I would not claim  that every inhabitant of Weegie land is incapable of stringing together a sentence that doesn’t contain words of a sexual nature, words moreover, that imply a violent sexual threat, nor that they cannot converse without explicit hand gestures, it is just that sufficiently large numbers of them are incapable of doing so that I fear for the future of conversation in that area.

In October, the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act will come into force. It commenced with the best of intentions. For the first time ‘consent’ was to be defined. It is defined as ‘free agreement’. This phrase seems to me to be as capable of 74 different meanings as the original term ‘consent’ was. Perhaps the lawyers just fancied a change of argument.

The Act makes a genuine gesture towards equality. Not that any transgendered person has so far been accused of rape, nor is it feared that there might be a rash of such cases, but just in case, ‘penis’ is also defined carefully to include the sort that you acquire whilst on holiday in Morocco; as is ‘vulva’ just in case it wasn’t yours originally.

In this Act—

“penis” includes a surgically constructed penis if it forms part of A, having been created in the course of surgical treatment, and

“vagina” includes—

(a) the vulva, and

(b) a surgically constructed vagina (together with any surgically constructed

vulva), if it forms part of B, having been created in the course of such treatment.

Such forethought. Nae use Jimmy loudly declaring that it ‘wuura mae penis as entered the hen, it wurra that Tunisian fella I got it from’. Loophole duly closed.

Curiously, in a country which previously placed a man on the sex offenders list for ‘making sexual gestures’ towards his trusty Raleigh 5-speed superbike  in the privacy of his own bedroom, the Act contains precious little protection for some of the more unusual recipients of sexual attention.

Far more concerning is the section on ‘communicating indecently’ – this goes much further than the English Act intending to cure the problem of electronic grooming. The Scottish Act prohibits a sexual written or verbal communication ‘by whatever means’ without the express consent of the recipient.

The architects of the Act have foreseen some problems, for they have provided a defence to those giving pregnancy advice, or even explaining the birds and the bees, who would otherwise have been caught under this act.

Since the offence is committed if the purpose is to humiliate, distress, or alarm the recipient, then shouting out ‘F*ck you, yer miserable Weegie bas*tard, I’ll sh*g yer Mam fer yer’, when the landlord throws you out at closing time, would appear to come within the remit of the Act.

The definition of ‘verbal communication’ also includes a ‘communication by means of sign language’ – which will include the Italian ice-cream parlour owner who is wont to grasp his forearm with his left hand and thrust his right arm upwards in a unmistakably sexual manner when you ask whether you might have 16 ice lollies for your mates and pay him next week.

Of more immediate concern, what are we to make of section (3) which says that the offence is committed if the purpose of enacting the words, or gesture are to ‘obtain sexual gratification’. Who is to decide what pleasure the writer obtained by penning his words? Where does that leave Obnoxio, for instance, with his ‘pleasuring myself with this fish’ blazoned across the top of his blog? Liable to 10 years imprisonment for communicating indecently under section 6 (1) or 10 years for causing a person to see or hear an indecent communication which gave him pleasure to write…….

We are fast moving towards the point at which every young man must not only carry condoms, but a printed consent form for witnessed signature before embarking on sexual intercourse, and now perhaps an extra form to cover the possibility that he might utter some sexual phrase in the heat of the moment……that is bad enough, but creating an act that outlaws every one of inhabitants of the sink estates round Glasgow every time they open their mouth…….I’m speechless.

The lawyers will have a field day.

Andy
Buck July 12, 2010 at 14:01

“who is won

Anna
Raccoon July 12, 2010 at 14:08

Quite right Andy – thank-you.

Tom
Paine July 12, 2010 at 03:23

I worry every time I see a conviction rate mentioned as a statistic to be
managed up. Rape is a serious offence. By its nature there are rarely
witnesses, and false allegations are sometimes made. It’s a horrible crime and
we all want to see it reduced, but if New Labour’s approach to policing has
taught us anything, it’s that targets will be met just as well by bad
convictions as good ones. Not every hard problem has an easy solution, but
every easy “solution” has a politician peddling it to an army of fools.

Many things have been politicised in my lifetime that should not have been.
Rape is shaping up to be a particularly bad example.

john malpas July 12, 2010 at 00:59

Is this all not part of a plan to ban procreation and eventually all sexual
activity. It is the sort of the thing the righteous ‘the world is
overpopulated’ might think up.
As well , in the long run , you could rely
on the Chinese to supply such population as you might actually need. They
supply much of the worlds other needs.

