As a life-long leftie, I was delighted to hear that Diane Abbott has decided to run for the Labour leadership. I had all but despaired of the Labour Party and none of the people that they have put up for the leadership have inspired in any way. But, if the Labour Party are savvy enough to put this woman at the helm, I think they may find that they acquire a new lease of life, appealing to ordinary voters and diverse groups. Gosh, I might even be inspired to join them again!
Friday, May 21, 2010
Defendants in rape cases to be given anonymity
Ladies, I fear we are seeing a further retreat away form the ideals that we hold dear. Bad enough that we are deemed so irrelevant that there are only a couple of token women in the Cabinet, (and ones whose ability is I think not beyond question), but now the Powers that Be are planning to introduce legislation to grant anonymity to those who are accused of rape. As if that was the problem with rape cases.
THE PROBLEM WITH RAPE CASES IS THAT PERPETRATORS ROUTINELY ESCAPE CONVICTION.
Let's be clear. In order to do this, the Powers that Be will have to argue that rape is someone more serious a crime than say murder and manslaughter. That there is something more serious about that offence that warrants anonymity with neither murder or manslaughter do. The difference is of course that the conviction rate for murder and manslaughter is higher. For no other serious offence is the conviction rate as low as it is for rape cases. Men are, as it stands, able to rape with relative impunity. If we go down this route, that impunity will only increase.
Let's not bother with the argument that victims get anonymity whereas defendants do not. If you have been raped, the odds of seeing the person that did this go to prison are not only slim, but close to non-existent. The process is stacked against you from the start. Following such an appalling and life changing trauma, not only will you be accused of being a liar and a fantasist, you will have to suffer the additional humiliation of seeing the person who ruined you lift walk free, or worse, not prosecuted at all. These are the bare facts of the matter. No, when it comes to rape cases, there is no such thing as a level playing field. All the odds are stacked in favour of the defendant and this will simply add to it.
There is another point as well. In criminal cases, it is now possible to adduce evidence of bad character if someone has been accused of committing similar comparable offences. If your rapist is a serial one, and has previously been acquitted, it is possible to introduce this evidence to test their credibility. However, if defendants are anonymous, how will those who have been victims previously know to come forward? How can those who commit this crime routinely be scrutinised when they are being kept from the public gaze.?
This proposal is simply another way for those who rape to subvert justice and make a mockery of our laws.
THE PROBLEM WITH RAPE CASES IS THAT PERPETRATORS ROUTINELY ESCAPE CONVICTION.
Let's be clear. In order to do this, the Powers that Be will have to argue that rape is someone more serious a crime than say murder and manslaughter. That there is something more serious about that offence that warrants anonymity with neither murder or manslaughter do. The difference is of course that the conviction rate for murder and manslaughter is higher. For no other serious offence is the conviction rate as low as it is for rape cases. Men are, as it stands, able to rape with relative impunity. If we go down this route, that impunity will only increase.
Let's not bother with the argument that victims get anonymity whereas defendants do not. If you have been raped, the odds of seeing the person that did this go to prison are not only slim, but close to non-existent. The process is stacked against you from the start. Following such an appalling and life changing trauma, not only will you be accused of being a liar and a fantasist, you will have to suffer the additional humiliation of seeing the person who ruined you lift walk free, or worse, not prosecuted at all. These are the bare facts of the matter. No, when it comes to rape cases, there is no such thing as a level playing field. All the odds are stacked in favour of the defendant and this will simply add to it.
There is another point as well. In criminal cases, it is now possible to adduce evidence of bad character if someone has been accused of committing similar comparable offences. If your rapist is a serial one, and has previously been acquitted, it is possible to introduce this evidence to test their credibility. However, if defendants are anonymous, how will those who have been victims previously know to come forward? How can those who commit this crime routinely be scrutinised when they are being kept from the public gaze.?
This proposal is simply another way for those who rape to subvert justice and make a mockery of our laws.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Rape Crisis
I have been checking out what the Tory Party and Teresa May are/is saying they will do for women.
One of the things that the Tory Party has committed itself to is an increase in the number of Rape Crisis Centres. Rape Crisis has come under significant financial pressures with many struggling to stay open. The Tories have committed themselves to giving Rape Crisis secure funding in order to open 15 new centres. In the climate of cuts, one wonders if the Tories will deliver on this promise.
One of the things that the Tory Party has committed itself to is an increase in the number of Rape Crisis Centres. Rape Crisis has come under significant financial pressures with many struggling to stay open. The Tories have committed themselves to giving Rape Crisis secure funding in order to open 15 new centres. In the climate of cuts, one wonders if the Tories will deliver on this promise.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Pet hate for today...
Baroness Warsi...
The Minister without Portfolio.
