Notebook
On Monday I discovered what the terrorists must have felt like when the SAS erupted into the Iranian Embassy. I was sitting alone in my office, trying to do some work, when quite suddenly I was sur- rounded by nine women. One of them Pointed a camera at me and started firing away with a flashbulb. The others confined themselves to verbal abuse. My protests at this rather frightening invasion of my privacy were all painstakingly written down in a notebook by one particularly angry- looking woman. They explained that they represented Women Against Rape (WAR) and that they wished to be given space in the Spectator to present their case against what they claimed had been an incitement to rape in a recent column by Auberon
Waugh. I said that such an interpretation of
Mr Waugh's article, however distasteful they might have found it, was clearly ab- surd. Then one of them kept pointing at different sentences in the article, saying What do you mean by that?' When I ex- plained that I hadn't written the piece, and that therefore I didn't mean anything by
Somerset of it, and that they had better go to Nzmierset to consult Mr Waugh, they cackl- ed contemptuously, pointing out that I, as editor, was responsible for everything that appeared in the paper. To this I agreed,
though I explained that I was merely responsible for publishing Mr Waugh's reflections, not for explaining or necessarily even for understanding them. In despera- tion, I had the police called, but by the time an officer arrived we had reached agree- ment about the basis on which they would depart. I signed an undertaking that I would read a pamphlet they gave me, The Rapist Who Pays The Rent, and write to them with my comments. They had been in Illy office for, I think, about 20 minutes when the policeman came in and asked me to repeat in his presence my request for them to leave. 'Buzz off,' I said — a remark
`violence' as the ultimate in male violence' against womanhood and gleefully recorded in their notebook.
The pamphlet comprises the evidence submitted by Women Against Rape to the Criminal Law Revision Committee. It is Mainly concerned to broaden the legal definition of rape so that, for example, WAR's in marriage' should be made a crime. vv AR's statement of aims includes 'the recognition of rape of every kind; not only by strangers but by husbands, fathers and stepfathers, not only by physical force but by blackmail, social pressure and financial Pressure.' It is far-reaching stuff. But the most confusing part of the pamphlet is its Foreword, written by Wilmette Brown of an organisation called Black Women for
Wages for Housework. Its concluding paragraph reads as follows: 'This evidence by WAR amounts to a description of how white women who are raped are treated like niggers by the law, the police and the courts. It therefore verifies what Black women already know: that white women cannot fight rape without challenging the legal Establishment that turns any of us into niggers, and that the issue of rape cannot be separated from the total predicament Black women are fighting.' Whatever precisely that may mean, it indicates that for these women the evils of rape and of racialism are virtually indistinguishable.
rr his would explain why the same women
I had the misfortune to encounter on Monday had been part of a larger group which burst into the offices of the Guardian earlier this month. It was not rape that was agitating them this time but an article in Education Guardian by Anne Wilson call- ing for recognition of racial differences as an essential prerequisite for creating a con- tented multi-racial society. 'We still seem unable to admit, without being conscious- stricken [sic], that races look, feel and smell different and that we would expect am- bivalence from both black and white people about inter-racial contact,' she wrote. On this occasion the intruders brought with them a child of mixed race, and invited the Guardian's unfortunate education editor, Mr John Fairhall, to smell it. They stayed there for about half an hour before being persuaded to leave by a promise that a reply would be given 'favourable consideration' for publication. Last Tuesday the Guardian published their reply, which more or less ac- cused Anne Wilson of underwriting the South African philosophy of apartheid. This reply was attributed to the Women's Centre at King's Cross — the meeting place, according to the Guardian, 'of several organisations of .housewives, pro- stitutes and lesbians'. Just so. These are some of the organisations which crop up from time to time at the Women's Centre at 71 Tonbridge Street, London WCI:
Housewives in Dialogue, Wages for Housework, Black Women for Wages for Housework, Wages Due Lesbians, English Collective of Prostitutes, and Women Against Rape. I don't know how many women belong to these various groups or to what extent their memberships overlap. But one gets the curious feeling that in the eyes of some of these women it is possible to be black and white, prostitute, lesbian and housewife all at the same time.
The Guardian told me it had tried, but without much success, to find out more about the Women's Centre at King's Cross — who its members are and where they get their money from. The second question is a particularly interesting one. Richard West in his latest book An English Journey (Chatto and Windus) describes the conster- nation of feminists who gave their support to an organisation of prostitutes in West Yorkshire, set up for mutual protection against the Yorkshire Ripper, when they discovered that it was being funded by the National Front. As far as the Women's Centre is concerned, part of the answer was provided last weekend by Dr Rhodes Boyson, the Conservative MP for Brent North. In the light of last week's decision by the Greater London Council to increase its rates by 93 per cent, Dr Boyson had been investigating how Mr Ken Livingstone, the GLC's left-wing leader, was spending the ratepayers' money. Of the various `charities' supported by Mr Livingstone, at least two are associated with the Women's Centre. Women Against Rape has received £8,000 from the GLC, and the English Col- lective of Prostitutes has received £7,600. But Mr Livingstone's generosity ranges much wider. Other GLC subsidies reported by Dr Boyson include the following: A Woman's Place, £3,000; Lesbian Line, £750; London Gay Teenager Group, £1,000; London Friend, £3,000; Rights of Women Ltd, £1,500; The Bush News Col- lective, £1,000; The New Grapevine, £1,400. I know nothing about most of these groups — particularly the last two, whose names give no indication of their purpose — but has Mr Livingstone gone off his head? He is subsidising to the tune of £15,600 a group of women whose confused opinions are beyond the comprehension of civilised people of any political allegiance and whose methods of persuasion include resort to trespass and something ap- proaching the intimidation of harmless hacks like myself. If Mr Livingstone feels obliged to subsidise feminists, prostitutes, homosexuals and the like — however great a misuse of ratepayers' money this may be — he could certainly find more plausible recipients of his largesse. Even the £15,000 he gives to the Pregnancy Advisory Service seems reasonable in comparison with his other donations. Can there be any other municipality in the world which spends its money so frivoulously? I very much doubt it.
Alexander Chancellor
Previous page
