Categories Of Rape?

The understandably emotive issue of rape is in the news today because Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has stated his viewpoint that it is morally correct for some rapists to get different sentences from others. It was during a radio interview where the host suggested that quite simply, “rape is rape”. Clarke said it wasn’t because a predatory rapist who abducts a woman and subjects her to sexual violence is much worse than someone who has consensual sex with a person under the age of sexual consent. Personally, I think Ken Clarke is spot on; the context of rape should always be taken into account, and this does not have to mean that the seriousness of the crime would be in any way diminished. Yet since his comments, Ed Miliband has called for Clarke’s resignation, and Clarke has been made to clarify / toughen his comments in various interviews.
I have two main problems with the rather hysterical response that has been generated by Clarke’s original comments. First, I honestly think that we should stop using the term ‘rapist’ to describe someone having consensual sex with a person under sixteen years of age. The age of sexual consent is an arbitrary decision which changes from one country to another - it is thirteen in Japan, and twenty-one in some American states. As much as I appreciate that the law needs to be enforced and underage sex has to be punished in some way, it is not an act of rape, which the Oxford English Dictionary says has to entail “forcing another person…against their will”. And second, this furore has all come about because the Conservative Party want to reduce all criminal sentences by 50% if the offender pleads guilty; a ridiculous proposal considering they already get a reduction of a third which is quite enough incentive for someone to plead guilty. Quite who David Cameron thinks this policy is going to appeal to is beyond me. So let’s focus our bile on him and his policies rather than the more knowledgeable Justice Secretary.

Unnecessary Aid

Today the Minister for Defence, Dr Liam Fox, had an email leaked which stated his opposition to the budget for overseas aid becoming set in law at 0.7% of Britain’s gross national income. Downing Street is seemingly disgruntled by this leak, but I have to ask the question: why shouldn’t Dr Fox voice this objection? It seems perfectly reasonable to me when virtually all other government departments are having to cut their budgets due to the deficit crisis. Since when is international aid considered to be so much more important than domestic affairs? The only other main department which is being financially ring-fenced is health, but even that is having to endure the prospect of radical right-wing reform. And overseas aid from Britain was only 0.52% in 2009, so apparently other countries are worthy of a budgetary increase in these fiscally restrictive times!
Another serious problem occurs when we consider which countries are getting most of our aid. If I were feeling flippant, I would say that Pakistan doesn’t deserve much at the moment after having singularly failed to detect Osama Bin Laden’s fortified compound for over five years! But unfortunately, there is a much more disturbing receiver of British taxpayers’ money: the Democratic Republic of Congo. I’ve half a mind to put the word Democratic in inverted commas, because the continuing sexual violence that takes place by militias in that country is probably the worst in the world; and recent wars in DR Congo have created the deadliest conflict since World War II, with 5.4million people being slaughtered. Why should they get any of our money?!
Finally, Britain now spends more on international development than on the environment, energy and sport combined (and that’s with the Olympics approaching!). And even though 0.7% is the figure that has long been favoured by the UN, it is not implemented by many countries. The US, the richest country in the world, only provides 0.21%, and Italy can only be bothered to contribute 0.16%, so why should we have to foot the bill? Therefore I think Dr Fox is absolutely correct to raise this issue, as many more people should in the near future.

Vote For The Alternative

Tomorrow the British public will go to the ballot box for a referendum on electoral reform. Most people, I suspect, won’t actually vote at all, either because of a general disaffection with politics or because the condescending metaphorical bickering between the two camps has put them off (referring to the choices in terms of foodstuffs or sporting events has been bordering on the ridiculous at times). Personally, I urge people to vote Yes to the Alternative Vote (AV) for reasons of proportionality. It is too easy under the current first-past-the-post system for political parties to win more parliamentary / council seats when they have not got the majority of the votes; whereas AV, by taking into consideration second preferences of people who voted for other candidates will make sure that any winning candidate has more than 50% of the votes before winning the seat, thereby also ensuring that any aspiring politician has to appeal to a broader range of voters rather than taking any ‘safe’ seat for granted. I realise of course that most right-wingers will vote No because the current system benefits the Conservative Party, and most left-wingers (like myself) will vote Yes because they want to see more opportunities for smaller parties to have a chance of gaining some influence; but I honestly do believe that AV is a fairer system in distributing people’s votes, so no-one should refuse to vote Yes simply because they dislike Nick Clegg! You can still register your protest against him by (at the same time) voting for a different party in the local council elections. However, I fully expect to be disappointed when the results come in, as polls are currently saying that the right-wing elite in this country is taking control, as always.