-Caveat Lector- Comment http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,887300,00.html Whose sex life is it anyway?
Only a state that likes locking up people would dream up even more sexual offences Carol Sarler Sunday February 2, 2003 The Observer On Christmas Day, some 30,000ft in the air, the darkened plane was flying its cargo of sleeping passengers when my daughter woke and sneaked silently towards the toilet. As she rounded the curtain, she came upon two of the cabin crew - how shall we put this? - sexually engaged. Blushes all round, and she came back with a huge grin; heck, it's Christmas, innit? We must be glad, now, that they made it in time. Under the Government's new Sexual Offences Bill, published on Thursday, there is a whole host of spanking new crimes which include sex in public places (complete with jail term for miscreant) and , for the first time, 'voyeurism' becomes a specific offence (jail for that, too). We might therefore assume that someone with an affection for the sound of the slamming of cell doors could have hit bingo: both crew, plus my daughter, three for the price of one. Granted, that is an exaggeration. Nevertheless, the Bill does read like a charter for people who like to lock up other people; among the supporters is Home Secretary David Blunkett. Of course one has to agree with Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes, that 'those who offend against children and vulnerable adults must receive the strongest penalties'. But among such worthy provisions, the Bill scatters prohibitions whose enforcement will prove at best unworkable and at worst unjust. For instance, someone who 'knows or is reckless about whether they can be seen having sex is guilty of an offence', an example being that having sex in a back garden which can be seen from the street would be a crime. So: what if they can be seen from the street... with a pair of binoculars? What if they plant a bush... but - crikey! - their bare and conjoined feet stick out behind it? Gay sex in public lavatories will be OK, but only if the cubicle door is closed. Memorandum to George Michael, perhaps - but you can place bets now for an amendment regarding sound effects. Incest will be extended to cover not just blood relatives but also foster and adoptive parents and live- in partners; well, there's an end to British visits for Woody Allen and Soon- Yi. Bestiality becomes another 'specific offence' - even though the RSPCA has always taken a rather stern line on it, bringing prosecutions last year - as does necrophilia which, frankly, has never really had great press anyway. So why bother unless, one must ask again, you want to reinforce your image as people who like to lock up other people? Predictably, the main propulsion towards this visible legal muscle - and the hard core of the Bill itself - comes from a noisy lobby alarmed by the current rate of rape convictions, a rate that the Government wishes to see 'improved' (a value-laden term that offers cold comfort to the more than 20 men each week who face the ordeal of remand before standing trial, scrutinised by family, friends and colleagues, and then being found not guilty and left to pick up the pieces). The figure most vigorously bandied is that the conviction rate in 1985 was 25 per cent but only 7 per cent in 2000. The 7 per cent, however, is misleading in that it dates from complaint and not from trial. Only a minority of reported rapes get to court; the rest fall to attrition at the hands of police or Crown Prosecution Service, or to the alleged victim un- alleging herself, courtesy of a change of heart or memory. Of the reported rapes that are tried, 30 per cent result in conviction; not quite as tremulously small a figure as the 7 per cent, though it still vexes many of the feminist persuasion, given that in 1985 it was more than double that. What they ignore is that the circumstances laid before a jury today are different from those of two decades ago. An increase in the incidence of 'date rape' reports means an increase in trials that hinge entirely upon the issue of consent; it is noteworthy that conviction in stranger-rape cases has remained constant. Yet instead of following the considered suggestions that this difficulty might be overcome by making 'date rape' a separate, lesser crime for which a jury might feel more comfortable convicting with fewer, lesser lockings- up, the Bill flies in the face of the fundamental principle of British justice and shifts the onus to the defendant to prove 'with sufficient evidence' that he took reasonable steps to ensure his partner consented. How? You'll love this bit: 'It might be evidence from a friend... who was in the next-door room at the time and heard what was going on.' No such friend so handy? Well there you go - another one you can lock up. It is doubtless effectively vote-worthy to promise more souls rotting in more prisons to a Sun readership. But to create new crimes to create new excuses to throw away the key is troubling - most especially given that while the laws may be new the practices they proscribe are not; the only arguably 'new' practice mentioned in the Bill is the use of drug-assisted sexual assaults... and even then, one fancies that the result is much of a muchness with the dastardly, older arts of alcohol and patience combined. It is troubling when a government places itself within the essentially personal; troubling that it overlooks the fact that men and women have, if the expression be pardoned, rubbed along together for a good while, with rules for some being wholly inappropriate for others. But what is most troubling - and most disappointing - of all is that it should be this government, the first ever to be made up entirely of the generation for whom and by whom 'the permissive society' was named. To think: some of us, once, really believed they meant it. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003 Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera- tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sut <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
