Terence Blacker: Speak the truth and be damned
Tuesday, 2 September 2008
In order for any kind of civic virtue to be taken seriously in 2008, some kind of award must be created for it – a prize to remind us all that, in spite of all the terrible things that are going on, some good still exists in the world. There is the Pride of Britain Awards for our teachers, social workers and have-a-go heroes. Winner of Rural Hero of the Year is shortly to be announced.
Here is an idea for a prize that might be a slightly tougher sell: Independent Thinker of the Year. Modern culture likes the idea of intellectual integrity, and approves of people whose pronouncements are against the grain of permissible public opinion, but only in theory. Never has deviating from socially acceptable lines of thought been more likely to provoke outrage. In fact, sometimes it seems that the best way to judge whether a view is worth taking seriously is to look at the response to it: the stupider the reaction, the more worthwhile the original remark.
Over the past few days, Professor George Steiner and Dame Helen Mirren have engaged in some dangerously independent thinking around controversial areas. In an interview with a Spanish newspaper, Steiner suggested that there are different grades of racism. With equal recklessness, Mirren told an interviewer that rape is not always as straightforward as we would like to think.
The Steiner controversy has been the nastier of the two, causing the American writer Bonnie Greer to describe him as "a cranky old man" who "doesn't know what racism is". Steiner had made "some rather lazy and offensive generalisations", according to Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council.
Cranky, lazy, offensive: what exactly had Steiner said to cause all this outrage? "It's very easy to sit here in this room and say 'Racism is horrible'. But ask me the same thing if a Jamaican family moved next door with six children and they play rock and roll music all day ... In all of us, in our children, and to maintain our comfort, if you scratch beneath the surface, many dark areas appear."
Dark areas, lurking beneath the surface, are of course what our society would prefer to ignore. It is better by far to take the stupid option and confuse, as Bonnie Greer did, the identification of racial prejudice with prejudice itself. Steiner had spoken about an imagined situation with a Jamaican family: ergo, he was being offensive. He had suggested that, below the usual liberal pieties about race lies something trickier and less easy to recognise: he was cranky and – the ultimate insult – old.
Helen Mirren, being an actress rather than an intellectual, has been treated more respectfully, but has all the same been accused of making "dangerous" remarks by none other than the Solicitor General, Vera Baird. If a woman, undressed and engaging in sexual activity with a man, should say "no" and be ignored, then rape has been committed, Mirren told GQ magazine, but the offence should not always end up in court. "It is one of the subtle parts of the men/women relationship that has to be negotiated and worked out between them."
Life, Steiner and Mirren are saying in their different ways, is complicated. it is easy to pay lip-service to the great contemporary pieties of the day, but a true grown-up will recognise that, beyond easy, unquestioning outrage, in those dark areas of human behaviour, the reality is open to nuance and complexity. If that is crankiness, we need more of it.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
43 Comments
"But you're right, rape is about power, not sex."
I didn't say that Sara as you well know and totally reject the orthodox feminist views you parrot on here.
Rape is about sex, sometimes also with power, but often just sex. It is an animal instinct and men of lower status (who women reject and mock) are more likely to be convicted and imprisoned for it.
But I know what all the sisterhood rants about - just don't accept it. Do you ever think for yourself Sara or do you just swallow Greer and Dworkin pills every morning?
Feminists demanding unreasonable and unrealistic conditions to sex is ALL about their demanding power over men. It is also unrealistic to expect no rape to exist so will give the sisterhood a stick hit men over the head with - for ever and always. I have often found feminists to be rathr messed up and insecure with issues aplenty re men.
Posted by Pinko | 02.09.08, 18:09 GMT
"do you realised how damaging that attitude is if she was, in fact, telling the truth? "
Get over yourself! Do you realise hoe stoopid and naive you are automatically believing anything anyone says on a message board!?
Not my responsibility, in any single tiny way. This is a message board so is not the place for group hugs or counselling.
And perhaps your sympathy for her is just because she's female? Would you sympathise with a man like that and assume he was telling the truth about false accusations of rape from a woman in his past?
I am speaking the truth and going against the feminist and PC orthodoxy - so like Helen Mirren will be damned by you presumably. Never been a sheep though...
Posted by Pinko | 02.09.08, 18:01 GMT
Sam - it is the accused being tried, though and if the accused is found not guilty it does not mean that the accuser is guilty of false accusations - it could be that there was not enough evidence.
The same way that if someone is found guilty of rape it does not necessarily mean the accuser is not guilty of false accusation. I reckon all accusations should be brought up if they are on record, but I'll stick to anonymity for both if we're bargaining!
