Morning:
14°c
HOWEVER magnificent Dame Helen Mirren, 63, may look in a bikini, she seems to let herself down when she starts talking without a script.
In an interview at the weekend, she spouted some truly jaw-dropping, dated tosh of the "women beware women" kind. After claiming that she loves women more than she loves men, she says she prefers "male journalists because there's a streak of female journalism - the bitches - who are mean-spirited and nasty".
She's hardly the first female celebrity to prefer a male interviewer - it happens with a certain type of actress or model for whom flirtation is the readiest connection with another. But then she really surpassed herself, declaring that in a rape case jury, the defence will always choose women jurors over men, because "women go against women. Whether in a deep-seated animalistic way or from a sense of tribal jealousy or just antagonism women on a rape case would say she was asking for it. The only reason I can think of is that they're sexually jealous." Of course, what she says has been already been denounced (juries cannot be handpicked) and the idea that statistically women vote against women sounds like the rehash of a silly dinner party conversation.
What she says reveals more about Dame Helen than about the legal system or relations between the sexes. And what it says about her is strange. Either she is headline-seeking because she has a film out soon. Or she was trying to warn the (female) interviewer against judging her, by suggesting that if she did so, she would be betraying her jealousy.
More scarily, she actually believes there is a chance that a female juror would feel jealous of a rape victim, which seems perverse. As an actress, and one who prides herself on her attractiveness, Mirren clearly sees life only in terms of sexual hierarchy. Women in the acting profession are not women in the real world; they are always in competition, for parts, for awards, for money. What one takes, another loses. Although Mirren is 63, she's still the lone wolf rather than the maternal figure. Not because she hasn't had children but because she seems to lack protectiveness and fellow feeling. From her words, women are to be feared, not relied upon. I wish she'd stick to wearing a crown or a bikini. Or both, for all I care, as long as I don't have to read what she thinks. Otherwise we're going to end up booing and hissing the dame.
* Catherine Ostler is editor of ES Magazine
Reader views (7)
You DON'T have to read what Helen Mirren thinks Catherine !
- Jason Stone, Stratford, Newham
martine,london
it is the defence teams perogative to reject any jurer they dont like the look of ,and without having to justify it to the judge,you must have watched to many episodes of crown court on tv in the seventies.I have done jury service many times and it happened in every case.
- Peter, Hartlepool
I was so glad to read such a wonderful response to the quite unutterable rubbish that the Dame spouted - she chooses to round up all women into the catagory of ( ! ) whilst claiming to love them more than men !! Having grown up in the same era as H.M., and always an admirer, I expected to be uplifted by her narrative. Will the once so wonderful image now endure ?
- Donald, London
And, for some reason, a lot of women are less inclined to convict. Not just in sexual cases, but generally.
- Richard, Richmond, England
Peter, having watched lots of jurors being sworn in for many rape and sexual assualt trials and trials in general, I can say in the past 10 years I have never seen that happen once. The only objections are generally when a member of the jury and / or the defendant recognise each other or a witness which can jeopardise the fairness of the trial. It's hard enough for rape victims to come to court as it is without that kind of throwaway comment and those of the deluded Dame Helen. If what you're saying is true and there is a genuine defence objection then both the trial Judge and the Crown would want to know the basis for the defence objection and there would be proper legal argument - they don't 'just get rejected' by defence - it's the Judge's court. However any decent judge wouldn't entertain any argument based on a percieved imbalance of the sexes of the jurors - it would be unfair to all parties involved.
- Martine, London
This commentary proves Helen Mirren's point: women rush with fanatical speed to silence other women. Proof of this phenomenon was also a startling feature of the recent US presidential primaries and general election.
- Bloke, London
juries cant be hand picked as you mention but what happens is most of the male jurers get rejected by the defence legal team until they have a female majority on the jury number.
- Peter Ex Londoner, Hartlepool
