Things that are not like rape *Trigger warning*

Trigger warning: this post talks about the language and reality of rape. All of the links do the same. Please progress carefully.

This morning, Johnny Depp is reported to have said, when talking about being in a photo shoot,

"Well, you just feel like you're being raped somehow. Raped ... It feels like a kind of weird -- just weird, man. But whenever you have a photo shoot or something like that, it’s like -- you just feel dumb. It’s just so stupid."

In doing this, he portrays an increasing cultural acceptability of comparing rape to things that are not at all like rape.

For instance, a few months ago, Netflix in the US increased their prices, and BuzzFeed collated some of the 'most outrageous netflix price increase reactions': 7 of the 24 accuse Netflix of raping them. Similarly, a writer having their words stolen does not constitute rape. Countering this misuse of the word, Angela B says,

If your copyright is infringed...

...you may not even know it happened; once you know, not much changes for you.
...there are clear legal remedies and an enforcement arm that is usually willing to do its job.
...people believe you.
...no bruises, pregnancy, STDs or other physical repercussions.
...nobody takes the side of the infringer.
...nobody asks what your article was wearing.

Cara at Feministe and Sady Doyle have written about a man describing the development of a TV show as being like rape; podcasts talk of ear rape; there is a type font available called date rape; there is a different kind of font rape; instant messenger rape; AIM rape (different from IM rape, apparently); instructions on how to facebook rape your friends, and a website with examples; and on and on and on. You get the idea.

There are two main issues with using the word rape to describe things that are not rape. The first is that it devalues the word and desensitises us to what it means. If someone has just been facebook raped, it might not mean that much to them if their friend is actually raped*. Not if, over time, rape is consistently used to mean price rises, annoying pranks, loud noises and blog posts reprinted without permission. It takes the impact out of the word, when the crime of rape can have an unbelievably significant impact on a person's life. Angela Rose, from PAVE, said,

"The more we dilute this word, the more we play down the power of sexual violence. It actually adds to the silence surrounding this issue because it diverts attention."

Mikki Halpin goes on to say that

"This demoralizes victims, whose traumatic experience is now ranked along with a poor performance review or a hefty cell phone bill."

The other danger is that of triggering rape survivors. Not only can we see our experience being demeaned by the misuse of this word, but the way it is casually thrown about can trigger flashbacks, nightmares and trauma. Many rape survivors have the symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). A PTSD trigger can be many things, including a sound, a smell, a memory, a word... This website talks specifically about PTSD in rape survivors.

thingsthatarenotrape.tumblr.com lists 'Forty-nine things that are not rape and one that is'. Number 50: Rape is rape.

Edited to add: I appreciate that I might not have worded that particular sentence as well as I might have, to convey the meaning I intended. I was talking about the verbal impact of the word, and I was thinking about it from the point of view of the person who has been raped. As I may have expressed it badly, I will present an alternative now: If you have been raped and you want to tell somebody, and they then tell you they have just been facebook raped, it may well put you off because it might lead you to believe that they did not have an understanding of what being raped actually meant, if they were happy to use the word in that way. I apologise that that was not clearer.

[The image is a photograph of a traffic STOP sign, which has been subvertised with a sticker of the word 'rape' underneath it. It also has two other stickers on it, and is above a traffic 'all-way' sign. It was taken by Nigsby and is used under a Creative Commons Licence]

Yet another victim-blaming travesty

Six footballers who were imprisoned for raping 12 year old girls have been released, after judges ruled that their 2-year sentences were "excessive". The six men all admitted various charges of rape, after raping two 12 year old girls in a park late at night. But today Lord Justice Moses, Mr Justice Holroyde and Judge Francis Gilbert QC ruled that being imprisoned was inappropriate as it was a 'difficult' case.

In an astonishing display of victim blaming, the Mail (I know, I know, but there are only two papers reporting on it so far) stated that, "The court heard [one of the girls] was more sexually experienced than the men and it had been her idea to arrange the meeting". It is not ever appropriate to describe a 12 year old as 'sexually experienced'. If she has had previous sexual 'experience', then it should be correctly named as abuse.

The fact that the girls apparently looked older than 12, and had been 'looking for sex' is quoted. But the truth is that children sometimes behave in a precocious fashion. It is up to the adults around them to not exploit this by having sex with them. 12 year old girls often do want to look, and act, older than they are, but this is nearly always clearly visible to those around them. Adults hold the responsibility of not taking advantage of children. Under the law, children are considered to be unable to consent to sex, and this is usually taken most seriously when the child is under the age of 13.

The men have now been released, and their sentences cut to one year, and suspended.

It is clear, yet again, whose side the legal system is on. If it can't protect two pre-teen girls against six grown men, then who can women and girls have faith in?

Edited to add: I have just been reminded that, while reporting on this case at trial, the Daily Mail was widely criticised for referring to the 12 year old rape victims as 'Lolitas'. It reinforces just how much these girls have been up against in the coverage and treatment of their trial.

[The image is a photograph of a smiling woman holding a banner. The banner has a rainbow background, and the words 'No more silence about violence'. The photograph is used under a Creative Commons Licence and was taken by Rebecca Dominguez.]

Disabled women and sexual assault.

[A photograph of a bright pink, hand-written placard against a brick background, which says "I hate rape". There is a marker pen in the background.]

The Guardian has published an interview with Kier Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, about restoring rape victims' confidence in the criminal justice system.

Rape Crisis reports that

Only 15% of serious sexual offences against people 16 and over are reported to the police and of the rape offences that are reported, fewer than 6% result in an offender being convicted of this offence.

The lousy conviction rate is a key reason that many women do not report being raped. It can feel like a waste of time to even report, when the likelihood is that it will go nowhere?

In recent years, new concerns have emerged among women who are raped, as we hear of more and more being imprisoned themselves when their rape allegations were not proved in court, and perhaps most high profile, a woman who was imprisoned for retracting true allegations. With regard to this specifically, Starmer has now requested that all perverting the course of justice cases that involve retracted rape and domestic violence allegations should be submitted to him for approval.

It seems he is taking action, and I am very glad of that, as it is sorely needed. And Starmer insists that the 25% funding cut to the CPS will not affect sexual or domestic violence services.

One group of women that has been overlooked in these efforts to improve reporting of rape, is disabled women. Around 10 years ago I spoke to a specialist sexual assault police officer about having been raped. It did not go well, and we both decided that I should not proceed with making a formal report. This was initially because I was unable to tell her the details of what had happened. From my point of view, she was a stranger, a quite intimidating one at that, and I had never told anyone the intimate details of what had occurred (and in fact, I still haven't). From her point of view, if I couldn't tell her, then I would never be able to stand up in court and tell a roomful of strangers. I agree. The other reason, however, was that she found out I had mental health diagnoses. She said that this would make me an 'unreliable witness' in the eyes of the court, and my word would not be believed. There was no acknowledgement of cause and effect - that in fact sexual violence may have caused my distress. Many women experience mental distress after rape. If that automatically means we are not 'reliable witnesses', then it needs looking at urgently.

