Reading through Gotell's "Rethinking Affirmative Consent in Canadian Sexual Assault Law: Neoliberal Sexual Objects and Risky Women" makes me wonder as to why the justice system still seems to fail survivor's of sexual assault in spite of the thorough outline that is embedded in the criminal code.
Gotell commences her article with the case of the aboriginal 12 year old girl who was intoxicated and violated by three men in which only one of the men was convicted and given a two-year sentence. She was 12 years old. She was running away from home. Lied about her age(by two years) and name. Was given alcoholic drinks to the point where she could not get up. The three men attempted to each have sex with her. She was still named the "sexual aggressor" (890). How can the jury and judge come to this conclusion on just common sense alone, but also in regards to the law? A 12 year old cannot consent. Edmondson (the accused) did not take reasonable steps to ascertain her age and she was too intoxicated to give consent. All of these instances go against the criminal law, and she was still victim-blamed as well as the insignificant charges that were laid on Edmondson. The justice system FAILED a 12-year-old girl by blaming her for the actions that these grown men took. The judge stated that she "deliberately" attempt to appear older than she was (by literally two years) and that she voluntarily drank alcoholic drinks (891). It's absolutely astounding how an educated individual can compose of such nonsensical statement, but also have others concur with it regardless of the actual facts of the case.
Another matter that struck with me was how she mentioned that "women are counselled to avoid taking risky actions and placing themselves vulnerable situations"..."A Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) website providing a list of "safety tips" for women "at risk" emphasizes that the "most important tip is to not be involved in a high risk profession, lifestyle or activity such as prostitution or hitchhiking" (884). I found this extremely ironic for the RCMP to state because of the fact that since July 18, 2014, there has been 336 sexual harassment claims against the RCMP. A lot of these claims arise from women who work(ed) in the RCMP, so are they indicating that their job is a "high risk profession"? How can they victim-blame those who work in "high risk professions" but do not even acknowledge the sexual harassment that occurs in the police force?
It just demonstrates how it is NOT the women's fault for "putting" themselves in high risk situations as working for the RCMP isn't considered one and sexual assault still takes place in the force. It is the perpetrator's fault for committing illegal acts which should correspond with the verdict, not the thought of women deliberately placing themselves in such situations.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/sexual-harassment-claims-against-rcmp-reach-336/article19669218/
No comments:
Post a Comment