deterant with her. AND refering to rape as "a disagreement between two lovers" makes me want to vomit. A) Rape is more than a "disagreement" and B) by commiting such a disgusting act should automatically disqualify the man from being referred to as her lover!

[gembird]

Clearly the guy has no idea what he's talking about- when I hear the words 'date rape' it makes me think of someone being drugged whilst out with someone, hence 'date rape drugs'. I would think that's what most of us would have in mind, so for John Redwood to imply that it's a disagreement is ridiculous. Just because you know someone, that doesn't give them the right to have sex with you if you don't want to at that particular time, or at all, if you don't explicitly consent to it.

Rape is rape, whatever the circumstances; for every woman that decides it's a good idea to lie about it, there are many others who are hiding the truth about what has happened to them. I believe people like Redwood would just make it even harder for them to come forward, and that's the last thing we need.

[Splush]

My gut feeling is that there is a difference but that's not to say it's any less heinous a crime. But I think there's a full spectrum of situations where rape occurs (like any crime) and it's unrealistic to try to group them into "type A and type B", rather you should assess each case based on it's own specific circumstances. To imply that the same sentence should be given for every instance of rape seems like an oversimplification to me. For example, it seems to me that diminished responsibility should apply to rape sentencing just as it should for murder.

That phrase "a disagreement between two lovers" really was extraordinarily badly judged. You couldn't make up a more insensitive phrase if you tried, it reads like satire.

[gembird]

For example, it seems to me that diminished responsibility should apply to rape sentencing just as it should for murder.

So would that include a situation where a girl was too drunk to consent, but the guy was also off his tits and wasn't in a state to realise that?

I'm not having a go, I'm just curious; not saying that's the only time that what you said would apply.

[Splush]

If, hypothetically, we compare the situation you mentioned to one of a premeditated attack carried out by a sober, sane man (as much as such a man can be considered sane) on a clearly unwilling woman then yes, the drunken man's crime is not as malicious as that of the man who plans an attack in sobriety. Don't misunderstand this as me saying we should let the drunken man off or anything, he's still a rapist and he had a responsibility not to let himself get into a state which made that series of events possible, but it seems reasonable to me that his sentence would be different to that of the other guy.

Also I personally think it's important for jail sentences to exist primarily for the safety of the public, rather than as a punishment, and if we're looking at those two hypothetical cases in terms of the danger presented to the public by the men being free then it seems clear that the man who carried out the sober, premeditated attack presents more of a risk.

[maxxy_p]

Rape is rape and there should be no distinction in sentencing between stranger rape or date rapeSurely you would agree that different circumstances should result in more or less serious sentences, according to (for instance) whether the man knowingly had an STD, whether he physically injured her aside from the rape, whether he raped her at gun- or knife-point, and all other manners of variables? I think these vastly alter the situation. What if they knew each other and the woman initially said yes, but changed her mind later on? What if they were both drunk and the circumstances were unclear?

You can't define all rapes to be the same. Sensitive subject though it is, you have to deal with it objectively and not according to your instinct of "fuck that rapist right to hell".

So yeah, I agree with Redwood. His phrasing was poor, but the meaning behind it is clear. There can be differing circumstances of rape and the law must react accordingly. I don't see how his comments were "appalling".

[kratzenbourg II]

If the victim is in a state where they can't give their consent, or make it
clear they don't want to give it, then it is rape. It doesn't matter if
the rapist is a stranger or a partner/friend.

[mrsnuffles]

i think this guy is an idiot for publicly saying something so un-pc, but i still think he's pretty much right - specifically the 'disagreement over consent' part - and in particular when this 'disagreement' takes place. In my mind there is a massive difference between a physical attempt to prevent sexual intercourse and simply deciding the next day that a drunken shag was a mistake.

[Turkey Sandwich]

Again, I'm not sure I'd agree with his phrasing (the 'disagreement between two lovers' sounds pretty stupid and a rather patronisingly sexist), but there is a difference.

For example, a drunk man not paying attention to the protestations of a drunk, initially agreeable woman is not the same as a guy holding a random woman at knife-point in an alley.

