Legislation on rape

Press, 28 August 1980, Page 16

Legislation on rape

Sir, — Mr McKenzie’s comments on my letter (August 20) did not deal in a satisfactory manner with either of the questions. He did little else save personally attack me, dismissing the argument by labelling me and the organisation I represent “anti-male.” Who u .

is this “anti-male faction”? Could these same people be labelled “pro-women” and, if so, are respecters. of women included in the former or latter group? — Yours, etc., DENISE HILL, For: The Collective, Christchurch Women’s Resource Centre. August 26, 1980.

["Respecters of women” do not have to be included in either group.—Editor]

Sir, — Those persons who, through this newspaper, democratically= expressed their anger and concern on the Morgan rape case — legislation vital to women’s, safety and legal rights — should be commended and not disparaged. Denise Hill criticised Douglas McKenzie’s article on the Morgan case as being garbled. Douglas McKenzie denied this and replied by attacking Ms Hill and some so-called “anti-men faction” (no identification given). Now Harold Evans has attempted to clarify the same article by pointing out its serious deficiencies. Garble means "to misrepresent by suppression or selection.” Deficient means “defective or wanting in some necessary quality” (Chambers’ Twentieth Century Dictionary). I await with interest Douglas McKenzie’s reply to Mr Evans. — Yours, etc., M. P. OWEN. August 26, 1980. [Mr Evans said the article was “seriously deficient.” In fact he added one piece of information which he thought was important: that the House of Lords upheld the conviction of the four defendants in the Morgan case. He was not questioning the article as a whole and merely reinforced the fact that the guilty verdict was upheld because the defendants were disbelieved from start to finish by a jury of 12, and nine judges. Mr Evans invited correspondents who have characterised the Morgan case as a “rapist’s charter” to reconsider their verdict. We see no need for a reply to Mr Evans and he does not expect one. We do not accept that the article was garbled, though we suspect that some who have written about it actually failed to read it.—Editor.] [This correspondence is now closed.—Editor]