Harriet Harman is trying (again) to increase convictions for rape. The problem is that the authoritarian left in general, and Harriet Harperson specifically, hate men. She showed it recently, with her stupid and sexist statements, and even some irony (a female-led team was at the core of credit default swaps). Therefore their solutions are often attacks on men, rather than practical means of addressing the issue.
Women can claim rape without themselves ever being identified. Rape is a unique crime, in that typically there are no witnesses and it can be so similar to perfectly legitimate behaviour that it is almost impossible to distinguish scientifically. This allows another crime, potentially with equally devastating consequences, a crime even more rarely punished and whose victims Harriet Harman will never champion.
Women falsely accuse men of rape.
That is a statement that would cause howls of outrage among some in the left, especially the authoritarian, feminist left. Not outrage that I am lying (it is objectively true, and I think that few even of them would deny it). It is a truth that dare not be spoken except in regard to a tiny number of specific cases.
There are many reasons given why women will cry rape. The group known as “women” is not a homogenous mass, consisting of people like your friends, wives, sisters, girlfriends, mother, you if you are female. There are some angry, some weird, some odd, some delusional and some mad people out there, and probably half of them are women (hey, maybe I’ll argue one day that most of them are!). Not all of them are politicians. So when I say women cry rape, and they do so for various reasons, with varying levels of intent, I do not cast aspersions on women you know any more than “men rape” casts aspersions on me or men you know.
However there are women who would cry rape, and there is no reason for them not to. There is a miniscule chance of them ever being convicted of this dreadful crime, and they will not be identified.
Women who accuse men of rape are very rarely themselves even threatened with prosecution if it turns out their story is false. Of course if the case is weak that is right. Uniquely difficult as rape is to convict, it is also uniquely difficult to disprove for the very same reasons. When it appears that a woman has lied the police seem very reluctant to investigate, and try to prove the issue. Yet being accused of rape is a horrible position to be in. It is sure to be frightening and massively disruptive of life in the short term, but can also tear apart a life for a man, even a family, for years. In other words it can be as bad as being raped.
Where is this going? Well despite the silence the left would like, everyone knows that woman do falsely accuse men of rape. That means that in court the accuser, often the only eyewitness for the prosecution, has to work very hard to establish credibility, and that credibility is easy to destroy for a defence barrister.
So my solution, Ms Harperson, is two changes that you would revile. Give the accused in a rape case anonymity unless there is a strong, credible suspicion that releasing his name will bring forward more evidence. When a story of rape lacks any credibility the police should investigate the accuser, and if a case is made she (or he) should be prosecuted. Conviction should lead to a heavy sentence.