Women are NEVER to Blame for Sexual Assault

Notice the length of that dress

It is not the first time I have written a post like this, but due to recent events in the Westminster Parliament, and the reactions of some men, I believe this needs emphasising.

On Friday, 15 June 2018, the UK government attempted to introduce a Bill to make "upskirting" illegal in England and Wales.  This odious practise is using a phone camera to photograph or film up women's skirts.  Many women have been victims of this, including celebrity figures who have been photographed / filmed getting in and out of cars, and those pictures then plastered all over the media.  LBC Radio host Beverley Turner told of exactly that happening to her.  It is also done however by men to ordinary women, either for their own sexual gratification, or the pics / videos then posted on social media.  Upskirting was made illegal by the devolved Scottish Parliament in 2010, and is now considered "Sexual Harm" in Scots Law.

So, 8 years late, you may think that the Conservative Party UK Government should be congratulated for trying to extend this to England and Wales.  And so they would have been, had one of their own backbenchers, Sir Christopher Chope MP, not blocked the Bill from proceeding, he claims due to Bills not being discussed properly in parliament.  Prime Minister Theresa May, a woman (I think), said she was "disappointed" at his actions.  Disappointed that perverts and sleazy paparazzi 'journalists' (I use the word lightly) are not stopped from their disgusting behaviour?  Really, Theresa?  As a woman you are "disappointed"?  That's got to be the most bizarre use of that word since Edward Teller, father of the H-Bomb, was "disappointed" to learn he couldn't produce a 'doomsday' bomb whose chain reaction would not stop.

Of course, it had to happen that some men would try "blame the victim" on this story, trying to claim that women would not get upskirted if they wore more conservative dress.  Not least among them was Nick Freeman, a lawyer known as "Mister Loophole", due to the number of obviously guilty clients he has helped walk free from courtrooms through legal loopholes; something he is so proud of doing that he actually uses i as his Twitter name.  Okay, by doing things like that, we can already see that Nick Freeman is a contemptible poor excuse for a human being.  However, in responding to Chris Chope's intervention, he really sank to the bottom of the polluted pool he inhabits.  He Tweeted "Whilst this is totally unacceptable conduct, if women assumed some responsibility for their attire, they would not be in jeopardy."

That's right, folks, Nick Freeman totally blamed women for upskirting.

Freeman's odious Tweet drew a lot of flak from people, not least from one young woman who put him firmly in his place.  She replied "what an ignorant and thoughtless comment. Upskirting can quite easily happen even when women dress conservatively... but the responsibility still lies with the woman? This is for sure one of the top 3 stupidest comments you’ve ever made."

Well said that woman for making such a valid and important comment.  And it was all the more important because it actually started "Get real dad," and was posted by none other than Sophie Freeman ~ Nick Freeman's own daughter.

So was Nick Freeman at all moved or contrite for his comments having been called out by his daughter?  Not one bit of it.  In fact he replied "Sophie, firstly it's most stupid and not stupidest. Secondly, please read the articles in the Press which amplify my views."  That's right folks.  Far from apologising and standing by his own flesh and blood, Nick Freeman instead chose to arrogantly deride her command of English on a public forum (in which he is actually incorrect), and tried to defend himself by referring her to press articles.  Like the media in the UK have ever been a bastion of women's rights.

I'm not a parent myself, but it seems to me that when any daddy seeks to deride his own little girl in public, he has not only completely failed as a father, but ultimately as a human being.  Shame on you, Mr Freeman.

I bring in the Twitter spat between Nick and Sophie Freeman as it underlines the entire patriarchal attitude to sexual assault upon women; that they were somehow "asking for it", and will willingly shout down and mock anyone who disagrees with their ignorant views.  And their views are ignorant.  The age old mantra of women would not be assaulted if they did not wear provocative clothing / dressed more conservatively, simply does not hold up to even the slightest scrutiny.

