Scottish newspapers can be very powerful allies to campaigners against sexual violence. With audiences numbering millions daily, and an online archive available in perpetuity for later consultation, the accounts and opinions printed within their pages exert enormous influence in shaping public attitudes on every issue.

And there can be few people who need support and for the truth to be told about their experiences more than rape complainers. Myths and prejudices that blame them for what happened and advance the notion that women frequently lie about having been raped are prevalent and extremely damaging both to their recovery from rape and to their chances of obtaining justice. The Evening Times and many other titles frequently publish accounts of sexual violence, and the difficulties survivors face after rape. These can sometimes really help to raise awareness and challenge the myths and misconceptions that survivors continue to face. A recent article in the Evening Times looked at first glance to be just such a piece, with a graphic account of a young woman’s assault and subsequent barbaric treatment at the hands of the legal system laid out in shocking detail. Subsequently, however, serious doubt has been attached to the veracity of this story, and the Evening Times today offered a “clarification” for the benefit of readers.

In this clarification, the Evening Times apologies not for printing a fabricated account but for their failure to subject a woman’s “claims” of rape to “normal scrutiny or checks”. However this story came about – and its origins are very unclear – the Evening Times has perpetuated the myth that women can’t be trusted when they speak out about being raped.  And that’s the last thing anyone interested in justice for rape survivors needs.

Nadine Dorries, MP for mid-Bedfordshire, has raised eyebrows recently with her proposal that girls, and not boys, should receive mandatory abstinence-based sex education. The notion that girls should act as the gatekeepers for sexual interaction is as retrograde as it is absurd, and her bill has attracted derision from those working with young people, sexual and reproductive health organisations, and opposition MPs`. Chris Bryant MP described it as “the daftest piece of legislation I have ever seen brought forward”.

It is easy to see Dorries, who operates in what might charitably be called the margins of Westminster, as a caricature of an anti-choice, deeply sexist political operator. Her opposition to abortion and comprehensive sex education takes place amid a whirlwind of misrepresentations and evasions. Her demagoguery has undeniable impact, though. Despite her failure to present a shred of evidence in its support, her claim that seven year olds are being taught to put condoms on bananas was faithfully reproduced across a whole range of media outlets.

Her appearance on yesterday’s Vanessa show went beyond pseudo-science, though, in making the outrageous claim that abstinence education could reduce child sexual abuse. According to Dorries, “some of the evidence that I’ve heard is that if a stronger just say no message was given to children in school that there might be an impact on sex abuse. Because a lot of girls, when sex abuse takes place, don’t realise until later that that was a wrong thing to do.”

The idea that girls are somehow responsible for the violence and abuse perpetrated against them is not a new one. We see this attitude represented in the lawyer who described gang rape victims as ‘Lolitas’, in the Glasgow City Councillor who said a nine year old rape victim ‘wanted it to happen’, and in a recent NY Times story which detailed the makeup and clothing an eleven year old gang rape victim wore.

Blaming children, as Dorries does, by suggesting that they are colluding in their own abuse, ignores the reality that responsibility must rest solely on the shoulders of those who perpetrate sexual violence against children. These toxic attitudes pollute our criminal justice system, our political discourse, and our understanding as a society about the catastrophic harms that child abuse does to individuals, families, and communities.

Dorries, a member of the body that frames and shapes the law on sexual violence in England and Wales, must surely consider whether her ideological blinkers allow her to be an effective representative for the abused children, and adult survivors of child abuse, in mid-Bedfordshire.

Efforts to challenge attitudes that blame women for rape are always welcome. But is it the case that opportunities to do this are so scarce that we will welcome them at any price? The current “Slutwalk” craze is a case in point. This began in Canada following remarks made by a policeman who declared that “Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized” and has gone viral in recent weeks, with marches to protest such attitudes taking place in many cities across the globe, accompanied by assertions that it is time to “reclaim” the term “slut”.

It’s great to see such a wave of anger and enthusiasm energizing these efforts, but is the word “slut” really something we want to “reclaim”? Indeed, was it ever something we owned in the first place? It is difficult in the current climate to suggest, without risking accusations of being a killjoy, that it might be time for a little reflection. “Slut” is part of a damaging and diverse arsenal of semantic weaponry that has been used for centuries to assault women verbally – to insult and subordinate us. It is part of the soundtrack to many assaults – and to the violent imagery which characterizes and reinforces the harmful messages of contemporary pornography. Will claiming ownership of that weaponry really allow us to defuse or disarm it?

