In the ongoing saga of Lord Lester, the Lords conduct committee has held firm on its suspension of the peer accused of sexual harassment and offering a peerage for sex. This had to be reaffirmed after some lords shamed themselves in a display of the stupidest speeches filled with tired myths. The only argument they won was that we need Lords reform.
If one of them had stood up waving a pair of skimpy knickers to prove that women are asking for lechy, ermine-clad advances I wouldn’t have been surprised. One by one, they exclaimed my law degree is bigger than yours in an attempt to prove that they were learned and should be listened to while in fact playing out every one of the dumbest myths in the book.
I can only assume that the Labour peers who voted for the amendment in the name of the appropriately named Lord Pannick did so because the fancy lawyer man persuaded them that this was a matter of the law and process. It wasn’t and they should have known better. What exactly did every single lord who voted in favour do to raise their worries about the process prior to this; why on earth didn’t they act to improve it before one of their mates fell foul?
Campaigners like myself who have for decades worked to try to bust the myths about sexual harassment and violence might as well not have bothered. Pannick tried to suggest that the victim was lying because she had sent affectionate notes to Lester after she alleges the incidents took place. Oh well, that obviously means he can’t have behaved badly – we all know that those who have misbehaved never receive such notes. Pannick rested his case on the stupidest, most dangerous myth in the book.
Have they never met a woman terrorised by her boss who still has brings him coffee with a smile every morning? I don’t know where these people have been practising the law but if the concept of coercion and compliance, especially involving those with less power, money and access to legal support, is lost on them I might suggest we need to have a little look at the syllabus for law degrees.
Hot on the heels of the lords trotting out fiction as fact the Conservative party obviously wanted to join in. Last week, it announced it was dropping its investigation into Andrew Griffiths MP, who had sent thousands of sexual messages to two women in his constituency, including details of how he paid to watch women be beaten.
“Given his state of mental health both now and at the time”, it concluded, further action would be inappropriate. Griffiths has found a confidant in the press to explain that his mental health has been affected by his childhood abuse. This, while very sad, is being used as an excuse by the Conservatives and it plays into another damaging myth – those who are abused go on to transgress themselves and should be treated leniently. It isn’t true and we should stop saying it because what does that tell the little boy coming forward today to say he is being abused? Shall we tell him that he is destined for a life of misogyny and perpetration of abuse? He isn’t.
Being abused as a child or having a mental illness doesn’t make you a misogynist who wants to belittle and exploit women. Being a misogynist is what causes that.
Taxpayers have spent millions training judges, police, teachers, social workers and medics to avoid myths about abuse victims. Why did we bother? The myths offer handy cover when the powerful need protecting. This week, perhaps both chambers will debate the motion: “This house believes women out late were asking for it and if a husband beats his wife that is a private family matter. After all, he’s not been well.”