First you have to ask what constitutes "provocative" clothing.  If a woman is dressed up to the point that she looks "sexy", if that 'provokes' some men, guess what?  That's not the woman's fault or doing.  For all anyone knows she may have dressed like that for her boyfriend or husband.  Indeed, who is to say she has not a lesbian who has dressed alluringly for her girlfriend / wife?  Or here's a bizarre idea, she may have merely dressed like that for her own self-esteem; to make herself look good and feel good as a result.  Regardless of gender, we all do that.  Go on, admit it.  If you are going out, the chances are you will put on nice clothes which make you look good, and that makes you feel good as a result.  And that is important, as it boosts your confidence.

And even if a woman is dressed up and "on the pull", that does not mean she is about to jump into bed with just any man, and it is not a green light for any man to sexually assault her - no matter what Jordan Peterson and the incels would have you believe.  Some things are just off limits, and that includes up any woman's skirt or dress.

Then the reverse of the above is what does society deem as "conservative" dress?  The strict, "Tweedy" look?  Or women in no-nonsense A-line skirts, white blouses, and "death before dishonour" granny pants?  Sorry (not sorry) to burst your bubbles, but there are actually guys who get off on that, and imagine being dominated by a strict woman in such attire, while other men see such women as a "challenge".  How about uniforms?  Could there be anything more 'conservative'?  A quick look through the Ann Summers website will reveal all sorts of uniforms being sold for sexual roleplay.  Or when it comes to younger girls, what of 'conservative' school uniforms?  Except that ever since cartoonist Gerald Scarfe produced his first St Trinian's cartoons in the 1950s, and the movies which subsequently followed based upon them, school uniforms have been seen as "sexy".  The Britney Spears song "Hit Me Baby, One More Time" even had a video based on that very premise, and again, "sexy" school uniforms are sold for sexual roleplay.  Due to the popularity of such, one will even easily find porn based around girls dressed in school uniforms.  Even nuns are not immune from this, and there has for decades been an entire section of the porn industry devoted to women dressed in nun's habits - as well as such being sold for roleplay.  It should come as no surprise to anyone that there is nowadays even a section of the porn industry devoted to women in Islamic dress, such as hajibs, niqabs, and even burqas.

In the 1970s and 1980s, some feminists sought to cover up their bodies by wearing the most unshapely and 'unattractive' clothing possible.  This included the habit of women wearing denim or serge workers overalls.  Did that stop men from wolf whistling and shouting lewd comments to them?  Not a bit of it.  They really shouldn't have bothered, should not have had to bother, and in fact, by dressing like that, those women were playing right into the "dress conservatively" rhetoric.  And what happened then?  The fashion houses sat up and took notice, and started producing figure-hugging "overalls", to make them more "sexy", and this in turn led to that abject horror of 1980s women's fashion, the jumpsuit.  But even those did not stop women attracting the unwanted attention of sleazy men.

Here are the facts; girls and women are sexually assaulted and raped from tiny babies to the very elderly, and all ages in-between, wearing all sorts of clothing.  What then is provoking men?  Damn those sexy pull-ups and, and those erotic surgical stockings!  Even Christian nuns and Muslim women in full burqa are sexually assaulted and raped.  The only logical conclusion one can draw from that is that attire is not and never was a factor in sexual assault.

Should anyone still disagree with any or all of the above, then ask yourself this; what are men wearing that is so very alluring, so sexy, so provocative, when they are the victims of male rape?  Are those men somehow asking for it?  Are they just 'sluts' who will sleep with any man, and as such the actions of the rapist are somehow justified?

Sexual assault and rape are not down to attire; they are down to toxic masculinity.  While many will think of the sexual aspects of women being approached, wolf-whistled, have lewd comments shouted at her in public, being upskirted, sexually assaulted, and / or raped, they ignore the more important motives behind all of these; dominance and control.  Any abuse - be it verbal, psychological, physical, or sexual - has one thing in common; the abuser is seeking power over someone less able to defend themselves, to humiliate them, and thereby to control them.  The abuser is at heart a bully, and in the nature of every bully, a coward.  Some men abuse women not only because they cannot control their hormones, but also because they fear their masculinity being brought into question.  The men on the building site will all join in shouting lewd comments at women, because if one does not, then he is immediately not one of the blokes.  That is the thin end of the wedge, and it grows from there to men thinking they can treat women - any woman - any way they want, and often do so to "prove" themselves as men.

