Bill C-484 wasn't debated yesterday in the House of Commons as expected earlier. As a matter of fact, the debate has been postponed to this Monday, March 3rd.
In the meantime, Conservative MP and proponent of the Bill, Mr Ken Epp, reassures Canadians that the so-called "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" has absolutely nothing to do with restricting abortion:
"Because we want to recognize the humanity of that unborn child. Whether that child was killed three months before birth or three months after birth, it was still a child, there was still a loss of life. The other side might wish to deny the humanity of that unborn child, but we want the law to recognize it."
***
For more debunking of the anti-choice bullshit in "women's protection" disguise regarding Bill C-484, click here.
***
And don't forget to do you part and write to Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and to your MP!
Showing posts with label violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label violence. Show all posts
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Updates...
I've just realized that I've been writing this blog for a year. Cheers to me.
I was going to write about depressing matters.
(E.g. Michel Veillette who pleaded not guilty today to charges of stabbing his wife to death and of killing his four children by setting his house on fire, on account that he had a fight with his wife and that he was provoked. *vomits*)
However, I can't commit myself to write anything remotely thoughful, so here's some good old abstinence humour.
...
(This skit reminds me of the brilliant folks at Iron Hymen and their sister site, Sex is for Fags.)
I was going to write about depressing matters.
(E.g. Michel Veillette who pleaded not guilty today to charges of stabbing his wife to death and of killing his four children by setting his house on fire, on account that he had a fight with his wife and that he was provoked. *vomits*)
However, I can't commit myself to write anything remotely thoughful, so here's some good old abstinence humour.
...
(This skit reminds me of the brilliant folks at Iron Hymen and their sister site, Sex is for Fags.)
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
When does catcalling become criminal harassment?
Imagine you're walking down the street with your five year-old child. Some random guy starts following you, wolf-whistling at you, and repeatedly telling you - in a completely uninvited and unwanted fashion - that you've got a nice ass, or nice tits or whatever. He only stops when you get in your car and speed away from the scene.
Surely, most women would say that such behaviour constitutes "harassement" in the colloquial sense of the word. But would most women say feel "threatened" by such catcalls?
(For harassment to constitute criminal harassment in the eyes of our criminal law, it has to be objectively "threatening," that is, that the accused's conduct must "[rise] to the level of a 'tool of intimidation designed to instill a sense of fear'".)
Now, what if the catcaller was a police officer in full uniform?
In a recent case, the Yukon Territory Court of Appeal acquitted a police officer of harassment charges, on the ground that his actions did not objectively constitute a "threatening" conduct.
Some commentators have rightly pointed out that the Court failed to take into account that the power dynamic that necessarily kicks into gear when a person in authority is involved:
I would have liked the Court to say something more about the fact that the accusedmade these comments while in uniform.
To my mind this elevates the conduct, viewed objectively, beyond the merely inappropriate, and potentially makes it threatening and intimidating. This guy wasn’t a construction worker.
Any thoughts?
***
Update (as a - lenghty - response to Lilith's comment):
The problem is that under our criminal law, we're stuck with "objective" notions of what is threatening when it comes to such offences as criminal harassment and uttering threats. The rationale for this is that the law seeks to punish the offender who had the intention to cause the victim to feel threatened or in danger of death or bodily harm. The courts determine if this intention is present by asking themselves whether the accused's words or actions were designed to instill fear, from his point of view, and not from that of the victim.
This is why we're forced to trust our judges with taking into account the perspective of the women who are most often the victims of such crimes. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. For instance, in 1991, in the McCraw case, the Supreme Court of Canada had to explain why threatening a woman of rape, even when the guys says he finds her pretty or that he's infatuated with her, necessarily constitutes a threat of bodily harm...
The problem is that judges are most often men, who interpret objective legal norm from the vantage of a reasonable man, who unlike a reasonable woman, is usually not afraid to go out alone at night, and usually capable of fending off potential assailants...
I agree that is not the best way to interpret laws that, in practice, seek to punish acts of violence against women. In fact, many feminist legal scholars have demanded that courts turn to a standard of a "reasonable woman" in such cases.
However, I'm not too sure it's a good idea, because I fear it would only allow male judges to introduce sexist notions on how a "reasonable female" should behave in such and such situation into our jurisprudence.
The best solution, I think, would be to appoint more women to the Bench!
A side note: In my opinion, the offenders who harass women or who threaten them, on the other hand, usually understand too well what women find threatening. That's precisely why they harass or threaten them in the first place.
That's also something - unfortunately - they understand almost instinctively, something they understand better than the judges who are called to rule their case.
Surely, most women would say that such behaviour constitutes "harassement" in the colloquial sense of the word. But would most women say feel "threatened" by such catcalls?
(For harassment to constitute criminal harassment in the eyes of our criminal law, it has to be objectively "threatening," that is, that the accused's conduct must "[rise] to the level of a 'tool of intimidation designed to instill a sense of fear'".)
Now, what if the catcaller was a police officer in full uniform?
In a recent case, the Yukon Territory Court of Appeal acquitted a police officer of harassment charges, on the ground that his actions did not objectively constitute a "threatening" conduct.
Some commentators have rightly pointed out that the Court failed to take into account that the power dynamic that necessarily kicks into gear when a person in authority is involved:
I would have liked the Court to say something more about the fact that the accusedmade these comments while in uniform.
To my mind this elevates the conduct, viewed objectively, beyond the merely inappropriate, and potentially makes it threatening and intimidating. This guy wasn’t a construction worker.
Any thoughts?
***
Update (as a - lenghty - response to Lilith's comment):
The problem is that under our criminal law, we're stuck with "objective" notions of what is threatening when it comes to such offences as criminal harassment and uttering threats. The rationale for this is that the law seeks to punish the offender who had the intention to cause the victim to feel threatened or in danger of death or bodily harm. The courts determine if this intention is present by asking themselves whether the accused's words or actions were designed to instill fear, from his point of view, and not from that of the victim.
This is why we're forced to trust our judges with taking into account the perspective of the women who are most often the victims of such crimes. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. For instance, in 1991, in the McCraw case, the Supreme Court of Canada had to explain why threatening a woman of rape, even when the guys says he finds her pretty or that he's infatuated with her, necessarily constitutes a threat of bodily harm...
The problem is that judges are most often men, who interpret objective legal norm from the vantage of a reasonable man, who unlike a reasonable woman, is usually not afraid to go out alone at night, and usually capable of fending off potential assailants...
I agree that is not the best way to interpret laws that, in practice, seek to punish acts of violence against women. In fact, many feminist legal scholars have demanded that courts turn to a standard of a "reasonable woman" in such cases.
