Britain’s answer to Sarah Palin
Nadine Dorries, tory MP for Mid-Bedfordshire, is once again hitting the headlines for all the wrong reasons. This time, it’s not because of her affair with a family friend or because sheleft her ex-husband who had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in order to pursue her career ambitions.Or because of her 10-min rule bill on the importance of abstinence, passing by 67-61, aimed at JUST girls, (because in Nadine’s view, boys apparently don’t feel pressured to have sex).No, no this time, it was her views on sexual abuse…
From the blurb provided above, one can assume, that she is of COURSE a woman of high moral standing and would provide the wider public with an accurate, informed view, backed up with something more than her ownpersonalopinions. However, in the world of Nadine Dorries, she, of course, is a law onto herself and feelsqualified enoughtoimpinge the young girls of this country, with her deluded andill-informed pearls of wisdom.
Dorries’ appearance on ‘The Vanessa’ show, displayed a masterstroke of ignorance, an ample amount of insanity with a lingering, stale smell of sheer depravity on issues pertaining to sexual abuse.
During the interview, she concluded that;
“If a stronger ‘just say no’ message was given to children in school then there might be an impact on sexual abuse … if we did empower this message into girls, imbued this message in schools, we’d probably have less sex abuse.”
The sheer degradation in her assessment of victims of sexual abuse is not onlyunfounded,but alsodownright frightening. How an elected MP, however ethically challenged(to put it mildly), manages to not only think, but articulate this view out loud, knowing full well the impact her words will have on the 1/3 of girls AND boys who are victims of sexual abuse (cited from Men Working to End the Violence against Women).Dorries, with all her ranting,seems to perceive sexual abuse as just a single gendered issue. Hergynocentric view thereforeneglects to also attributeboys as being victims of sexual abuse.An unbelievable oversight on her part.
This absurdity continues when sheasserts the blame of sexual abuse onto the victims,forbeing exposed toan ‘over-sexualised’ environment (citing it as their fault). This culminates in Dorries stating, that abused girls should just say no. The problem therefore doesn’t lie at the fault of the perpetrator of the crime, but the victim, for not having said no, and for supposedly allowing it or wanting it to happen; the perceived ‘want’ coming from the ‘over-sexualised environment’; the girl, in this case, is exposed to. I had to clear my ears out to make sure I was hearing this clearly. The blame was lying at the feet of the victim? I couldn’t think of a line to follow this assessment… I was simply dumfounded.
The simplicity and sweeping generalisations with which Dorries speaks when she talks about sexual abuse, not only highlights her lack on knowledge on the issue,but her down right absurdity.
The NSPCC/Childline cite self-blame as common consequence of sexual abuse. Dorries’ comments reinforce her profanity, and will do little more than inflame these feelings experienced by many victims.
The heart-breaking quotes below, were said by young children to ChildLine councillors;
“Dad has been sexually abusing me and my sister. My mum died when I was four years old. I feel bad when he abuses me.” (Girl, aged nine)
“My mum has a drinking problem. When she drinks too much she comes into my room, undresses me and makes me have sex with her.” (Boy, aged 14)
“I am being sexually abused by my brother. My mum and dad don’t believe me. My parents think it is my fault and I must have led him on or come on to him. I am told to keep this a secret and I am struggling to cope with this.” (Girl, aged 12)
A spokesman for The National Association for People Abused in Childhood stated, “A child can never be responsible for abuse, no matter what he or she says or does.” This is something, which Dorries fails to grasp. The simplicity with which she speaks on this issue outrages me.To have anyone, attribute any sort of blame onto the victim, especially when it involves a child being sexually abused, is an absolute travesty.
To require young children to have the strength to protect themselves in these situations, whilst in the care and protection (albeit ‘apparent’ in some cases) of their family is simply ludicrous; these are young innocent children who are not responsible for these actions upon them. The perpetrators of these crimes have taken advantage of the vulnerabilityof these young children. To say otherwise is a huge injustice to them.Tagged in: child abuse, childline, Nadine Dorries, NSPCC
Recent Posts on Notebook
- Chagos: Conservationists are swimming in murky waters
- Justin Webb on the medical advances in tackling heart disease
- The Photography Blog: 'Control Order House' by Edmund Clark - Photographing our response to terrorism
- Dementia Awareness Week: Should we keep an open mind to spiritual solutions?
- Hearing loss: An invisible impairment and a preventable disability
Latest from Independent journalists on Twitter