And you guys can deny this all you want, but the very reason I write this, is because as a man I have seen and heard it for myself, many times.  Even when some men are rebuffed, or think women are unavailable to them, they will condemn them as "frumps", "frigid", or even lesbians - which of course brings in the whole homophobia aspect of toxic masculinity.  I well recall that there used to be a TV advert for a chocolate bar on TV, which showed two women jogging.  It came on a TV in a pub once, and a bloke sitting next to me immediately exclaimed "Lesbians!"  There you have it; women cannot even go for a bloody jog together, but if a man is not there, they are immediately "Lesbians!" - I kid you not.  But of course, were it two - or more - men together, that would never be "Gay", would it?  Heaven forfend!  Just some of the fellas being real men and enjoying blokish camaraderie.

But if any guys still wish to deny this, let us assume it was any woman you are close to who was treated by other men as objects.  If it were your wife or girlfriend, mother, sister, daughter, aunt, niece, or a female friend who was upskirted, and had the photos plastered all over the internet, who would you blame?  The woman, or the sickening pervert who did it?

As a Scot, when I posted articles about upskirting on Facebook, I had friends ask me "What about upkilting?"  Well, my reply to that was that while it would still be an offence to do that, if it were a woman doing it, no doubt the man would laugh it off, but then it is not men who have to be constantly aware of what they are wearing, where they go, at what times, and what may happen to them.  It is only women who need worry about that, and that is down not to them, but to toxic masculinity which creates that situation.

I certainly do hope that the UK government get upskirting banned in England and Wales.  For as we have already agreed in Scotland, it does constitute sexual harm, and the posting of photos and videos online merely serves to underline the control aspect allied to it.

The simple fact is that every woman and girl should be able to go where she wants, when she wants, wearing whatever she wants, without the unwanted attention of testosterone-filled idiots with fragile egos, who see women not as people, but objects for them to do with as they like.  There's a long way to go, but Scotland has already taken a huge step towards making the streets safer for women.  I sincerely hope it spreads to the rest of the UK.

Where shall we deport white British Christian paedophiles to?

On 26 February 2016, a group who groomed 15 teenage girls, raped, sexually assaulted and prostituted them out under threats of death, were jailed. Arshid Hussain, 40, was jailed for 35 years and his brothers Basharat, 39, and Bannaras, 36, were jailed for 25 and 19 years respectively. Uncle of the brothers, Qurban Ali, 53, who was found guilty of conspiracy to rape and jailed for 10 years.

Associate Karen MacGregor, 59, was jailed for 13 years and Shelley Davies, 40, given an 18 month suspended term for false imprisonment and conspiracy to procure a woman under 21 to become a common prostitute. MacGregor was also convicted of two counts of conspiracy to rape.

It was an appalling case in which the Hussain brothers, who boasted that they “ruled Rotherham”, the English city where they lived and operated their underage prostitute ring for 16 years with girls as young as 11, had a known reputation for violence and pimping, yet police and social services did nothing, allegedly for fear of being branded Islamophobes and racists. It is has been claimed as many as 1400 girls were targeted by the gang in Rotherham and across the county of South Yorkshire.

One day earlier, in the English city of Oxford, Andrew Picard, an 18-year-old student of Eton College, England's top fee-paying school, was convicted of sharing more than indecent images of children on social media. These images included children as young as 2-years-old being raped and even being forced to perform sexual acts with dogs. Picard's sentence? A 10 month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months with a requirement to undergo mental health treatment, after his defence counsel claimed that Picard had “issues” with his sexuality.

The judge, Peter Ross, handing down sentence to Picard stated “This defendant Andrew Picard was a privileged young man. His family are clearly wealthy enough to send him to school in Eton. Quite how you found your way into this unpleasant world Mr Picard, the world of chatrooms and exchanging this material, is not clear to me.”

Without a doubt, the Rotherham case throws up many questions, not least of why and how the Hussain brothers were allowed to get away with their appalling crimes for so very long. Questions have to be asked and people should be brought to book for failure to act (don't hold your breath though).