It is understandable that some women - faced with having this kind of hate filled language thrown at them on a regular basis - would want to find some way of trying to take the power out of it.  The popularity of Slutwalk and the speed with which it has spread across the world demonstrates a real (and very welcome) desire amongst (primarily) young women and men to change attitudes towards women’s sexuality, and to rape.  It’s a great shame though, that this seems to have taken the focus of ‘it’s ok to be a slut’, reassuring women that if we were raped when dressed or behaving ‘sluttily’ it’s not our fault.  Shouldn’t we be a bit more ambitious than this?  Rather than embracing a concept which has been used to control women’s sexuality for centuries, shouldn’t we be mobilizing to reject it altogether?

Let’s keep our message simple, and say it loudly and clearly - clothing doesn’t cause rape, flirting doesn’t cause rape, drinking doesn’t cause rape.  Rapists do.

Strathclyde Police have announced that 2 young men have been arrested in connection with one of the recent rapes in Glasgow city centre. Many people have been shocked at the age of those accused of dragging a woman into a lane in Glasgow city centre and raping her. What it is that could lead to men as young as 14 and 16 carrying out such a horrific crime, and what can we do about it?

Police are describing the number of recent city centre sexual attacks as a ‘spate’. There is something about the brazenness and seeming randomness of the attacks that really brings home the fact that rape is a crime which could happen to anyone. Reaction to stranger rapes such as these tend to fall into two categories – advice to women about how to keep safe, and calls for safety measures such as more CCTV, increased police presence on the streets and gating of lanes. In response to one of the lane rapes, the police advised women not to ‘go off on their own’ on a night out. Fair enough, but how are you supposed to get home if you don’t happen to live with every person you ever socialize with?

Safety measures such as gating lanes after 10pm are definitely worth considering. There are practicalities which would need to be worked through – some of the lanes have pubs or clubs in them – but it is generally the quiet deserted lanes which rapists are using, so there is no reason why this can’t be implemented in a sensible way. Lots of women feel uneasy walking past the lanes in the city centre. If there is a way of improving women’s sense of safety in the city centre, while at the same time limiting the opportunities for rapists to carry out their attacks, then it seems like madness not to do this.

We need to be clear, however, that measures such as advising women not be alone in town, or gating the lanes, are not really addressing the fundamental problem. If someone is determined to rape, and they see women in pairs or a group, they’ll find someone else who is one their own. If the lanes are gated, they’ll find somewhere else. To reduce the actual incidence of rape, we need to look at what it is that creates the mindset of someone who is prepared to commit this kind of crime.  Where does a 14 year old get the idea that it might be acceptable to rape someone? We are not going to tackle this unless we are willing to look at the impact of easily accessibly violent pornography. The average age for young men to access pornography is 11 years old. It would be naïve to think that accessing images of women being raped and humiliated – and linking these images to sexual arousal – is not going to have an impact on young men’s views of women and of what ‘normal’ sexuality is. Most parents would be horrified if they were aware of the kind of images young people are accessing online. If we don’t address this issue, our fear is that we are going to see increasing numbers of young men carrying out these devastating crimes.

Tell us what you think – what steps do we need to be taking to make women feel safe in the city centre – and to make sure we actually are?

The past week has seen yet another rape in Glasgow city centre, this time of a woman who was assaulted by three men, having been dragged into a back lane after a night out with friends.

The outrage and shock which followed the assault has been compounded by remarks made by Conservative MSP Bill Aitken, in the course of a conversation with the Sunday Herald. Far from expressing concern for the woman’s welfare, or that she could be seized so brazenly, Mr Aitken’s immediate focus centred on her behaviour and the suspicions he ascribed to her geographical location. He was far more inclined to wonder if she had been engaged in prostitution than to worry that she had been very seriously sexually assaulted. When challenged later about what he had said, Mr Aitken at first tried to deny his remarks, but when faced with a transcript, later felt compelled to apologize to the woman and her family.

Sadly his instinct and willingness to call into question the behaviour of a woman who was raped rather than to question what her attackers might have done is very common indeed. Such prejudices are frequently seen in the course of rape trials and are often a major factor in the decisions of the great many women who feel that they cannot report the appalling sexual assaults committed against them. When cases do get to court, the very same prejudices can seriously hamper the justice process for women.

