Why anonymity for men accused of rape is imperative

The witch-hunt suffered by Oxford University’s Ben Sullivan shows exactly why men need pre-conviction anonymity in rape trials

Oxford University students are considered some of the most privileged people in the country. But the feminist witch-hunt suffered by Ben Sullivan, the college’s Union President, shows that even those destined for greatness aren’t above a legal system that currently hates men.

After five weeks of public humiliation, finger-pointing and gender bias – both on campus and in the media – police later confirmed that he won’t face a single charge over two unfounded rape allegations.

Not one. Nothing. Nadda.

But, like countless men all over the world – including Paul Weller, Amy Winehouse’s ex-boyfriend Reg Traviss, Nigel Evans MP, and ex-Manchester City footballer Benjamin Mendy – Sullivan's life has already been affected by a system that considers men’s innocence a bonus, not a baseline.

What a joke.

In a damning example of everyday sexism, Sarah Pine, President for Women at Oxford University Student Union, spearheaded a character assassination against the innocent 21 year-old, before the accusations against him had time to be considered.

She devised a boycott of speakers scheduled to appear at the Union and called for Sullivan to resign. Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble, Norman Finkelstein and David Mepham, UK Director of Human Rights Watch (!) both jumped on board the hysteria train, parping their horns along the tracks of misandry and make-believe.

Jennifer Perry, CEO of the Digital Trust and author of the UK guidelines on digital risks, resisted – and later spoke of how she felt ‘threatened’ and ‘intimidated’ by Pine’s gender-driven agenda.

So much for innocent until proven guilty.

Ben Sullivan’s prehistoric treatment not only proves that pre-conviction identification doesn’t work, but reiterates a very pertinent question: why, in our best-ever age of equality and human rights, are men still being denied their right to anonymity ahead of a not-guilty verdict?

It’s bonkers.

Originally, the law agreed. In 1976, the Labour government introduced rape trial anonymity for both the alleged victim and the accused. It operated this way until 1988, when guidelines were relaxed to help police investigations. At the time, the media was far less powerful, less global, less permanent than it is today. There was no internet, no slew of gossip magazines, no mobile phones with cameras, no social networking sites. Police techniques and technology were also less refined, so a lack of anonymity helped them.

Now, things are different. Dramatically so. And – once again – the law should change to reflect this.

Why? Because a not-guilty verdict is no longer enough to repair the planet-sized crater of damage caused by weeks of daily headlines across the globe.

Perhaps more importantly, it's also a human right to be innocent until proven guilty.

Even Labour peer Lord Corbett, who introduced the 1976 law providing mutual pre-conviction anonymity, argued this until his death in February 2012. He told the Evening Standard in 2002: "Rape is a uniquely serious offence and acquittal is not enough to clear a man in the eyes of his family, community or workplace. He is left with this indelible stain on his reputation. The case for matching anonymity for the defendant is as strong now as ever."

He was right in life and he's right in death.

Not least because, despite the fact police won’t be pressing charges, millions of onlookers will favour their own skewed conclusion to that of the truth. Haters across the world will decide that Sullivan is guilty by default because he is male. They will gather around the water cooler and say: "there’s no smoke without fire" or "he looks the type".

This is precisely why a court of law armed with all the evidence, not a casual observer saddled with girl power grudges, should convict a defendant in a safe and fair way.

Worryingly, for many feminists – both male and female – it seems the accused deserve everything they get, which is ironic given that they’re supposed to be bastions of parity and equity.

In my book, Stand By Your Manhood, I urged all men to embrace their inner Suffragent: the side of them which stands up to stiletto sexism and anti-male bias. While many people say embracing men’s rights isn’t necessary, ask yourself this: in the decades that feminism has been the political and status quo, what has it done for us? We are still ousted from families and denied access to our own children (but forced to finance them), we are allowed to suffer a life expectancy deficit of a decade, schools are failing our boys and male suicide rates are at a ten-year high.

Is this third-wave feminism? Feels more Third Reich.

Besides, the benefit of mutual anonymity would cut across both genders, helping victims as well as conserving fair trials. For a start, it would deter anyone from making false claims out of spite, seeing the accuracy of convictions rise – not fall.

Secondly, it could make testifying easier for those who've come forward. Identifying the accused often inadvertently identifies the victim, which adds immense pressure for them. It's all wrong.

Currently, the law means young men like me – like you – are sitting ducks when it comes to such vile allegations. Even innocence doesn’t defend us from being named and shamed by a compulsive liar, a fantasist or a vengeful lover.

This needs to change. After all, if it can happen to celebrities and Oxford University students, the rest of us mere mortals are already doomed.