What is really insidious however is the hypocrisy which has surrounded the Rotherham case, and how the extreme-right, and even the not-so-extreme-right are attempting to use the case to back up their own anti-Islamic bigotry and racism. The Hussain brothers come from a Pakistani background, and their have been calls to deport them to Pakistan. Meanwhile, the anti-Islamic brigade have jumped on the bandwagon, claiming that the root of the Rotherham scandal lies deep within Islamic culture and it's treatment of women as inferior beings.

Okay, granted I do believe there is truth in this. Generally the treatment of women in Islam is utterly appalling. They are indeed seen as inferior to men, treated as little better than slaves in many Islamic cultures, and female genital mutilation (FGM), removal of the clitoris and / or sewing up the vagina, is so widespread in many Islamic societies that there are now some Muslims – including women – in the UK trying to argue for FGM to be carried out surgically, in much the same way that circumcision is carried out on Jewish and Islamic boys (NB Muslims, this is never happening – decent people want all genital mutilation, including circumcision, gone forever). All of this is all the more insidious as men and women are actually considered equal in Islam.  Just as many Christians need to actually read a Bible, a great many Muslims should try actually picking up the Qur'an now and again.

But hold on, notice something else about the Rotherham gang? They were aided and abetted by two white women, British nationals, who are at the least culturally Christian. And then of course we have the appalling case of Andrew Picard, a wealthy, white British national, attending a school which has a strict Christian ethos. Where then would those decrying the Hussain brothers like these three people deported to? And does this mean there is a problem where white “Christian” culture treats women (and children) in the UK? And let me answer that latter question for you with a resounding YES, it most certainly does.

I was listening to a radio broadcast about the Rotherham case, in which the announcer suggested that this treatment of women was inherent in Muslim society, and more or less claimed that all such gangs are Muslim. Whilst the incidence is indeed alarmingly high and needs to be addressed (and not by the government's knee-jerk reaction of removing passports from dual-nationality criminals under anti-terror legislation), to suggest that it is inherent to ALL Islam, and that is wholly Islamic is not only a gross generalisation, it is not only poppycock, it is bigotry.

People-trafficking in Europe is a huge problem, mostly (but not always) carried out by those from eastern European countries, most of whom are white, many of whom are Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian, and devoutly so. Included in this trafficking there are gangs who rape, sexually abuse, and prostitute women and children. The Roma community from Romania and surrounding countries are particularly vulnerable to the traffickers. I said many years ago that the Roma suffered for centuries in imperial days, they suffered under the Nazis, they suffered under the communists, they suffered in the post-communist era, and that if they suffer in the EU, each and every one of us EU citizens carries the responsibility for that. Well, they are suffering in the EU, and the UK along with many other EU countries, is turning a blind eye to the enormity of the evils, including women and children being abused and prostituted,and we all carry that burden.

But then of course, we need not look to Islamic countries, or even to eastern Europe, for one of the biggest paedophile rings in the UK. One which included men who were not merely culturally Christian but many of whom professed to be actively Christian, men, who were all white, all UK nationals, all from privileged and wealthy backgrounds, and a ring which we now know for a fact was indeed covered up. I am speaking of course about the paedophile ring which we now know operated among elected members and peers of the UK government from at least the late 1960s, which successive Prime Ministers were aware of, and not only did nothing to address but must have actively covered up to protect those involved.

I condemn Edward Heath (possibly implicated himself) for his part in that. I condemn Harold Wilson, and his successor, Jim Callaghan, for their part, as I do Margaret Thatcher. And yes, I will also similarly condemn John Major, Tony Blair, and even the present Prime Minister, David Cameron. I do not forget that it was as recently as 2013 that David Cameron described those claiming abuse by MPs in the 1970s as “fantasists”.

So, where would the anti-Islamic bigots like all those involved in the Westminster paedophile ring who are still alive like them deported to? Which part of their Christian culture would they say makes this an inherent problem?