However, I'm not too sure it's a good idea, because I fear it would only allow male judges to introduce sexist notions on how a "reasonable female" should behave in such and such situation into our jurisprudence.
The best solution, I think, would be to appoint more women to the Bench!
A side note: In my opinion, the offenders who harass women or who threaten them, on the other hand, usually understand too well what women find threatening. That's precisely why they harass or threaten them in the first place.
That's also something - unfortunately - they understand almost instinctively, something they understand better than the judges who are called to rule their case.
Monday, December 10, 2007
In the News: Robert Pickton found guilty of the 2nd degree murder of six women
The Globe and Mail has more on the verdict.
The six women disappeared from Vancouver's infamous Downtown Eastside between August 1997 and December 2001. Their names were Sereena Abotsway, Andrea Joesbury, Mona Wilson, Georgina Papin, Brenda Wolfe and Marnie Frey.
Robert Pickton has been charged with, and will be prosecuted for the murders of 20 other women.
The six women disappeared from Vancouver's infamous Downtown Eastside between August 1997 and December 2001. Their names were Sereena Abotsway, Andrea Joesbury, Mona Wilson, Georgina Papin, Brenda Wolfe and Marnie Frey.
Robert Pickton has been charged with, and will be prosecuted for the murders of 20 other women.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Jack and Jill go to law school... (Jack should pay attention.)
An argument, not too long ago:
- "The accused could not raise the defence of mistaken belief in consent because he had failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether the complainant was consenting.
- "The complainant did consent. She willingly followed him to his place...
- "BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN SHE WANTED TO SLEEP WITH HIM!
- "It was 2 in the morning...
- "It still doesn't mean anything!"
*sigh*
***
The argument above (which genuinely took place) is symptomatic of two problems with the application of the criminal law of sexual assault.
First, it shows a very frustrating lack of understanding, among lawpeople, of the distinction between the notion of "consent" to sexual activity, and of "mistaken belief in consent".
Secondly, it constitutes evidence that far too many people still entertain sexist attitudes towards sexual assault, sexual offenders and sexual assault victims. Such beliefs are sometimes, as we'll see later on, borderline delusional, and unfortunately, endorsed by law students, law professors, lawyers and *ugh* judges.
***
The argument excerpted above arose over a hypothetical about sexual assault and, more precisely, about the so-called defence of "mistaken belief in consent".
It involved a man (let's call him Jack) who meets a woman one night (we'll call her Jill). They have drinks and start chatting. The conversation quickly turns to sex, and both people describe various sexual acts. At about 2 am, Jack and Jill decide to go to Jack's place. When they get there, there's a second man (say, Joe) waiting for them. Jill feels uncomfortable and repeatedly asks Joe to leave. He refuses. Jill is scared and eventually submits to the sexual acts Jack and Joe ask her to perform. Jill files a complaint, and Jack and Joe are charged with sexually assaulting Jill.
The question is: Can the accused raise the defence of "mistaken belief in consent"?
Thus, the essential elements of the actus reus for the offence of sexual assault are the following:
- "The accused could not raise the defence of mistaken belief in consent because he had failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether the complainant was consenting.
- "The complainant did consent. She willingly followed him to his place...
- "BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN SHE WANTED TO SLEEP WITH HIM!
- "It was 2 in the morning...
- "It still doesn't mean anything!"
*sigh*
***
The argument above (which genuinely took place) is symptomatic of two problems with the application of the criminal law of sexual assault.
First, it shows a very frustrating lack of understanding, among lawpeople, of the distinction between the notion of "consent" to sexual activity, and of "mistaken belief in consent".
Secondly, it constitutes evidence that far too many people still entertain sexist attitudes towards sexual assault, sexual offenders and sexual assault victims. Such beliefs are sometimes, as we'll see later on, borderline delusional, and unfortunately, endorsed by law students, law professors, lawyers and *ugh* judges.
***
The argument excerpted above arose over a hypothetical about sexual assault and, more precisely, about the so-called defence of "mistaken belief in consent".
It involved a man (let's call him Jack) who meets a woman one night (we'll call her Jill). They have drinks and start chatting. The conversation quickly turns to sex, and both people describe various sexual acts. At about 2 am, Jack and Jill decide to go to Jack's place. When they get there, there's a second man (say, Joe) waiting for them. Jill feels uncomfortable and repeatedly asks Joe to leave. He refuses. Jill is scared and eventually submits to the sexual acts Jack and Joe ask her to perform. Jill files a complaint, and Jack and Joe are charged with sexually assaulting Jill.
The question is: Can the accused raise the defence of "mistaken belief in consent"?
***
First, a little legal background...
In order for a person charged with sexual assault to be found guilty, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt certain facts that constitute the material components of the culpable act (i.e. the actus reus) and the facts that constitute the intentional components of the crime (i.e. the mens rea).Thus, the essential elements of the actus reus for the offence of sexual assault are the following:
- The accused applied a force on the complainant (any type of touching, albeit very slight);
- The force was applied in a sexual manner, or the touching had a sexual connotation (notwithstanding which part of the complainant's body was touched, or which part of the accused's body touched the victim);
- The victim did not consent to the touching (i.e. she subjectively did not want the touching to happen).
The mens rea, or culpable intention, for sexual assault only has one element. Here, the Crown only needs to prove that the accused knew that the complainant was not consenting. (The Crown's burden will also be fulfilled if it is established that the accused was reckless or wilfully blind as to the possibility that the victim was not consenting.)
Once the Crown has proven all the elements of the actus reus and of the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused will be found guilty unless he can negate one of these essential elements.
That's what is meant in this case by "defence".
The two most common defences with respect to sexual assault (besides, of course, "I never touched her") are the defence of consent and the defence of mistaken belief in consent. In the former case, the accused will try to negate the victim's non-consent, by adducing evidence that she had in fact consented to the sexual activity. In the latter case, the accused will seek to demonstrate that he sincerely thought that he believed that the complainant had consented.
For the defence of mistaken belief in consent to be admissible, the accused's belief must be sincere, and based on reasonable grounds. Moreover, an accused can't invoke it when his belief arises from his voluntary intoxication, or when he did not take any reasonable steps to ascertain whether or not the complainant consented.
That's not too complicated, right?
Yet, many people who approach sexual assault cases similar to the hypothetical above tend to confuse the two defences. For instance, an accused will say "she was consenting, because she went to my place late at night, and earlier on we had talk about sex together".
This is often - mistakenly - labelled as a defence of consent. It's not.
Consent is a subjective notion. The only one who can testify as to whether the complainant had consented to the acts are the complainant herself. It's an inquiry into the complainant's mind. If the trier of facts finds her testimony to be credible, he must conclude that no consent was given.