The Minister without Portfolio.
Am I the only person who thinks that she has been invited to join the Cabinet solely because she is a) female and b) Muslim and not because she will be particularly good at her job? I heard her once on Question Time some time ago, and she didn't exactly set the world on fire.
People, this is not good. It is not quite Sarah Palin, but I wouldn't mind betting that she ends up being not far off. Conservativism that promotes women's interests must be an oxymoron.
People, this is not good. It is not quite Sarah Palin, but I wouldn't mind betting that she ends up being not far off. Conservativism that promotes women's interests must be an oxymoron.
P.S. There is a petition going around requesting the resignation of Teresa May as Minister for Women. See here.
Sexism in the City II
Yet another tale to depress us all. This is the case of Sarah Sweeney a former partner at DLA Piper (the firm where Nick Clegg's wife works) who had brought a claim against her former employer. She had been made redundant and argued that the fact that she was a woman of child-bearing age was a factor in the decision to dismiss her. She also claimed that she had had her bottom slapped by a senior managing partner at a work function and that another managing partner had told her that women who had children could not and should not work. She was made redundant after announcing that she was pregnant. The firm was able to produce evidence that her card had been marked before she told them she was pregnant. The Tribunal appeared to accept that 'something had happened' in relation to the bottom-smacking incident but that the Claimant had appeared to laugh it off at the time and the individual concerned didn't have anything to do with whether she had been made redundant.
Again, this highlights the importance of complaining about incidents at the time they occur.
The difficulty with all these cases if the women concerned 'know' that they are being discriminated against, but are unable to prove it. Such knowledge may well be accurate, but that is a far cry from being able to prove it. It some ways things are harder than they were - a lot of discriminatory treatment is less overt and employers can simply get cleverer at covering up their behaviour and establishing lawful grounds for a dismissal. Only a very small number of sex discrimination claims are successful in court, but it is highly unlikely that this reflects in any way the actual incidents of sex discrimination in employment.
Am contemplating running courses for women in how to protect themselves at work and in law...
Again, this highlights the importance of complaining about incidents at the time they occur.
The difficulty with all these cases if the women concerned 'know' that they are being discriminated against, but are unable to prove it. Such knowledge may well be accurate, but that is a far cry from being able to prove it. It some ways things are harder than they were - a lot of discriminatory treatment is less overt and employers can simply get cleverer at covering up their behaviour and establishing lawful grounds for a dismissal. Only a very small number of sex discrimination claims are successful in court, but it is highly unlikely that this reflects in any way the actual incidents of sex discrimination in employment.
Am contemplating running courses for women in how to protect themselves at work and in law...
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Where are the women?
I have noticed, with some irritation, that there are only two women in the new Cabinet, and none of them are known for their path breaking views on equality.
I am inclined to feel faintly patronised by the fact that we need a Minister for Women -it appears to me to be an acknowledgement and reinforcement of the marginalisation of women. I am, of course, all in favour of recognising the extent to which women have been marginalised in public life. A quick look at the gender make-up of Parliament, the judiciary etc proves the point. However, I sometimes think that having a Minister for Women almost enables the ruling male classes to pigeon-hole our concerns more readily instead of focussing on mainstreaming. This all has a wiff of tokenism to me.
Sexism in the City
As a feminist, I get depressed reading about tale after tale of women pursuing sexism cases against their former employers and not getting anywhere.
See cases in point:
1. Jordan Wimmers found not to be a 'persuasive witness' and that the sexist jokes that were sent her were simply 'in poor taste' and 'not unwanted'. I suspect that her case was not helped by the claim that her boss tried to run her over, and she was not able to prove (and the burden would have been on her to prove) that the women being brought in to meetings were prostitutes.
2. Anna Francis and Maureen Murphy lost their cases against Nomura Bank. They had brought a claim saying that they had been made redundant and claiming, amongst other things, that a male colleague had said to a female colleague 'Oh, you don't have your honkers out today I see'.
Reading newspaper cases is always difficult because journalists tend to focus on the more salacious aspects of the claim. It appears that the 'honkers' comment was made before the Ms Murphy had arrived at the firm and so one expects that she is not going to be able to rely on that comment as having adversely affected her. If this is ruled out, then what we are left with in terms of evidence is the comment that women should be at home cleaning floors. Of this, the Tribunal said:
“Dignity is not necessarily violated by things said or done which are trivial or transitory, particularly where it is clear that no offence was intended. The comment made by a trader that women should be at home cleaning floors does not in isolation amount to an act of sex discrimination.”
The thing that Tribunals are heavily influenced by is whether the women concerned complain. This is because in the first instance, it is for the Claimant to show, on the balance of probabilities, facts from which a Tribunal could conclude that discrimination has occurred. This includes proving that the conduct in question was unwanted. If one does not complain about the conduct at the time it takes place, the Tribunal appears to infer that the conduct was not unwanted.