And when one looks at the Westminster paedophile ring, Judge Peter Ross should not be in the least surprised at Andrew Picard, from an equally wealthy and privileged background, becoming involved in the sharing of obscene images of children. More than that, the inference of his statement is that those of such backgrounds do not get involved in paedophilia. That inference is not just wrong, it is not just ignorant, it is not just arrogant and elitist, it is in fact deeply prejudiced, as to say such is to suggest that paedophiles come only from those less privileged.

Paedophilia does not recognise any boundaries; not those of social class, affluence, upbringing, religion (or lack thereof), race, ethnicity, culture, gender, sexuality, bodily or mental ability, or anything else anyone wishes to think up. It cuts across ALL society, with paedophiles coming from all sorts of backgrounds.

And while I am about it, I am equally appalled at Judge Ross in handing down such a paltry sentence, for such a thoroughly disgusting and serious crime, because he was fooled into believing that Picard was “confused” about his sexuality. I don't know where the defence counsel found the psychiatrists and doctors from who made these claims, but I would sincerely suggest they need to go back to school, or like I have done, merely read some research, first on how sexuality forms, then on the sexual abuse of children.

There is a small number of such deluded people who are trying to claim that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, no different from being heterosexual, homosexual, bi, pansexual or asexual. Yet only a scan through even the easiest-reading cases of psychologists dealing with sexual abuse, be it of children or adults, will tell you that it is a learned sexual behaviour. Our sexuality, whatever that may be, is decided in the womb. Science has not yet found the "gay gene", but points strongly towards it. The sexual abuser however is not born with that abuse imbued in their psyche, rather they learn it as they grow.

This is a very important distinction. For when people try to claim that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, it merely enables those who ignorantly (or even not so ignorantly) try to claim that LBGT+ people are all perverts and child abusers. It is actually a fact that the overwhelming majority of child abusers are cisgender heterosexual men, with cishet women coming second, although the incidence is far lower. LGBT+ people are in fact WAY down at the bottom of the list. Even most male paedophiles who prey upon little boys are otherwise heterosexual. But of course, the ignorant, bigoted public see an LGBT+ person and immediately make generalisations – just as they do with Asian Muslims. In fact, and bear this sobering thought in mind, more women and children (and men in fact) are abused in the UK – sexually, physically, verbally, and psychologically – by white, cisgender, heterosexual, male, UK nationals than any other demographic within UK society; many, many more.

Of course, the anti-Islamic mindset does not want to hear or face up to these facts, but facts they are. A similar case was that of the sexual abuse, rape and robbery of hundreds of women in Cologne and other cities in Germany, which was immediately put down to Islamic asylum seekers from Syria. To date, not one Syrian refugee, not one Muslim, anywhere in Germany, has been arrested for one of these attacks, and after the event, there were in fact many German women who said that sexual abuse of women in Germany, culturally very Christian (so much so they still do not have same-sex marriage), was endemic and in the main carried out by white, male, German nationals. Inconvenient truths they may be to the bigots, but they remain truths nonetheless.

I am not for one moment being an apologist for Islam, or for the Islamic mindset which does indeed oppress women – and children. Muslims can make all the apologies they want for Mohammed (piss be upon him), but any man who “marries” a 6-year-old and consummates that marriage when the girl is 9-year-old is, by anyone's definition, a paedophile. And I likewise condemn those individual Muslims who take child brides, and the Islamic countries which permit that perversion to happen. Just as I fully condemn those Islamic countries where women who are disobedient to their husbands, who are outspoken, who dare to seek an education and / or a career, or as much as merely show the tiniest bit of flesh, or even be seen outside alone, can be subjected to jail, lashes, having a limb cut off, stoning to death, hanging, or beheading. Some people claim that such countries exhibit a medieval mindset in their treatment of women. They do not – even in medieval Europe, women were never subjected to such treatment, but actually enjoyed many rights. In fact, in Scotland and England, noblewomen who were widowed were expected to, and did, raise and lead armies when needed. So, the two are actually incomparable and that treatment of women is indeed unique to the fundamentalist Islamic mindset; and note that I say “fundamentalist” there, for that is another important distinction to make. And do I believe that the Asians in the Rotherham gang should be deported after their sentences? I would happily pack their cases myself.