As the late Lamer C.J.C. once clearly explained:
[T]he issue of mistaken belief in consent should also be submitted to the jury in all cases where the accused testifies attrial that the complainant consented. The accused's testimony that the complainant consented must be taken to mean that he believed that the complainant consented.
R. v. Bulmer, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 782, at par. 24.
[Emphasis added.]
Thus, when the accused (or another witness for the defence) claims that the victim had consented to the acts because she followed him home, or she was drunk, and whatnot, we're not talking about what was going on in her mind at the time. We're going through the accused's own reasoning about what he perceived to be the complainant's mindset.
It might not seem to be of great importance at first glance, but if you were raped and your assailant got away with it, would you prefer that the judgment say that you had in fact consented, or that he was just stupid and made a mistake.
While I find the latter possibility appalling, I must acknowledge that stupidity is not - yet - a criminal offence. On the other hand, being told, despite your testimony to the contrary, and all the troubles you've gone through to bring your attacker to trial, that you had in fact consented is paternalistic and incredibly insulting.
***
The second thing that pisses me off regarding how (far too) many people discuss sexual assault is that they view it from a fundamentally patriarchal and heterosexist standpoint.
The current state of the law of sexual assault in Canada, when it comes to the issue of consent, is clear: consent is an essentially subjective notion, and, not only does "no means no", but "only yes means yes".
Therefore, even though, in a court of law, the Crown still has to establish the victim's non-consent (instead of the accused having to establish that the complainant had consented), the law does not assume that the default state of a woman's mind towards sexual activity is a big fat, unequivocal "yes".
In other words, the law does not treat women as if we were walking around in a state of perpetual consent - to anything, anytime, with anyone. *shrug* Thus, unless a woman expresses her consent to sexually activity (by unequivocal words or conduct), the iniator of the sexual activity in question must take reasonable steps to ascertain whether the woman actually consents.
Otherwise, if the woman was not, in fact, consenting, the initiator could not invoke the defence of mistaken belief in consent.
Still with me?
So this is how it works - well, in theory, that is...
But in practice, judgments tend to stray from this pro-feminist reasoning, and revert to the use of sexist premises to infer either consent or a mistaken belief.
For instance, my interlocutor, in the discussion excerpted above, readily assumed that the fact that a woman talks about sex with a man, and willingly follows him to his place late at night necessarily implies that she had thereby given him permission to engage in whatever sex acts he might think of.
This reasoning also implies that all women would want sex with any man, in any conditions, at all times, and that all women are heterosexual.
Well, uh um... *puts on white lab coat and nerdy glasses* Strong empirical data collected from millions of women around the globe for a gazillion years has shown that these premises are not true.
I know. What a shocker. The fact is that inferences such as this one are simply fundamentally sexist.
Take the same situation, but replace Jill with a Joe.
So Jack meets another guy, Joe. They have drinks. They talk about sex. Joe follows Jack to his place, at 2 in the morning. If Jack then sexually attacks Joe, will anyone really make the argument that it's obvious that Joe had consented, because he had a prior discussion about sex with his assailant, and had willingly followed him to his place at night?
No. Because our patriarcal society does not assume that men are sexually available to other men on a permanent basis. Patriarchy would intrepret the relationship between Jack and Joe as asexual and friendly, in a frat-boyish way.
Patriarchy, on the other hand, presupposes that men and women cannot interact in a way that is simply asexual and friendly. If a woman responds to the attention of a man by doing anything short of yelling at him to stay away from her, or slapping him, then she necessarily has some womanly sexual feelings for him.
Patriarchy does not take into account that women are not sex-bots, that we have free will and individual preferences. A patriarcal interpretation of the law of sexual assault on the first "Jack and Jill" hypothetical does not take into account, for instance, the fact that Jack had bad breath and greasy hair, that Jill was menstruating or that she had forgotten her pill that day.
Nor does it take into account the proven fact that women do often talk about sex in a sometimes quite frat-boyish sort of way, and that, being free of their movements and not submitted to a Gileadean curfiew, they are free to be out of their home at night and visit whomever they like.
And patriarchy being concerned about the preservation of male privilege, it does not place the onus on the male initiator to go beyond those sexist assumptions, challenge the myth of female sexual availability and simply make sure that she really agrees to engage in the sexual activity in question.
Is this really so much to ask?
(For the record - and before being labelled as a man-hater - there are plenty of men out there who are considerate and man enough to make sure their partner is as willing as they are, and who frown upon their fellow males who don't.)
***
I think it would be interesting to see how sexual assault cases involving a lesbian victim and a male accused, and where the defence of mistaken belief in consent was invoked, were treated by the courts.
Unfortunately, I haven't found any so far. (Help, anyone?)
Thursday, December 6, 2007
A day of remembrance
18 years ago in Montréal, 14 young women were murdered because they were women.
In a letter he wrote shortly before he went on his deadly rampage at the École Polytechnique, the shooter, 25 year-old Marc Lépine, blamed feminists and women who "usurp" the place and advantages of men in society for his troubles, and for the crimes he was about to commit.
Before he started shooting, he cried "I hate feminists."
Feminism has little to do with Lépine's actions. It's probable that many of the women - and men - he shot did not identify as such. He killed them because they were women.
***
These events are infinitely sad and shocking and disgusting in and of themselves.
But it's all the more disheartening to think that, almost 20 years after this tragedy, most people just don't seem to give a damn about what happened then, or about gender violence in general.
This anniversary has received little to no news coverage so far today - from what I know.
Meanwhile, gender-based violence is still an endemic social problem in Canada and little is being done to eradicate it.
Many people - local politicians, "men's rights activists" and even women's magazines editors - still trivialize justify violence against women.
People like them still maintain that men who murder their female partners do it because of a lack of control, out of passion/jealousy/anger/love, in the spur of the moment, or because they were provoked.
They will blame rape/attempted murder survivors for what happened to them, and call them "cows" and "little bitches."
They will label blatant instances of extreme violence against women as "feminist myths."
They will blame female victims of crime for their "lifestyle choices," and play down any act of violence against women, from a street fight to gruesome serial killings, as a normal and justifiable "occupational hazard", if the victim belongs to an untouchable group.
They will you straight-faced that Marc Lépine was misunderstood, that he didn't really hate all women, that he just wanted to slay those evil feminists.
***
It's completely unacceptable that this sort of attitude and behaviour is still tolerated in 21st century Canada. It has to stop. This is why feminism exists. This is why women's fight to be treated as equals both under the law and in our day-to-day dealings with one another, must continue until the day women will really be respected and valued - and not despised, feared or hated - by men.
