The “rape clause” is a furtive fallacy straight out of Alinsky's rule book

The “rape clause” is a furtive fallacy straight out of Alinsky's rule book

by Jonathan Stanley
article from Thursday 13, April, 2017

THERE ARE FEW men perhaps so wicked in their legacy as Saul Alinsky.  His Rules for Radicals book has poisoned political debate for half a century and is based deep down on the legitimisation of hatred. His 12 tactics are so often used it is easy to forget how vulgar and unnatural they were when introduced.

The most pernicious tactic is the final one, summarised as "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. The truth is elastic, all that matters is that the opponent is believed to be isolated and beneath contempt. It is easier to hurt a person than a party, and also easier to demonise a group than an individual. So first attack Ruth Davidson to attack the Tories. 

Now let's explore the rape clause, the one that doesn't exist. The SNP and Labour, both Marxist outfits, are seriously aiming to label Theresa May and Ruth Davidson as misogynists... yes, really.  To do this they have to attack Ruth as the spokesman for Westminster AKA "the English"

They do this by isolating one aspect of a law brought in by Westminster to reduce the number of children eligible for family credit. There has been of course very little outcry about this. It is not unpopular and so they have turned to the most disgusting of tactics, to abuse women by proxy by attacking an exemption to the policy given to victims of rape.

Poor, helpless, female victims of men. And hey, they'd know because they are women too. Harriet Harman honed this down to a fine art in Westminster. Everything gravitated to creating women as victims and attacking anyone who disagreed as misogynists. Diane Abbott spins a similar yarn with racism.

It was obvious from the moment the two child cap was launched that some women had to be exempted. This means they would be thousands of pounds better off than those who are not. The premium on gaining an exemption is extraordinary, amounting to tens of thousands of pounds over a child's life. The premium on cheating therefore is extraordinary and safeguards must be in place to ensure that is prevented. Common sense is the enemy of Alinsky, it kills the narrative dead.

So Ruth, as a woman, backs exempting rape victims from losing thousands of pounds. Not to worry, the left simply use a furtive fallacy. It is the process of proof that is demonised and so Ruth is evil because she supports women having to prove they have been raped. Oh the inhumanity! The helpless victims! How can they possibly report being raped?

They are victims. That they are helpless however is not acceptable. For so many powers are now devolved to Holyrood that the one remaining power at play here that is reserved is that of benefit checks. Not policing, not counselling, nor the provision of women's shelters by local authorities, nor the appeal of three female leaders to encourage victims of domestic violence to come forward. Oh no, let's focus on the process reserved to Westminster and let's use rape victims to achieve the end required. 

It goes without saying almost all the rape clause tweets are in Scotland (see above ‘heat map’ of tweets). The furtive fallacy is a product not just of opportunism but the polarised and deeply untrusting nature of Scottish politics. That has been achieved by the SNP alone so that every policy, every tweet is treated with suspicion and derision in equal measure. That robs us all of decent government and opposition.

Let's be blunt. Nicola Sturgeon and Kezia Dugdale are disgusting people for engaging in this. For a year since the Scottish general election I don't know of a single MSP, and there are 129 of them, who have done anything to advance the cause of rape victims, to encourage reporting, to safeguard shelters that help women escape horrendous abuse.

There was a glimmer of hope when Michelle Thomson MP came forward as a rape victim. It was harrowing but also gave us hope. It was the example that encourages more women to come forward, instead two women in powerful positions turn on a third in a sickening and contrived bag fight. How very disappointing. A chance to help women has not been allowed to go to waste being acted upon, not when the Effing Tories can be hurt instead.

Pick the target, isolate it, personalise it and polarise it. Not so different to the power dynamic used by rapists. Predatory, degrading, controlling, humiliating. Ruth has kept her silence very appropriately which is sadly not reflected in the two leaders whose parties between them have run Scotland (into the ground) for nearly twenty years.

Having waived through wife beater Bill Walker as an MSP the First Minister is on a wobbly peg, and no, she never has apologised. Four in five rapes go unreported in Scotland and the government's own watchdog has slammed Holyrood for letting women go unwashed for two days after they report rape because the SNP Government service cannot examine them faster.

Holyrood, not Westminster, not Ruth, just bad government failing the victims of rape valuing them only as a tool to attack opponents. 

So what do Ruth and Theresa now do? They can do worse than speak out for victims of rape and domestic violence. They can show us all the real victims are not the loud and proud man-hating harridans than stomp around parliament but silent, vulnerable, women in relationships, in real life, who have little confidence in the system and even less hope life can be better.

Given Labour and the SNP's cold cynicism to the real victims some compassionate conservatism wouldn't go amiss.

ThinkScotland exists thanks to readers' support - please donate in any currency and often


Follow us on Facebook and Twitter & like and share this article