But neither does that absolve the treatment of women and children in white, western, culturally Christian society. It is sobering to reflect that it is only since as recently as 1976 in the UK that the law has deemed it is indeed possible for a husband to rape his wife. Before then it was deemed that a husband was merely taking his conjugal rights, and alarmingly, there are indeed men, and sadder still, women who to this day hold that mindset, believing that their god gave men and women different roles. So yes, I equally condemn such people. But then I also condemn those, right here in Scotland, from the Free Church of Scotland (the Wee Frees) and the Free Presbyterian Church (the Wee Wee Frees) who have at times called for the stoning of adulterers to be legalised “because it is biblical”. Again, those of that mindset are religious fundamentalists, and equally as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalists. They are in effect a Scottish Presbyterian Taliban.

As far as paedophilia is concerned, I condemn all white, culturally Christian, UK society which kept cases of child abuse covered up for so very long, which continues to cover up, make excuses for, underplays and downright dismisses cases of child sexual abuse to this day, and have not only destroyed thousands, millions, of lives, but are continuing to do so. Look at the case of BBC disc jockey, TV presenter, health promoter and charity worker, Jimmy Saville, who was first given an OBE and later a knighthood for his charity work. With people still coming forward, Saville used his BBC position and celebrity status to abuse countless children and teens, including those physically and mentally disabled. The number of victims ranges from 450 to 1000, possibly making him the most prolific paedophile of all time. There are many today from inside the television industry who claim that Saville's abuse of kids and young people was an open secret, and nobody did anything about it, because of his celebrity status. A BBC enquiry claims that they failed to act on 73 cases involving Jimmy Saville. 73 out of a possible 1000, over 30 years? And the band played “Believe it if you Like”. Ah, but Sir Jimmy was a good Roman Catholic.

Which brings me onto the Roman Catholic Church, and neither do I nor shall I shy away from a church which not only has innumerable members of clergy who have abused children, but which has actively protected paedophiles, and even has the gall, right up to and including the present Pope, to call upon the survivors of clerical sexual abuse to 'forgive' their abusers. No way, Frankie. That is not only enabling abusers, it is not only absolving them of their wrongdoings, it puts the ball in the abuser's court and effectively blames the victim – a tactic very common among paedophiles and other abusers. It is they who need to not merely ask but beg forgiveness from their victims.

Does that mean I am being bigoted and suggesting that paedophilia is endemic in the RC Church? Not for one moment. I am well aware that the majority of RC clergy the world over are good, well-meaning people, working hard for their communities. But if I am going to condemn one faith, the largest Christian church in the world need not believe it is ever going to get a free ride from me. If you give criticism, be prepared to take it as well.

Paedophilia at it's root, believe it or not, is not even sexually-driven. Like all and any abuse, the sexual abuse of children is carried out by inadequate individuals, usually but not always cishet men, who seek power over others and thereby single out those least able to defend themselves. The driving force behind paedophilia is the need to control, which they do by humiliating their victims. The paedophile, like any other abuser, is in fact a bully, and in the nature of the bully, a coward at heart. When we come to understand that, we see that there is no other driving force, from any other influences within the paedophile's life or background. As I said before, paedophilia recognises no boundaries and it is a learned sexual behaviour. Comparing the cases of the Rotherham gang and Andrew Picard (and Jimmy Saville, Cyril Smith, Greville Janner, Rolf Harris, etc, etc) makes that plainly obvious.

Those who shout loudest about the Rotherham case, and other such cases of Asians who may be (but are not always) Muslims abusing children claim to be speaking out for the victims. They are not. Far from it, they use these cases to promote their own bigoted agenda against Muslims in particular, and Asians in general. That they do so, they not only use the survivors of abuse, they not only dishonour them, they are in fact by using these victims for their own means, actually abusing them even further.

Those who truly care about the survivors of Rotheram, or any other child abuse, would never sink to any such level.

Many thanks to NeonZero for making the attached image "Toddler in Fright" available free to use on Wikimedia Commons.