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.

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

• http://twitter.com/percyporcelain Percy Porcelain

  It’s clearly Junior Showtime at the Indie. I was prepared to give this piece a listening, even though Dorries is an ex-nurse who knows more about teenage girls than most people, and whose argument that abstinence should even be suggested as an option for them seems to have enraged the free love gurus and ‘erotic choreographers’. But the writing is just so abysmally immature, with puerile abuse passing for argument, that I can only assume the Indie decided a teenage girl was the person to ask…

• Trevor_m

  Just because she is an ex-nurse doesn’t warrant her to produce this narrow-minded comments. Automatically assuming that somehow saying ‘no’ will reduce sexual abuse. These are young girls that she is talking about. Imagine it being your daughter up against a man or a women. Would they be able to defend themselves if they just said ‘no’. Granted young children need to be taught what is right and what is wrong, but to automatically conclude the a child who is defenseless in comparison to an adult could just say no and that will automatically reduce the number sexual abused. Ridiculous.  That’s what seems abysmally puerile. Read the comments that all the other readers have made. And how bigoted of you to reduce someones opinion based on their age. Just shows the lack of immaturity of some indy readers. 

• Trevor_m

   Sorry I didn’t actually mean to like this post. To reduce someones opinion based on their age is hugely inappropriate. Is that the best you can do to refute this argument? You haven’t actually provided a proper counter argument to anything that has been mentioned. You don’t know anything about the writer. She may know more on the topic than you do, but I don’t want to assume. And if you read what Nadine said, she wasn’t referring to teenage girls, she was talking about young girls. So get your facts straight before you attempt to poorly refute an argument. The writer of this article was not talking about abstinence, she was talking about sexual abuse. Again, get your facts straight before you try and refute someones argument. Just because Nadine was an ex-nurse does not mean she has an accurate view on things. I know my own daughter would be powerless against a grown adult were something to happen to her (god forbid). I’d hope she’d try and stand up for herself or some and tell me, but ‘just saying no’ will not automatically reduce the number of girls who are sexually abused. It comes down to education from schools as well as parents, to teach young children, both girls and boys what is right and what is wrong. You are terribly mid-guided in your views here, and I suggest you re-read this article and do some research on dorries views before you spout these bigoted views. 

• Trevor_m

   Sorry I didn’t actually mean to like this post. To reduce someones opinion based on their age is hugely inappropriate. Is that the best you can do to refute this argument? You haven’t actually provided a proper counter argument to anything that has been mentioned. You don’t know anything about the writer. She may know more on the topic than you do, but I don’t want to assume. And if you read what Nadine said, she wasn’t referring to teenage girls, she was talking about young girls. So get your facts straight before you attempt to poorly refute an argument. The writer of this article was not talking about abstinence, she was talking about sexual abuse. Again, get your facts straight before you try and refute someones argument. Just because Nadine was an ex-nurse does not mean she has an accurate view on things. I know my own daughter would be powerless against a grown adult were something to happen to her (god forbid). I’d hope she’d try and stand up for herself or some and tell me, but ‘just saying no’ will not automatically reduce the number of girls who are sexually abused. It comes down to education from schools as well as parents, to teach young children, both girls and boys what is right and what is wrong. To simply assume that a ‘no’ will automatically reduce sexual abuse rates is absurd. A powerless young child up against an adult? It’s like telling a rapist not to rape you or a mugger not to mug you. Do you have any children? Probably not considering your comments. Provide an accurate counter argument that actually contains substance before you try and refute someone else’s argument.