MPs have recommended anonymity for those accused of sexual offences. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Why rape suspects should not remain anonymous

In ignoring the injustice of bad bailing procedures and instead recommending anonymity for rape suspects, MPs are promoting the fallacy that a man accused of rape is a victim in the same way as a woman who has been raped.

It’s different for rape. Sexual offences are a kind of violent crime, but they are also unlike other crimes of violence in specific and essential ways. And before we can answer the question of why the rules of anonymity around rape allegations are as they are and why they must be defended, we have to understand what that difference is. This is urgent business, because apparently there are a lot of people who don’t get it – in particular, the home affairs select committee, which has recommended anonymity for those accused of sexual offences.

There are at least two reasons to find this recommendation baffling. Firstly, it’s not a new idea: from 1976 until 1988, the accused was granted the same anonymity as the complainant. We have already tried this, and we already know it doesn’t work. Secondly, the Select Committee report was purportedly nothing to do with anonymity – it was actually hearing evidence on the abuse of police bail. Moreover, the witnesses it heard from included two lawyers, one accused man, the Director of Public Prosecutions, a chief constable and no advocates for victims. Anonymity was never within the Committee’s remit.

The Committee’s recommendation is deeply and frighteningly flawed, but likely to be popular: in a YouGov survey from the beginning of this year, 74 per cent of the public agreed with the statement “People accused of rape should have their identities kept secret and not reported by the media unless they are found guilty.” The YouGov results weren’t entirely grim, however: a substantial majority agreed that: “People who have been the victim of rape should have their identities kept secret and not reported by the media.”

In fact, 74 per cent agreed with that assertion. And while they’re not exactly the same 74 per cent who supported anonymity for the accused (unsurprisingly, more women than men support anonymity for victims, and more men than women support anonymity for the accused), there’s clearly a lot of overlap. There’s a widespread belief that a woman who is raped and a man who is accused of rape experience equivalent harms and deserve equivalent protections. The select committee even urges that the legal system should “stop shaming suspects” as though “accused rapist shaming” were a thing in the same line as “slut shaming”.

This belief is wrong, and it demands examination. The act of rape is singularly destructive. Other kinds of violence might harm the body more, but few things can destroy a person as extensively as rape. In her 2009 book The Noughtie Girl’s Guide to Feminism, Ellie Levenson made the astonishing, obscene claim that “we do women an injustice when we say that rape is the worst thing that can happen to a woman. It is, after all, just a penis.” Let’s think about that. Just a penis, pushed into you when you said no. Just your no, ignored, disregarded, swallowed up by the air like nothing. Just your safety in your own skin, obliterated. Just your self, shattered, silenced and torn.

There is nothing inadvertent about the fact that rape does this. It is what rape is supposed to do. Penetration as destruction is built into the grammar of male dominated society. We know this because it is in the language we use: when something is utterly ruined, we call it “fucked” or “screwed”. When we assume mastery over something, human or nonhuman, we say we have “made it our bitch”. The exemplary condition of the woman in this society is to be sexually terrorised into submission.

And this terror is not completed in the individual act of violence, but is repeated over and over through the systematic humiliation of the rape victim. Her behaviour is scrutinised – was she slutty, was she drunk, did she give “the wrong signals”, is she just a liar? Her name is trashed, the whole world seeming to conspire in her rapist’s opinion that her word counts for nothing and her body is not her own anyway.

When a man is accused of rape, none of this happens. The select committee report claims that being accused of rape carries “a particular and very damaging stigma”, but this is simply untrue. Although rape is extraordinarily damaging to the victims, as far as the suspects are concerned, it is no more damaging than any other crime, and there is no reason to treat them differently to suspects in any other cases. A man can be accused of, charged with and even convicted of rape, and after a legal hiatus, his life can resume with minimal disgrace.

This is not to say that those accused of rape do not suffer injustice. Paul Gambaccini, who gave evidence to the Select Committee, was kept on police bail in relation to allegations of historical sex offences for almost a full year, and in that time he was re-bailed six times. This is a heinous condition to place on someone who has not been charged, never mind convicted, of a crime – but it is the abuse of bail that is the wrong here, not the release of Gambaccini’s name. After the police finally decided to take no action, Gambaccini returned to hosting his Radio 2 show. While the investigation was undoubtedly painful and punishingly costly for him, he still had his reputation at the long-overdue end of it.

This is true too for men whose cases make it to court. On 6 Music, you can hear Craig Charles, who was acquitted of rape in 1995 and back in acting roles the next year. Coronation Street star Michael Le Vell was found not guilty of rape in 2013, and returned to the show immediately. It is very difficult to see these men as permanently harmed, and this is as it should be – the purpose of a trial is to determine who is guilty and punish or rehabilitate them accordingly, and those found not guilty of a crime should not be subject to the ad hoc penalties of public ruin.

