In an article today in The Independant : A feminist presumption of victimhood impairs justice Mary Dejevsky voices the following view:

"Rape is rape is rape – and a very serious crime. Let's get that over with. Most people also have a very clear idea of what constitutes rape – and if they don't, and they find themselves sitting on a jury in a rape trial, they will be put right pretty quickly by the judge and the prosecuting lawyers. The difficulty in recent years has been less and less judicial practice than the propagation of a hardcore feminist view intent on broadening the definition of rape and presuming guilt rather than innocence. The lines between rape, sexual assault and personal "mistakes" risk as a result becoming blurred."

MD gives an evaluation about the police getting better at handling these cases but how "There are certainly reasons for continued dissatisfaction with what happens between the first report and a trial. The treatment of rape victims at police stations is still patchy, although much has improved. There are still complaints that rape by an erstwhile partner or acquaintance is not regarded with the same seriousness as rape by a stranger – even though (or perhaps because) it is far more common."

About judges: "There was a time when low conviction rates for rape were blamed almost exclusively on judges, whose comments about the dress or behaviour of the victim routinely drew indignation from the woman and her advocates. With judges now generally alerted to the need to show more sensitivity to victims, however, responsibility for the failure of rape cases now rests as much with the juries as the judges."

Juries: "..the mainstream, as represented by the 12 good men (and women) and true, remains to be convinced by the arguments of hardcore feminism: that every violation claimed by a victim can necessarily be defined as rape. "Date-rape" between people who know each other; the value of consent given – or withheld – by victims who are drunk or drugged; "

The main question raised in the article is whether the recent wave (my expression) of hard-core feminists who, among other things, state that the default opinion should be that all accused of rape are considered guilty and that all women in that situation are victims is really doing anyone any good.

As I see it myself, the treatment of rape victims were beyond description and the chances of getting convictions 6%. A lot of work have been done about that, by among others femimists, and things are now a lot better with a conviction rate of 60% which is in UK is " a par with most other crimes", and a lot of things are much better if not good enough. More work is needed.

But this new wave of what the article calls 'hard-core feminists' and which I will call fundamentalists seems bent of trying to go into the opposite ditch, in which an acccusation equals conviction regardless of circumstances.

I am thinking especially of the Assange and Strauss-Kahn in which these accusations are soooo convenient for certain parties, and, in my view, calls for reasonable doubt.

Also thinking of these hot potatoes: date-rape and ex-partner rape. Real enough in many cases wihtout a doubt, but also cases where emotions can run high and above all hard to prove.

So, should an alleged rape viticm always be believed?
Is there room for a more nuanced view - grades of rape - such as both parties under age?
Can there be honest misunderstandings?
Political implications?

Should we 'sharpen' the laws, or is it possible to take a more nuanced view without loosing what has been won in the last many years?

PS: Why oh why are fundamentalits feminists given so much space in the press??
I guess the answer if probably that the more outrageous your views are, the more papers you sell, and never mind the rest of the population's more sensible ideas!