And it is not just women with psychiatric diagnoses who have difficulty reporting rape, or being taken seriously in the judicial system. Women with learning disabilities face similar prejudice, and may have difficulty communicating that any abuse has taken place at all. Disabled women can have more difficulty leaving an abusive relationship, particularly if they rely on the abusive partner to assist them with communication or mobility, and very few refuges are fully accessible even if they can leave.

In terms of domestic abuse, as well as physical, sexual and emotional abuse, there is an extra layer of abuse which can happen to disabled women. Their partner can withhold medication, over-medicate, refuse to assist the woman at all, or refuse dignified assistance options, if the partner is also the woman's carer. They can withhold communication aids, and limit mobility and outside contact considerably.

And it is not just that disabled women are less likely to be taken seriously, and less likely to have access to support and judicial services, we are also much more vulnerable to abuse.

As many as 83% of women who have been disabled since childhood have been the victims of sexual assault, 49% of whom experience 10 or more incidents. 40% of physically disabled women in one study reported have been sexually assaulted, and for individuals with psychiatric disabilities, the rate of violent criminal victimization including sexual assault was 2 times greater than in the general population. 45% of female psychiatric outpatients report being sexually abused during childhood, and horrifyingly, lifetime risk for violent victimization was 'so high for homeless women with severe mental illness (97%) as to amount to normative experiences for this population'. (Statistics all from Wisconsin Coalition against Sexual Assault - the sheer dearth of figures available about sexual assault and disabled women other than these from WCASA, is very telling in itself).

If these efforts to encourage women to come forward, and efforts to support women following sexual assault, do not start addressing the specific issues faced by disabled women, then they are doing all women a disservice. If there is a space in a refuge, but the steps into the building prevent a disabled woman from taking that place, then we are letting women down. If nobody checks with the woman who is unable to speak, whether her assistants are taking care of her with respect and not hurting her, we are letting women down. And if somebody doesn't believe the 'unreliable' learning disabled or mentally ill woman who talks about abuse, then we are letting women down. If disabled women do not have the same access to justice as non-disabled women, then women do not have access to justice.

(Photo by Steve Rhodes. Article cross-posted at The F-Word blog).

“Rape is the only crime in which the victim becomes the accused.” - Freda Adler

If I was a journalist, and I was reporting on the alleged gang rape of an 11 year old girl, I imagine I would discuss the horror of the situation. I would talk to experts on child rape, and perhaps provide sources of support and information. I would write about the long-term effects that such an assault can have on a girl, and I would perhaps discuss what may be involved in the legal process ahead for this child and the accused men and boys.

However, in researching the story, I found this,

But this is a case that has divided this Liberty County town.

Some sympathize with the suspects, saying the alleged victim was a willing participant, even though she is too young to give legal consent

as reported in My Fox Houston and elsewhere.

That information would change my approach altogether. Her local community and fellow students coming out with statements like,

""To be honest, she looks older than she really is," says Brandi Foster",

and

"“Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record"

This girl was allegedly raped by as many as 20 men and boys. She was 11 years old.

Not only are the child, and her mother, being blamed for her assault, an awful lot of concern is expressed for the defendants.

“It’s just destroyed our community,” said Sheila Harrison, 48, a hospital worker who says she knows several of the defendants. “These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives.”

and

“It’s devastating, and it’s really tearing our community apart,” she said. “I really wish that this could end in a better light.” (from NY Times)

and

Sherry Fletcher, whose 20-year-old son Devo Shaun Green is among those charged, spoke to the network about her son's arrest. She said: 'It just seems like a dream. 'I just hope everything comes out well, because some of these kids are innocent.' (from Daily Mail, safe link).

Why is nobody asking what happened in one community to potentially create 20 rapists? Why is nobody expressing concern for the child at all? Why is it that the concern about the legal action is focused on the effect on the accused men, not the effect on the girl?

And if I was a journalist reporting this story, I would never, ever do what the New York Times in particular did, and report uncritically on a community's victim-blaming of an 11 year old girl who has had video of her alleged gang rape passed around her school, and which is now being investigated by the police.

James McKinley, the journalist, considers it newsworthy that

Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.

He does not report that it does not matter what a woman or girl is wearing. It does not matter if she 'dresses her age' or not. It does not matter if she wears make-up. He does not even question these statements, he just quotes them as they stand. He does not even mention that an 11 year old child is considered to be always incapable of consent in the law.

People should know better. The New York Times in particular should.

Other online reports of this story have comments like,

It doesn't make it right but when all the truth comes out I won't be surprised if it turns out that she was telling everyone she was 17 yrs old and that she probably orchestrated the whole thing. A lot of young people's lives will be ruined by this young, promiscuous girl. Something this big had to have been planned. Put them all in jail including the young girl.

This misogyny has to end! It does not even matter if she had told anyone she was 17. Or 27. Or 87. Women and girls get raped through no fault of their own. How many times do we need to report this until it is understood?

Thank you to Women's eNews for the photo, and to Liz Henry for the heads-up to the story.

(cross-posted at The F Word blog).

Don't Be On The Giving End

Oh dear, it doesn't matter how many times we talk about it, and my goodness we talk about it a lot, it happens again and again.

Last Christmas we were told to not be a rape victim, earlier this year we were told that it was because of what we wear, and that half of Londoners surveyed thought there were times that rape was the victim's fault, and these are just the tip of the iceberg.

So, in time for Christmas, Hambleton and Richmondshire Community Safety Partnership have launched a 'hard-hitting campaign', advising people to not be 'on the receiving end' of domestic violence during the festive season.

I am struggling to see their logic. Is it aimed at women who they believe were somehow planning to be abused, yet on seeing the poster they will see the error of their ways, and decide against it? How else can it be understood?

Raising awareness of domestic abuse is very important. The quote provided makes good points: “Christmas is meant to be a happy time for families but for many living in our districts it will be a time of fear and pain,” said Sarah Hill, Director of Independent Domestic Abuse Services.

“The pressure builds up as people spend more time together than normal - which can often be a flash point for abuse. But we are here and ready to help – to listen or to provide some shelter.”

But how does this equate to the victim blaming, completely missing-the-point poster.

If anyone is going to urge anyone to do anything, we need to urge abusers not to abuse. It is so screamingly obvious that it frustrates me immensely that we have to write about this again and again and again.

