Q, non binary male MEP says rape is a spectrum and has been demonised.

Yes. I expect they have a well worn strategy they get out when one of their candidates has one of these 'accidents'.

Looks like he is getting away with it for now.

Scottish Green MSP keeps whip after saying rape exists 'on a spectrum'
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/scottish-greens-refuse-to-withdraw-whip-after-msp-sparks-storm-after-claiming-ra-5HjdfqS_2/

More negative coverage developing though lots of pressure.

Rape crisis centres condemn Green MSP’s rape ‘spectrum’ comments
The Scottish Rape Crisis Alliance warned Q Manivannan not to ‘minimise’ rape as they criticised their comments about ‘demonising rape’.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scottish-conservatives-scottish-scottish-parliament-labour-b3030425.html

Pressure grows on Green leadership to suspend Q Manivannan after rape comments as UN official criticises MSP
Ross Greer and Gillian Mackay have been told they risk sending 'a horrendous message to victims of rape' if they do not take action against the MSP

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/pressure-grows-green-leadership-suspend-37533576

If it was another party he might be in big trouble. The Scottish Greens are old hands at covering up this sort of thing though.

Harvie's legislative interests remind of the legislative interests of Senator Scott Wiener in California 🤔

A slight tangent. I was digging into the history of the Scottish bill, passed in 2008.

Just noted Harvie was at odds with the needs of women way back then, concerned about BDSM enthusiasts over women at risk of DV.

I was raped in a "minor way", (I'm not going into details, but there was definitely PIV), so probably at the lower end of his "rape spectrum".

I can tell you that the terror of realising firstly that my explanation for not wanting sex was not going to be respected, that he was not going to stop, of being overpowered by his bigger strength, of him ripping my underwear and the rest of it, that rape is rape.

I would not wish sexual assault on anyone, but maybe if he'd had a taste of the fear that he might be raped, as nearly all women have, he would be more circumspect in his remarks.

I completely agree. I was trying to understand his mindset. But yes, any unconsenting sex by its very nature constitutes violence.

Tbf, Patrick Harvie has been very much been one of the good guys on women's rights, hasn't he?

@Datun I imagine he sees verbally coercive rape as less rape than physically violent rape. It isn't.

Rape is always violent. It is per se a violent crime.

It sounds like that proposed amendment wasn't passed for fear that domestic abusers would use it as a defence - but domestic abusers do still use that as a defence don't they? You read it in the news sometimes that a man strangles his girlfriend but then claims it was part of consensual sex.

But yeah it's yet another reason not to vote Green, the list is becoming endless

I bet he wouldn't be so philosophical about it if he himself was violated in a violent manner
Prize prick!

Not quite sure what I have just skim read!

Will have to come back.

I wonder if there were any FWR threads on this at the time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8092157.stm

'The laws were passed by 121 votes to zero, although Green MSP Patrick Harvie abstained. '

https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12382863.msp-drops-law-change-plea-sex-games/

'MSPs today heard a plea for the fear of prosecution for assault to be lifted from those taking part in consensual bondage, sado-masochism, and similar practices.
The plea came from Green MSP Patrick Harvie who told a Holyrood committee the present law was an "anomaly".
But he dropped a bid to change the law after Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill and other MSPs said lifting the threat of prosecution could provide a loophole for those charged with domestic abuse and sex crimes.
Mr Harvie made his plea when the Justice Committee today scrutinised the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill.
If passed, the Bill will radically overhaul existing law on rape and other sex crimes, and will redefine consent as "free agreement".
Mr Harvie tabled an amendment to the Bill under which the crime of assault would not be committed if consensual acts between those over 16 were carried out for "sexual gratification", if both participants agreed and where serious injury was unlikely.
He said he was tabling the amendment to trigger debate and to enable Mr MacAskill to explain why a change recommended by the Scottish Law Commission was not included in the Bill.
Mr Harvie told MSPs the practices covered by his amendment were known as "BDSM activity", a term which includes bondage, sadism, masochism, dominance and submission.
He accepted the Government feared such a provision could be misused by those accused of domestic abuse.
He argued that if the Government believed BDSM activity between consenting adults was a criminal offence, that was an anomaly.
"All other matters being equal, these situations should not be seen as a priority for prosecution," he said.
"In situations where consent is uncontested, where all the people involved agree there was free and informed consent between them, these should surely not be treated as assaults worthy of prosecution and punishment."
The present law could cause harm of the type once suffered by gay men, said Mr Harvie.
"Many ordinary people who simply have a different kind of sex life to other people can lose their jobs, their homes and their family as a result of public disapproval."'

