This is life changing news for many, although more guidance is needed on how this impacts women who didn’t report their rape at the time. It’s also important to ensure that access to support for victims is separate from prosecution or convictions, you shouldn’t be forced to proceed with an investigative process that is in many cases traumatic and invasive in order to gain access to support, and a decision not to persue a case shouldn’t mean that support is removed.
>The change, dubbed ‘Daisy’s Law’ by the CWJ, stems from the case of a campaigner who was born as a result of a rape in the 1970s.
>Daisy, who was adopted at seven months old, discovered her birth father, then 28, had raped her birth mother at the age of 13. Police investigated the case but it did not go to court.
**13 years old!** I get that attitudes were different back in the 70s, but that’s completely ridiculous.
I get that there will be dispute now over whether accusations that don’t result in convictions count, but in some cases it should be very straightforward and doesn’t need that much debate, particularly given the accuracy of DNA testing.
Being labelled a “Victim” right out the womb. What a great mentality to have growing up.
Wait, what, perpetually?
A get out of jail free card that never expires?
It seems a rather strange law to bring in really. Surely you have to have suffered harm and that the perpetrator must have meant to cause you harm. I don’t understand how if you are physical evidence a crime took place that the authorities can’t use that evidence already?
On similar logic you could argue that if you have a child who is born with a genetic disability they are a victim of their parents conceiving them? Or do you dna test the parents to figure out which has the problematic genes and then charge them?
Do you charge the mother for not aborting someone conceived by r@pe? If their birth is something that caused them harm?
Seems like a mess waiting to happen.
So they get reminded from birth that they are eternally labelled as different.
Describing existence as an aspect of potential victimhood in law would be a harmful precedent to set.
Great- as long as this will extends the provisions of anonymity protections, eligibility for cica compensation and ensure that the rapist & their close relatives will never legally be able to bring claims for any contact info or access.
Interesting, but raises the question of, ‘what crime was committed against the child?’
If you do not know you are a victim of crime which doesn’t affect you is it morally right to be (forcefully in eyes of law?) informed about it?
Child doesn’t know about how was conceived ( most people do not know, BTW), will need to grow till is able to understand what is crime and what is rape- should there be an age limit to inform about circumstances how far in details? Who should do it, and how? Will it make person born out of rape happier, make their life better, easier, less complicated?
I searched for my putative father for 12 years, but when I finally tracked him down I got a negative DNA test, which more or less proves I was born of rape, considering things my mother has said, in ‘unguarded’ moments.
If I was born of rape id rather no one told me thanks.
Funny how people pretend to advocate for their rights here, when they also advocate for them not to exist.
I wonder if this will be useful for cases where the rapist is still trying to parent the child, I’ve heard of people having to co-parent with abusers. Acknowledging the child as a victim too acknowledges that the rapist is a danger to the child and not just the mother.
From a government that makes the mother prove that she was raped to receive child benefit.
15 comments
This is life changing news for many, although more guidance is needed on how this impacts women who didn’t report their rape at the time. It’s also important to ensure that access to support for victims is separate from prosecution or convictions, you shouldn’t be forced to proceed with an investigative process that is in many cases traumatic and invasive in order to gain access to support, and a decision not to persue a case shouldn’t mean that support is removed.
>The change, dubbed ‘Daisy’s Law’ by the CWJ, stems from the case of a campaigner who was born as a result of a rape in the 1970s.
>Daisy, who was adopted at seven months old, discovered her birth father, then 28, had raped her birth mother at the age of 13. Police investigated the case but it did not go to court.
**13 years old!** I get that attitudes were different back in the 70s, but that’s completely ridiculous.
I get that there will be dispute now over whether accusations that don’t result in convictions count, but in some cases it should be very straightforward and doesn’t need that much debate, particularly given the accuracy of DNA testing.
Being labelled a “Victim” right out the womb. What a great mentality to have growing up.
Wait, what, perpetually?
A get out of jail free card that never expires?
It seems a rather strange law to bring in really. Surely you have to have suffered harm and that the perpetrator must have meant to cause you harm. I don’t understand how if you are physical evidence a crime took place that the authorities can’t use that evidence already?
On similar logic you could argue that if you have a child who is born with a genetic disability they are a victim of their parents conceiving them? Or do you dna test the parents to figure out which has the problematic genes and then charge them?
Do you charge the mother for not aborting someone conceived by r@pe? If their birth is something that caused them harm?
Seems like a mess waiting to happen.
So they get reminded from birth that they are eternally labelled as different.
Describing existence as an aspect of potential victimhood in law would be a harmful precedent to set.
Great- as long as this will extends the provisions of anonymity protections, eligibility for cica compensation and ensure that the rapist & their close relatives will never legally be able to bring claims for any contact info or access.
Interesting, but raises the question of, ‘what crime was committed against the child?’
If you do not know you are a victim of crime which doesn’t affect you is it morally right to be (forcefully in eyes of law?) informed about it?
Child doesn’t know about how was conceived ( most people do not know, BTW), will need to grow till is able to understand what is crime and what is rape- should there be an age limit to inform about circumstances how far in details? Who should do it, and how? Will it make person born out of rape happier, make their life better, easier, less complicated?
I searched for my putative father for 12 years, but when I finally tracked him down I got a negative DNA test, which more or less proves I was born of rape, considering things my mother has said, in ‘unguarded’ moments.
If I was born of rape id rather no one told me thanks.
Funny how people pretend to advocate for their rights here, when they also advocate for them not to exist.
I wonder if this will be useful for cases where the rapist is still trying to parent the child, I’ve heard of people having to co-parent with abusers. Acknowledging the child as a victim too acknowledges that the rapist is a danger to the child and not just the mother.
From a government that makes the mother prove that she was raped to receive child benefit.