Nobody wants to be abused. A woman seeing a poster telling her not to 'be on the receiving end' does not stop her partner 'being on the giving end'. It may just make her feel even more powerless and vulnerable.

Provide helpline numbers, sure. Provide advice and support, absolutely. But point the advice in a way that does not make it her fault. In a way that does not put the onus on her to not be punched or kicked or raped.

Because believe me, she already does not want to be on the receiving end. She does not need a patronising poster campaign to tell her that.

If you are experiencing domestic abuse, please call the National Domestic Violence Helpline on 0808 2000 247, or find a service local to you through the Women's Aid website.

And remember, it is not your fault. Ever.

I wish we did not have to keep saying this, but as long as people keep putting out information like that, we will.

(Cross-posted at The F Word)

Rapist Urged Not to Rape

My local paper has published an article following the sexual assault of a woman. They report that the police are urging a change in behaviour to prevent further rapes. Sadly, contrary to the title of this post, the change in behaviour they are encouraging involves the behaviour of local women, who are advised to not walk alone on the paths of the Dearne Valley Trail.

So, I would like to make a few changes to the article. My alterations are in bold

POLICE have issued this image of a man who subjected a 50-year-old woman to a terrifying sex attack as she walked her dog at a South Yorkshire beauty spot.
The man assaulted the woman as she he walked alone on a secluded path on the Dearne Valley Trail, near Elsecar, Barnsley, at around midday on Thursday June 24.

The stockily-built attacker was white, around 30 years old, with short fair hair and a round face. He was wearing blue shorts and a white T-shirt and fled towards Elsecar Park following the attack.

Police are warning people using the trail to be vigilant and report suspicious activity immediately. They are also urging women not to walk the paths alone. They are particularly urging the rapist to stop raping, and want men to be aware that if they walk the paths alone, they may cause alarm to the women in the area, due to this recent attack.

Det Sgt Steve Trigg, from South Yorkshire Police, said the woman was left "traumatised and in shock" after the serious sex assault, and feared she might be killed.

Anyone with information about the attack should call 0114 2202020 ext 736551.

Not Ever

Rape Crisis Scotland have created a TV advert, aimed at tackling prejudice against rape victims.


It follows a survey carried out by the Scottish government, which found that 23% of people thought a woman was partly responsible for being raped if she was drunk at the time of the attack, and 17% if she was wearing revealing clothing.

Their campaign ad helps to make the point that a woman is never, ever responsible for being raped. Never. Not if she is drunk, not if she has said yes before, not if she said yes to your friend, not if she is naked in the street.

Their website is a good source of information, and also has posters available for download, and details of a national helpline.

As I learned on my first ever Reclaim the Night march,
"Whatever we wear, wherever we go,
yes means yes and no means no".

Small Commitment for a Big Society

Rape Crisis (England and Wales) has organised a campaign for sustainable funding for Rape Crisis centres, as there are areas without services at all, and other areas where the existing services are under threat of closure.

They are therefore asking for reassurance from the Coalition Government that it will keep its sustainable funding commitment to Rape Crisis.

As someone who has used my local Rape Crisis centre, I can only praise how well they support women and girls, and that service no longer existing would be devastating for my city. Statistics for sexual violence are not going down, and we certainly need more specialist, independent women-only services for survivors, not risk there being even fewer.

On their facebook page for this campaign, they have suggestions of things that we can do:

• Join our supporters’ group on Facebook
• Publicise the group and this event page to all your Facebook friends and encourage others to join and do the same
• Send a letter to Theresa May MP, Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, voicing your support for a specific, long-term, sustainable fund for Rape Crisis groups, so that the crisis in Rape Crisis ends once and for all. You can write your own, or use our template letter to urge David and Theresa to honour their commitment to Rape Crisis (England and Wales). Find the template on our group page
• Ask your MP to support the right of sexual violence victims/survivors in your area to access vital Rape Crisis services. You can find out how to contact your local MP at: www.theyworkforyou.com
• Ask your MP and the Government for parity with the Scottish model of funding for Rape Crisis in England and Wales:
The National Co-ordinator of Rape Crisis Scotland describes the impact of having a Rape Crisis Specific Fund there:

‘Even though some centres are still struggling, the general funding situation has improved significantly over the past four years...Because the funding is restricted to Rape Crisis groups, centres no longer have to compete with one another; this has made a huge difference in terms of the service and support they can offer women. Four new centres have also opened in areas where previously there was little or no service provision. ‘

Along with the numerous verbal public and parliamentary statements promising sustainable funding for Rape Crisis from both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, the Coalition Government has told us that it will adopt a ‘common sense’ attitude to addressing the ‘needs of society by enabling funding to deliver innovative and personalised services to the community.’

They have committed to:
• Freedom
• Fairness
• Responsibility

Big Words ...but when will they become a Big Reality? Support women and girls who’ve been affected by sexual violence to have their voices heard by insisting that the Government honours its commitment.

Don’t forget: Send our template letter to Theresa May MP, Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, asking that she honours the Coalition Government’s commitment to provide long-term sustainable funding for Rape Crisis centres

I will also reproduce the template letter they provide here, for those who don't use facebook. It is to Theresa May, the Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities.

Please do send it if you agree with the sentiment, and feel free to alter it to add things you feel are important to get across.

Rt. Hon Theresa May MP #Your Address #
Home Office
Peel Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

# Date#

Dear Home Secretary,

I am writing to you (or Organisation’s Name is writing to you) to seek your assurance that the Coalition Government will HONOUR its publicly stated COMMITMENT to provide long-term sustainable funding for Rape Crisis centres affiliated to Rape Crisis (England and Wales) (RCEW) by providing a specific Rape Crisis fund.

The new Government has stated, in its Coalition agreement, ‘Our Programme for Government’ (May 2010), and reiterated within parliamentary debates and public interviews, that it will support the sustainability and development of Rape Crisis provision in England and Wales.

This commitment came about as a result of the publicly acknowledged critical situation that member groups of RCEW are experiencing, as highlighted by ‘The Crisis in Rape Crisis’ and other independent reports over the last decade. It was also an outcome of continued and consistent lobbying and campaigning by RCEW and their supporters, who are gravely concerned about the consequences of the historic neglect and lack of funding for Rape Crisis groups, which led to 10 centres closing in the preceding 5 years. The Government’s commitment was a response to these specific issues facing Rape Crisis (England and Wales) member groups.

Independent research and survivors’/victims’ testimonies consistently show that the majority of survivors/victims of sexual violence are women and girls who do not report to the police and prefer to access women-only services. Many of these survivors/victims will, therefore, prefer to access their local Rape Crisis centre as they provide specialist, women-centred services, which are distinctive within the Third Sector.