Ffs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_(Scotland)_Act_2009

'In 2004, the Scottish Law Commission began working on a reference from the Scottish Executive to "examine the law relating to rape and other sexual offences, and the evidential requirements for proving such offences, and to make recommendations for reform" and completed its report in December 2007.[1] The Scottish Government gave a commitment to bring forward legislation in the light of the commission's review.[2] Before the enactment of this act, Scotland had very few statutory sexual offences, with most of its sexual legislation being defined at common law, which was increasingly seen as a problem.[3]'

'Male rape (male on male assault) is also included in the offence of rape; before this new definition, rape was defined as non-consensual vaginal intercourse imposed by a male against a female.'

I think the interviewer makes him look worse as she misunderstands his muddled speech and thinks he is talking about rape being more or less severe. He sort of veers away from that. I think like someone said before he sees everything through a queer theory lens and so boundaries are to be blurred. He also never wants to see a situation black and white and so that’s why there’s focus on the rehabilitation and the experience of the rapist.

This is a good example to show how certain academic courses can diminish, rather than enhance, a person's clarity of thought.

https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/s3/sexual-offences-scotland-bill

https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/public/+/archive2021.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/16835.aspx

'CONSULTATION
173. The main consultation document for this Bill, Consultation on Scottish Law Commission Report on 1rape and sexual offences was issued by the Scottish Government, following Scottishgovt consultation
These documents relate to the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 11) as introduced in the
Scottish Parliament on 17 June 2008
2publication of the Scottish Law Commission’s (SLC) report on rape and other sexual offences in December 2007. The SLC earlier undertook a public consultation on a discussion paper, seeking views on their emerging findings, in January 2006. The outcome of that consultation helped to inform their final report.'

Thanks - and accept your point about about different laws.

But still think this is an example of how over the years, the accepted understanding of sex to be biological has been whittled away.

And this adds to the confusion, and has resulted in some people claiming that the EA is out of date.

I dont see how you can have a legal system that doesn't have a consistent understanding of what a woman is.

I wonder who in 2009 went to the trouble of having this redefinition of something that is a biological fact to be legally not.

A bit like the phrase "legal woman" now Scotland has a "legal penis".

@IwantToRetire the Sexual Offences Act 2009 defined a penis to include a surgically created penis when it was first enacted. Prior to that Scotland used uk law so I think the change must have been made in 2009

It doesn't need to comply with the supreme court ruling as its criminal law not civil

re definition of rape in Scottish law being different.

Does anyone know when this was agreed?

It sounds like TRAs wanted to further codify in law that in transing you do literally change sex. ie the penis is a biological male organ so an artificial one isn't actually a penis.

Apart from anything else I would have thought it does not comply with the Supreme Court ruling.

I am not of course saying that anyone who is against their consent penetrated by an object shouldn't be protected by the law.

But I think that the whole reason why rape was and still is in England about the penis, is because it is about a very specific act of male violence.

I wonder if For Women Scotland would take this up as a campaign.

Its not just that it denies the reality of the act of male violation, but because it is part of the creeping process of using the law to say (via the back door) that trans people do become the opposite sex.

I dont remember any discussion at the time this was introduced so not sure how long ago it happened, and what the consultation process was.

Yep - at the very time they're needed most and could start gaining traction on environmental issues, they have turned into an unserious party of extremist nutjobs amd weirdos. Old school greens must despair.

To be very clear, I do not agree with a single word he says! In his long statement reported afterwards mitigating his comments, he said he's a victim himself. So that's why I think he thinks it's ok to be rape-apologist as long as you're a victim too. Otherwise why bring it up?

@Kingdomofsleep “everyone is on the rapist-victim spectrum, everyone is a bit of both and so we can all jointly shoulder both the blame and the victimhood”

But he speaks about his muddled concept of
rape on a spectrum but then says that none of the spectrum is less or more worse. He can’t have it both ways.

He has been elected to put his trans and non binary politics out there because this is a debate the captured Scottish Greens feel we need to have.

And if what The Times uncovered about his background is true, he's also a massive bloody fraud.

Which would appear to be 'in vogue' atm. 🙄

I think even more than that, I think creepy people think that everybody else is thinking creepy thoughts too.

I read once a really harrowing article written by a woman whose brother was convicted of sexually abusing small children, and was suspected of abusing her child (his niece/nephew). She wrote that he said to her something like "but doesn't everyone think like that a bit when they see cute little kids" (I'm paraphrasing because I don't want to try and find the article) and her blood ran cold.