Another voice
The rape of Britain
Auberon Waugh
The Chief Inspector of Prisons seems to approve of an experiment in Maidstone Prison whereby victims of rape and sexual assault are encouraged to visit rapists and sexual assaulters in prison. This idea of con- fronting offenders with their victims has, apparently, been widely accepted in the United States, where I would have thought that it might qualify as a cruel or unnatural punishment such as is forbidden by con- stitutional law. In the apparent willingness of rape victims to attend these sessions, there need be no comfort to those who argue that women secretly enjoy being raped. Two uniformed policemen are pre- sent throughout. A stronger case might be made on the cruel and unnatural point by suggesting that even if the purpose of the women's visit is not to berate their tormen- tors, as I am sure it is not, the punishment of Tantalus has never yet been enshrined in our penal system.
But I do not suppose that these ladies consciously intend to tantalise the wretched prisoners. Such a thought may lie deep among their unconscious reasons for behaving in this way, but if so it is known only to God. Ostensibly, their purpose is to discourage rapists from pursuing their vocation and make them see the error of their ways by convincing them that rape vic- tims are not just sex objects but also human beings, and probably quite boring ones, too. There is nothing so destructive of the sex urge as reasonable conversation.
Possibly this is why Women Against Rape, the extreme feminist organisation, takes such a dim view of the Maidstone ex- periment. The indignation of such women's groups can only be sustained within an atmosphere of conflict between the sexes. Describing the experiment as a device `to get everybody off the hook', WAR's, spokesperson, Ms Judit Kertesz, was quoted as saying: 'Rapists are ordinary, normal men who have the opportunity and think they can get away with it.'
This seems to reflect a somewhat jaundic- ed view of ordinary, normal men. No doubt Ms Kertesz has had some terrible ex- periences. Or not, as the case may be. But the real reason that some women are prepared to spend their time talking to rapists in prison is not, as Ms Kertesz fears, that they hope to make peace between the sexes — only the Kerteszes of this world are really aware of any conflict — any more than it is to entice, tantalise or punish men, Their real reason, I suspect, is simply that like many women they enjoy talking, and in Maidstone Prison they have found a literally captive audience.
I wonder which of these explanations can apply to the apparent passion of so many politicians for talking to trade unionists. The great difference here, of course, is that the trade unionists are not behind bars. In fact it is during the actual business of being raped that politicians feel it most important to hold conversations. Discussion has become part of the ritual. The accepted wisdom of the age is that any politician not prepared to hold discussions with trade unionists while being raped has only himself to blame if he is hurt.
Rape may be a tiresomely overdiscussed subject in its sexual sense — the number of cases involved simply does not justify the general hysteria; this is something I at- tribute to feminists' repudiation of their sexual role and the growth of lesbianism. It may have lost its meaning also in the sense that environmentalists use it to describe the building of a motorway over Romney Marsh or wherever. But I can honestly think of no better word to describe the cap- ture and plundering of the nation's economy, the destruction of its industry, the theft of its savings and debauching of its currency by the trade unions, shortly to be followed, we are told, by control of its press and effective takeover of its political institutions.
In this particular case of rape I would rather agree with Ms Judit Kertesz that very little is to be gained by discussion. It is simply a device to get everyone off the hook. Trade unionists are ordinary, normal workers who have the opportunity and think they can get away with it. The only ef- fect of holding discussions with trade unionists at this late stage is to perpetuate the illusion among politicians that they are still at the centre of events, still have a say in what happens. So vital for their self-esteem is it to maintain this illusion that a whole political philosophy has developed, and threatens to take over large sections of the Conservative Party, whereby politics becomes little more than a process of ap- peasing, whether it is the unions, or the Russians, or the Americans, or the French who require to be appeased. Which is why, since the legal concept of volenti non fit in- junk: must apply with greater force to rape than to any other injury, it is no longer enough to talk about the rape of the political process. We must now, wincing a little. talk about the rape of the nation.
Unless I am much mistaken, there is general agreement in the country — not least among trade unionists — that it is trade unionism which has reduced the country to its present pitiful state. Nobody seriously doubts that stupid, greedy and above all incompetent trade union demands — allied, no doubt, to spectacularly weak management — destroyed the steel, ship- building and film industries and are now 'busy destroying the car and newspaper in' dustries, the docks and railways and most manufacturing industry in the country. Trade unionists and Labour supporters may dutifully blow themselves up like bullfrogs to deny it, but we all know pretty well that it is true. Anybody who paused to think would also agree that it was trade union insistence on uneconomic manning, work practices and wage levels which Is responsible for the huge disparity between our own unemployment level and that, for instance, of Japan. Nobody can suppose that there will be further large-scale invest- ment in British industry until the dead hand of the unions is removed from the tiller. It may be no more than a measure of the Conservatives' extraordinary incompetence in public relations that a majority of all voters seems to believe that unemployment is the result of government policies, a ma- jority of Labour voters believes that the col- lapse of investment is the result of capitalist spite. But I suspect the explanation goes deeper. After the Heath fiasco, there is a profound feeling among Conservative voters that a Conservative government will never be able to beat the unions; among Labour voters, many of whom quite rightly feel insecure in their jobs, there is a feeling that the trade unions are on their side even if right reason and the national interest are not. None of which would be much helped even if the Conservatives were able to con" vince everybody that trade unionism Is responsible for unemployment. It is too late for that. Mrs Thatcher should have started tackling the unions in May 1979, as she was elected to do. The feeling is now irreversible that the Conservatives can't and Labour won't do anything to solve the nation 5 underlying problems. Hence the historical need for a new third party, Perhaps the Social Democrats had an inkling of this important truth when they voted to support Mr Tebbit's Employment Bill last week. If so, it was the merest inkling. Several of them have voted against it. If there is any awareness of the historical necessity for a new Whig party to smash the unions, it is certainly not shared by the unspeakable Mrs Shirley Williams or by those who chose the name of the TawneY, Society, after the dim and wrong-headed 20th-century Labour economist. PerhaPs, Mr Jenkins, Mr Rodgers and 'Doctor Owen could form the nucleus of such a par- ty, a new Chatham Club. But one does not need to look beyond this abominable woman, really, to see that the SDP does not represent a political solution to our underlying problems so much as a bland old group of opportunists who think they MO have found a new formula for getting themselves elected. Which is a pity. The parliameritarY system has failed to rise to the historical exigencies of the moment. So much .thej worse for it. Let us at least try to enjoY It' don't suppose the police would be yen' sympathetic if we complained.
Previous page