However, a lack of sustainable funding means that, for the majority of England and Wales, Rape Crisis Centres do not exist in many areas and the ones that do exist are under threat. This reduces women’s and girls’ choices and opportunities in accessing specialised, local support for sexual violence and this does not promote a fair, just and Big Society.

I (or Organisation’s name) urge you to honour the commitment and to work with Rape Crisis (England and Wales) to ensure that all member groups are able to access the promised funding.

Yours sincerely,

Blame the Victims... Again!

I had the misfortune of watching Carol Malone on TV this morning. She said that if women get drunk or dance provocatively, it's really their own fault if they get raped.

She also said that men can't be blamed for raping women when they (the men) are drunk, because they don't really know what they're doing.

Double standards much?

Rape Victims Blamed Again

Virginia Wood has a really interesting post on her blog about yet another form of blaming women for being raped.

This time it isn't what she was wearing, what she had drunk, or her fantasies, but is actually her own history of trauma and her lack of awareness of her surroundings.

Many women have a history of trauma, and I can't imagine there are any who are constantly aware of everything that's going on around her. Neither of these make it her own fault if she is raped.

Similarly, even if you are aware of your surroundings and don't 'freeze' when attacked, that is not necessarily enough to prevent rape. Virginia gives certain examples,

Maybe it was a "blitz attack", which of course by definition would mean she wouldn't have known she was even being attacked until she was already down. Or maybe her rapist had a weapon: I have to ask--do men really believe that a martial artist can kick a gun out of an attacker's hand like good ol' Chuck Norris on the teevee? And then there's the rapist who comes in through the bathroom window in the middle of the night and has you under his control before you even wake up. Now how you gonna karate-kick his ass outta bed with your legs all tangled up in the kivvers? And then there was the woman I knew whose attacker told her if she cooperated, he wouldn't harm the children sleeping in the next room: All the martial arts training in the world won't trump that one.

[...]

Let us note that one in every six women in the U.S. will be assaulted in her lifetime. Maybe it's just me, but I think that's frequent enough to suggest that we are not, in fact, in control of our own destinies--at least not when it comes to rape. Indeed, that kind of thinking sounds to me like a form of privilege: The not-raped can believe they did/do something to earn/deserve that status ("I kicked the shit out of him!" or "I'm always aware of my surroundings." Always? Really?). That kind of thinking allows the not-raped to feel safe and secure in the fantasy that "it will never happen to me" and to look down on victim/survivors as people who screwed up somehow.

Victim-blaming, even in this guise of scientific research, is rife. Somebody, somewhere is missing the fact that the person to blame for a woman being raped is the rapist. Always.

When I was at sixth-form college, two police officers came in to give us a talk about safety. The boys were sent to one room with a male police officer, to receive a talk about driving safely. The girls were sent to another room with a woman officer, to receive a talk about rape prevention.

Quite why the girls didn't need to be given the same advice about safe driving was bewildering, but the weirdest thing was it was the girls being told how to prevent rape rather than the boys.

In that talk, we were told that 2 out of 3 rapes could have been prevented (by the victim). How's that for victim-blaming? Imagine how that felt for rape survivors in that room! Being told by a cop that really they should have been able to do something about it was humiliating and vicious.

And what's more, 3 out of 3 rapes could have been prevented - BY THE RAPIST NOT RAPING THEM. That is where the blame needs to be laid. Every rape that ever occurs could have not happened, if the perpetrator chose not to do it.

That is the point. Men can stop rape. They have to.

(cross-posted at The F Word)

More on Polanski

Another good article has appeared online, called Common Roman Polanski Defenses Refuted.

I don't agree with it as utterly as I did yesterday's post, but it's still worth a read, and posting as much anti-rape stuff as possible seems vital.

Common Roman Polanski Defenses Refuted

Roman Polanski, the 76-year-old filmmaker who was accused of drugging and raping 13-year-old Samantha Geimer in 1977, has been arrested in Switzerland. Polanski, who was convicted of having sex with a minor but fled to France before he could be sentenced, is currently facing extradition back to the United States, where he could finally be sentenced for his 32-year-old conviction. In the wake of Polanski’s belated arrest, commentators have posed dozens of arguments in the Oscar-winning director’s defense. Most of them are bullshit.

—

“But he’s already paid his price, because everyone knows he’s a rapist, and he can never work in Hollywood.”

As Patrick Goldstein wrote in the LA Times, “I think Polanski has already paid a horrible, soul-wrenching price for the infamy surrounding his actions. The real tragedy is that he will always, till his death, be snubbed and stalked and confronted by people who think the price he has already paid isn’t enough.”


Ahh: “the real tragedy.” Some people may be under the impression that a 13-year-old being drugged and raped by a 44-year-old man constitutes a “real tragedy.” Others may contend that both Polanski and his rape victim have suffered “real tragedies” in their lifetimes. But no, there can only be one the real tragedy, and it is that people have “snubbed” Roman Polanski because he raped someone and skipped town. If only the recognition of the Academy Awards, the BAFTAs, the Berlin International Film Festival, Cannes, the Directors Guild of America, the Golden Globes, the Independent Spirit Awards, the Stokholm Film Festival, the Venice Film Festival, and dozens of other awards organizations could begin to heal that wound.

—

“But he escaped the Holocaust / his mother died at Auschwitz / His wife was killed by Charles Manson”

Talk about real tragedies: These, of course, are real tragedies. Upon hearing of Polanski’s arrest, French Minister of Culture Frederic Mitterrand announced that he “strongly regrets that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already experienced so many of them.”

This is a fair argument—and one that can be made about many, many people convicted of crimes in the United States. A lot of the people who are locked up behind bars have endured unspeakable traumas in their own lives—sexual assault, poverty, drug addiction, gang life, homelessness, and mental illness. Why are they held accountable for their actions, while Polanski gets to be like, “Peace, I’m just going to chill in France for thirty years, try not to rape anybody else, and maybe win an Oscar. See you guys later”? It’s not because of what he endured. It’s because he makes movies.

But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Polaski isn’t getting a break because he’s famous, but rather because he’s had a hard life. When France decries “the ordeal” being “inflicted” on Polanski, what the country is really saying is that rape is not important because it’s not as horrific as the Holocaust, and not as evil as Charles Manson. And that’s a pretty fucked-up standard, oui?

—

“But he made The Pianist / Chinatown / Rosemary’s Baby / Revulsion.”

