From the autobiography of James Rhodes, which he had been enjoined not to publish because a court in Britain had sided with his ex-wife who had argued that the descriptions of the horrific rapes he experienced as a child would inflict emotional distress on their son.
Rhodes has now won in the UK supreme court and can publish his book.
"Clearly this is a victory for freedom of speech. Much more importantly it is a powerful message to survivors of sexual abuse," he said. "There is already too much stigma and shame surrounding mental health and sexual abuse. I’m relieved that our justice system has finally seen sense and not only allowed me to tell my story, but affirmed in the strongest possible way that speaking up about one’s own life is a basic human right."
१८ टिप्पण्या:
The American left prefers the fake rape "survivors" with art projects.
The British left and anti-"Islamophobes" prefer rapes of young girls forced into sex slavery.
The largest number of "Sexual abuses" in the US military are with male victims so there is silence,.
I don't recall being dancing, spinning, gigglingly alive at age five or ever.
But I'm not a professional victim.
rhhardin, maybe you weren't brutally raped as a 6-year-old either.
The claim that that knowing of something that happened to your parents would negatively affect you is a strange one to me. Wouldn't it be better to know -- to help understand your parents' behavior?
I'm left wondering what the wife's real issue is here. Why the need for secrecy?
I'm amazed at how little freedom of speech is respected in the UK.
Progressives like to mock the idea but America is exceptional in some ways, and unique in others.
MadisonMan said...
I'm left wondering what the wife's real issue is here. Why the need for secrecy?
I wondered the same thing. Two possibilities immediately occurred:
1) Wife is from a repressive culture where this would be held against her and possibly the son, or
2) Wife thinks it could generate sympathy for the father by the son which might risk her relationship with the child.
Interestingly the first wife's name is excluded from press reports even outside of the UK. I did find this though:
Instead, [Rhodes] took a sales job in the City, met his first wife, an American writer, had a son and tried to forget music.
Gabriel said...
I'm amazed at how little freedom of speech is respected in the UK.
Progressives like to mock the idea but America is exceptional in some ways, and unique in others.
Between their lack of anything resembling our First Amendment, their libel laws, and things like the Official Secrets Act, speech isn't nearly as free in the UK as it is (or was) here. I remember visiting London in 1980 and one of the highlights was Speakers' Corner. It was a place set aside where anyone could say whatever they wanted. I remember wondering why having to set aside a place for free speech was such a big deal. I wonder if Speakers' Corner still exists.
Regardin: may you or any family member of yours ever experience something like this man did. I found your comment to be truly awful.
Those Europeans are so civilized with their "Thou shalt not" attitudes and all. Free speech? You will only speak when spoken to, Peasant!
Hey that's a call back to the Chelsea story yesterday!
Judging from the article the rapes commenced in 1980 or 1981. Even back then this kind of behavior would have been noticed and prosecuted. Considering the physical injuries suffered as a child, surely his parents would have noticed and certainly his pediatrician at the time this was occurring. So why did they not protect the child to start with and why wasn't the rapist prosecuted at the time?
"So why did they not protect the child to start with and why wasn't the rapist prosecuted at the time?"
Schoolboy buggery has a long history in Britain. I have often wondered the effect on them.
It wasn't just the playing fields of Eton.
I don't recall being dancing, spinning, gigglingly alive at age five or ever
No Hula Hoop?
IF the UK Supreme Court (a new institution) keeps ruling in this manner, that can only be a good sign for British rights - which are otherwise in no way guaranteed by anyone or any thing. There is a reason Orwell wrote from England.
Schoolboy buggery has a long history in Britain. I have often wondered the effect on them.
Of that I have no doubt. As a longtime schoolboy buggerer yourself, it's obvious that you must have thought long and hard about these things.
As Hitchens would have said, the English don't have rights. They have traditions.
Michael K said...
"So why did they not protect the child to start with and why wasn't the rapist prosecuted at the time?"
Schoolboy buggery has a long history in Britain. I have often wondered the effect on them.
It wasn't just the playing fields of Eton.
5/20/15, 5:29 PM
Setting aside the presumed British tradition of buggery I find it difficult to believe a parent would not notice his young child's injuries.
So the ex-wife wanted to have the book banned for everybody in Britain, so that their child wouldn't be exposed to it? Ridiculous, and I'm glad the court ruled against her.
Back in the 1990s my closest friend, a British barrister, was visiting me. She took home with her a copy of Vincent Bugliosi's "Outrage", about how OJ got away with murder. It was banned for sale in Britain as potentially libellous.
His first wife is woman perpetuating rape culture, and an AMERICAN woman. And his son is now a prisoner of Zenda, apparently.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा