cherrybatched: Pianist James Rhodes wins right to publish autobiography telling of abuse Supreme cou

cherrybatched:Pianist James Rhodes wins right to publish autobiography telling of abuse Supreme court justices lift injunction barring publication of book in which concert musician discusses being repeatedly raped as a childA British performing artist who has been prevented from publishing his autobiography can be named after the UK supreme court lifted the injunction that had banned him from publishing a full account of his own life.The man who could be identified only as MLA during a year-long series of battles in the English courts is James Rhodes, the internationally renowned classical pianist.The publishers of the book, who have been anonymised in previous court reports as STL, are Canongate.Rhodes’ autobiography details the serious sexual abuse he was subjected to as a small child – he suffered spinal damage after being repeatedly raped by one of his teachers – and the way in which his art has helped him to cope with the trauma of his past.He and Canongate were banned from publishing the book, however, after lawyers representing his former wife obtained a temporary injunction, arguing that its descriptions of the sexual abuse were so disturbing that their son would suffer catastrophic psychological distress if he were to read it.Their case hinged on an obscure piece of Victorian case law, known as Wilkinson v Downton, in which a man who played a practical joke on an east London publican in 1897 was found to be guilty of the “intentional infliction of mental distress”.After the high court rejected his ex-wife’s request to have key parts of the book banned, the court of appeal imposed a temporary injunction, ordering that there should be a trial to decide whether or not the boy’s rights should take priority over those of his father. The supreme court decision overturns that ruling.Delivering the judgment, Lord Toulson said: “Freedom to report the truth is a basic right to which the court gives a high level of protection, and the author’s right to his story includes the right to tell it as he wishes.“There is every justification for the publication. A person who has suffered in he way the appellant has suffered, and has struggled to cope with the consequences of his suffering in the way that he has struggled, has the right to tell the world about it. And there is the corresponding public interest in others being able to listen to his life story in all its searing detail.”The court said that an order prohibiting the publication of the boy’s name would remain in force.Rhodes, 40, was at court to hear that the injunction was being lifted, accompanied by his wife, Hattie, and his friend, actor Benedict Cumberbatch. Another friend, actor and writer Stephen Fry, tweeted: “Full vindication from the Supreme Court … Victory at last for freedom of speech.”Rhodes believes it is particularly important that the voices of survivors of sexual abuse are not stifled. “Clearly this is a victory for freedom of speech. Much more importantly it is a powerful message to survivors of sexual abuse,” he said.“There is already too much stigma and shame surrounding mental health and sexual abuse. I’m relieved that our justice system has finally seen sense and not only allowed me to tell my story, but affirmed in the strongest possible way that speaking up about one’s own life is a basic human right.”He said he hoped his book would help other survivors of abuse to find the courage to speak up, and that “it will inspire those in pain to find solace in music”.Rhodes was repeatedly raped while a pupil at the junior school at Arnold House, a preparatory school for boys in St John’s Wood, north London. His abuser was Peter Lee, who worked at the school part-time, as a boxing coach. Lee was recently arrested and charged, but died before he could be brought to trial.A graphic passage in Rhodes’s memoir, quoted in the supreme court judgment, describes what happened to him:“Abuse. What a word. Rape is better. Abuse is when you tell a traffic warden to fuck off. It isn’t abuse when a 40-year-old man forces his cock inside a six-year-old boy’s ass. That doesn’t even come close to abuse. That is aggressive rape. It leads to multiple surgeries, scars (inside and out), tics, OCD, depression, suicidal ideation, vigorous self-harm, alcoholism, drug addiction, the most fucked-up of sexual hang-ups, gender confusion (‘you look like a girl, are you sure you’re not a little girl?’), sexuality confusion, paranoia, mistrust, compulsive lying, eating disorders, PTSD, DID (the shinier name for multiple personality disorder) and so on and on and on.“I went, literally overnight, from a dancing, spinning, gigglingly alive kid who was enjoying the safety and adventure of a new school, to a walled-off, cement-shoed, lights-out automaton. It was immediate and shocking, like happily walking down a sunny path and suddenly having a trapdoor open and dump you into a freezing cold lake.”Rhodes’ autobiography, Instrumental, will be published next week. Interwoven with his account of rape and trauma is the story of the way in which he largely taught himself to read music and play the piano, and his relationship with music. He was supported by the writers’ association English PEN and the groups Article 19 and Index on Censorship, which defend and promote free speech, whose representatives all argued that the appeal court ruling could have had a chilling effect on other writers tackling difficult subjects, should it have been allowed to stand.Those groups hailed the decision as an important verdict for free expression, and commended the court for its recognition that freedom to report the truth is a basic right protected in law.Last year 20 leading writers, including David Hare, Michael Frayn, William Boyd and Tom Stoppard wrote to the Daily Telegraph to say they were “gravely concerned about the impact of this judgment on the freedom to read and write in Britain”.Rhodes’ son is said by his mother to have Asperger’s, attention deficit disorder and a number of other health problems. Rhodes disputes some of the assessments of the boy’s health.Lawyers representing the boy and his mother denied that her case posed a threat to freedom of speech, saying it turned in specific facts concerning a vulnerable child. They also argued that Rhodes had in the past recognised the need to protect his son from his own history.Following the couple’s divorce in 2009, the boy and his mother left the UK and settled in the country of her birth. Such has been the secrecy surrounding the case that the court of appeal judgment described her as living in “Ruritania”, while their son was described as having “dual British and Ruritanian nationality”.20.5.2015 (x)Photos (x, x, x)Tweets (x, x, x) -- source link
Tumblr Blog : cherrybatched.tumblr.com

More pics about