I think ususally, Pinko, the removal of consent is in the situation to which Dame Helen referred where something is consentedto, but not everything, ifyuo see what I mean.
But you're right, rape is about power, not sex.
Posted by Sara | 02.09.08, 18:00 GMT
I cannot stand Bonnie Greer and I am glad she gets little telly work- she just adores the sound of her own voice ...
Posted by Binky | 02.09.08, 17:56 GMT
Sara I said she COULD be lying and you ASSUMED she was telling the truth when she said she'd been raped. Who's the ASS then eh? We heard nothing from the accused man either, as usual: grey areas and perceptions and misunderstanding are very common.
Why do people put words in others' mouth on here all the time - you imagine what I said to contrast it (these imaginery views) with your argument. Deliberate or accidental? Whatever - I didn't give consent for you to do this did I?
So Sara you think it's reasonable for a woman who's been having sex with a man and minutes in suddenly demands he withdraws is being reasonable? No, she is being utterly unreasonable - perhaps because she wants POWER over a man - one reason for a lot of the feminist demand here I think. The WOMAN has the power - the man must obey. Lots of women with issues out there maybe...
Accusations against men should perhaps not be brought up if shown false. People DO lie y'know so would that be fair? Really?
Posted by Pinko | 02.09.08, 17:49 GMT
There's nothing I can do about the presumed innocent part, as that is for the general public but if you see below I've mentioned twice that both parties should have the right to anonymity until a verdict is returned. Question the accuser, fine, it may help the jury to understand the relationship between them, past behavious not so sure about, but past accusations in both cases should be brought up.
Well, I assume she wasn't lying, but in any case, rape does happen to peopleso it could have been her, it could ave been anyone, but you assume she was lying and accused her of it, do you realised how damaging that attitude is if she was, in fact, telling the truth?
"Consent can be removed at any time..."
Is actually the law, so maybe tis you who should read some?
Posted by Sara | 02.09.08, 17:40 GMT
/Fair enough, Sam, I'd like to add to that, if I may, previous rape accusations for the accused should be brought up too./
well, not if they were found to be false, surely? There is a world of difference between falsely accusing someone, which is a deliberate action, has a clear mens rea, and casts doubt on the veracity of your claims and being falsely accused, which doesn't. I can see what you're getting at; that if someone has been accused several times but never convicted you might start to wonder what exactly they get up to...
But still. I think I'd settle for legally enforced anonymity for both parties. If we were bargaining. Which we're not.
Posted by sam | 02.09.08, 17:39 GMT
You are a feminist so want equal rights to women so want equal rights for men - so a man should have anonymity, the right to question an accuser, to refer to past accusations and behaviour, to be presumed innocent?
I was criticising the feminist mantra of 'no means no' and the absurd unrealistic ideas of uberfeminists who demand women should have the right to wander anywhere as drunk as they can be without consequences - and see the fact that this is not possible as a reason why all men are b******* and that they are permanent victimes of patriarchy.
"All I've heard you say is accuse a girl...who was raped of making it up,"
Careful Sara - a woman CLAIMED she was raped on here: you assume she was NOT lying. Anyone can claim anything.
"claiming that women make it up, lie and/or are confused about giving consent."
That sometimes happens yes. Pointing that out does not mean denying rape exists.
"Consent can be removed at any time..."
Unreasonable and silly.
Posted by Pinko | 02.09.08, 17:29 GMT
Fair enough, Sam, I'd like to add to that, if I may, previous rape accusations for the accused should be brought up too.
There was one case recently where a woman was jailed for making a false accusation wasn't there?
It is a tricky one though, consent is a grey area anyway (in a lot of cases). I'm not sure if I've ever experienced explicit consent, if you know what I mean! Explicit non-consent is easier to understand.
We can't have 'serial' anything being allowed to get away with it, whether it's a liar falsely accusing, or a rapist thinking they can get away with it!
Posted by Sara | 02.09.08, 17:29 GMT
the main problem with the law on rape trials is that until recently anonymity was granted by law to the accuser - which is right - but it was open season on the accused, which is clearly wrong. It also allowed for trial by media in a few high-profile cases that we can probably all name.
A woman's sexual history should not be an issue, since the fact that she consensually had sex with one, a hundred, or a thousand men, has no bearing on whether she was attacked once.
It should be revealed whether false accusations have been made in the past though. That does have bearing on the likelihood of it being true or not. Moreover, a serial liar should not be given leave to use the resources of the state and taxpayer's money to continually attempt to wreck the lives of others.
Posted by sam | 02.09.08, 17:18 GMT
43 Comments