No one's arguing that the former situation isn't rape and shouldn't be prosecuted, but it certainly could be considered a hot-blooded crime which will unlikely be repeated, rather than a planned, violent rape. Now, I imagine both are very nasty things to happen, but I'm sure the latter is much more harmful and traumatic. Much like it would be worse to get physically mugged than for someone to pickpocket you. There are different degrees to every crime, even murder.

[tehmoogles]

I think one of the main problems here is interpretation. To me, 'Date Rape' implies either spiking your date's drink, or forcing them to have sex with you during a date. What this man is referring to is a disagreement between two people as to whether both consented. Now, I would say that this is only likely if one or both parties were drunk or under other influences, otherwise it's straight out rape.

From my interpretation of this, it's just as easy for a woman to rape a man in this situation (although not legally, as under UK law it is impossible, but that's for another rant), as I don't know about you guys, but I'd say that a man can't exactly prevent his penis from becoming erect.

I may be going off on tangents here, and I'm not condoning rape in any form, but before you condemn this man and everything he says, take a look at exactly what he's said, and see if he's actually saying what you think he is.

[Roxsie]

Surely you would agree that different circumstances should result in more or less serious sentences, according to (for instance) whether the man knowingly had an STD, whether he physically injured her aside from the rape, whether he raped her at gun- or knife-point, and all other manners of variables? I think these vastly alter the situation. What if they knew each other and the woman initially said yes, but changed her mind later on? What if they were both drunk and the circumstances were unclear?

However this is where extra charges are involved such as GBH and ABH. These would add to the sentence but even if it's rape within marriage it's still rape and should be treated the same!

[Aladdin Sane]

Whilst I still feel that each case, as with any element of the law, should be considered in its own right, I would agree that, yes, rape is rape, and there isn't a lot of distinction that can be made. You either forced someone into sex or you didn't.

The part of the quote which to me is just downright farcical, not to mention very insensitive:
"...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..."
Firstly - "unreasonable force"? The way that read to me was an implication that there then must somehow be such a thing as "reasonable force". Although I don't think you'd ever find anyone who would be able to define a situation where it would be reasonable to force someone into having sex. And a "disagreement between two lovers"? Yes - I can see that now, "Oh yes, I'm filing charges against you dear because I wasn't really in the mood for it last week". Bloody hell, sometimes you really have to wonder from under which rock they manage to dredge up some of these politicians from. :rolleyes:

[tehmoogles]

Firstly - "unreasonable force"? The way that read to me was an implication that there then must somehow be such a thing as "reasonable force". Although I don't think you'd ever find anyone who would be able to define a situation where it would be reasonable to force someone into having sex. And a "disagreement between two lovers"? Yes - I can see that now, "Oh yes, I'm filing charges against you dear because I wasn't really in the mood for it last week". Bloody hell, sometimes you really have to wonder from under which rock they manage to dredge up some of these politicians from. :rolleyes:

If they're drunk, one or both parties may claim that they didn't consent.

[MLynas]

I think it's a bit scary now with the whole alcohol side of it.

How does a court define drunk, are they going to set a standard level. I meen if they followed the drink driving levels then almost every man or women in a relationship is guilty of "Rape". "Sorry I know you want me to go back to your flat but you had two glasses of wine at dinner." Now if you have sex with a girl who is clearly out her face and comotosed lying on a bed with her head rolling. Yes thats Rape.

However what if a girl has clearly had a few drinks but is definatley interested. Is that rape? Some people need a few drinks to build up their confidence.

I play in a band and usually like to have a few beers to loosen up before going on stage, is that like band rape? It's such a hard thing to define I think we need to be carefull. If the laws are to leanient then you have criminal men getting away without any justice...but if your to strict you get innocent men going to jail.

[faragher]

MLynas, that is absolute rubbish. What they are saying is where a woman is too intoxicated to give consent, then the presumption must be that consent has been witheld.

If a woman has 2 glasses of wine, she would probably be able to give consent.

I am pretty hardline on this whole issue. I feel that if a man is physically capable of doing the deed, then they are not so drunk that they cannot get positive consent. I can think of no situation where not getting consent would be acceptable - and I'm not talking about written down statements - a quick "this is cool?" will cover it.

Likewise, I think that either party should be able to withdraw their consent at any point. It is a fallacy that a man has no self-control past a certain point. Every man can chose whether or not to continue.