But in fact, there is so little stigma attached to the status of rapist that even convicted sex offenders are joyfully re-embraced by the public. Mike Tyson, for example, was found guilty of rape in 1992, and has subsequently been valorised with a cameo in knockabout bro-bonding comedy The Hangover. When feminist campaigners and football supporters offered organised resistance to Ched Evans’ return to professional football following his rape conviction, Sheffield United seemed genuinely confused: it simply did not appear to have occurred to the club that there might be something tasteless or ill-conceived about a convicted sex offender having his name roared from the stands every Saturday of the season.

Anonymity allows a woman the possibility of a space in which to rebuild herself. It’s understandable that the men who are accused would prefer to negotiate the legal system in privacy, but in practice, this would simply lead to rapists escaping justice. As Willard Foxton pointed out in an excellent article on this issue from last year, many rapists are serial offenders who can only be convicted because they have been publicly identified, which enables multiple victims to come forward and corroborate each other’s accounts. The “fly paper tactic” that Keith Vaz MP is so disparaging about in the select committee report is a valid and necessary method of investigation, when used appropriately.

And women are telling the truth about the violence done to them. In 17 months between 2011 and 2012, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape. In the same period, there were only 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape; meanwhile, somewhere in the region of 110,500 people were raped, most of them women (extrapolating from these these figures).

It is astonishing that the select committee has preferred to downplay the transparent injustice of indefinite police bail, ignore the appalling way the judicial system fails victims, and instead promote the fallacy that a man accused of rape is a victim in the same way as a woman who has been raped. Male violence and female accusations are not equal and opposite forces in any sense, and we would never accept such an assumption about any other kind of violent crime. But then, it’s different for rape: no other crime is so indispensably a part of the power that owns the world.

Sarah Ditum is a journalist who writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman and others. Her website is here.

Getty
Show Hide image

Our union backed Brexit, but that doesn't mean scrapping freedom of movement

We can only improve the lives of our members, like those planning stike action at McDonalds, through solidarity.

The campaign to defend and extend free movement – highlighted by the launch of the Labour Campaign for Free Movement this month – is being seen in some circles as a back door strategy to re-run the EU referendum. If that was truly the case, then I don't think Unions like mine (the BFAWU) would be involved, especially as we campaigned to leave the EU ourselves.

In stark contrast to the rhetoric used by many sections of the Leave campaign, our argument wasn’t driven by fear and paranoia about migrant workers. A good number of the BFAWU’s membership is made up of workers not just from the EU, but from all corners of the world. They make a positive contribution to the industry that we represent. These people make a far larger and important contribution to our society and our communities than the wealthy Brexiteers, who sought to do nothing other than de-humanise them, cheered along by a rabid, right-wing press. 

Those who are calling for end to freedom of movement fail to realise that it’s people, rather than land and borders that makes the world we live in. Division works only in the interest of those that want to hold power, control, influence and wealth. Unfortunately, despite a rich history in terms of where division leads us, a good chunk of the UK population still falls for it. We believe that those who live and work here or in other countries should have their skills recognised and enjoy the same rights as those born in that country, including the democratic right to vote. 

Workers born outside of the UK contribute more than £328 million to the UK economy every day. Our NHS depends on their labour in order to keep it running; the leisure and hospitality industries depend on them in order to function; the food industry (including farming to a degree) is often propped up by their work.

The real architects of our misery and hardship reside in Westminster. It is they who introduced legislation designed to allow bosses to act with impunity and pay poverty wages. The only way we can really improve our lives is not as some would have you believe, by blaming other poor workers from other countries, it is through standing together in solidarity. By organising and combining that we become stronger as our fabulous members are showing through their decision to ballot for strike action in McDonalds.

Our members in McDonalds are both born in the UK and outside the UK, and where the bosses have separated groups of workers by pitting certain nationalities against each other, the workers organised have stood together and fought to win change for all, even organising themed social events to welcome each other in the face of the bosses ‘attempts to create divisions in the workplace.

Our union has held the long term view that we should have a planned economy with an ability to own and control the means of production. Our members saw the EU as a gravy train, working in the interests of wealthy elites and industrial scale tax avoidance. They felt that leaving the EU would give the UK the best opportunity to renationalise our key industries and begin a programme of manufacturing on a scale that would allow us to be self-sufficient and independent while enjoying solid trading relationships with other countries. Obviously, a key component in terms of facilitating this is continued freedom of movement.

Many of our members come from communities that voted to leave the EU. They are a reflection of real life that the movers and shakers in both the Leave and Remain campaigns took for granted. We weren’t surprised by the outcome of the EU referendum; after decades of politicians heaping blame on the EU for everything from the shape of fruit to personal hardship, what else could we possibly expect? However, we cannot allow migrant labour to remain as a political football to give succour to the prejudices of the uninformed. Given the same rights and freedoms as UK citizens, foreign workers have the ability to ensure that the UK actually makes a success of Brexit, one that benefits the many, rather than the few.

Ian Hodon is President of the Bakers and Allied Food Workers Union and founding signatory of the Labour Campaign for Free Movement.