Social Inequalities and the Law

In “Real Rapes and Real Victims: The Shared Reliance on Common Cultural Definitions of Rape,” the authors argue that myths and stereotypes about rape and rape victims abound (Stewart, et al, 1996). Such misinformation can have a “dramatic” impact on the victim including the experience of the rape victim, shaping how she comes to accept an assumed definition of reality that colors her own experience. The most common dilemma in rape cases is victim blame. In fact, victim blame is part of what Stewart et al (1996) mean when they say, “…as a consequence of the reliance on cultural myths and stereotypes of rape, the victim accepts a definition of reality that shapes her own experience.” According to Schaafsma (Rape Advocacy Program), “The genteel idea of womanhood sets women up to be perfect rape victims - those who don't know how to fight back because they've never been taught how.” In today’s world of liberated women, society questions how these women can be victimized through rape or any other type of violent crime for that matter. According to a November 2005 UK poll (Sexual Assault Research), “…a third of people believe women who flirt partially responsible for being raped.” Settings of the “classic rape portrayal” are often the means according to which rape victims decide to report the rape. In a 2003 study of rape victims, DuMont, Miller, and Myhr established that women who did not resemble the mythologized “real victim” were as likely as women who did to report the assault to the police (p. 477). The authors report, “women of color, those who had been previously assaulted, those who had experienced mental health difficulties, and those who had been drinking were equally represented among reported and unreported cases” (2003, p. 477). In an effort to gain attention to the violence against women, Amnesty International led the study to illustrate how culture blames the victim. According to the study, 26 percent said that they thought a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, and 22 percent held the same view if a woman had had many sexual partners (2005). Of all people asked, 30 percent believe a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was drunk, and 37 percent held the same view if the woman had failed to clearly say “no” to the man (2005). Some could argue that the feelings of the public are relative to what Stewart et al (1996) call “pedestal myths.” Predominantly, the “pedestal myth” holds women to a higher standard of moral conduct. Deviating from this perceived “moral conduct” –in the eyes of society- is to place oneself deliberately in the face of danger. When rape occurs, the victim is blamed. If a woman lives with a man out of wedlock and is raped, the pedestal myth concurs she “deserved” the outcome or that she “was asking for it.” Legitimate victims is a phrase used by Stewart et al (1996) in the “Real Rapes, Real Victims” article. So often women are viewed as sex objects whereby having such an appearance that trigger men’s impulses or potential for violence (also representative of gender bias toward rape survivors). Women’s behaviors are seen as precipitating factors, thereby excusing men from their acts of violence. When the victim is considered a “legitimate” victim, most often the act of violence was at the hands of her husband (domestic abuse and violence). When society blames the victim, the victim often begins to question their own beliefs concerning the rape. Stewart et al (1996) state, “Victims too had to determine whether they were ‘real victims,’ and to do so they relied heavily upon their expectations of the criminal justice system.” Understanding this statement means understanding the mind of the victim and how each particular case is led in the court. For example, if a woman experiences date rape, she may question her role in the act. She may feel she is to blame because she willingly went on the date. However, according to the law, she is not to blame. The downside to this, however, is that she must also prove that she did not willingly participate, of which often hard to prove. Stewart et al (1996) focus on the experience of rape victims in the United States, but there are many parallels between the experiences of rape survivors in the U.S. and United Kingdom. In 2000, a U.S. news report cited Britain [UK] as more violent that the U.S. In response to the statement, Britain’s Home Office “dismissed [the] American television report’s claims…as a ‘simplistic comparison’” (BBC News, 2000). According to Rape Crisis, a UK advocacy organization, compared to the UK, the US’s “disturbing reports point to real injustice for rape survivors” (2006). In fact, in one U.S. case: The judge in a rape case had decided that it was reasonable for the woman to be made to watch a videotape of the rape. The woman, who was 16 years old and unconscious at the time of the assault, faced being jailed on a contempt of court charge. She objected to this and will not now have to watch the tape but a courtroom screening is still planned, despite the court having already found the tape to be child pornography. (“Justice for Rape Victims?”)

Memorandum

Date: December 8, 2006
To: Module Leader
From: Name Here
Re: Key substantive provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 Impact made on the 1976 Act by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2005 and by the Equality Act 2006.

Under the Race Relations Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against anyone on grounds of race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origin. All racial groups are protected from discrimination. The Race Relations Act generally applies to the fields of employment, planning, housing, the exercise of public functions (both by public authorities and also private bodies exercising public functions, for example, privately-run prisons), the provision of goods, facilities and services, education, and education. The Race Relations Act of 1976 applies to Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) with a separate Race Relations Order which applies to Northern Ireland (and a separate Equality Commission for Northern Ireland). Racial discrimination in any of the areas listed below is unlawful.
Employment:
Prohibits discrimination on grounds of colour or nationality (includes employees and partnerships). All aspects of employment, including recruitment, selection, promotion, transfer, training, pay and benefits, redundancy, dismissal and terms and conditions of work are protected. Discrimination in the employment context on the grounds of race or ethnic or national origins is permissible where being of a particular race or ethnic or national origin is a genuine and determining occupational requirement, and it is proportionate to apply that requirement in a particular case. Discrimination on the grounds of colour and nationality is also permissible where being of a particular racial group is a genuine occupational qualification for the job. The circumstances in which this would apply are identified in the Race Relations Act.