Congratulations, the Huffington Post’s Kim Morgan: You win the prize of penning the most disgusting defense of Polanski I’ve read to date! Morgan prefaces her post by saying she is “not going to go into my Roman Polanski defense,” but suffice to say she is “not happy about his arrest.” Instead of getting bogged down by the legal gobbledygook, Morgan shoots off a blog post entitled “Roman Polanski Understands Women.” Seriously.

“One should not,” she writes, “take Polanski’s films literally, for they are often heightened versions of what occurs naturally in our world: desire, perversion, repulsion.” Okay, but how about his rape of a 13-year-old girl? Are we allowed to take that “natural occurrence” literally? Morgan doesn’t directly address that question, but she does argue that Polanski’s very brilliance is a product of his relationship with human “darkness”:

Polanski’s removed morality is exactly why he is often brilliant: He is so empathetic to his characters that, like a trauma victim floating above the pain, he is personally impersonal. He insightfully scrutinizes what is so frightening about being human, yet he doesn’t feel the need to be resolute or sentimental about his cognizance. He is also, consciously or subconsciously, aware of the darkness he explores, especially in his female characters, who could be seen as extensions of himself.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-morgan/roman-polanski-understand_b_301292.html

You know what I find revolting? When a film critic prefaces her work with a disclaimer about how much it sucks that a rapist is getting arrested for raping someone, and then uses the rapiest imagery possible to applaud his film work. Nope! Sorry! Understanding Women is not a valid defense against rape. Similarly, being a really marvelous film director doesn’t mean that you get to rape someone and not go to prison. Even if you made The Pianist.

Remember: making The Pianist and being a rapist are not mutually exclusive.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-morgan/roman-polanski-understand_b_301292.html

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-morgan/roman-polanski-understand_b_301292.ht“not happy about his arrest,” and goes on to defend “Roman Polanski Understands Woman”

—

“But the girl’s mother made him rape her.”

Oops, nevermind, this one is actually an even more disgusting defense of Roman Polanski, also on the Huffington Post:

The 13-year old model ’seduced’ by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies. The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It’s probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence. I met Polanski shortly after he fled America and was filming Tess in Normandy. I was working in the CBS News bureau in Paris, and I accompanied Mike Wallace for a Sixty Minutes interview with Polanski on the set. Mike thought he would be meeting the devil incarnate, but was utterly charmed by Roman’s sobriety and intelligence.

So, Polanski is just a really special guy who was practically forced to have sex with that 13-year-old girl by her mother. It’s almost as if Roman Polanski was raped by that 13-year-old girl. Also, no, the age of consent in California is not “13 by now,” it is 16 18 (!!). By the by: the author of this little gem is Joan Z. Shore, co-founder of Women Overseas for Equality. Thanks, Joan, for your deft approach to women’s issues!

“But he didn’t know she was 13.”


Please, Anne Applebaum. Polanski had to ask her mother for permission to shoot her for Vogue.

—

“But 13 is old enough to consent to sex”

Let’s assume that, like Joan Shore and others have suggested, age 13 is old enough to consent to sex, and Polanski is merely a victim of the Puritanical sex laws of the U.S.A. If that’s true, then surely 13 would be old enough to say no to sex, right? Because here’s what Geimer said happened at the one-on-one Vogue shoots:

According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, “Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him.” She added, “It didn’t feel right, and I didn’t want to go back to the second shoot.”

Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. “We did photos with me drinking champagne,” Geimer says. “Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn’t quite know how to get myself out of there.” She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. “I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!”, and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she stated.

That’s rape, whether you are 13 years old or 14 or 16 or 44 or 76.

—

“But the American justice system is fucked up.”

Granted. But if we’re going to talk about the fuck-up-edness of the U.S. legal system, surely we can find a better martyr than a famous rich guy with the best lawyers in the world who drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, struck a plea deal in order to get off with the lesser charge of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” (or statutory rape), and then fled the country when it looked like the plea deal may not be honored? I’m all for Polanski being tried legally and fairly. Over the years, Polanski has repeatedly attempted to appeal the case—a really cool feature of the American legal process he purposefully evaded—but he refuses to appear in court.

Excuse me while I play the world’s tiniest piano, but if the American legal system is broken, the fix is not for rapists to just choose their own adventure (in this case, France).

—

“But his victim has forgiven him”

From Applebaum’s column: “The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children.”

It’s certainly a relief to hear that Geimer, after three decades and a settled civil suit against Polanski, has moved on from her childhood sexual assault. Of course, a victim’s should always be considered over the course of a trial. At the same time, forgiveness, sympathy, and identification with one’s attacker are fairly common in sexual assault cases, and these sentiments don’t make sexual assault any less damaging—or any more legal. Again, you can argue that Polanski is an example of how the American legal system unduly punishes its criminals, but until you’re willing to free all the nation’s sex offenders and make them promise to just keep their cool until their victims get around to forgiving them, it’s not a very solid argument.

—

“But his victim doesn’t want to have to relive her assault again.”

Now we’re getting somewhere. Samantha Geimer, like many victims of sexual assault, is justified in holding a grudge against the criminal justice system. When a rape victim decides to report her assault to the police, she’s looking at years of intense police, legal, and media scrutiny. She will have to relive her assault over and over again over the course of trial and investigation. She will have her sexual history dredged up and put on display. These are all big deterrents to reporting sexual assault. But while a sexual assault victim may never personally recover from the trauma, the public scrutiny, at least, usually ends with the sentencing.

Unless, of course, your attacker is a famous movie director who refuses to be sentenced, in which case you will be forced to relive your assault: a) every time your attacker attempts to cross another country’s borders; b) every time your attacker releases a new film; c) every time your attacker attempts to have his conviction overturned; d) every time your attacker does anything noteworthy. The fact that Geimer’s childhood sexual assault has haunted her in the press for 30 years is a real tragedy, and one man is responsible for that: Roman Polanski.

Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child

I was so joyous when I heard on the radio the night before last that Roman Polanski had been finally arrested. The next day, I was utterly bewildered on hearing people defend him in the media. I've discussed it with a few people, and it's not just me that is furious.

I just found this article at salon.com and want to thank Kate Harding for speaking the brutal truth about the situation.

Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child.

Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

Drugging and raping a child, then leaving the country before you can be sentenced for it, is behavior our society should not tolerate, no matter how famous, wealthy or well-connected you are

Can we do that? Can we take a moment to think about all that, and about the fact that Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, before we start talking about what a victim he is? Because that would be great, and not nearly enough people seem to be doing it.

The French press, for instance (at least according to the British press) is describing Polanski "as the victim of a money-grabbing American mother and a publicity-hungry Californian judge." Joan Z. Shore at the Huffington Post, who once met Polanski and "was utterly charmed by [his] sobriety and intelligence," also seems to believe that a child with an unpleasant stage mother could not possibly have been raped: "The 13-year old model 'seduced' by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies." Oh, well, then! If her mom put her into that situation, that makes it much better! Shore continues: "The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It's probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence."