However, where we do not expect to find these views are on the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament, and when we hear them from the mouth of the Convenor of the Committee himself, we really have to ask ourselves if that really is the best we can do for the women of Scotland?

Advice on matters sexual is something many of us are in need of or asked for at some point in our lives. Whether we are looking for reassurance or practical information, there is no doubt that scrutiny or discussion of our most private moments is one of the most difficult and complex subjects of all, and something that requires acute sensitivity in handling. With the best will in the world, opinions voiced will always be subjective, and responses to requests for guidance need careful consideration before they are given.

This is significant enough when it’s a one-to one exchange, but when the forum is that of an advice column in a newspaper or other periodical, the impact of the words of wisdom offered can be multiplied many times over, with everyone who gives even a cursory glance to the matter under discussion & proposed solutions taking something from what is said (and often adding their tuppenceworth in the comments section below).

Operating as the oracle in this context, columnists offering advice on sex and related matters have a serious responsibility on their hands, with consequences potentially far more widespread and profound than those attendant on advice given by football pundits or the Watchdog team. The experts here are responding not only to an individual, but to a personal situation that resonates far beyond the circumstances of the correspondent looking for help.

Whatever is suggested as a solution emanates not simply from a knowledge of fact but from the set of assumptions or worldview that informs it. In taking on board the advice that is offered, readers are often also consumers of the perspective from which it is coming, and need to be aware of that.

Why does this matter? It matters greatly, because the impact of advice disseminated among an extensive readership is not only personal, it is cultural too.

It matters greatly when the views expressed feed into a narrative that prioritises male sexual satisfaction over any consideration for the needs, feelings, health, interests or concerns of women. When this is the perspective from which advice on sex or relationships is coming, it offers not only misguided advice to an individual, but a view of sexual experience that is damaging to women in general, and acts as a corrosive to the sexual autonomy they have struggled towards for hundreds of years – and have still not fully achieved.

Pamela Stephenson’s offering in the Guardian, responding to a reader whose boyfriend can climax only when she is asleep (and is otherwise cold in a sexual context) is a case in point. Although the woman is the one who has written in, her partner’s are the only needs that are considered in the response. “Perhaps he requires his partner to be more passive, for some reason.” Pamela muses, before going on to suggest that her correspondent “First reassure him with something positive you enjoy about his love-making style, then ask him: ‘How might I help you climax?’ “.

There is at no point any acknowledgement or consideration given to the view that his behaviour is problematic for the woman beyond its interruption to her sleep, when in fact it raises many disturbing questions around (among others) the issue of consent.

Advice columnists have a valuable role to play in helping people to navigate the complexities of sexual interaction, and in offering reassurance and clarity around these issues. Part of the skill involved in doing this successfully means being able to deal objectively with a wide range of perspectives and experiences and to offer the prospect of one or more resolutions to the issue at hand. Inevitably, some questions relate to scenarios bordering on or characterized by abuse or exploitation. When this is the case, a clear-sighted and direct opinion from the agony aunt can offer a much needed lifeline. And when the question deals with an issue which confronts young women in intimate relationships on an increasingly regular basis (but might not be the sort of thing they feel comfortable raising even with close friends) the importance of an independent view in helping to reassert women’s autonomy in sexual relationships can be a vital antidote to the pressures of a sexualized culture.

In response to a woman who is uncomfortable because her partner has been pressuring her to agree to them filming themselves having sex, Rowan Pelling leaves no room for doubt:

“It is clear you simply don't share your boyfriend's erotic fantasy about making a sex film, which is understandable and reasonable. Many people feel uncomfortable having their photo taken or being watched while they undress, let alone exposing their most intimate anatomy to the camera lens.

Your boyfriend's comment that you should 'loosen up' appears to be a mutt-headed attempt to persuade you that the great majority of women harbour panting ambitions to be amateur porn stars. But most of us are quite happy to keep our sexual expertise a secret between ourselves, our lover and the bedroom ceiling.

I don't necessarily place all the blame squarely on your man - men's magazines have been propagating this kind of nonsense for years; but it's a great mistake to think of Jordan's or Pamela Anderson's behaviour as normal. It goes without saying that the making of any erotic film should be an entirely consensual activity and it sounds as if you're being emotionally blackmailed.”

