This is a brief post about the Department of Work and Pension's so called "Rape Clause."
Obviously this post is about the clause and rape itself so that stands as a TRIGGER WARNING.
The "rape clause" means tax credits usually limited to two children can be claimed for a third child if the mother had conceived the third child as a result of being raped. Or rather, can prove to a representative of the DWP that her child was the result of rape.
I confess to a complete lack of knowledge of this clause until yesterday's Social Security Committee hearing with evidence submitted by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Esther McVey.
I imagine I'm not alone in knowing nothing of this clause for three reasons. One, I don't have children and don't claim tax credits. Two, the law was sneaked through Parliament last March 15th as an amendment to an existing act and thus did not need consultation. Thirdly, the media are generally silent on benefits, welfare and social security except when outing supposed cheats. The news' silence on the subject is pretty damning.
In fact the BBC (which is, dispiritingly, still the main news outlet for the majority of people in the UK) only briefly mentioned the committee meeting on Monday 16th April and tucked the reporting of it under the news section for Scotland under the sub header of Supportive System.
There's been a general sense of outrage primarily aimed at Esther McVey rather than the law itself (which has been on the statutes for over a year, after all).
Labour MSP Pauline McNeill said of McVey:
"This was a disgraceful performance from a work and pensions secretary who is completely out of touch with the reality of life for low income women on tax credits...To badge up the vile rape clause as some sort of virtuous policy to provide support is simply skin-crawling."
McVey had claimed: "There will be no invasive or delving questions asked."
This in itself is a bizarre claim for a law which forces women to disclose "their sexual history" in order to access a benefit. How can that not be invasive? Further to the clause:
The woman cannot be living with the man who raped her.
The woman must also have a "professional who the woman has spoken to about the rape must complete sections of the claim form."
So you must leave an abusive partner in order to access the benefit. How exactly one does that when reliant on benefits is not discussed of course. And you must have had to report the crime and return to ask said professional to complete a form for you.
Indeed the form:Support for a child conceived without your consent suggests it"should be completed by someone you have previously spoken to or are now speaking with in their professional capacity about the non-consensual act or coercive or controlling behaviour you experienced from the other biological parent of the child, which occurred at or around the time your child was conceived."
Thus, if you hadn't reported the rape then you are now obliged to report it to your doctor, social worker or other professional, then report it to the DWP in order to claim your benefit.
The positive thing is that this non-invasive benefit could quite literally be a benefit for female survivors of rape. McVey points out that this isn't about humiliation or simply forcing women off of benefits that they have a right to, it's about a helping hand to women who have gone through the trauma of giving birth to a child as a result of rape and giving the women a safe and healthy space to talk about their trauma, it's almost, you could say, a government sponsored counselling service:
"What we are doing is providing extra help where people have got more children that they couldn't have planned.
This could give them an opportunity to talk about, maybe, something that has happened that they never had before so it is potentially double support - them getting the money they need and maybe an outlet which they might possibly need."
I'm hoping, like me, you're getting a warm fuzzy feeling.
I confess that previous to this performance I had, when faced with McVey, always invoked Nye Bevan's famous: "No attempt at ethical or social seduction can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." But now, McVey's genuine heartfelt offer of support to women who face the greatest existential trauma one can experience has left me thinking, hey, maybe these Tories aren't less than vermin, maybe, after all, they're just kind of level with vermin, or something.
The paradox for me is that the clause is utterly repugnant and not at all surprising from this present government, which Bevan would have been truly horrified by (lower than lower than vermin, some kind of super low vermin). Yet, I have a grain of pity for McVey. After all, she only took over the DWP SS (State Secretary, to clarify) job in January of this year, a full nine months after the amendment was added. She's just the messenger. Our vitriol should be aimed at the government itself rather than McVey personally.
Yes, her comments might appear insensitive, crass, verminous, but she's in an impossible situation. defending the indefensible. What could she say: "They want the benefit, they have to prove they were raped, get over it"? There's really nothing she could say beyond criticizing her own department's politics.
And that would be political suicide.
Though I haven't claimed TaxCredits I have experienced the DWP's caring and considerate counselling service in the form of the Work Capability Assessments in which a health professional with no, like, actual qualifications, supports you through the process of forcing you off your benefit by asking you inane questions about your depression like "why are you depressed?" And no answers like "that's an existential question that involves the encultured position of postmodern anomie with a deepseated belief that l'enfer c'est les autres, you know?" You're fit for work if you can invoke Durkheim and quote Sartre. In French. She said to me. Fair cop.
So I think vilifying McVey on this matter lets the real villains off the hook. The government itself and the Secretary of State at the time of the amendment passing into law. Guess who that was?
Damian Green. He who resigned his post after having been found to be watching porn on his computer at work (which he lied about and later agreed to resign over... he also diddled his expenses, claiming for £45,000 worth of tissues) and sexually harassing a female party activist and altering text messages to make it appear as if the activist encouraged him. What followed was a classic case of victim blaming. Andrew Pearce "profiled" the activist in the Daily Mail, a simplistic shaming piece dredging up "friends" telling vaguely unflattering anecdotes about the woman. She probably openly wore short skirts too.
Green was never charged with anything (of course) and in an interview quoted in The Guardian in February this year Green then resorted to the old "it was just a bit of fun" model Former secretary of state tells Today programme comments to journalist were ‘a joke’.
