I know this is a little out of date - but it's only just come to my attention. Nauseating stuff.
He starts with an odd line "Isn't it time to acknowledge that it's beyond the capacity of the judicial process to deal with date-rape?"
So what should we do? Legalise date rape? So we'd be saying any woman who intentionally spends time alone with any man effectively consents to any and all sexual acts that he has the physical strength to force her into or indeed the cunning to trick her into (perhaps by physically incapacitating her in some way). Does he mean that? So in response women would have to take chaperones with them on all dates/business lunches/dental appointments/etc. Presumably male chaperones since a female chaperone might be construed to have shown up for a three-way date (and therefore three-way date rape). And of course the chaperones couldn't possibly be guys you weren't related to because what if you got stood up on the date - suddenly that's a new date with the chaperone. And don't bother telling me you should stick with people you trust - because statistics show people you trust do you a lot more harm than people you don't trust! So instead you'd have to pick someone you couldn't be dating - your dad or brother for instance...
Effectively you'd be restricted to never leaving the house without a close male relative. And imagine how many other social ills can be cured simply by LIVING UNDER THE TALEBAN!
In any case the idea that prosecution rates don't seem to be too hot so lets give up is hardly the approach. I mean Harold Shipman killed a lot of older women, it must be really hard to tell if a doctor is quietly poisoning some of his/her infirm patients. So should we legalise doctors murdering their patients? No we should take extra steps to prevent it.
He goes on to explain how all the measures attempted or called for are unfair or unworkable. For instance:
"If evidence about an accuser's lifestyle is ruled impermissible, jurors are left wondering. Might a supposed victim's behaviour indeed have seemed to imply consent? A victim whose lifestyle might have implied the opposite is denied the opportunity to get this across."
No - the point is that a victim's behaviour DOES NOT, CANNOT, and WILL NEVER imply consent. Consent is a process that is entirely specific to the individual situation. Having willingly slept with all ten outfield players from the local football team is not consent for the goalie to do whatever he wants to you. Defences in the past have tried to bias the jury by presenting the victim as promiscuous. Which doesn't seem to hold much water, what is a defence lawyer said "Your honour, the alleged victim often gave money to charity" and the jury would then acquit a poor person accused of robbing them!
And then he goes on what can only be described as a victim-blaming spree...
"When our houses are burgled, we're hardly more likely than rape victims to see the intruder end up behind bars. So what do we do? We fit locks to our doors and windows. We keep our valuables out of sight."
The low prosecution rate for burglary exists because often the perpetrators leave the premises without being seen by the victims or other witnesses, who may be asleep or not at home. We might however find that prosecution rates among those who know the name and address of their burglar are rather more impressive. And as to keeping valuables out of sight, we already know that rape is a crime of violence, rather than of sexual attraction. So-called "provocative dress" affects nothing. Is he calling for chastity belts? Or for women to disguise themselves as men so they're not seen as "available" for rape?
But of course his main point is that feminists are doing it all wrong!
"The insistence of feminist activists that the courts must provide the only solution to rape is surely political. They want a demonstration that the state backs women against men. Yet, in perpetuating the idea that women have no part to play in securing their own safety, campaigners are doing them no favours."
Like every feminist in the universe I think no rape is a better situation than lots of rape with a decent prosecution system. I think educating men and women about their rights and responsibilities is vital. I think a lot could be done, for instance, to address the media messages being sent out to men and women on the subject. Teaching women that rape is their fault and therefore men that they have a "right to rape" is not on my agenda however.
How telling then that he characterises feminism as wanting the state to side with women against men. On the contrary, feminism wants an end to any sense of there being an ongoing conflict between the sexes. Radically in this case they want to end the horror of rape.
And how is telling women that they shouldn't allow their lives to be ruled by fear, paranoia and self-blame somehow "doing them no favours"? Telling rape victims that they have only themselves to blame doesn't strike me as a big favour.
Who allows nasty pieces of work like that into print?