Occasionally, in responding to a query, columnists find themselves dealing very directly with the consequences of abuse. In reply to a woman who asks “How can I stop self-harming?” Joan Burnie’s first step is to reject immediately the correspondent’s declaration that she was at fault for being raped at 13 (the woman says the self-harming is to “remind me of how bad I was”) before moving on to point her in the direction of rape crisis for support, and closing with reassurances that her fears that her child will be removed from her on account of her self-harming are unfounded. The message communicated to survivors of sexual violence in this crisp and unequivocal response can counter with one stroke of the pen years worth of doubt, anxiety and self-accusation.

In identifying the true sources of the problems brought to them in these instances, Rowan Pelling and Joan Burnie demonstrate the valuable role the advice columnist can play in challenging a culture which so often removes autonomy from women in the sexual sphere, and creates a climate in which self-questioning or internalized self-blame in the context of abuse or exploitation is common.

The factors that contribute to this culture are diverse and often invisible. But questions like these – and the answers we give to them can play a crucial role in challenging or supporting it. If we encourage those in crisis through the sexual pressures or demands imposed by others to question or change their own behaviour in order to achieve the peace and resolution they seek, we are once more placing the responsibility right back onto the shoulders of women instead of looking at the real sources of the problem.

It is worth remembering that this is something which obstructs women’s chances of obtaining justice in rape trials every day.

Recent weeks have seen public figures such as the Justice Secretary and the Solicitor General describing the often quoted 3% conviction rate for rape as misleading and untrue. An alternative and significantly higher figure of 33% is quoted instead. Who is right?

The 3% conviction rate measures the proportion of rapes reported to the police which lead to a conviction. The figure is derived from the Scottish Government’s two statistical bulletins – Recorded Crime in Scotland and Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts. The 3% conviction rate is calculated by taking the number of reported rapes (for 2008-2009), which was 821, and the number of convictions – 25 – and working out the percentage between these figures – 3%. Most reported rapes don’t lead to a prosecution – from the Scottish Government’s own figures only 10.1% lead to a prosecution. This means that the vast majority of rapes reported to the police in Scotland do not reach court.

It is important, however, to give two health warnings on these figures: firstly, the figures in the two statistical bulletins from which the 3% conviction rate is derived measure slightly different things: the police statistics in the Recorded Crime bulletin measure by offence whereas the court statistics in the Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts bulletin measure by offender. In some circumstances one offender will be responsible for more than one offence, so in this sense the two sets of figures are not directly comparable. Secondly, court statistics are recorded by main offence, so in cases where rape is not the main offence, i.e. where the main offence is murder, a conviction will not be included in the overall number of rape convictions. Although the latter scenario does not cover many rape related offences in Scotland (we do not have significant numbers of joint murder & rape cases each year in Scotland) it is clear that these do represent genuine caveats to the reliability of the 3% figure. However, there is no other source of data available which tells us how many rapes reported to the police lead to a conviction.

The Scottish Government and the Crown Office, when challenging the 3% conviction rate, assert that 33% of rapes indicted to court lead to a conviction. It is crucial to note here that they are not comparing like with like, in that they are taking as their starting point cases indicted to court, not cases reported to the police. That is not to say it is not a valid figure, but it is talking about something completely different. It is important to bear in mind here that only around 10% of cases reported to the police ever reach court – what the 33% conviction rate figure is referring to is what happens to small proportion of cases which reach court, not what happens to all reported rapes.

Why does this matter? The rape crisis movement has at times been criticized for highlighting the very low level of rapes reported to the police which lead to a conviction. Concern has been expressed that focusing on this conviction rate will deter rape survivors from coming forward and reporting their experience. It is important to acknowledge the significant progress that has been made by the Crown Office in how rape is prosecuted, including the introduction of the National Sex Crimes Unit and specialist teams within the fiscal service across the country. It is to be hoped that these positive changes will lead to an increase in our conviction rate, or at the very least an improvement in survivors’ experience of the justice system.

Rape Crisis Scotland believes however that to focus only on what happens to cases which are indicted for court misses entirely the experiences of the vast majority of survivors reporting rape in our country. Is it really of no consequence that around 90% of those reporting rape will never see their case reach court? Is this not a matter of concern which we must focus our attention on? Or do we really think its ok to just write off the vast majority of reported rapes as unprosecutable? Does this not signal something wrong with our justice system if this is the case?

A final question: how can it be after decades of concern about legal responses to rape that we can’t even reliably give the most basic data of how many complaints of rape lead to a conviction?