I actually think that the breach of trust that comes with a 'non-stranger' rape is probably much more damaging psychologically, and should be punished just as hard as stranger rape. I fail to see how someone who thinks it is appropriate to rape a friend, or persist after it is clear that consent is withdrawn is less dangerous than someone who attacks a stranger. They just pick different victims.

[gembird]

I think one of the main problems here is interpretation. To me, 'Date Rape' implies either spiking your date's drink, or forcing them to have sex with you during a date. What this man is referring to is a disagreement between two people as to whether both consented. Now, I would say that this is only likely if one or both parties were drunk or under other influences, otherwise it's straight out rape.

I agree with the way you define date rape, it always seemed to me to be that deliberate breach of trust rather than just things going wrong at the end of the night , with regrets making the girl say stupid things (or the guy being too thick to take no for an answer, I know it isn't going to be that simple).

From my interpretation of this, it's just as easy for a woman to rape a man in this situation (although not legally, as under UK law it is impossible, but that's for another rant), as I don't know about you guys, but I'd say that a man can't exactly prevent his penis from becoming erect.

yeah, as far as I know (can't be certain, obviously, as a girl) it's a physical process which your mind has no control over. I'm sure the guys reading this would understand, right?

[tehmoogles]

Likewise, I think that either party should be able to withdraw their consent at any point. It is a fallacy that a man has no self-control past a certain point. Every man can chose whether or not to continue.


If that's the case, then surely it's a fallacy that a woman has no self-control past a certain point, and therefore is always able to give consent?

[maxxy_p]

MLynas, that is absolute rubbish. What they are saying is where a woman is too intoxicated to give consent, then the presumption must be that consent has been witheld.

If a woman has 2 glasses of wine, she would probably be able to give consent.It's not that the woman is physically unable to give consent - clearly if she is unconscious or incapable of speaking, it is rape - it's that if she says yes whilst inebriated, the consent may be considered invalid. So theoretically a woman having two glasses of wine and then having sex with her husband could lead to him being accused and sentenced for rape. This is obviously an unlikely scenario, but the law here is open to interpretation by a jury.

http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/alcoholalert/alert200601/al200601_p6.html

as far as I know (can't be certain, obviously, as a girl) it's a physical process which your mind has no control over. I'm sure the guys reading this would understand, right?It's like your heart rate increasing when you're nervous - there's no way to consciously slow it down other than by thinking of other things. Obviously this is quite hard in certain circumstances.

[Roxsie]

While going through the blogs i regularly read i came across this

http://girlwithaonetrackmind.blogspot.com/2007/12/consent.html

this and the comments people left this entry just increased my disgust at John Redwood.
Rape can happen to anyone be they male or female and dismissing it as "a dissagreement" just shows that he has never had any contact with someone who was raped.

Let's see him make those comments if his wife/daughter/son had been raped.

[maxxy_p]

Is it the idea that rape can vary in heiniousness that offends you, or the idea that rape can be a disagreement over consent?

[Roxsie]

It's the idea that rape can be a disagreement over consent that offends me.

I actually find date/marriage rape more heinous as it involves a huuge betrayal of trust and yes can involve threats involving weapons. As well as this it is more likely to continue over a period of time and can involve the woman believing more deeply that it is her fault or is what she wants.

2 in 4 women murdered are murdered by a partner and before that may have been abused or raped by that partner yet are unable, afraid or have convinced themselves that it is normal, to get away.

Edit-Thanks Maxxy

[maxxy_p]

Okay, that is fair enough. Either there is consent or there is not; both parties having different ideas of whether consent was given implies rape. 2 in 4 women are murdered by a partner and before that may have been abused or raped by that partner yet are unable, afraid or have convinced themselves that it is normal, to get away.Do you mean for all women who are murdered, 50% are murdered by their partner? I'm pretty sure 2 in 4 women are not murdered.

[tehmoogles]

As I said earlier, I think there is a difference in interpretation here. The experience of the blogger that you linked to was quite obviously date rape; a 'disagreement over consent' implies to me that either one or both parties were drunk or otherwise intoxicated, and later on regret/believe they did not agree with what happened. In the latter case it could be either party who is the victim, not just the woman. Rape is disgusting, but I'd say that what I just described is not neccessarily rape, because both parties could have given consent at the time, but then later said that they did not, due to the condition they were in.