***
For more information about the events at the École Polytechnique:
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Campaign against female genital mutilation
The new ads for Amnesty International's campaign are beautiful and horrible at the same time, as they show with great sensitivity and aesthetics - and yet, quite graphically - exactly what female genital mutilation entails.
Here is one of them:
The Village where Men are Forbidden
The video below is an excerpt of Umoja, le village interdit aux hommes. This film is a document about a village in Kenya founded by women who have been repudiated by their husbands or cast out of their community because theyr have been raped.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Violent Porn: Now in a Lingerie Store Near You
The British lingerie retailer Agent Provocateur has recently opened a store in Vancouver, and is apparently planning to open new locations in Toronto and Montréal.
Well, this can only mean one thing, ladies: Get your torches and pitchforks ready.
But what, you might be wondering is so wrong about Agent Provocateur? Or is it just me, you know, the no-fun anti-sex, ever-frustrated feminist?
If you don't know the company yet, let's just say that it sells very expensive (i.e. between $140 and $160 for bras, and between $70 and $90 for thongs and panties) "exotic" lingerie. And by "exotic", we're talking porn/escort services-grade underwear.
Like, for instance, bras with no cups that expose the breasts, nipple pasties and tassles, and the like.
You know, the kind of delicate and impossibly uncomfortable stuff that are not made to be worn all day by real women, and that are solely designed to be put on shortly before coming into the bedroom, only to be removed and thrown on the floor by one's drooling partner seconds after.
***
(Side note: Do men really know the difference anyway between average female underwear and the really expensive kind? That is, when they're not buying it as "presents" for their girlfriends?)
***
I know, I know... Isn't that just precisely what the business of any lingerie retailer consists of?
Maybe it is, although it's not my personal opinion. But in any case, what differentiates Agent Provocateur from other lingerie brands is its absolutely disgusting attitude towards women.
First, it uses porn as a form of publicity. If you go on their website (at your own risks - it might trigger very upsetting feelings), the first thing you'll see is three naked females bathing together and lascively posing for the camera. If you enter the website and actually check out the products, you'll notice that they can't just show you the picture of a bra, or even the picture of a fashion model wearing said bra. No, Ma'am. Every single product is displayed via pictures of models shot in soft porn postures or attitudes.
As a woman, I find the suggestion that I can't distinguish between bona fide lingerie advertisements and gratuituous online porn incredibly insulting.
The further you go, the worst it gets. The misogyny is extreme, and its everywhere. On the website, you'll find shoes that will suit you from the "boardroom to the bedroom" (seriously: WTF?!?) and, in the "jewellery" section, you'll find that the only proposed item is a metallic dog collar, complete with a fancy leash and matching (optional) handcuffs. There's even a blindfold with the phrase "Treat me like the whore that I am" written across it.
Classy, I know.
***
As a matter of fact, violent sex and sexual domination/submission seem to be a recurrent theme in the Agent Provocateur imagery. The website namely features "Adventures", i.e. pornographic stories illustrated by pictures and videos, in which L.A. debutantes and 1920's French maids are confined, exploited (in terms of the work they do and in terms of the sex acts they have to perform), disciplined and "taught" to "enjoy" sex.
Yuck. (And this is just a mild one, from the few that I've seen. Yet, it sends a chill down my spine.)
My point is not to make an argument against "rough" sex, certain types of fantasies or erotic scenarios, or even S&M practices.
I just don't like sexual violence against women and the sexual exploitation of women being used in a pornographic manner as part of an advertisement.
Even though there's not a hint of penetration of any kind, and that Agent Provocateur's pornographic advertisements are - mostly - confined to (fake*) lesbian sex, it's not just "soft" porn to me. It's violent and degrading porn, where women are humiliated, hurt, thrown to the ground, and whipped like beasts.
To a certain extent, I can tolerate the ambient sexism and misogyny of our culture, for the simple reason that otherwise, I'd probably shoot myself. But I can't tolerate the mere suggestion that violence against women generally is acceptable, and that sexual violence in particular can be branded as sexy for base mercantile purposes, turned into incredibly violent and degrading - yet easily available - porn and marketed towards women as "luxury" or "empowerment."
For these reasons, I will boycott the Agent Provocateur brand, and will protest by all means (legally) available to me the opening of a Montréal location.
***
* Fake as in "not just some guy's wacky patriarchical, sexist, androcentric view of lesbian sex..."
Meanwhile, in France...
A recent French study showed that only 8% of victims of domestic violence eventually complain to the authorities.
In reaction to this finding, French lawmakers enacted new measures to curb domestic violence and encourage women to report it to the police.
But guess what? They're totally useless...
As a matter of fact, some genius came up with this great idea: when a woman report an incident of domestic violence to the police, the perpetrator is given the choice between being prosecuted before a criminal court, or attending 10 hours of conjugal therapy.
*rolls eyes in disbelief*
There's no way such measures can curb domestic violence, when it doesn't even address its genuine roots, and when it's being dismissed as a conjugal and private matter...
In reaction to this finding, French lawmakers enacted new measures to curb domestic violence and encourage women to report it to the police.
But guess what? They're totally useless...
As a matter of fact, some genius came up with this great idea: when a woman report an incident of domestic violence to the police, the perpetrator is given the choice between being prosecuted before a criminal court, or attending 10 hours of conjugal therapy.
*rolls eyes in disbelief*
There's no way such measures can curb domestic violence, when it doesn't even address its genuine roots, and when it's being dismissed as a conjugal and private matter...
16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence
Yesterday, November 25th, marked the beginning of the annual 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence. During this period, organizations and individuals are encouraged to speak up against gender violence, to reflect on the causes of this problem and to propose solutions.
A 16 Days "action kit" is available online here. You can also wear the traditional white ribbon as a sign of support for this cause, and as a sign of remembrance for the victims of the École Polytechnique massacre.
Le Ministère de la Condition féminine du Québec has also launched a publicity campaign about domestic violence, in order to remind people that acts of violence, even where they occur within a relationship, are still criminal acts.
(Click here to watch the video.)
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Feminine instincts and personal safety
Yesterday, I was in a café with a friend, standing in line. After she got her order, I moved away from the line and a male staff member bump into me from behind.
Instead of just apologizing, he grabbed me from behind, firmly holding my waist with his arm. He maintained his hold of me for two or three seconds, and said something like "Shall we dance?"
As the place was noisy, I had not seen or heard him coming, and was completely caught by surprise. He was holding me and speaking to me from behind, and I couldn't even see his face.
When he let go of me, I caught up with my friend. I told her what had just happened. I was angry, but more than anything else, I was really upset, as the incident has triggered old fears and feelings of inadequacy.