Wow, OK, let's break that down. First, as blogger Jeff Fecke says, "Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It's now 18. But of course, the age of consent isn't like horseshoes or global thermonuclear war; close doesn't count. Even if the age of consent had been 14, the girl wasn't 14." Also, even if the girl had been old enough to consent, she testified that she did not consent. There's that. Though of course everyone makes a bigger deal of her age than her testimony that she did not consent, because if she'd been 18 and kept saying no while he kissed her, licked her, screwed her and sodomized her, this would almost certainly be a whole different story -- most likely one about her past sexual experiences and drug and alcohol use, about her desire to be famous, about what she was wearing, about how easy it would be for Roman Polanski to get consensual sex, so hey, why would he need to rape anyone? It would quite possibly be a story about a wealthy and famous director who pled not guilty to sexual assault, was acquitted on "she wanted it" grounds, and continued to live and work happily in the U.S. Which is to say that 30 years on, it would not be a story at all. So it's much safer to focus on the victim's age removing any legal question of consent than to get tied up in that thorny "he said, she said" stuff about her begging Polanski to stop and being terrified of him.

Second, Polanski was "demonized by the press" because he raped a child, and was convicted because he pled guilty. He "feared heavy sentencing" because drugging and raping a child is generally frowned upon by the legal system. Shore really wants us to pity him because of these things? (And, I am not making this up, boycott the entire country of Switzerland for arresting him.)

As ludicrous as Shore's post is, I have to agree with Fecke that my favorite Polanski apologist is the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum, who finds it "bizarre" that anyone is still pursuing this case. And who also, by the by, failed to disclose the tiny, inconsequential detail that her husband, Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, is actively pressuring U.S. authorities to drop the case.

There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

There is also evidence that Polanski raped a child. There is evidence that the victim did not consent, regardless of her age. There is evidence -- albeit purely anecdotal, in this case -- that only the most debased crapweasel thinks "I didn't know she was 13!" is a reasonable excuse for raping a child, much less continuing to rape her after she's said no repeatedly. There is evidence that the California justice system does not hold that "notoriety, lawyers' fees and professional stigma" are an appropriate sentence for child rape.

But hey, he wasn't allowed to pick up his Oscar in person! For the love of all that's holy, hasn't the man suffered enough?

Granted, Roman Polanski has indeed suffered a great deal in his life, which is where Applebaum takes her line of argument next:

He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland.

Surviving the Holocaust certainly could lead to an "understandable fear of irrational punishment," but being sentenced for pleading guilty to child rape is basically the definition of rational punishment. Applebaum then points out that Polanski was a suspect in the murder of his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, a crime actually committed by the Manson family -- but again, that was the unfortunate consequence of a perfectly rational justice system. Most murdered pregnant women were killed by husbands or boyfriends, so that suspicion was neither personal nor unwarranted. This isn't Kafkaesque stuff.

But what of the now-45-year-old victim, who received a settlement from Polanski in a civil case, saying she'd like to see the charges dropped? Shouldn't we be honoring her wishes above all else?

In a word, no. At least, not entirely. I happen to believe we should honor her desire not to be the subject of a media circus, which is why I haven't named her here, even though she chose to make her identity public long ago. But as for dropping the charges, Fecke said it quite well: "I understand the victim's feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn't work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice."

It works on behalf of the people, in fact -- the people whose laws in every state make it clear that both child rape and fleeing prosecution are serious crimes. The point is not to keep 76-year-old Polanski off the streets or help his victim feel safe. The point is that drugging and raping a child, then leaving the country before you can be sentenced for it, is behavior our society should not -- and at least in theory, does not -- tolerate, no matter how famous, wealthy or well-connected you are, no matter how old you were when you finally got caught, no matter what your victim says about it now, no matter how mature she looked at 13, no matter how pushy her mother was, and no matter how many really swell movies you've made.

Roman Polanski raped a child. No one, not even him, disputes that. Regardless of whatever legal misconduct might have gone on during his trial, the man admitted to unlawful sex with a minor. But the Polanski apologism we're seeing now has been heating up since "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," the 2008 documentary about Polanski's fight to get the conviction dismissed. Writing in Salon, Bill Wyman criticized the documentary's whitewashing of Polanksi's crimes last February, after Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza ruled that if the director wanted to challenge the conviction, he'd need to turn himself in to U.S. authorities and let the justice system sort it out. "Fugitives don't get to dictate the terms of their case ... Polanski deserves to have any potential legal folderol investigated, of course. But the fact that Espinoza had to state the obvious is testimony to the ways in which the documentary, and much of the media coverage the director has received in recent months, are bizarrely skewed."

The reporting on Polanski's arrest has been every bit as "bizarrely skewed," if not more so. Roman Polanski may be a great director, an old man, a husband, a father, a friend to many powerful people, and even the target of some questionable legal shenanigans. He may very well be no threat to society at this point. He may even be a good person on balance, whatever that means. But none of that changes the basic, undisputed fact: Roman Polanski raped a child. And rushing past that point to focus on the reasons why we should forgive him, pity him, respect him, admire him, support him, whatever, is absolutely twisted.

― Kate Harding

Sexual Assault Prevention Guaranteed to Work

(edited with non-facebookified links, that was an accident sorry).

In the spirit of How to Really Prevent Rape and Rape Prevention Advice, I was just recommended Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work by Femin-Ally.

Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work!
1. Don’t put drugs in people’s drinks in order to control their behavior.
2. When you see someone walking by themselves, leave them alone!
3. If you pull over to help someone with car problems, remember not to assault them!
4. NEVER open an unlocked door or window uninvited.
5. If you are in an elevator and someone else gets in, DON’T ASSAULT THEM!
6. Remember, people go to laundry to do their laundry, do not attempt to molest someone who is alone in a laundry room.
7. USE THE BUDDY SYSTEM! If you are not able to stop yourself from assaulting people, ask a friend to stay with you while you are in public.
8. Always be honest with people! Don’t pretend to be a caring friend in order to gain the trust of someone you want to assault. Consider telling them you plan to assault them. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the other person may take that as a sign that you do not plan to rape them.
9. Don’t forget: you can’t have sex with someone unless they are awake!
10. Carry a whistle! If you are worried you might assault someone “on accident” you can hand it to the person you are with, so they can blow it if you do.
And, ALWAYS REMEMBER: if you didn’t ask permission and then respect the answer the first time, you are commiting a crime- no matter how “into it” others appear to be.