We live in a culture that blames women for being raped, for not leaving abusive partners and for sexual harassment, instead of the rapist, abuser, harasser. The rape clause is an amendment to the way women experience the legal system that requires them at every stage to confront their trauma, justify themselves and shoulder the burden of proof. Further, this isn't only an attack on women, it's a very specific attack on working class women, the most financially vulnerable women, the women who are least likely to have a support system in place. Thank god then that Esther McVey and her team of DWP representatives are there to offer double the support, a friendly outlet to women in need everywhere.
Obviously this post is about the clause and rape itself so that stands as a TRIGGER WARNING.
The "rape clause" means tax credits usually limited to two children can be claimed for a third child if the mother had conceived the third child as a result of being raped. Or rather, can prove to a representative of the DWP that her child was the result of rape.
I confess to a complete lack of knowledge of this clause until yesterday's Social Security Committee hearing with evidence submitted by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Esther McVey.
In fact the BBC (which is, dispiritingly, still the main news outlet for the majority of people in the UK) only briefly mentioned the committee meeting on Monday 16th April and tucked the reporting of it under the news section for Scotland under the sub header of Supportive System.
There's been a general sense of outrage primarily aimed at Esther McVey rather than the law itself (which has been on the statutes for over a year, after all).
Labour MSP Pauline McNeill said of McVey:
"This was a disgraceful performance from a work and pensions secretary who is completely out of touch with the reality of life for low income women on tax credits...To badge up the vile rape clause as some sort of virtuous policy to provide support is simply skin-crawling."
McVey had claimed: "There will be no invasive or delving questions asked."
This in itself is a bizarre claim for a law which forces women to disclose "their sexual history" in order to access a benefit. How can that not be invasive? Further to the clause:
The woman cannot be living with the man who raped her.
The woman must also have a "professional who the woman has spoken to about the rape must complete sections of the claim form."
So you must leave an abusive partner in order to access the benefit. How exactly one does that when reliant on benefits is not discussed of course. And you must have had to report the crime and return to ask said professional to complete a form for you.
Indeed the form:Support for a child conceived without your consent suggests it"should be completed by someone you have previously spoken to or are now speaking with in their professional capacity about the non-consensual act or coercive or controlling behaviour you experienced from the other biological parent of the child, which occurred at or around the time your child was conceived."
Thus, if you hadn't reported the rape then you are now obliged to report it to your doctor, social worker or other professional, then report it to the DWP in order to claim your benefit.
The positive thing is that this non-invasive benefit could quite literally be a benefit for female survivors of rape. McVey points out that this isn't about humiliation or simply forcing women off of benefits that they have a right to, it's about a helping hand to women who have gone through the trauma of giving birth to a child as a result of rape and giving the women a safe and healthy space to talk about their trauma, it's almost, you could say, a government sponsored counselling service:
"What we are doing is providing extra help where people have got more children that they couldn't have planned.
This could give them an opportunity to talk about, maybe, something that has happened that they never had before so it is potentially double support - them getting the money they need and maybe an outlet which they might possibly need."
I'm hoping, like me, you're getting a warm fuzzy feeling.
I confess that previous to this performance I had, when faced with McVey, always invoked Nye Bevan's famous: "No attempt at ethical or social seduction can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." But now, McVey's genuine heartfelt offer of support to women who face the greatest existential trauma one can experience has left me thinking, hey, maybe these Tories aren't less than vermin, maybe, after all, they're just kind of level with vermin, or something.
Of course, in reality, vermin are cute and cuddly
McVey, as a woman, has, of course, experienced the joys of a cultural system designed by men for men, so when elected to the vermin Tory cabinet this was the picture widely disseminated in the media, a bit of totty showing some leg, phwoar.
And that would be political suicide.
Though I haven't claimed TaxCredits I have experienced the DWP's caring and considerate counselling service in the form of the Work Capability Assessments in which a health professional with no, like, actual qualifications, supports you through the process of forcing you off your benefit by asking you inane questions about your depression like "why are you depressed?" And no answers like "that's an existential question that involves the encultured position of postmodern anomie with a deepseated belief that l'enfer c'est les autres, you know?" You're fit for work if you can invoke Durkheim and quote Sartre. In French. She said to me. Fair cop.
So I think vilifying McVey on this matter lets the real villains off the hook. The government itself and the Secretary of State at the time of the amendment passing into law. Guess who that was?
Damian Green. He who resigned his post after having been found to be watching porn on his computer at work (which he lied about and later agreed to resign over... he also diddled his expenses, claiming for £45,000 worth of tissues) and sexually harassing a female party activist and altering text messages to make it appear as if the activist encouraged him. What followed was a classic case of victim blaming. Andrew Pearce "profiled" the activist in the Daily Mail, a simplistic shaming piece dredging up "friends" telling vaguely unflattering anecdotes about the woman. She probably openly wore short skirts too.
Damian Green, goat harasser
We live in a culture that blames women for being raped, for not leaving abusive partners and for sexual harassment, instead of the rapist, abuser, harasser. The rape clause is an amendment to the way women experience the legal system that requires them at every stage to confront their trauma, justify themselves and shoulder the burden of proof. Further, this isn't only an attack on women, it's a very specific attack on working class women, the most financially vulnerable women, the women who are least likely to have a support system in place. Thank god then that Esther McVey and her team of DWP representatives are there to offer double the support, a friendly outlet to women in need everywhere.
Comments
Post a Comment