“We were disgusted to hear this morning that you are selling "The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover’s Code of Conduct" and that you have refused to remove it from your store. As a rape crisis organisation we are contacted daily by survivors to whom child sexual abuse has done untold damage, often under the guise of "love" or some other pretence or delusion that it is some kind of legitimate sexual leaning. Child sexual abuse is no such thing - it is a serious criminal act which ruins lives. And make no mistake about it - child abuse is what this title incites and encourages, and until you remove it from your catalogue, we will no longer be using you as a supplier, and will urge others to do the same.”

This is just the latest in a long line of products stocked by Amazon which promote rape and sexual assault. Previous complaints have resulted in the removal of such items, although it seems that every item must be protested individually as Amazon refuse to take a stand themselves or acknowledge any sense of responsibility in the marketing of these materials. In peddling this criminal trash for profit, Amazon are aiding and abetting those who abuse and exploit women and children the world over. In their willingness to defend the titles like "The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure", they are a contributing to sexual abuse, and it’s time they got a grip and acknowledged that.

We feel convinced their sale of this title must be in breach of the law – what do you think?

If you want to send your own views to Amazon, you can do so at http://amzn.to/bmyt54 or call 0800 496 1081 to make a complaint.

Rape Crisis Scotland

Just when you think you’ve heard it all, a story comes along and blows away any wild ideas you might have about justice being served in rape cases or some hope that the system itself might be in possession of a wider understanding of the complex pressures faced by complainers. Last week, a woman in Powys, North Wales was jailed for eight months for perverting the course of justice following a series of events which reveal nothing more criminal than an entirely natural desperation to stop a prosecution she felt she could not pursue.

Having been pressurized to withdraw an allegation of (six incidences) of rape she had made against her husband by the man she accused and his sister, she decided she could not proceed with the case, and would not be persuaded by police and prosecutors to go on with it. Her initial attempt to stop proceedings cut no ice with police and prosecutors who insisted they would go on with the case, leaving the woman feeling the only option she had left to her was to claim the allegations had been false. The woman was then charged with perverting the course of justice and in her subsequent desperation to avoid prosecution herself admitted this retraction had been false and that the original rape allegations were true.

As a consequence, the tables were turned, and with a perverseness unique to the justice system, it was decreed that a crime had indeed been committed – and that she was its perpetrator. In place of the justice she sought and all rape survivors deserve, this woman received a jail sentence, with criticism and punishment taking the place of the support and respect she should have had.

Rape crisis centres meet and receive calls from many women who face just this difficulty – the feeling that they just cannot go on with a court case, but feeling also that the only way out of the prosecution is to say they made it up. For many women the prospect of the ordeal of the rape case – or their uncertainty about being able for what ever reason to see it through – pose a risk not worth taking – so they do not report rape at all.

And who can wonder? The trajectory of a rape trial is so often an arrow fired off with the faintest hope of really reaching its elusive target – justice for one of the most damaging crimes of all – but every chance of trailing in its wake a woman’s privacy and dignity or any hope of justice for the crime committed against her. The removal of autonomy and control is one of the defining features of rape, and what makes it so uniquely damaging. And what could reinforce that more decisively than the decision to prosecute a woman who was left with no way out?

Changing your mind is not a crime or any kind of justification for prosecution in a case like this. In rape cases in particular, which many women have described as feeling as though they have been assaulted all over again, uncertainty or the decision not to pursue the case is completely understandable. When a woman knows that the details of the most intimate parts of her life will be discussed in public, that her ‘character’, behaviour, dress, habits, relationships, sexual history and and even her medical records may be scrutinized as part of a process which may still (and in so many cases does) see her attacker walk free, the least she can expect (surely?) is the right to decide whether or not she pursues that case?

And when this prospect is reinforced with pressure from elsewhere to abandon the case, as it sometimes is, the incentive to withdraw and desperation felt at the thought of proceeding can have a far stronger pull than the hope that the case might be one of the small percentage that result in a conviction.

The case of the woman in Powys demonstrates a complete inability to comprehend the complexities needs of women facing rape trials and is itself a perversion of what constitutes justice.

Women have as much right to autonomy and respect within the justice system as they do within relationships. Unfortunately all this case has served to demonstrate is that they sometimes meet with neither.

The row sparked last week following comments made by the Rector of a Scottish Secondary school highlights once more the need to raise awareness of the myths that lead to women being held culpable for rape – in particular, the idea that revealing dress is somehow “provocative”.