Women demand asylum from rape

Press release from Black Women's Rape Action Project
On 25 November 2008, International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, we demand that the UK government meet its international obligations to provide protection to women seeking asylum from rape and other sexual torture.

In June 2006, Black Women's Rape Action Project issued the "Asylum from Rape" petition demanding official recognition of rape as torture and persecution, and practical help for women to overcome the many obstacles they face in making their asylum claims. Thousands of people have already signed the petition including journalists Victoria Brittain and Caroline Moorhead, lawyer Gareth Peirce, actress Juliet Stevenson and poet Benjamin Zephaniah.

An estimated 50% of women seeking asylum in the UK are rape survivors. Women are spearheading the movement for asylum rights and exposing the hidden atrocities in the asylum process. This self-help activity has encouraged opposition from many quarters, including high level protests against the detention of children and vulnerable people. The "Asylum from Rape" petition is one way of informing people about who seeks asylum and why, and is a tool to demand change.

We are calling on all concerned UK and international organisations to endorse the "Asylum from Rape" petition.

• Whilst International courts recognize that rape is routinely used as a weapon of war and also as an act of genocide [1] , asylum claims by women seeking asylum from rape are routinely dismissed by the Home Office and the courts, flouting government guidelines, UK case law and international conventions [2] .
  
  
• Whilst the conviction rape for reported rape in the UK is an appalling 6%, racism and official contempt for those who are from other countries and vulnerable compounds the sexism all women are up against.
  
  
• Many women are accused of "fabricating" their account of rape. In other cases, sexual violence is dismissed as "simple lust" or "random acts" by "unruly officers", or women are told it is safe to live somewhere else in the country they fled.
  
  
• Many mothers are also suffering the unspeakable violence of being separated from their children who they were forced to leave behind when they fled to the UK. See their campaign here.
  
  
• Contrary to the government's own rules against the detention of victims of torture, over 70% of women in Yarl's Wood Removal Centre are rape survivors [3]. Some are imprisoned as soon as they claim asylum. The petition calls for an end to this "Detained Fast Track" procedure.
  
  
• Many are being sent back to further torture because they weren't able to put before the UK authorities the full evidence of the rape and violence they suffered or were arbitrarily dismissed when they did. Most of the few women who have been able to stay in touch with BWRAP and Women Against Rape, report being raped or tortured again. Many are destitute and some have been forced into prostitution to survive.
  
  
• Whilst only 7% of racist attacks in the UK result in a conviction, many women asylum seekers report increased racial violence, fuelled by government and media witch-hunts against so-called "bogus asylum seekers"
  
  
• On this fifteenth anniversary of the creation of the post of UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, we urge the current Rapporteur Yakin Ertürk to intervene against UK government's policies which deliberately make women asylum seekers destitute and force women back to countries where they may face rape, other violence and even death.

Women in all of the above situations are available for interview. For more information, including how you can help, contact BWRAP@dircon.co.uk or call 020 7482 2496

1. In the coming weeks, three judges of the International Criminal Court in The Hague will decide whether Sudan's president will stand accused of masterminding the use of rape as a form of genocide against several ethnic groups in Darfur. [David Scheffer, "Rape as genocide in Darfur", Los Angeles Times 13 November 2008]
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheffer13-2008nov13,0,4968269.story

2. "Misjudging Rape - Breaching Gender Guidelines & International law in Asylum Appeals", BWRAP & WAR, December 2006].

3. Legal Action for Women's research into women's rights violations at Yarl's Wood Removal Centre. [A "Bleak House" for Our Times, December 2005]

Justice for rape victims

Justice for rape victims

Please add your signature to the open letter at the link above, addressed to Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary.

Every 34 minutes a rape is reported to the police in the United Kingdom. Thousands more victims do not come forward.

Yet women are being failed by the criminal justice system, and left with nowhere to turn for support. We need your help to make a difference.

Please add your signature, and we will present the letter to her after the end of the campaign on 8th March, International Women's Day.

If you have any problems signing online, please email your name and organisation (if appropriate) to petition@fawcettsociety.org.uk or call us on 020 7253 2598 and we will add your name to the letter.

Petition:
Dear Home Secretary

Every 34 minutes a rape is reported to the police in the United Kingdom. Thousands more victims do not come forward.

Yet despite the scale of the problem, the Government has failed to provide the support that women want and need. The few remaining rape crisis centres are at risk of closing due to inadequate and insecure funding, and the vast majority of women in the UK have nowhere to turn to for support in their local area.

Not only are women who have been raped denied access to support, they are also denied access to justice. Only one out of every twenty rapes reported to the police results in a conviction, with less than one in five rapes even leading to a prosecution. This failure to bring rapists to justice amounts to a near ‘licence to rape’.

Money must be invested in support services without delay, so that every area has a fully-funded rape crisis centre, while the Government must take immediate steps to ensure that real improvements are made in criminal justice practice, so that every case is properly investigated.

The Government must do more for victims of rape. We call on you to give this issue the political priority that it deserves.

About Bloody Time

Reforms aim to dispel rape myths and increase convictions

Clare Dyer, legal editor
Thursday November 29, 2007

Juries are to be told how rape victims typically respond in an attempt to dispel "rape myths" which ministers believe are contributing to plummeting conviction rates for the crime.

A panel of judges, doctors and academics will start work next month on the project, which will attempt to put together a package to inform the jury without interfering with the fairness of a trial.

The move is part of reforms announced yesterday by the solicitor general, Vera Baird, aimed at boosting a conviction rate which has dropped from 33% of reported rapes in 1977 to just 5.4% in 2005, rising slightly to 5.7% last year. A US study in 1989 found that myths affected the outcome of rape trials more than any evidence.

Jurors are expected to be told that victims may be slow to report the attack and that they may appear unemotional in the witness box, contrary to expectations.

"Juries sometimes find it difficult to understand why a rape has not been reported to police immediately when, in fact, it can take victims some time to decide to make a complaint," said Baird.

"Juries can think that she [the victim] will be upset and very emotionally raw when she relives the episode for the court when, in fact, post-traumatic stress makes people seem unemotional and almost matter-of-fact."

Ministers initially proposed allowing expert witnesses to give evidence to the jury on how rape victims behave. But that idea, which circuit judges described as a "minefield", has been shelved. The panel is expected to recommend an information booklet, a video or directions from the judge. A proposal for a statutory definition of "capacity to consent" - to deal with situations where a woman was so drunk it was questionable whether she had the power to say yes or no - has also been scrapped.

Baird said legislation was unnecessary since the court of appeal had set out in a case last March how juries should approach the issue when it quashed the conviction of Benjamin Bree, a 25-year-old software engineer found guilty of raping a 19-year-old student after a night of binge drinking.