This point is important because many women going through something like this, do not complain about the conduct to their employers until they believe that they are being pushed out of their jobs or the situation has become intolerable. If there isn't a contemporaneous indication of lack of consent, there appears to be a hint that the claims are retaliation for i.e. being made redundant or something else that the employer has done to irk or annoy. Of course, many women do not complain at the time because they believe that it will adversely affect their jobs, especially when the person engaging in the conduct is their manager or someone in a position of authority over them and this fear is not unjustified. However, as the definition of sexual harassment includes the criteria that the conduct is unwanted the Claimant has to prove that that is the case and the best indicator of this is that the Claimant complains either to the alleged harasser or to her employer at the time the incidents occur.
One might think that keeping a record of events is going to be the clincher. It helps, but it will not be determinative of the case. Another problem is that Tribunals have to decide, if there is a stark contradition between two accounts of what happened, who is telling the truth.
3. Rosemary Corscadden also didn't complain at the time that she claims her boss was making advances. She did keep a record of events, but did not complain to her bosses until some years later. She had claimed that her boss had descibed running her team like a running a brothel with a team of prositutes. The Tribunal held that he had not made the comment and again appeared to infer that because she had not complained at the time, the comments were not unwanted.
There is something else going on here which may or may not be influencing Tribunals. Most of these newspaper cases involve, it is said, claims for millions of pounds. As Tribunals do not make injury to feelings awards of that order, the claims stem from any loss of earnings flowing from the alleged discriminatory act. As they will be earning a considerable sum of money it is possible to come up with figures like that, but it is a bit of a stretch. Most women don't earn anything like that and the incidents of the type described here, w0uld have, if successful, achieved four figure award, as opposed to a seven figure one for any injury to feelings caused by the comments. It may well be that the figures claimed create a lack of sympathy in the Tribunal in light of the type of case and the earnings of employees that they ordinary deal with.
Nevertheless, I take the view that these cases are starting to indicate something of an alarming 'green light'. Furthermore, if every woman who ever experienced harassment complained, the system would collapse and a radical overhaul would be required. Perhaps this is what we need to be encouraging more and more women to do.
The thing that Tribunals are heavily influenced by is whether the women concerned complain. This is because in the first instance, it is for the Claimant to show, on the balance of probabilities, facts from which a Tribunal could conclude that discrimination has occurred. This includes proving that the conduct in question was unwanted. If one does not complain about the conduct at the time it takes place, the Tribunal appears to infer that the conduct was not unwanted.
This point is important because many women going through something like this, do not complain about the conduct to their employers until they believe that they are being pushed out of their jobs or the situation has become intolerable. If there isn't a contemporaneous indication of lack of consent, there appears to be a hint that the claims are retaliation for i.e. being made redundant or something else that the employer has done to irk or annoy. Of course, many women do not complain at the time because they believe that it will adversely affect their jobs, especially when the person engaging in the conduct is their manager or someone in a position of authority over them and this fear is not unjustified. However, as the definition of sexual harassment includes the criteria that the conduct is unwanted the Claimant has to prove that that is the case and the best indicator of this is that the Claimant complains either to the alleged harasser or to her employer at the time the incidents occur.
One might think that keeping a record of events is going to be the clincher. It helps, but it will not be determinative of the case. Another problem is that Tribunals have to decide, if there is a stark contradition between two accounts of what happened, who is telling the truth.
3. Rosemary Corscadden also didn't complain at the time that she claims her boss was making advances. She did keep a record of events, but did not complain to her bosses until some years later. She had claimed that her boss had descibed running her team like a running a brothel with a team of prositutes. The Tribunal held that he had not made the comment and again appeared to infer that because she had not complained at the time, the comments were not unwanted.
There is something else going on here which may or may not be influencing Tribunals. Most of these newspaper cases involve, it is said, claims for millions of pounds. As Tribunals do not make injury to feelings awards of that order, the claims stem from any loss of earnings flowing from the alleged discriminatory act. As they will be earning a considerable sum of money it is possible to come up with figures like that, but it is a bit of a stretch. Most women don't earn anything like that and the incidents of the type described here, w0uld have, if successful, achieved four figure award, as opposed to a seven figure one for any injury to feelings caused by the comments. It may well be that the figures claimed create a lack of sympathy in the Tribunal in light of the type of case and the earnings of employees that they ordinary deal with.
Nevertheless, I take the view that these cases are starting to indicate something of an alarming 'green light'. Furthermore, if every woman who ever experienced harassment complained, the system would collapse and a radical overhaul would be required. Perhaps this is what we need to be encouraging more and more women to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
