By VennerRoad, 7th Oct 2014
How many fans of soap operas realise they have been hijacked by political activists?
The October 6 episode of the BBC soap EastEnders included a rape scene; granted the rape was implied rather than graphic, but by the following day there had been 278 complaints, apparently most viewers believed it to be inappropriate before the watershed. Curiously, the near fatal shooting of Phil Mitchell by a former lover in the previous episode appears to have generated no controversy at all, but then, he’s only a mere man.
It is interesting to read what the BBC said in defence of the rape storyline, in particular: “We have worked closely with Rape Crisis and other experts in the field to tell this story which we hope will raise awareness of sexual assaults and the issues surrounding them.”
Rape Crisis - experts? The organisation Rape Crisis is not made up of “experts”, rather it is an advocacy group, which is a big difference. Like so many advocacy groups across a wide range of fields it thrives on disinformation, dubious, skewed or even invented statistics, and appeals to emotion rather than to reason. Some of the propaganda churned out by Rape Crisis and other “wimmin’s” advocacy groups beggars belief. For example, a recent factsheet (so-called) issued by the End Violence Against Women Coalition and distributed to schools claims “25% of young women (aged over 13) experience physical violence and 72% experience emotional abuse in their own relationships”.
What exactly is emotional abuse? That definition comes from the NSPCC, which is yet another advocacy group.
And how about this? “In 2012, the Internet Watch Foundation found that 88% of self-generated sexually explicit online images and videos of young people had been taken from their original location and uploaded onto other websites.”
Which begs the question, why are young people - including children - generating explicit images of themselves and posting them on-line? Like where are the parents?
The EastEnders storyline is interesting to say the least. Although the victim offers a token resistance to her attacker, she doesn’t fight him off or even scream, and after it is over and he has left, she dives straight into the shower, which is the very last thing any real life rape victim should do. Over the coming weeks we will doubtless see her breaking down emotionally, exhibiting all manner of troubling behaviour, and finally pointing the finger at her violator, who will calmly deny everything.
The message is clear. We know she has been raped, and indeed we should know every woman who points an accusing finger at a man has been raped, after all, women never lie about rape, and why should the courts be bothered with little things like evidence, due process or even trials? In other words, there should be no requirement for any form of corroboration, indeed the victim - not the alleged victim - must not even be cross-examined.
This insidious and at times none too subtle propaganda has been used successfully to undermine the rights of the accused in sexual assault cases in England and Wales over the past forty years and more. At the time of writing we have seen and indeed are experiencing a series of trials in which elderly celebrities have been dragged into court accused of offences some of which were allegedly committed before most of the people on this planet were born. They have then been required to prove their innocence, a nigh impossible task, indeed in the case of Rolf Harris the jury convicted him of one offence even though there was no evidence he had visited the Portsmouth community centre in the late 1960s where he was supposed to have indecently assaulted a young girl.
The comedian Jimmy Tarbuck was accused of sexual impropriety by no fewer than five women, but the non-case against him fell apart when it became clear that all five were lying and had possibly even been coached, although with their de rigueur disrespect for truth the CPS stated only that there was “insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction” and even offered to meet with the “complainants” to explain the reasons for the decisions, rather than to meet with Mr Tarbuck to explain to him why they were none of them being prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
EastEnders is far from the first or only TV series used to propagate messages of this kind, be they on sexual violence or other subjects. A conspiratorially-minded person might read something tangible into this. Sadly there is no organisation behind it as such, so we can’t expose and destroy it, rather what we are witnessing is a concerted effort by fanatics from across a broad left wing political spectrum to bring about social change “in a good cause”, after all, what could be more noble than fighting violence against women, and protecting children from abuse?
As the late Chris Tame was fond of saying, whenever political activists talk about protecting your children, what they really mean is destroying your rights. And as another great Libertarian said, if not in precisely these words, those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
To Wikinut Articles Page