Hero to Zero!

One of the less likable aspects of the age in which we live is our obsession with the celebrity culture. This will undoubtedly form the focus of another blog but sufficed to say at this point that when the emphasis is upon the person, the celebrity,  rather than  what they stand for, what talent they have or what ideas they promote then their every utterance and behaviour is judged and commented upon. The result is that one day people in the public eye can be a 'hero' and the next after some misjudged comment or action they are, to coin a phrase, 'zero'. This situation it seems to me is fed by an ever more rapacious press who seem to justify all their actions by the public’s 'right to know' or 'human interest'.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn

This week we have had three examples – the French IMF boss  Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a man lauded for his financial skill and clout, a man in line to become the next President of France we are told. And yet following the allegations of a sex attack in New York not only is he in trouble with the law, his career in ruins but seems to be vilified throughout the world.  A couple of days later we have the ultimate 'celeb' Arnold Schwarzeneggar filling our front pages  following allegations that he fathered a child with one of his employees. And then today we have Ken Clarke, our Justice Secretary vilified across the board for his comments in relation to rape sentences.

Now I do not hold a banner for any of these people but I do wish we had a bit of consistency. Indeed the first two Strauss-Khan and Schwarzeneggar had high profile reputations as womanisers -  Schwarzeggar was described in this morning’s Guardian as having an 'gargantuan sexual appetite' and Strauss-Khan has apparently for years been known in France for his Casanova like life.  But I do wish we would not suddenly hold up our hands in horror when something like this occurs – these are people who to coin Kipling’s phrase 'walked with Kings'  and they were accepted as such knowing their predilections. But now they have gone too far our sensitivities are aroused and everyone feels the need to pour scorn and be self righteous.

Ken Clarke is a bit different. No Casanova   this (as far as I know!) – but a generally well respected politician – and there are not many of them about!  But he has kicked over the hornet’s nest, not with his involvement with a woman, but rather with his comments on rape and suddenly from a man many respected and who felt he was doing a good job, he suddenly is beyond redemption. How fickle we are.

Arnold Schwarzeneggar

Ken Clarke, is my local MP and the nation’s  Justice Secretary .  In a radio interview today he   appeared to suggest that 'date rape' did not count as a serious offence.   His statement that no one convicted of a 'serious rape' would be released as quickly as those guilty of some 'date rapes' has generated huge amounts of air – hot and otherwise.  And, as always, with this sort of thing – popularism, bandwagons, stereotyping and the like come into play. Few seem to have taken note of the detail of what Clarke said or meant. Leader of the opposition (is that a misnomer at the moment?)Ed Milliband immediately boarded the bandwagon and demanded that Clarke be sacked. Feminists and other women’s groups of course, are up in arms.

But in the clamour and posturing, where everyone has an opinion and is determined to voice it as stridently as possible,  few, if any, are thinking it through and paying attention to the details. In the end Clarke may well be sacked – his job has been in jeopardy for some time since he is viewed even within his own party as a bit of a 'leftie' and a loose cannon. Only  a few weeks ago  he was being praised for his sensible ambitions for shorter sentencing. Even card carrying members of the Labour party were impressed – in December 2010 the Guardian ran an editorial on Clarke entitled 'In Praise of Ken Clarke' and amongst his many qualities they listed  '.....once he is persuaded by the force of an argument, he doesn't give a monkey's for what editors, colleagues or anyone else thinks....... he offer(s) hard-headed pragmatism in place of the dogma Michael Howard bequeathed to a line of New Labour successors.' 

But much of the population and opportunist politicians and commentators aren’t interested in  detail – they just want the headline. What Clarke was, and is, saying is that the  sentencing tariff for a crime – in this case rape -  should reflect the seriousness of the crime and its context . That must be an absolute principle of the law, I would have thought. It is certainly one of the things which underpins our modern concept of justice. The Guardian on Monday in its 'celebration' of the paper’s 190^th anniversary printed a report it first published in December 1821 of a public hanging:  'Before daylight on Tuesday morning, a considerable concourse of people were assembled to witness the dreadful scene of the execution of three of our fellow creatures, viz: Ann Norris, for a robbery in a dwelling-house; Samuel Hayward, for a burglary at Somerstown; and Joseph South, for uttering a forged £10 note.......'.  Few if any today would wish to return to that sort of summary justice where no or little note is taken of the seriousness, context and motives in crime.  There was public outcry some years ago when an elderly man was imprisoned after he  shot a burglar who was breaking into his property – a lonely farm house.  The general public rightly or wrongly recognised that the context had to be considered – it wasn’t that the man simply took his shot gun and killed someone. Only a few weeks ago, one of the highest paid young men in the country, Chelsea footballer, Ashley Cole, took an air rifle to work and mistakenly shot a young man. The police investigated but took no significant further action – whatever one thinks about that it is to do with proportional response and weighing up the factors involved -  a basic underpinning of modern justice. In this context I don’t believe that rape can be excepted – context, opportunity, motive and the like must all be considered in sentencing which is what Clarke was suggesting.

There may be all sorts of viewpoints on this many of them not very palatable to certain sections but I find it bizarre and indeed offensive to take the view that rape, wrong and terrible though it is, should be treated differently from any other crime. 

Ken Clarke - MP for Rushcliffe
 & Justice Secretary

The lack of careful thought and posturing  is well highlighted in a couple of posts on the Guardian web site. One contributor wrote:

 'Example A - A young woman goes out clubing wearing next to nothing, gets drunk, dances suggestively with a strange man all night, voluntarily gets in a taxi with him, goes back to his house, drinks more, gets stoned, starts kissing and then the man doesn't take no for an answer.

Example B - A young woman is walking home from work and a complete stranger drags her into the bushes at knife point and brutally rapes her.

Both are rape. Both are wrong however, rightly or wrongly many people (men and women) might have more sympathy with the woman in the second scenario.'

But in reply another contributor wrote:  

'But in both circumstances, a woman has been raped by a rapist.

Woman A wearing a short skirt, going out and having fun did not consent to sex and was therefore raped. It isn't a lesser crime for the fact that she was drunk and kissing him - if anything, that violation of trust could be said to make it *even worse*.'

Of course the second contributor was making a fool of him/herself – in suggesting that the 'violation of trust could be said to make it even worse' they were actually agreeing with the first contributor or perhaps even Clarke that there are indeed 'gradations' of rape!

I don’t have any particular support for Clark as a politician. I didn’t vote for him in the last election (and have never voted for him) but I do have a huge amount of respect for him as my MP. On the occasions when I have written to him he has replied honestly and honourably and is a well respected local man who has served his constituents well over many years. He may have expressed himself badly on the rape issue but the scorn poured upon him in the last 24 hours  is unpleasant – although I suspect his shoulders can take it. It is, however, very sad that the  baying mob – be they in Westminster or in the local street – can turn on someone quite so quickly. Hero to zero!