'Manivannan starts to talk about rape in a wider discussion about rehabilitation, saying: "I think our distaste towards rape is towards rape.
"It's towards the idea of and the act of rape, not towards the myth of this monster rapist as we're born to thinking of it that way. Because there's definitely a demonisation of rape in the sense of, it is a spectrum." He says he is not seeking to "lighten" the crime but when the interviewer suggests rape is "not always a scary act" and there are a "range of things that are also rape," he responds: "Yeah, it's a spectrum. None of which is any worse or less but it is a spectrum of things that constitute that one homogenised word, rape."'
What the actual fuck does he actually mean?
'Manivannan said his comments had "been clearly misrepresented and taken out of context from a much longer interview". He added: "As a survivor of sexual violence, who has spoken openly about my recovery, I am clear that we need to focus on reducing the likelihood of perpetrators of rape reoffending."
He said his comment about "demonisation" was that "not all rapists fit a stereotype, and that all kinds of men can and do commit it". He also defended his use of the word "spectrum", arguing he was "making the point that laws often take a narrow definition of what rape and sexual violence is, which often allows it to continue without consequence, adding: "A full viewing of the interview clarifies this.
"In a country where rape has the lowest conviction rates of any crime, and reoffending continues, this is an urgent and important conversation we need to have in Scotland. Any suggestion that my statements minimise or excuse rape or sexual assault are deeply false and misleading."'
Was he aiming for a 'banality of evil' statement?
Did he just accidentally make himself sound like a fucking rape apologist?