I wish I had had the instinct to defend myself, to push him away, to yell at him, to claw his eyes out. But I did not do any of those things. I didn't even say anything, not even a hushed complain.
Of course, I fell incredibly outraged and angry at this asshole. But I can't help to feel angrier at myself, for being so inadequate and useless in defending myself. I also feel sad that I can't do what I preach, what I have learned and what I believe is the right thing to do.
I couldn't apply the basic rules I've learned: attack his eyes, pull his hair, kick his groin... It didn't even cross my mind. I was paralyzed by surprise and fear.
It wasn't an attack per se, although this guy didn't have the right to touch me - let alone seize me - like that without my consent. (Assault simpliciter, anyone?) Maybe the guy acted in good faith, or without thinking - which, while it clears him of being a predator, doesn't change anything to his being a complete idiot. It happened in a public place, and I guess that another person might have reacted differently than I did.
My point is just that, had this been a full-fledged attack, I'm not sure I would have been able to adequately defend myself.
Instead of just apologizing, he grabbed me from behind, firmly holding my waist with his arm. He maintained his hold of me for two or three seconds, and said something like "Shall we dance?"
As the place was noisy, I had not seen or heard him coming, and was completely caught by surprise. He was holding me and speaking to me from behind, and I couldn't even see his face.
When he let go of me, I caught up with my friend. I told her what had just happened. I was angry, but more than anything else, I was really upset, as the incident has triggered old fears and feelings of inadequacy.
I wish I had had the instinct to defend myself, to push him away, to yell at him, to claw his eyes out. But I did not do any of those things. I didn't even say anything, not even a hushed complain.
Of course, I fell incredibly outraged and angry at this asshole. But I can't help to feel angrier at myself, for being so inadequate and useless in defending myself. I also feel sad that I can't do what I preach, what I have learned and what I believe is the right thing to do.
I couldn't apply the basic rules I've learned: attack his eyes, pull his hair, kick his groin... It didn't even cross my mind. I was paralyzed by surprise and fear.
It wasn't an attack per se, although this guy didn't have the right to touch me - let alone seize me - like that without my consent. (Assault simpliciter, anyone?) Maybe the guy acted in good faith, or without thinking - which, while it clears him of being a predator, doesn't change anything to his being a complete idiot. It happened in a public place, and I guess that another person might have reacted differently than I did.
My point is just that, had this been a full-fledged attack, I'm not sure I would have been able to adequately defend myself.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Why the US need to change the legal definition of "consent" to sexual activity
The Georgia Supreme Court recently declared that a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for sexual assault on a child was unconstitutional, as it was so harsh as to amount to "cruel and unusual punishment".
This case has received more than its share of publicity over the past few months.
The accused in this case was Genarlow Wilson, aged 17 at the time of the events. Mr. Wilson and a few of (adult) friends of his were having a New Year's Eve party in a motel room. They had invited over a number of underaged girls, including the victim, who was then 15 years old. It was reported that the lot had consumed more than their fair share of booze and drugs.
The girls were then sollicited to perform various sex acts on many of the young men present, while their buddies would film the scene. A video showed Mr. Wilson receiving oral sex from the 15 year old girl, so there was no debate about whether or not the sexual activity happened . (Oh, and apparently, the accused subsequently bragged about what had happened at the party at school.)
The video also showed Mr. Wilson having sex on a bathroom floor with another girl, who looked sleepy and was visibly seriously intoxicated at the time. On the video, she did not ask Mr. Wilson to stop (but then again, the video didn't show any verbal interaction between the two.) The 17 year-old girl, who had waken up naked and confused the next morning, immediately reported the events to the police, and claimed that she had been raped.
Eventually, Mr. Wilson was charged with aggravated child molestation, found guilty and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. Now, the big debate in the media was about the fact that this offence, in its legal definition, did not take into account the fact that the 15 year-old victim was "consenting", that the victim and the accused were so close in age, that it was "just" a fellatio, and that the accused was a promising athlete and a "good boy".
(The State of Georgia, subsequent to the outcome of this case, changed the formulation of the offence so as to take the victim's "consent" into account.)
I have a few issues with the media treatment of this case, and with the recent quashing of Mr. Wilson's sentence.
First, I would just like to clarify that, although I agree with the Conservatives' proposition that the age of consent to sexual contact with adults be raised from 14 to 16, I also think it's stupid to seek to criminalize sexual contacts among (consenting) teenagers. Let's face it: when you're 16, horny and a just typically rebellious, you're gonna have sex if you want to, whether your parents, the local clergyman, your teachers or the law say otherwise.
However, sexual contacts, even among teenagers, must always be consensual.
Secondly, some people seem to be labouring under the delusion that when there's no penetration, when it's "just" a fellatio, it's really not that bad, and the situation should not give rise to criminal charges. Well, if that's your opinion, you're wrong. If you can't understand why having some drunken guy's cock shoved down your throat is morally wrong enough to be criminalized, then quit reading now.
Thirdly, it's no secret that most American jurisdictions have fucked-up definitions of what constitutes "consent" to sexual activity. While the notion of "consent" colloquially refers to something that a person genuinely wants, or to a free and enlightened decision (such as in health or contractual matters, for instance), "consent" to sexual activity in most American criminal statutes (as well as under the old, i.e. pre-1985, version of our own Criminal Code) is equated to passivity, lack of resistance, and the absence of the use (additional) physical force or the threat thereof.
This way of thinking is stupid and unrealistic. Basically, it means that unless you're beaten or threatened and you attempt to (physically) resist the assault, you will be deemed to have consented to having sex inflicted upon you. It completely disregards the fact that, as in this case, a person will not protest or resist because she is smaller than her assailants, outnumbered, confined, scared, or intoxicated. In situations such as those involved in the Wilson case, most females would not be foolish enough to think they can simply walk away or refuse to perform the acts, so that most criminally-inclined males would not have to resort to additional physical violence anyways.
St. Maria Goretti might have become a saint for choosing the opposite route, but most women do not envy her fate.
(Why to I keep saying "additional" physical violence? Um... It might have to do with the fact that having someone madly thrust inside you against your will is already violent and painful enough in and of itself.)
In my opinion, even if Mr. Wilson had been charged under the new version of the offence and that the victim's consent had been part of the equation, he might as well have been found guilty anyways, because it's very likely that the young woman's consent was viciated by the coercitive nature of the circustances.
Finally, even if the prosecution had not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Wilson's 15 year-old victim had given her free and enlightened consent, he and his buddies should still have been convicted for production, distribution and possession of child pornography.
I say 10 years' imprisonment was not too harsh. It sounds just right to me.
This case has received more than its share of publicity over the past few months.
