The response is disappointing, but not necessarily surprising. After all, who has really been on trial here? Whose guilt, morally if not legally, have we really been trying to prove? Watching the trial progress, it seemed to me the question was never “are these men rapists?”, but always “is this woman a liar?”
Such a framing of the situation – both inside the courtroom and beyond – matters a great deal, if not for the verdict itself, then for the future wellbeing of the accuser and any woman who wishes to make a similar complaint. If our focus is not on men’s propensity to commit acts of sexual violence, but on women’s propensity to lie, we perpetuate a culture in which women’s testimonies are seen as unreliable before a word has been said.
Of course, many words were said at the trial of Jackson and Olding. According to the defence, the complainant only took the morning after pill in order to “run the lie of the classic rape victim”. She may have said she froze when the attack took place, but as Brendan Kelly QC put it, “what does frozen mean? Is it one of the lies? Is it a lie deployed to explain what happened?” (No, Mr Kelly. “Frozen” means not being able to move because you’re terrified or in shock. Happy to help).
It’s not that Kelly’s questioning of the complainant’s account tells us anything about whether the final verdict was correct or otherwise. Nonetheless, such a wilful dismissal of the potential effect of trauma reinforces the sense that we’re not supposed to see the complainant as a potential victim at all. On the contrary, she’s the suspect.
In Down Girl, the philosopher Kate Manne argues that when a woman is cast as “playing the victim”, it’s not just a case of her not being believed. For women, even claiming the status of victim is a transgressive act: “What she’s doing may stand out not because she’s claiming more than her due but because we’re not used to women claiming their due in these contexts. Women are expected to provide an audience for dominant men’s victim narratives, providing moral care, listening, sympathy and soothing”.
This argument makes sense to me in relation to the treatment of women in rape trials. Rationally we must know it is ludicrous to cast women who accuse famous men of assault as money-grabbing and fame-hungry (where are these fame-hungry accusers? Usually in hiding). But still they are suspected of something. It can’t just be that rape is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. It can’t just be that beliefs about consent and entitlement differ and need updating. No, we must cast the accuser in the role, if not of outright villain, then of transgressor.
According to Claire Waxman, London’s first victims’ commissioner, more and more rape complainants are withdrawing from prosecutions due to demands for information held on computers, mobile phones and social media. While some information can clearly be relevant, other details – such as childhood histories of mental health problems – are being sought out in what can only be an attempt to discredit the complainant as a person.
When we reach this point, we need to ask ourselves who is really being put in the dock. Is our response to a rape complainant – not just during the trial, but afterwards, regardless of the verdict – really based on any certainty of what happened? Or are we indulging in fantasies of retribution against women who step out of line by speaking up in the first place? If so, we need to take a step back. No one was found guilty today. Those railing against “false accusers” may need to look closer to home.
Glosswitch (full article here), writing about the acquittal of Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding. Since the acquittal, there have been multiple street protests in Irish cities (the photo at the top of the article is from one of them). Also read this harowing acount of the trial here.
The growth of online “sex for rent” ads is a dreadful indictment of the UK’s housing affordability crisis. Around a quarter of a million women have been offered “sex for rent” deals by landlords in the last five years, according to housing charity Shelter. Labour MP Peter Kyle says that there are more “sex for rent” ads in Britain than the rest of Europe and American combined.
To offer free or discounted rent in exchange for sex is a gross abuse of power. There are landlords getting away with it because of the desperate situation women, and sometimes men, find themselves in, as a result of increasing housing costs and the sharp cuts to working age benefits introduced by this government.
The Ministry of Justice has said that exchanging accommodation for sex is illegal, as it counts as inciting prostitution, which carries a sentence of up to seven years in jail. But this has never been tested in court; vulnerable women who can ill afford to lose their accommodation often fear reporting their landlords to the police in the first place. Moreover, advertising sex for rent is not, in itself, illegal and the site Craigslist, where many of these adverts are to be found, has refused to systematically remove them or meet Kyle, a longstanding campaigner on this issue, to discuss his concerns.
Kyle is right to argue that the government should test the robustness of existing law in relation to “sex for rent” and strengthen it if required. But the government must also do more to tackle the fundamental power imbalances that create the space in which these terrible abuses can happen. Homelessness is rising and rough sleeping has increased for the seventh year running. Abusive sex for rent arrangements thrive as a result of a lack of affordable housing.