Ched Evans' conviction is overturned. Where do we go from here?

Girls and women who have been raped need to report rape. They need to feel safe, they need to be taken seriously, they need to be treated with dignity and respect. And, at the same time, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is an essential pillar of the criminal justice system of any civilised society.

When it comes to rape statistics, we will never know for sure how many women are raped each year. It is well established that the crime of rape is underreported and, in many cases, girls and women do not realise they have been raped until a long time after the event and, because of the nature of the crime, the physical evidence is long gone and convictions are difficult.

Today, the headlines in relation to the terrible, thoroughly unedifying Ched Evans case, and subsequent overturning of the guilty verdict for rape, focus on the court admitting evidence about the woman's sexual history.

Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act allows for evidence of this nature to be used in rape trials if strict criteria are met, where the evidence pertains to issues of consent and when the sexual behaviour of the complainant is so similar to the events of the trial that the similarity cannot be described as a coincidence.

In the Evans case, two witnesses came forward to testify that the complainant used the words "Fuck me harder" while adopting a position where she was penetrated from behind. One witness said he had sex with her in this manner the night before the incident took place and the other said this happened two weeks after the incident. Evans testified during the retrial that this reflects his experience on the night in question.

What is disturbing is that in the first trial, Evans told the court that he did not speak to the complainant before, during or after sex, yet in the retrial, the wordless encounter suddenly changes to one where she told him to fuck her harder.

There can be no further trials in relation to the events of 29 May 2011 in a Rhyll Premier Inn. And there have been calls to change Section 41 because it might deter future rape victims from coming forward. Given this has been splashed all over the papers, even though Section 41 is seldom applied, it is easy to see how rape victims who have led anything other than a life of saintly chastity may well be put off from coming forward.

But what is truly depressing here is that even if Section 41 did not exist, the treatment of the woman at the centre of the appalling saga is already more than enough to stop girls and women reporting rape. Personally, I find aspects of the text of Section 41 uncomfortable to read but even if it was repealed, I don't think complainants in high profile rape cases will be treated with any more respect.

Trolls have revealed the identity of the complainant in the Ched Evans case online on multiple occasions. Five times now, she has had to change her identity and move away. Twitter has become a particularly repulsive cesspit of misogyny, of loose interpretations of consent and of rape apology. At best, the complainant, waking up as she did with a vile hangover and, according to her testimony, having no recollection of the previous night's events, experience what Katie Roiphe described in her controversial 1994 book, The Morning After, as "regrettable sex".

And a night of regrettable sex, the kind of sex where you are not sure what happened, whether it was at all pleasurable and where you wake up in a pool of your own urine, should not be something that haunts you for the rest of your life. Even if you then make a rape complaint that ends up being overturned at retrial, you do not deserve to be constantly outed online, to be forever on the run, to be hiding your true identity whenever you make new friends or attempt to start a new relationship. The complainant in the Evans case has suffered and will continue to suffer. Anyone who is baying for her blood and demanding she be punished can rest easy. She is being punished on a daily basis.

And she is not alone.

The crime of rape is unique in the way victims are often aggressively targeted in a way that does happen with other crimes. If someone is robbed by someone they know, they're not likely to be asked what they were thinking recklessly letting that person into their house previously so they could see what was worth nicking and where it was kept. But if you're raped by someone you know, especially if you've consented to sex with them before or you're in a relationship with them, you could easily be made to feel as if you were somehow asking for it.

I was sexually assaulted in Dubai in 2006 when I was walking home from a film festival at an art gallery. I couldn't find a taxi so I started to walk, foolishly buying into the myth that it's a completely safe city for women. A man, who was sitting at a bus stop long after the buses had stopped for the night, pulled me off the footpath, put one hand down my neckline, the other up my dress, tore my tights and made a scratch on my chest. I managed to get away by elbowing him in the chest, throwing the burger I was eating at him and ducking under his arm.

I decided to report the crime, partly because I was not actually raped. Thus I knew I'd be safe from facing an adultery charge if the case was ever disproved in a court of law, which is a particularly terrible aspect of UAE law. When I made the initial call to the police, it was answered by an amateur, misogynistic Perry Mason wannabe who asked me what I was wearing, whether I was drunk, why I was walking alone at night and if I was making it all up. Luckily, a friend referred me to a very senior office in Dubai Police who took the case very seriously and was entirely respectful.

My attacker was never caught but I was glad that the incident did not simply wither away as yet another unreported sex attack in Dubai, where I am quite certain the sexual assault and rape statistics are artificially low. And friends who did not live in the UAE scoffed at how backwards it all was, how the Perry Mason wannabe was a disgrace, and asked if it was time I left the country, even though I'd been living there less than a year.

But in wake of the reactions to the Ched Evans case, and of people from across the world apologising for Donald Trump, it is clear there are very few places where girls and women are not made to feel ashamed for reporting sex crimes. There are still plenty of people out there with a very poor grasp of how consent works and are happy to dismiss vile behaviour of men towards girls and women as "locker room banter" or simply boys being boys, alpha men being alpha men.

Alpha men like Ched Evans who is still playing football for a living, is still planning to marry the woman on whom he cheated in a Rhyll hotel room, and is still hailed by many as hero...

Photography by Hessam/Flickr. Posed by a model in no way connected to the Ched Evans trial. 