Education: The Race Relations Act applies to educational establishments in England, Wales and Scotland such as all schools and colleges maintained by local education authorities or education authorities (in Scotland), independent (fee paying) schools and colleges, further education colleges, special schools, early years providers, universities, local education authorities and governors of schools and colleges and school boards (in Scotland). The Race Relations Act makes it unlawful to discriminate (including subjecting a person to harassment) in admission, treatment as a pupil or student, and exclusion, as well as decisions by local education authorities and education authorities (in Scotland), such as decisions on special educational needs.

Housing: It is unlawful for anyone selling, letting or managing property (including business premises) to discriminate in any of the following ways: 1. in the terms on which a person are offered the premises; 2. by refusing to let a person buy the premises; 3. by treating a person differently from others who want to buy or rent; 4. by refusing to transfer a lease to someone; 5. by refusing access to any benefits or facilities at the premises; or 6. by evicting you or subjecting a person to other disadvantages.

Goods, facilities, and services: The Race Relations Act applies to anyone providing goods, facilities or services to the public; for example: hotels, shops, banks, insurance companies, financial services, cinemas, theatres, bars, restaurants, pubs, places of entertainment or refreshment, transport and travel services, and services provided by any local or public authority and by any profession or trade. It is unlawful to be refused a service, or not to be given the same standard of service extended to others.

Public authorities: The Race Relations Act makes it unlawful for a public authority in carrying out any of its functions to do anything, which constitutes discrimination. The Race Relations Act defines a public authority very widely to include any body whose functions are of a public nature and includes central and local government, the police, licensing authorities, the Prisons Service and any body (even if it is private) that carries out functions of a public nature. It is also unlawful for a public authority to subject a person to harassment in the course of carrying out any functions which consist of the provision of: any form of social security; healthcare; any other form of social protection; or any form of social advantage.

Police: The police are a public authority as defined under the Race Relations Act, and it is unlawful for a public authority in carrying out any of its functions to do any discriminatory act. For example, it unlawful for any police officer to discriminate on racial grounds in carrying out any policing functions, such as conducting stop and searches, arresting and detaining suspects, assisting victims and controlling demonstrations. Chief officers of police are also liable for all acts of discrimination by any officer under their command, unless they can show that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination.

Planning: It is unlawful for a planning authority to discriminate against a person carrying out their planning functions. A 'planning authority' includes in England and Wales a county, county borough, or district or London borough council, and in Scotland it means a planning authority or regional planning authority.

Unlawful advertisements: The Race Relations Act makes it unlawful to publish advertisements that discriminate on racial grounds, or to make arrangements for such advertisements.

Pressure or instructions to discriminate: The Race Relations Act makes it unlawful to induce or attempt to induce another person or organisation to discriminate on racial grounds. The pressure may amount to no more than persuasion and need not necessarily involve a benefit or loss. It also does not need to be applied directly; it is unlawful if it is applied in such a way that a person is likely to hear it.

The following areas are outside the scope of the Race Relations Act: 1. Anything written, produced or broadcast by the media — the law of libel applies only to individuals, not to groups of people; 2. Racist attacks or harassment on the street or in your home; these could be criminal offences and should be reported to the police; 3. Are racial harassment, abuse, and violence covered? Discrimination that occurs in other countries of the EU, unless for the purposes of the Race Relations Act the person is 'employed at an establishment in Great Britain; however, many countries have their own laws against racial discrimination. The EU race directive required all EU countries to introduce laws outlawing racial discrimination by July 2003; 4. Discrimination on grounds of religion; however, you may be protected by the Race Relations Act if the discrimination is also on the grounds of your national or ethnic origin. In addition, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 prohibit discrimination based on religion or belief in various circumstances.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (UK Parliament; 2006 c. 1) creates an offence of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. Under the Equality Act of 2006, The Commission encourages and supports the development of a society in which: a) people's ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination, b) there is respect for and protection of each individual's human rights, c) there is respect for the dignity and worth of each individual, d) each individual has an equal opportunity to participate in society, and e) there is mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights.

References:
DuMont, J., & Miller, K., Myhr, T. L. (2003). The Role of “Real Rape” and “Real Victim” Stereotypes in the Police Reporting Practices of Sexually Assaulted Women. Violence Against Women, 9 (4), 466-486.
Equality Act 2006.
Justice for Rape Victims (2006). Rape Crisis. Retrieved December 8, 2006 from http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/oldwhatsnew.html#USA
Race Relations Act 1976.
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2005.
Schaafsma, M. (n.d.). The Rape Advocacy Program. feminista! 2 (6). Retrieved December 8, 2006 from http://www.feminista.com/archives/v2n6/schaafsma.html
Stewart, M.W., Dobbin, S. and Gatowski, S. (1996) ‘‘Real rapes’ and ‘real victims’: the shared reliance on common cultural definitions of rape’, Feminist Legal Studies, 4, 159.
UK crime worse, says US report (2000). BBC News, Wednesday, 28 June 2000, 23:32 GMT 00:32 UK. Retrieved December 8, 2006 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/810522.stm
UK: New poll finds a third of people believe women who flirt partially responsible for being raped (2005). Amnesty International. Posted: 21 November 2005, Retrieved December 8, 2006 from http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16618