The accused in this case was Genarlow Wilson, aged 17 at the time of the events. Mr. Wilson and a few of (adult) friends of his were having a New Year's Eve party in a motel room. They had invited over a number of underaged girls, including the victim, who was then 15 years old. It was reported that the lot had consumed more than their fair share of booze and drugs.
The girls were then sollicited to perform various sex acts on many of the young men present, while their buddies would film the scene. A video showed Mr. Wilson receiving oral sex from the 15 year old girl, so there was no debate about whether or not the sexual activity happened . (Oh, and apparently, the accused subsequently bragged about what had happened at the party at school.)
The video also showed Mr. Wilson having sex on a bathroom floor with another girl, who looked sleepy and was visibly seriously intoxicated at the time. On the video, she did not ask Mr. Wilson to stop (but then again, the video didn't show any verbal interaction between the two.) The 17 year-old girl, who had waken up naked and confused the next morning, immediately reported the events to the police, and claimed that she had been raped.
Eventually, Mr. Wilson was charged with aggravated child molestation, found guilty and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. Now, the big debate in the media was about the fact that this offence, in its legal definition, did not take into account the fact that the 15 year-old victim was "consenting", that the victim and the accused were so close in age, that it was "just" a fellatio, and that the accused was a promising athlete and a "good boy".
(The State of Georgia, subsequent to the outcome of this case, changed the formulation of the offence so as to take the victim's "consent" into account.)
I have a few issues with the media treatment of this case, and with the recent quashing of Mr. Wilson's sentence.
First, I would just like to clarify that, although I agree with the Conservatives' proposition that the age of consent to sexual contact with adults be raised from 14 to 16, I also think it's stupid to seek to criminalize sexual contacts among (consenting) teenagers. Let's face it: when you're 16, horny and a just typically rebellious, you're gonna have sex if you want to, whether your parents, the local clergyman, your teachers or the law say otherwise.
However, sexual contacts, even among teenagers, must always be consensual.
Secondly, some people seem to be labouring under the delusion that when there's no penetration, when it's "just" a fellatio, it's really not that bad, and the situation should not give rise to criminal charges. Well, if that's your opinion, you're wrong. If you can't understand why having some drunken guy's cock shoved down your throat is morally wrong enough to be criminalized, then quit reading now.
Thirdly, it's no secret that most American jurisdictions have fucked-up definitions of what constitutes "consent" to sexual activity. While the notion of "consent" colloquially refers to something that a person genuinely wants, or to a free and enlightened decision (such as in health or contractual matters, for instance), "consent" to sexual activity in most American criminal statutes (as well as under the old, i.e. pre-1985, version of our own Criminal Code) is equated to passivity, lack of resistance, and the absence of the use (additional) physical force or the threat thereof.
This way of thinking is stupid and unrealistic. Basically, it means that unless you're beaten or threatened and you attempt to (physically) resist the assault, you will be deemed to have consented to having sex inflicted upon you. It completely disregards the fact that, as in this case, a person will not protest or resist because she is smaller than her assailants, outnumbered, confined, scared, or intoxicated. In situations such as those involved in the Wilson case, most females would not be foolish enough to think they can simply walk away or refuse to perform the acts, so that most criminally-inclined males would not have to resort to additional physical violence anyways.
St. Maria Goretti might have become a saint for choosing the opposite route, but most women do not envy her fate.
(Why to I keep saying "additional" physical violence? Um... It might have to do with the fact that having someone madly thrust inside you against your will is already violent and painful enough in and of itself.)
In my opinion, even if Mr. Wilson had been charged under the new version of the offence and that the victim's consent had been part of the equation, he might as well have been found guilty anyways, because it's very likely that the young woman's consent was viciated by the coercitive nature of the circustances.
Finally, even if the prosecution had not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Wilson's 15 year-old victim had given her free and enlightened consent, he and his buddies should still have been convicted for production, distribution and possession of child pornography.
I say 10 years' imprisonment was not too harsh. It sounds just right to me.
Monday, October 15, 2007
One step forward, one step back...
On the one hand, a post on the omnipresence in pornography of degrading and violent behaviour.
On the other hand, a case digest titled "degrading and rude behaviour not necessarily sexual harassment."
***
So, if a judge says to a female defence lawyer, in open court, that she has a "nice butt", does that constitute sexual harassment? Or is it just "degrading and rude behaviour"?
***
On a related topic, here is an article discussing recent sexual harassment cases in the U.S. and arguing that the fact that the complainants won in those cases is attributable to a "change of climate" in the workplace, in that corporate milieus in the U.S. are becoming increasingly less tolerant towards such behaviour.
The article also includes a list of things you can do if you are sexually harassed in a professional setting.
This is a fine and thorough list, but when you're confronted with someone who physically threatens you, who touches you without your consent, who makes you feel like you're there for his personal (sexual) enjoyment, and when this person is a position of authority or power vis-à-vis you, such that you might lose your job or get dragged in the mud for complaining about the unwanted behaviour, it begs the question: to report or not to report?
As with many other things, it is easier said than done. Not that women lack reasons to come forward. But still... Having to balance the shame, embarrassment and personal risk to one's reputation, with the guilt that the perpetrator might strike again, and prey on another victim, is an unbearable exercise.
***
"See, I don't know what to do.
"I keep having fantasies about leaving her dictaphone under the pillow. Or following her when she goes to work.
"I've been lying about where I'm going, just in case I can bump into her..."
What would you do it was the case? What if your weren't sure it was so? Would you risk everything you have, everything you have become, for the (potentially remote) possibility that someone you don't know might suffer the same fate?
***
In a class discussion on the difficulties created by our legal system that deterred women from reporting sexual assault (among others, the fact that in many circumstances, evidence of a complainant's sexual history will be considered relevant in court, which allows for the victim to be cross-examined on her past sexual behaviour), one of my professors (an older man) boldly stated that reporting sexual assault did not depend on such legal hurdles, but rather on a victim's individual bravery.
He then went on to say that people in Iraq had gone out to vote, even though they were risking their lives in the process. He said that if the Iraqi people who had chosen to vote could be so brave, then why wouldn't sexual assault victims be able to come forward. After all, it is not, he said, as if their lives were at risk.
When I heard that comment, my heart sank. I felt as if he had just called one in four women in the classroom cowards.
Reporting is an individual decision. Not reporting is not an act of cowardice, but rather an attempt at self-preservation.
On the other hand, a case digest titled "degrading and rude behaviour not necessarily sexual harassment."
***
So, if a judge says to a female defence lawyer, in open court, that she has a "nice butt", does that constitute sexual harassment? Or is it just "degrading and rude behaviour"?
