Having thought about it

I have a dangerous problem.  Some people think it's me not being able to keep my mouth shut.  In actual fact, it's not willing to be ignorant and getting frustrated when others are.


Take our Justice Secretary for example: I'm already sick of an over inflated media hype over "those comments"  Rape is rape, no question, but the law does classify rape in two categories: common law and statutory and if you listen to what he said, albeit pretty ham-fistedly, that is what he was alluding to.


Here's the transcript:

Clarke: Well, I must stop you repeating this total nonsense…assuming you and I are talking about rape in the ordinary conversational sense. Some man has forcefully, with a bit of violence.

Derbyshire: Rape is rape, with respect.

Clarke: No it's not, and if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape. That's 'cause she's underage, can't consent. Anybody has sex with a 15-year-old, it's rape. So what you and I are talking about, we're talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to. That is rape. Serious crime, of course it's a serious crime. And I'm very glad that people do now got to the police and report it. There used to be a taboo against it, in a crazy way.

Now if you actually look at what he said, he's making a distinction between rape being using force or other means that could include GBH or any other form of "date rape" and having prima facie consentual sex with an under age girl, where the issue is not overcoming denial of consent to intercourse, but the victim not being legally capable of consenting.

That's why, whilst sex is legal at sixteen, and adult in a position of trust, for example a teacher or tutor cannot legally have sex with a pupil until they are eighteen.  The issue is not having ability to consent in the first place vs overcoming ability to consent by some other means. 

That in law is the difference between what he classified as "serious rape" and the alternative.

Undoubtedly, Clarke used the wrong words, and in the wrong context.  He's a human, so he's fallible, and he's a man, so he can't fully understand, for want of better terminology, "the world of rape".  The fact is, only victims do.  

You can argue on the reduction in sentencing policy, you can argue against the legal split between common law and statutory rape.  Do not, however, demand a man resign because he fluffed his words in an uncomfortable situation.  

If we look at his response, he apologised if he gave an impression that was not his opinion.  The lesson is don't speak to be understood, speak so that you cannot be misunderstood.  

So let me refresh, so I cannot be misunderstood  1) Rape is rape.  2) The law categorises rape into two forms: lack of ability to consent, and overcoming lack of consent. 3) He got his words wrong.

Now get over it, go back to your lives and stop vilifying a man who made an honest mistake.  If you have a problem, campaign against the proposed reduction in criminal sentencing by 50% for a guilty plea.  THAT is what we should be up in arms about.