The controversy followed warnings to female pupils that by dressing in short skirts or other clothing of a skimpy nature, they would risk distracting the boys, whose rampant hormones might render them unable to concentrate. A dress code for school is one thing – integral to the regulatory framework of many schools, and applicable to every pupil, not just those who are female. However, the conflation of this idea with notions of “provocation” and “risky behaviour” is at best misguided – and at worst very damaging, in particular to women who have been sexually assaulted.

To suggest that girls and women, through the choices they exercise in the clothes they select, can influence the behaviour of the opposite gender is to assign them a degree of control which they simply do not have. Directing instructions made on this basis only to girls reinforces the myth that it is principally women who bear responsibility for sexual conduct, and for controlling the sexual impulses of men and boys. It is a fallacy and an insult to men to suggest that male sexuality is some kind of compelling animal force far more powerful than its female counterpart, and to hold this view is to absolve men, at least in part, from the responsibility for their sexual choices, leaving women no alternative other than to shoulder the blame for the rapes and sexual assaults of which they themselves are the victims.

We have to be able to make the distinction between what is appropriate dress for school or work without once more blaming women for sexual violence. The experience of rape complainers in court offers abundant evidence of the damage that these prejudicial attitudes can do.

Blaming sexual violence on “raging hormones”, “inappropriate thoughts”, or “mixed signals” and advocating caution and cover-ups on the part of women and girls as the solution removes the focus from where it really belongs – on the attitudes and behaviour of boys and the men they will become. The role of education in making positive changes in this regard is absolutely crucial. By complementing lessons on healthy relationships of the sort that currently feature in PSE classes with others that teach young men to respect women, that no one is “entitled” to sex, and that clothes are simply clothes and not some kind of coded invitation, that only yes ever means yes – but that no always means no – we can make significant and vital steps towards making this happen.

Men and boys are central to the fight against sexual violence and can be powerful communicators of the messages we need to get across in order to makes the attitudinal and culture changes necessary to eradicate it. If we are serious about ending sexual violence, we must forget about the perils of the mini-skirt, and start examining the real causes of sexual violence – and challenging the attitudes of those who commit it.

It was with surprise and dismay that we heard that one of the first initiatives pursued by the new coalition government was to examine the possibility of granting anonymity to rape defendants. This move, which burst forth in the absence of any formal consultation, quickly demonstrated that the instinct to protect the interests of a small group of men had been granted precedence over those of one of the most vulnerable groups in our society – rape complainers.  This was perhaps not surprising (particularly given the marked gender imbalance in the new UK Government), but with a conviction rate for rape standing currently at 6% in England and Wales, and a shocking 3% in Scotland, where can there possibly be any justification for making the struggle for women who have been raped to find justice even worse?

And what kind of message does this send out? That there is more doubt surrounding the veracity of a rape accusation than for other criminal charges – or, to put it in the terms that are wearyingly familiar – that women are not to be trusted?

The decision to seek justice in court for one of the most serious and damaging crimes of all is far from automatic. Women who have been raped face a welter of obstacles and disincentives when faced with the decision about whether or not to report what has happened. With the proportion of reported rapes in Scotland that result in a conviction standing at 3% the last thing that is needed is something that will worsen this – and proposing anonymity for those accused of rape is a retrograde step which promises to do exactly that.

There have been many cases where identification and conviction of a perpetrator would not have been possible if women had not been made aware of his identity. Knowing who their attacker was and that were not alone in having suffered at his hands is sometimes the single factor that allows women to come forward and can significantly enhance their chances of receiving justice when they do. Many of the difficulties in securing convictions for rape lie in the hidden nature of the crime, the fact that it is one word against another, and that concrete evidence is often in short supply, if not entirely absent. Rapists rely on the terror, shame and trauma that so often keeps women silent, and in some cases assault one woman after another many times before there is any prospect of discovery. Where the defence of ‘consent’ is used by the man accused, as it often is, it can be difficult for prosecutors to mount an effective case against him, but where a pattern of behaviour can be established, with the experiences of several women giving the lie to the claims of a defendant, conviction is possible. The recent conviction of the taxi driver of John Worboys is a case in point – something which was only made possible when his identity became known, and several women assaulted by him were able to identify him and verify the truth with their own experiences. Worboys is thought to have attacked more than 50 women over a 13 year period.