***
On a related topic, here is an article discussing recent sexual harassment cases in the U.S. and arguing that the fact that the complainants won in those cases is attributable to a "change of climate" in the workplace, in that corporate milieus in the U.S. are becoming increasingly less tolerant towards such behaviour.
The article also includes a list of things you can do if you are sexually harassed in a professional setting.
This is a fine and thorough list, but when you're confronted with someone who physically threatens you, who touches you without your consent, who makes you feel like you're there for his personal (sexual) enjoyment, and when this person is a position of authority or power vis-à-vis you, such that you might lose your job or get dragged in the mud for complaining about the unwanted behaviour, it begs the question: to report or not to report?
As with many other things, it is easier said than done. Not that women lack reasons to come forward. But still... Having to balance the shame, embarrassment and personal risk to one's reputation, with the guilt that the perpetrator might strike again, and prey on another victim, is an unbearable exercise.
***
"See, I don't know what to do.
"I keep having fantasies about leaving her dictaphone under the pillow. Or following her when she goes to work.
"I've been lying about where I'm going, just in case I can bump into her..."
What would you do it was the case? What if your weren't sure it was so? Would you risk everything you have, everything you have become, for the (potentially remote) possibility that someone you don't know might suffer the same fate?
***
In a class discussion on the difficulties created by our legal system that deterred women from reporting sexual assault (among others, the fact that in many circumstances, evidence of a complainant's sexual history will be considered relevant in court, which allows for the victim to be cross-examined on her past sexual behaviour), one of my professors (an older man) boldly stated that reporting sexual assault did not depend on such legal hurdles, but rather on a victim's individual bravery.
He then went on to say that people in Iraq had gone out to vote, even though they were risking their lives in the process. He said that if the Iraqi people who had chosen to vote could be so brave, then why wouldn't sexual assault victims be able to come forward. After all, it is not, he said, as if their lives were at risk.
When I heard that comment, my heart sank. I felt as if he had just called one in four women in the classroom cowards.
Reporting is an individual decision. Not reporting is not an act of cowardice, but rather an attempt at self-preservation.
Friday, October 12, 2007
It's too late when you're dead...
A recent StatsCan study reports that "[t]he slaying of a spouse is often the first time authorities are notified of a domestic violence problem in a home".
Because domestic abusers are just "nice guys" after all, right?
This is so depressing... *sigh*
Because domestic abusers are just "nice guys" after all, right?
This is so depressing... *sigh*
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Sexual assault is not about the loss of virginity
This is a sad story.
A few weeks ago, a female student was sexually assaulted when she was working late at night in a lab at Carleton University. Her assailant also severely beat her up, leaving her injured and unconscious, and fled with some of her clothes.
The saddest part of the story is that the victim of this heinous assault has contacted the media in order to "set the record straight" on the fact that she was "not raped". As a matter of fact, the young woman, who is Muslim, wants to make clear that her sexual assault did not involve penetration and that she is still a virgin.
"As part of her culture, being a virgin is very important, and, if, all of a sudden, everybody looks at her and says she's not a virgin, she's a lot less desirable as a wife," said Christine Baker, a sexual-assault examiner at the Ottawa Hospital who has been keeping in touch with the victim.
*
I find it hard to believe that in Canada, women are still feeling that ultimate value as human being depends on their being a virgin until marriage, and on their "marriagebility". I am also deeply troubled by the fact that this woman's declaration suggests that she should have to bear any guilt or uncarable shame because she was sexually "accessed" by a man without her consent.
In addition, her concerns for her reputation as a virgin sadly highlight that no matter how heinous and twisted this crime was, and despite the fact that is no question whatsoever as to her complete and obvious lack of consent (having been beaten to the point of unconsciousness before being assaulted), there are people out there who somehow feel that she should feel responsible for her own "depreciation".
The mere fact that this is happening in Canada, in 2007, shows us that we still have a very long way to go in terms of changing people's attitude towards sexual violence and its female victims. I can't believe that we still seem to be grappling with the concept that women are not chattels, to be sold, exchanged or taken.
***
On another note, it should be noted that the young woman in this case is dead right about one thing: just because a penis did not enter your vagina when you were attacked doesn't mean you have not been sexually assaulted, nor does it make things any "better" for you.
Many people - including, I am sad to say, far too many judges who hear sexual assault cases - are still under the impression that "sexual assault" is a lesser, non-penetrative form of rape, and therefore, a lighter criminal offence. It is not.
Sexual assault consists of any type of sexual touching conducted without the person's consent, when the assailant is aware of the other person's lack of consent. Period. One's bodily integrity is not, in the eyes of the law, ultimately linked to one's virginity.
***
However, a distinction between sexual assault and the abrogated offence of rape has to be drawn. While sexual assault simpliciter is punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment (if prosecuted by way of indictment) or by a maximum of 18 months' imprisonment (if prosecuted by way of summary conviction), the old offence of rape carried a maximum punishment of life's imprisonment (along, in the good old days, with 50 lashes).
When I hear about extremely violent and wanton sexual attacks such as this one, I'm tempted to say: bring back the lash...
A few weeks ago, a female student was sexually assaulted when she was working late at night in a lab at Carleton University. Her assailant also severely beat her up, leaving her injured and unconscious, and fled with some of her clothes.
The saddest part of the story is that the victim of this heinous assault has contacted the media in order to "set the record straight" on the fact that she was "not raped". As a matter of fact, the young woman, who is Muslim, wants to make clear that her sexual assault did not involve penetration and that she is still a virgin.
"As part of her culture, being a virgin is very important, and, if, all of a sudden, everybody looks at her and says she's not a virgin, she's a lot less desirable as a wife," said Christine Baker, a sexual-assault examiner at the Ottawa Hospital who has been keeping in touch with the victim.
*
I find it hard to believe that in Canada, women are still feeling that ultimate value as human being depends on their being a virgin until marriage, and on their "marriagebility". I am also deeply troubled by the fact that this woman's declaration suggests that she should have to bear any guilt or uncarable shame because she was sexually "accessed" by a man without her consent.
In addition, her concerns for her reputation as a virgin sadly highlight that no matter how heinous and twisted this crime was, and despite the fact that is no question whatsoever as to her complete and obvious lack of consent (having been beaten to the point of unconsciousness before being assaulted), there are people out there who somehow feel that she should feel responsible for her own "depreciation".
The mere fact that this is happening in Canada, in 2007, shows us that we still have a very long way to go in terms of changing people's attitude towards sexual violence and its female victims. I can't believe that we still seem to be grappling with the concept that women are not chattels, to be sold, exchanged or taken.
***
On another note, it should be noted that the young woman in this case is dead right about one thing: just because a penis did not enter your vagina when you were attacked doesn't mean you have not been sexually assaulted, nor does it make things any "better" for you.