Richard
Baron July 11, 2010 at 22:35

I have nothing to add on rape, which should be a serious matter in any
jurisdiction. But turning to the new rules on words and gestures, Scotland has
consistently been markedly more puritanical than England. Take, for example,
Steve Gough, the naked rambler. He has twice walked from Land’s End to John o’
Groats. He had very little trouble with the police in England, but in Scotland
he was arrested and imprisoned over and over again. I do not know whether this
huge waste of taxpayers’ money reflected merely the idiocy of the police and
the judiciary, or the idiocy of a substantial proportion of the
population.

Frank Martin
July 11, 2010 at 19:13

Even qualified lawyers have a hard time reading acts of parliament
sometimes. It’s a bit risky reading someone’s interpretation of an act, and
assuming that they have got it right.

http://www.notever.co.uk/the-law/

The law surrounding rape in Scotland, and beyond, is in serious need of
repair. Only 3% of cases reported to the police result in conviction. That’s
about 1 in 30.
Do we honestly think that 29 of those people are ‘at it’,
and wasting police time?
Also, if a woman is asleep it’s not classed as
rape but ‘clandestine injury’. So I’m guessing this wasn’t included in the
figures. Ah mean ffs, up until 1985(ish) it was still legal for a husband to
rape his wife.

I’m not sure this act will do as much as is needed, but chances are it’s a
small step in the right direction… a 3% conviction rate? That doesn’t sound
good to me.

Alan July 11, 2010 at 19:34

If you want to measure the effectiveness of rape laws the most
appropriate measure of rape convictions is the percentage of cases that come
to court that result in a conviction *not* the percentage of allegations
that result in a conviction.

The law can only work where there is sufficient evidence to build a case.
Where that evidence is not there or not firm it would be unreasonable to
expect the Police and prosecutors to go to court with it.

Rape is frequently a crime that occurs between people known to each other
and is invariably a matter of her word against his. Drink is sometimes
involved which can further cloud the statements of both parties. Changes in
the law are unlikely to improve those factors.

Frank Martin
July 11, 2010 at 21:22

You’re right in that it’s hard to convict on one persons word against
another.
The stats for both scenarios you mention are really bad
because of this. Quite often the police will say, “yeah, it looks like
you’ve been raped, but to be honest there’s not much point in going to
court”.

“If you want to measure the effectiveness of rape laws the most
appropriate measure of rape convictions is the percentage of cases that
come to court that result in a conviction *not* the percentage of
allegations that result in a conviction.”

Not really btw. It’s possible to compare them either
way.
Convictions for car theft are probably woefully low, but in those
cases, the thief’s identity isn’t always known. Assault between two people
might be a bit similar, but then saying, “He consented to a kicking”
probably wouldn’t wash. I guess.

In seriousness though, there are some options I heard mentioned a while
ago in helping to get better conviction rates. They were a bit radical
though. Can’t see the legal system wanting to change much for that. At the
moment, quite a few dudes that are willing to rape are aware that it’s
easy to get away with.

The fact that the legal system and parliaments are dominated by men
can’t be helping much.

JuliaM July
12, 2010 at 08:34

“…there are some options I heard mentioned a while ago in helping
to get better conviction rates. They were a bit radical though.
Can

Frank
Martin July 18, 2010 at 16:16

“(too you)”

Yeah great!

The jury doesn’t design the legal system, they follow it… usually.

No idea what Vera Baird’s suggestions were.
The suggestions I
heard of where recommending a change from confrontational style
hearings/cases.

What is this place btw? The blogging version of the Daily Mail?

Kingbingo July 11, 2010 at 18:50

“We are fast moving towards the point at which every young man must not
only carry condoms, but a printed consent form for witnessed signature before
embarking on sexual intercourse”

I think you nailed it a post back or two. Women are just assumed to be
victims.

Since its feminists pushing these laws I can’t quite get my head around
that.

Alan July 11, 2010 at 16:22

Reading that act I can see how juries have been undermined. We are no
longer judged by a jury of our peers merely convicted by them.

JuliaM July 11,
2010 at 13:52

“….I

Joe Public July 11, 2010 at 12:34

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f–u_puzhGs

Gildas July 11, 2010 at 13:29

Thanks Joe Public – my sides are aching!
Gildas the Monk