The reforms include proposals to allow victims to substitute a videotaped interview with police for their initial evidence in court. Restrictions on the admissibility of "hearsay" evidence - occasions when the woman confided in friends or relatives - about the rape will also be removed.

Katherine Rake, director of the Fawcett Society, welcomed the proposed changes but added: "These changes will not by themselves lead to a significant improvement in the conviction rate as most cases fail long before they get to court.

"Responses to allegations of rape need to improve across the whole criminal justice system and wholesale reform is needed to tackle the failures in the investigation and prosecution of rape cases."

Feminism

Bastard of the Day

Phone rape sadist is jailed

A sadistic sex monster from Wigan who sexually assaulted and tortured a woman with a hot iron while filming it on his mobile has been jailed indefinitely.
Matthew John Oldham, 33, must serve at least five years behind bars for his vicious crimes.
He was convicted of wounding with intent and sexual assault following an eight-day trial at Liverpool Crown Court.

On April 19 2006, Oldham met his victim at the Mountain Ash pub, Portway, Wythenshawe. Oldham and the woman, who was 29 at the time, were standing at the back of the pub waiting for a lift to a friend's house when they began to argue.

Oldham then punched and kicked the woman, knocking her to the floor. Once she was on the floor, Oldham began to bite her left eye, leaving her in agony.

The pair were then given a lift to a flat on Kermishaw Nook, Astley, which belonged to another friend where they immediately began to argue again. The court heard that this time Oldham plugged a nearby iron into the mains, saying he was going to burn her.

He then ordered her to strip naked and told her to sit on the floor, which the woman did out of fear. Oldham then picked up the iron and burned the woman's genitals and inner thigh. He then urinated on her, before assaulting her with a sex toy.

During the attack Oldham was also taking photographs of his victim with his mobile phone and continued to punch and kick her.

Over the next few nights Oldham, who used to live in Astley but now has no home address, did not let the victim out of his sight, would not allow her to leave alone and always accompanied her.

On the following Tuesday, Oldham got up early in the morning and left the flat, taking all his belongings. Later that day the victim called an ambulance and she was taken to Hope Hospital.

In August 2006, police were told that Oldham was in hospital in Hull after receiving injuries unconnected to this case. He was then arrested, but denied all allegations.

Det Cons Jackie Hulme, of Leigh CID, said: "This was a sadistic attack which was also extremely degrading and humiliating for the victim.

"Not only did he savagely assault her, but he kept her a virtual prisoner for a number of days. This could only have added to her ordeal.

"I can only applaud the bravery of the victim because it is largely due to her evidence that this extremely dangerous man is now off the streets."

Amazon Continues to Promote Normalisation of Sexual Violence.

Mr Nongkynrih,

I find it difficult to believe that you 'value the feedback of your customers', as you state, when you are clearly hiding from the obvious truth that you are offending and upsetting many, many people by stocking this 'toy'. You are doing the wrong thing.

And stating that you require a parent's consent for a child to shop at your store hardly makes everything ok. I find it offensive and disturbing that a Rapist doll is being sold at all, I am as concerned by adults buying this product as well as children.

In a society where one in four women have been raped, or have experienced attempted rape, your profiting from selling a RAPIST TOY is disgusting.

Have you no ethics or conscience about promoting sexual violence and its normalisation in society?

Having dolls called 'Rapist Number 1' on sale is distasteful, immoral, offensive, unethical and irresponsible. Your company is trivialising rape, and this is unforgiveable.

I again demand that you withdraw this item from sale immediately.

hippie

Thank you for writing to Amazon.co.uk with your concerns.

I am sorry to hear that you are upset by this item's "Rapist Number
1 from Planet Terror" inclusion in our Toys & Games store on
Amazon.co.uk.

Our goal as a retailer is to provide customers with the broadest
selection possible so they can find, discover and buy any item they
might be seeking. Such a broad selection will inevitably include
some items which some people may find distasteful or otherwise
objectionable.

As stated in Amazon.co.uk's Conditions of Use, as posted on their
website (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html/202-
2896130-4273436?ie=UTF8&nodeId=1040616), "If you are under 18, you
may use Amazon.com only with involvement of a parent or guardian."
We expect the customers shopping on our site to be adults who may
make their own decisions about which products they choose to browse
or purchase.

However, I have passed your comments along to the appropriate
department in our company for consideration. We value all feedback
from our customers, and I thank you again for taking the time to
send us your comments about this issue.

If you have any other suggestions for us or would like to make a
comment at another time, please don't hesitate to send us an
e-mail. To do this, please visit our Help Desk at the following URL:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/contact-us

Thanks you so much for contacting us at Amazon.co.uk.

Warmest regards

Aaron Nongkynrih
Customer Service
Amazon.co.uk

see post Rapist for Sale for background information.

Rapist For Sale.

Oh - where is your sense of humour - it's only a toy!

Amazon is selling a rapist.


Rapist Number One is a character from Quentin Tarantino's Grindhouse. The toy demonstrates the extent to which rape is taken seriously in our society. Sexual violence is a subject of play and entertainment. Amazon is obviously on the quest for rape-profits through this surrender to male porn culture. No doubt they will accrue much male approval, particularly from the little tikes who want to play at rape with their Barbies on the lounge carpet, giving them the enormous relief of being to act out in play, the vulgar and brutal little fantasies that roam around their peanut-sized brains.

Of course the arguments will be that it is just a toy and that even graphical depictions of rape and violence do not lead to actual violence. We don't accept the premise of such 'WeirdWorld' justifications because EVEN if that were true, it still ignores the fact that rape and sexual violence are being used as something to enjoy. Their arguments do not acknowledge the pure weirdness of someone who wants to think about rape and contempt of women as a way of enjoying themselves - HELLO, WAKE UP, THIS IS WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Living in a world filled with images and products which are all aimed at the titillation of the lowest, most base, males in society tends to grind us all down. Toys like 'Rapist Number One' operate below the level of language and act to normalise the sexual domination of women. Come on Amazon, you really don't need the profits from this rape-doll, so do humanity a favour and stop selling it.

"Grindhouse - designed as a tribute to the ultra-violent B-movie programmes of old - the trend officially reaches the mainstream. Made up of two films plus a clutch of trailers for non-existent movies, Grindhouse bombed when it was released in the US last month. American audiences were said to have been put off by the three-hour running time, and last week it was announced that Grindhouse will be released in a different format in the UK, the two films sold as separate features. Whether either film is any good is still up for debate - I, for one, found them both suicidally boring. What isn't in question is the disturbing attitude towards women in these films". (See full article The Guardian, 1st May 2007)

from Truth About Rape.

Contact Amazon.co.uk here. Now.