I was so sad to see today’s news. I love Noel Clarke. I have no idea what films he has made, or anything about him really. All I know is that he is British, young, not rich and from an ethnic minority. He’s a true underdog that I have been rooting for since Doctor Who.
My first thought was, “No, that cant possibly be true”. But I thought that for Rolf Harris and Kevin Spacey. So I know that I cant trust my own judgement.
So I choose to believe the 20+ women who were willing to stand up and be counted. (Why would it make a difference if it was only one? Im sorry. Im still working on my unconscious bias).
As expected, I saw at least one post on my FB feed that said “Innocent until proven guilty!!”. From a man.
Im embarrassed to admit that one of my sons is very concerned about the potential move away from this opinion. “But I dont want to be accused of something I didnt do!” He says. Fair point. I dont want that for him either.
So lets look at it another way.
A woman accuses a man of rape or sexual assault. The law says “Innocent until proven guilty!”.
What that means is that the man is innocent until proven guilty, and in consequence, the woman is lying (ie guilty) until proven by a court of law to be proven to be telling the truth (ie innocent). Remember that to be proven guilty in a court of law, the bar is “beyond reasonable doubt”. Thats nearly impossible for a woman (or any victim) to reach, particularly if the attack took place in private, down an alley, or in the home, where there were no witnesses, and often no injuries (except psychological).
So surely its time to admit “innocent until proven guilty” (in abuse/harassment/sexual assault cases) is fundamentally sexist (in male attacks against women cases). You’re believing the man unless it can be proven the woman isnt lying.
I agree with the legal concept of “innocent until proven guilty”. But in other types of crime, we believe the victim.
A victim of robbery is considered to be telling the truth. They were robbed.
A victim of murder is considered to be telling the truth. They are dead.
In all other types of crime, we consider the victim to be innocent.
So isnt it about time we acted the same way for victims of abuse?
In a sexual assault case, the world starts from the position that the victim is lying.
Noel Clarke’s survivors felt sexually abused and bullied. I believe them.
But I want to reassure my son. Maybe I’m niave, but Noel Clarke has said “OK, I must have done something. Please help me”.
So maybe we should try a new way.
Believe the victim (or survivor). (Victim gives the abuser more power than they already have).
Believe the survivor.
OK.
Where do we go now?
Can we have a new process? Is the perpetrator remorseful? Lets assume innocent until proven guilty (they are remorseful until proven not). Lets give them the support that they need to change. Lets put the legal and societal costs (because Im not just talking about high profile cases here) towards something more positive. Lets try and rehabilitate if we can. And THEN look at punishment if they are clearly unrepentant.
I choose to believe in the good in everyone. Im naive that way. Sorry. (Not Sorry).
There are some perpetrators who are truly evil. But I choose to believe that the majority are not. Our society and culture gives men power that they dont acknowledge or actually really always are aware that they have (Im generalising obviously). It takes a lot of work to counteract that. Lets concetrate our efforts on that.
I dont want Noel Clarke’s life (and influence to the world and industry) to be derailed if he is not truly evil.
Can we make that the deciding factor?
I choose to believe that Noel Clarke is truly sorry for any hurt he has caused. Ive seen today him apologising and seeking help (more than Harvey Weinstein, Rolf Harris or Kevin Spacey still choose to do). I choose to believe that there are women that have survived his actions. What do they want? Do THEY want him punished? Or to learn from his mistakes? Or some sort of punishment but also allowing him to learn from his mistakes and continue the good work he does?
Shall we ask them what they think?
Because dont we allow victim impact statements in other types of cases?
I agree with innocent until proven guilty.
But who are we assuming is innocent and who is guilty?
Innocent until proven guilty does not work in abuse/harassment cases.
Nic Danson 