There are countless ways in which this revolution has transformed our lives and world. Unfortunately, however, the impact of digital technology, like any other powerful implement, depends entirely on the agenda and motives of the person wielding it.
The prospect of having intimate images or videos of ourselves circulated among friends & family or across every continent is a nightmare scenario for most of us, but it’s now a familiar part of the digital backdrop to a reality where exerting pressure on and hurting others in this way is just a touch or a swipe away for someone who is so minded.
Stealthing might sound suggestive of some kind of sexy espionage-themed role-play, and certainly, its emergence as a theme in online discussion and elsewhere has been down in part to its promotion among misogynists as a new ‘sex trend’.
[Image by Keirsten Marie on Flickr reproduced under Creative Commons license]
By Katy Proctor
Since 2010, when stalking was defined as a crime in Scotland, much has been achieved to raise awareness and understanding of the crime. As a consequence, reports to the police, convictions and custodial sentences for perpetrators have increased in frequency with each year.
From today, across the UK, Child Tax Credits will only be available for the first and second child. Third or subsequent children won’t get a look in. That is – of course – unless the child is a result of rape.
The Department of Work and Pensions claim that this rape exemption or ‘rape clause’ will only be carried out in the most ‘compassionate’ way, but the question is, can forcing a woman to disclose rape to receive welfare ever really be compassionate? For us – Rape Crisis Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid – the answer is a flat out no.
On 19th January Scottish Legal News published a piece by Brian McConnachie QC in which he accused Rape Crisis Scotland of having been irresponsible in the way we had commented on the recent civil damages case pursued and won by Denise Clair against rapists David Goodwillie and David Robertson.
We asked for a right to reply to these claims, and sent SLN a detailed account of our response to this case and why we believe it to have been both measured and justified. They refused to publish it, saying it was ‘too political’. Our piece is below. What do you think?