Naomi Wolf: Anonymity for rape accusers gives impunity to prosecutors

The Vagina author's odd comments on Newsnight.

Last night's Newsnight tackled the topic of rape, and featured Naomi Wolf, whose new book Vagina: A New Biography went on sale yesterday.

It was odd discussion, to say the least.

First, we heard that Wolf had previously argued that Julian Assange's accusers should be denied anonymity. In the very next sentence, however, Jeremy Paxman's voiceover segued into asking "Are there times when No doesn't really mean No?" (I can't see the link myself.)

At 2.30 minutes in, Paxman interviewed Wolf. She said:

I'm not saying that those women should be - quote unquote - unmasked. I'm saying that it serves rapists to have rape cases prosecuted under the cover of anonymity altogether, because it gives impunity to prosecutors.

Paxman points out that the law was changed here to give anonymity.

Wolf says:

It had wonderful motivations, but the upshot here is that in Britain, only 6 per cent of reported rapes, which is a small fraction of all rapes, get convicted. . . I do think, like many feminists, that rape shouldn't be stigmatised unlike any other kind of assault. . . It stigmatises women, and it allows impunity.

... The reason I know there's something very corrupt about the prosecution of the Assange case - I'm not talking about the women right now, we just don't know enough - is that it is so profoundly different from... the way rape is prosecuted for any other victim in Sweden.  

This is all very odd. Wolf has consistently expressed the opinion that because other rape complainants are poorly treated, these ones should be too. 

She went on to explain that what is alleged in the Assange case was generally dismissed by Swedish police and prosecutors, because the women "weren't innocent enough".

Hmm. Could this be the same woman who wrote this Huffington Post piece?

In that piece, Wolf does EXACTLY what she suggests the Swedish prosecutors have done to others - she dismisses the allegations because there was a previous relationship between Assange and his accusers.

(There's a rare example of an incorrect correction at the bottom of that piece, too:) 

Update and correction: The Guardian has, since I wrote this original post based on the Daily Mail, reported that the two women's complaints to Swedish police centered on the alleged misuse of or failure to use condoms, which can be illegal in Sweden.

I'll leave you to enjoy the rest of the interview, in which Wolf talks about the "brain-vagina connection", by yourselves.

Naomi Wolf on Newsnight.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: George Osborne abandons his target

How will George Osborne close the deficit after his U-Turns? Answer: he won't, of course. 

“Good governments U-Turn, and U-Turn frequently.” That’s Andrew Adonis’ maxim, and George Osborne borrowed heavily from him today, delivering two big U-Turns, on tax credits and on police funding. There will be no cuts to tax credits or to the police.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in total, the government gave away £6.2 billion next year, more than half of which is the reverse to tax credits.

Osborne claims that he will still deliver his planned £12bn reduction in welfare. But, as I’ve written before, without cutting tax credits, it’s difficult to see how you can get £12bn out of the welfare bill. Here’s the OBR’s chart of welfare spending:

The government has already promised to protect child benefit and pension spending – in fact, it actually increased pensioner spending today. So all that’s left is tax credits. If the government is not going to cut them, where’s the £12bn come from?

A bit of clever accounting today got Osborne out of his hole. The Universal Credit, once it comes in in full, will replace tax credits anyway, allowing him to describe his U-Turn as a delay, not a full retreat. But the reality – as the Treasury has admitted privately for some time – is that the Universal Credit will never be wholly implemented. The pilot schemes – one of which, in Hammersmith, I have visited myself – are little more than Potemkin set-ups. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit will never be rolled out in full. The savings from switching from tax credits to Universal Credit will never materialise.

The £12bn is smaller, too, than it was this time last week. Instead of cutting £12bn from the welfare budget by 2017-8, the government will instead cut £12bn by the end of the parliament – a much smaller task.

That’s not to say that the cuts to departmental spending and welfare will be painless – far from it. Employment Support Allowance – what used to be called incapacity benefit and severe disablement benefit – will be cut down to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance, while the government will erect further hurdles to claimants. Cuts to departmental spending will mean a further reduction in the numbers of public sector workers.  But it will be some way short of the reductions in welfare spending required to hit Osborne’s deficit reduction timetable.

So, where’s the money coming from? The answer is nowhere. What we'll instead get is five more years of the same: increasing household debt, austerity largely concentrated on the poorest, and yet more borrowing. As the last five years proved, the Conservatives don’t need to close the deficit to be re-elected. In fact, it may be that having the need to “finish the job” as a stick to beat Labour with actually helped the Tories in May. They have neither an economic imperative nor a political one to close the deficit. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.