In Scotland, although some measures (such changes to the law and the implementation of 50 recommendations made by the Crown Office to the way that rape is prosecuted in Scotland) have been put in place here in order to try and improve matters for rape complainers, many far less tangible factors persist in making the search for justice a tortuous process for many – to the extent that some women cannot bear to embark on it and rapists are not brought to account.

The culture of scepticism may have made some advances since the days of the Thames Valley police documentary in 1982, which laid bare in shocking detail the prejudices faced by women reporting rape at the time, but there is no doubt that many of the attitudes underpinning such prejudices live on. It is in many cases a woman’s words and behaviour that continue to be scrutinised rather than those of her attacker, and in the course of rape trials it sometimes seems as if any spurious irrelevance can be thrown into the effort to discredit her.

A study published in 2007 revealed that 7 out of 10 women pursuing rape complaints in Scottish courts can expect to face questioning about their sexual history and ‘character’. This can in practice mean public interrogation on matters as agonisingly private as loss of virginity and use of sex toys, all of which make a further ordeal of the justice process for women seeking justice for the ordeal of rape. Other studies into the attitudes of jurors and the wider public continue to reveal a range of prejudices which also militate against women in this context. Many of these are based in notions of what constitutes ‘appropriate’ behaviour and dress for women, and hold up a paradigm that, if women do not conform to it, they can find themselves open to criticism and suspicion. To further prejudice an already hostile scenario by casting doubt on the word of women through the granting of anonymity to those they accuse of rape simply demonstrates wilful ignorance, a complete refusal to acknowledge the difficulties faced by rape complainers and/or an absence of will to improve their prospects of receiving justice.

There is no justification for granting anonymity to those accused of rape – the impulse to do so is based on the notion that the accusation itself is enough to blight a man’s life for good, and assign to him a stigma that will stick simply by virtue of the accusation having been made, even if he does not go to trial or is found not guilty. Damaging assumptions around the notion of men being falsely accused of rape are repeated wildly and inaccurately in the press and in private conversation every day, but the reality is that this happens no more often in the context of rape than it does for any other crime.

And what about the blight already cast on the life of the survivor and her right to justice? There is a very revealing moment in the drama documentary ‘Consent’ during the (genuine, unscripted) deliberations of the jury who must assess the innocence of the man accused or raping a colleague. One juror reflects that a wrong decision would be more serious if it found against the defendant as it would destroy a young man’s future, whereas if the decision was the wrong one, and found him to be innocent, the wrong committed against the woman is already in her past, and therefore somehow less of a consideration. This line of thinking is typical of the skewed logic so often seen in discussions around rape (particularly in the media) where false equations of this kind result in a higher value being placed on the good name of an innocent man than on the right of a woman who has been raped to receive justice.

If we are serious about taking steps to redress gender inequality, we must accept that the vulnerability of women to sexual assault must, unfortunately, necessarily find its parallel in the vulnerability of men to scrutiny. Women are forced to take account of this reality every day of their lives both out in the street and inside the home, as they take myriad security steps for an extra degree of protection from the threat of sexual violence.  In a world where women face this threat every day, the concomitant for men must be that they are made to account for their motives and behaviour in this arena, even if on occasion such scrutiny finds them blameless.

The impact of the recent proposals around anonymity, although they applied to England and Wales, reverberated in Scotland too, and Kenny McAskill’s assurances that such proposals will not be pursued in Scotland, were greeted with some relief.

in a letter to SNP MSP Shirley-Anne Somerville, he wrote "I'm pleased the Scottish Government will not be following Westminster's example.

"There is no reason why those accused of rape should be singled out for anonymity — indeed, such an approach appears to suggest that rape victims are more likely to be making false allegations than other victims."

The UK Government has also stepped back from this particular brink, and abandoned the proposals to grant anonymity to those accused of rape. However, it remains clear that in so doing, they intend simply to try and achieve the same ends by other means, and to persuade instead the Press Complaints Commission to exert pressure on newspapers and other media to grant defendants the anonymity that common sense, and advocates for the already circumscribed interests of rape complainers have so far denied them.

This is a feature completely new to the Rape Crisis Scotland website and is an area where we hope to discuss topical issues relating to sexual violence, and actively engage visitors to our website in those discussions.

You are welcome to post comments below at any time, or to suggest further comments for discussion. Please be aware that the comments are moderated and there will be a delay between the submission of your comment and its appearance on the website.