Many people - including, I am sad to say, far too many judges who hear sexual assault cases - are still under the impression that "sexual assault" is a lesser, non-penetrative form of rape, and therefore, a lighter criminal offence. It is not.
Sexual assault consists of any type of sexual touching conducted without the person's consent, when the assailant is aware of the other person's lack of consent. Period. One's bodily integrity is not, in the eyes of the law, ultimately linked to one's virginity.
***
However, a distinction between sexual assault and the abrogated offence of rape has to be drawn. While sexual assault simpliciter is punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment (if prosecuted by way of indictment) or by a maximum of 18 months' imprisonment (if prosecuted by way of summary conviction), the old offence of rape carried a maximum punishment of life's imprisonment (along, in the good old days, with 50 lashes).
When I hear about extremely violent and wanton sexual attacks such as this one, I'm tempted to say: bring back the lash...
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
"Gorno"?!? (aka the WTF highlight of the day)
Some genius has coined this term to designate those horror films about attractive women who get tortured in a sexual manner (e.g. Hostel, the Saw series, or the newly released Captivity).
Apparently, though, the popularity of this genre is decreasing.
According to the L.A. Times:
The reason? Gore burnout.
...
"There's nothing you can do to a human being on screen that is taboo anymore," says Oscar-winning writer-producer Akiva Goldsman. "Over and over again, people are breaking the boundaries of the body, hurting people, chopping people up, ravaging people…. For things to be truly scary, we're going to have to find new boundaries to tread on."
Great.
People are not staying home because they're disgusted that torturing women in a sexual manner is being marketed as bona fide entertainment. They're staying home because they've become indifferent to that type and degree of gratuitous violence.
Hollywood makes me sick.
Apparently, though, the popularity of this genre is decreasing.
According to the L.A. Times:
The reason? Gore burnout.
...
"There's nothing you can do to a human being on screen that is taboo anymore," says Oscar-winning writer-producer Akiva Goldsman. "Over and over again, people are breaking the boundaries of the body, hurting people, chopping people up, ravaging people…. For things to be truly scary, we're going to have to find new boundaries to tread on."
Great.
People are not staying home because they're disgusted that torturing women in a sexual manner is being marketed as bona fide entertainment. They're staying home because they've become indifferent to that type and degree of gratuitous violence.
Hollywood makes me sick.
"The three year-old whore was asking for it"
According to a news report from Radio-Canada and a survey from the Fondation Marie-Vincent, adults in Québec still carry a lot of harmful prejudices with respect to sexual violence to children.
As a matter of fact, Radio-Canada reported that 1 out of 4 adults believe that a child may provoke a sexual assault through his or her behaviour, that sexual assaults on children generally occur in the streets or at school rather than in a domestic context, and that a child who is sexually assaulted will physically resist or attempt to flee his or her assailant.
The study also reveals that 1 out of 2 adults believe that sexual assaults necessarily involve anal or vaginal penetration.
The Fondation Marie-Vincent emphasized the fact that merely 1 out of 10 incident of sexual assault on a child is actually reported to the authorities.
***
This report remembers me of a sad case where a father was accused of sexually assaulting his three year-old daughter. When he testified at trial, he mortified the Court when he explained how it was really his daughter who had been initiating the sexual contacts, and described her as "very cuddly" and compared her to a "pussycat in heat" ("une p'tite chatte en chaleur").
The man was eventually found guilty.
As a matter of fact, Radio-Canada reported that 1 out of 4 adults believe that a child may provoke a sexual assault through his or her behaviour, that sexual assaults on children generally occur in the streets or at school rather than in a domestic context, and that a child who is sexually assaulted will physically resist or attempt to flee his or her assailant.
The study also reveals that 1 out of 2 adults believe that sexual assaults necessarily involve anal or vaginal penetration.
The Fondation Marie-Vincent emphasized the fact that merely 1 out of 10 incident of sexual assault on a child is actually reported to the authorities.
***
This report remembers me of a sad case where a father was accused of sexually assaulting his three year-old daughter. When he testified at trial, he mortified the Court when he explained how it was really his daughter who had been initiating the sexual contacts, and described her as "very cuddly" and compared her to a "pussycat in heat" ("une p'tite chatte en chaleur").
The man was eventually found guilty.
Bill Watch - Wacky Conservatives (and Liberals) Edition
Here is a brief list of wacky and/or anti-women Bills currently under consideration before the House of Commons or the Senate.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
- Bill C-206 (Liberals): A Bill to allow for 2 years of parental leave, under the Employment Insurance Act;
- Bill C-22 (Conservatives): This Bill would raise from 14 to 16 years old the age of consent to sexual contacts with an adult (while keeping a 5 year difference rule that will avoid criminalizing bona fide dating relationships between teenagers). Though I generally agree with this measure, there are a few details with this Bill that make me tick. First, it's called the Age of Protection Act. Give me a break. Please. Let's be honest: the real issue here is not to protect teenagers from themselves, but rather to criminalize the exploitative behaviour of adults who prey on vulnerable children. I know it's a shaky argument, but I can see a nuance here. Secondly, there is still a marriage exception. After all, I guess it's not as if marriage had been in and of itself an exploitative social structure for the few past thousand years or so... By the way, this Bill as yet to receive Royal assent;
- Bill C-338 (Liberals - surprise!): This Bill purports to make a criminal offence the fact of "procuring a miscarriage of a female person who he or she knows or ought to know is past her twentieth week of gestation." This offence would be punishable by a maximum term of five years' imprisonment or a $100,000 fine. Well. Ain't that swell. 'Seems now you can't trust the Liberals to protect women's right to choose. But it's not as if it was arbitrary or anything. There is a health exception. If you've been raped, you're still screwed, but they'll sure show you a little compassion if you're dying... *sigh* Don't we all love this great, grand "Americanization" of Canadian politics?
To be fair, here are the Bills that represent a laudable effort in the right direction:
- Bill C-235 (Conservatives): A Bill to amend s. 742.1 Criminal Code, so as to preclude a sentencing judge to impose a conditional sentence where the offender has committed an offence carrying a minimum term of imprisonment, an offence punishable by ten years or more of imprisonment, and/or a violent offence. That would mean, in practice, that offenders convicted of sexual assault would not be eligible to a sentence of "imprisonment" in the community. Now Bill C-9, it has just received Royal assent;
- Bill C-254 (Liberals): A Bill that would have the effect of including "women" in the definition of identifiable groups that can be targeted by hate propaganda. This Bill is apparently still in limbo;
- Bill C-326 (NDP): This Bill would add "gender identity" as a basis for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