Some WTF questions for rape apologists post-Steubenville

The tidal wave of stupidity when it comes to discourse about rape has reached critical mass. Just when I thought it was impossible for any more vile, victim-blaming, ignorant tripe to be spewed forth, the Steubenville  rape trial guilty verdict was delivered. While this is an American case, the pathetic and sickening attitudes towards rape and rape victims, and the accompanying under-reporting of such crimes, are, tragically, universal.

Sanity prevailed briefly last year when all the Republicans who said moronic things about rape during the 2012 election campaign failed at the ballot box. After such bullfuckery as abortions resulting from "legitimate rape", women's bodies being able to "shut that thing down" so they wouldn't conceive during rape (Behold! The magic rape-repelling womb...), conceptions via rape being a "gift from God" (Shucks, bad luck if you're a pregnant atheist rape victim...), a "some girls rape easy" remark and some dickhead likening pregnancy out of wedlock to rape, it was heartening to see that such men (and, yes, it was a man in every idiotic instance) were not rewarded by voters.

But now we are back at square one.

Within moments of two "high school footballers" (that all-American euphemism for "fine, fit, promising young men") being found guilty of raping a 16-year-old in the Ohio town of Steubenville, there was an appalling torrent of invective towards the victim. With awful echoes of the Ched Evans case here in the UK, the "Jane Doe" victim's first name was revealed on Twitter along with threats of violence and vengeance. Fox News also managed to air her name.

And like the Ched Evans case, the rape apologists have crawled out from their sorry little holes to blame the victim. Jane Doe's heinous crimes, according to these intellectual bankrupts, include being drunk, not being a virgin, and wearing shorts and fitted top to a party. One particularly awful blog post - which I'm not going to link on my blog because it is too repulsive - added to the mire by saying that being drunk, wearing "immodest" clothes and attending a party all meant she was consenting to sex.

Further fools have displayed a total absence of logic by responding to the Steubenville case with a cry of: "But what about if men get raped?". If a woman is raped, this does not make the rape of a man any less of a crime. This is not how sane people respond to, say, the crime of burglary. "But what about all the men whose houses have been robbed?" Said nobody ever. Male and female rape victims should all feel equally able to come forward and report their attacks without fear or shame. Glad I've cleared that one up.

Meanwhile, two reporters at CNN jumped the shark with Candy Crowley and Poppy Harlow having an on-air conversation that focused on the ruin of the "promising" lives of the rapists rather than the victim. (Here is a petition to sign to call for an on-air apology and here is a link to RAINN, where you can donate to help victims of sexual abuse)

Christ on a cracker, this is making my head explode. I ask the rape apologists these questions:

1. Do you actually understand consent? I realise that Jane Doe was 16, the age of consent for the state of Ohio, but do you seriously believe that a drunken, out-of-it teenager is able to consent to sex?

2. Do you think that women should expect to get raped if they are drunk? Should drunk men also expect to get raped? Or should men simply expect to wake up with something stupid drawn on their face with a Magic Marker if they pass out after too much alcohol? Is it too much to expect that if someone is drunk and incoherent, regardless of gender, that others will look after them, make sure they can get home safely and tuck them into bed to sleep it off without raping them?

3. Also, why do you think you can have it both ways and use drunkenness to both blame the victim and excuse the rapists? Try and answer me that one without sounding like a total douchenozzle.

4. At what point does a woman's outfit cross the line from "modest" to "asking for it"? Should we take rulers to parties to measure skirt length? Is one inch above the knee the equivalent of consent? Two inches? Three, four, five, six? What about necklines? How much cleavage is consent? Then there's the thorny issue of slutty, slutty shorts. Does wearing hot pants mean consent but not sensible, knee-length hiking shorts? How about a test of tightness for tops? Should promising young footballers consider a woman in a spandex top as consenting but not a woman in baggy T-shirt? What if she is wearing a baggy T-shirt with a short skirt? Honestly, this is a minefield...

5. If you truly believe that attending a party equals consent, would you mention this on the invitation next time you throw a party? Does the "party attendance equals consent" notion apply to all parties? Weddings? Bar mitzvahs? Is it only relevant to parties where alcohol is served? Does this mean that if Great Aunty Ethel has a few too many sherries at Christmas, she is asking for it?

6. Can you see already how ridiculous victim-blaming over alcohol consumption, choice of attire and party-attendance is?

7. If you can't see how ridiculous your victim-blaming is, ask yourself this: Why would anyone be interested in having sex with a woman who is barely conscious? What pleasure would one get from such an awful act? Why does the idea of forcing yourself on an inactive participant turn you on?

8. Are you so lacking in empathy that it would actually take the rape of a woman close to you to quit being a rape apologist? I am assuming you are opposed to murder regardless of whether anyone close to you has been murdered or not. Why should rape be any different?

9. Have you dared use the "but these boys were great students and now their lives are ruined!" defence? Surely if they were such role models, they'd know right from wrong by their age, no? In any case, this excuse has been blown out the window with news that one of the convicted rapists is going to appeal on the grounds that his brain isn't fully developed.

10. After all these questions, are you feeling like a creepy moron? I do hope so. Finally, why are you OK with a mentality that treats women no better than the Taliban does, with directives to cover up in case men are overcome with lust? Why are you OK with such an insulting view of men, a view that reduces them to animals unable to exercise any self-control in the presence of drunk women, women in certain outfits or women who have the temerity to attend parties?

If you are still a cretinous rape apologist after careful consideration of my questions, if you are still crying more tears for the ruination of the rapists' lives and not the victim, all I can do is request that you crawl back in your hole and stay away from the outside world. Rapists are to blame for rape. That is all.


Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com



.