Montmorency Football Club & The Legal System

As I’m sure many of you have read, three junior members of the Montmerency Football Club – a suburban football club in Victoria – have been charged with the sexual assault of two young women. Thirteen other players were interviewed and the police say they expect to lay further charges. At the end of their playing season a group of young players had organised an unofficial weekend away to Phillip Island. **trigger warning** Whilst there they lured two women to the villa they had rented and held them prisoner whilst raping them. One woman was reportedly ’sexually assaulted by as many as eight men’ and the other at least five different times. They finally escaped when a brawl broke out between the men and they could sneak away unnoticed.

I know that it is because it’s a high profile case (it appears sports teams raping women is in vogue for the media) but it is so exciting to see the police taking this crime seriously and the courts processing it quickly. Several women I know are still caught up in the legal system two years after their original assaults. One woman I know had to wait a year and a half before she even got a committal hearing. Rape and sexual assault cases frequently take years to be processed and, as I’m sure you can imagine or are aware, this is not an enjoyable process. It’s not as easy to move on and heal when you have a court date in two months… and then in five months… and then in a year… Apart from the waiting and the wondering there’s the potential – or at least fear – of having to see your abuser. A given part of the process is that you have to relive the experience of your assault over and over and over again – to the police, to the judge, to the lawyers, on paper, in person, via video link up. You have to be cruelly cross examined by the lawyer of the person who assaulted you (I state unequivocally, right now, that the majority of lawyers that represent rapists are fucking scumbags).

Thoughts on rape reporting

There’s a story up on The Age about the horrific rape of an Australia woman in Edinburgh. I’m attaching a massive TRIGGER WARNING to this article and this story. If you think reading somewhat graphic details about rape is a bad idea for you then be careful following the link to this story. It’s here.

Briefly: an Australian woman living in Edinburgh was raped multiple times by two strangers who were also physically violent in other ways. There’s a couple of reasons I want to mention this article.

First is that Fairfax has finally managed to write an article about rape that isn’t horribly offensive. (I checked outside and the apocalypse hasn’t come so I’m not really sure what is going on.) Sure, the title (‘Australian woman’s eight-hour rape ordeal’) is a bit jarring and they mention the nationality of the perpetrators, a possibly unnecessary descriptor. But, for the most part, it’s a simple and well written piece of reportage on an horrific and devastating crime.

Second is, why?

The article states that the “rape was reported as one of the worst to ever occur in Edinburgh.” This makes me wonder if she’d instead been raped by her partner who was claiming she had consented, would the reporting be as straight forward and clear? Or would they write “pretty bad but not the worst” and would we be back to the inverted comma’s of ‘rape’? I understand that there are different levels of brutality and different forms of trauma, some worse than others. But I try really hard to not buy into the sliding scale of rape. Disqualifying a persons experience of rape as ‘less’ than that of someone else is very dangerous territory. One of the cruelest things about rape, that I think a lot of people don’t understand, is that it often can’t be measured by the form of the original attack, it’s the long term emotional consequences that are the true terror. Obviously, the rape itself impacts on those long term consequences but not in a definitive definable way.

I know I sound awfully cynical here but to get to the point: is the reason the article is written so clearly due to the crime itself being so brutal and horrific? There is no way anyone could cast aspersions on the survivor after reading in detail about what happened to her. Additionally, the survivor was able to give lengthy and detailed statements to the police about her attack as well as appearing in court. Is the reporting on this woman’s experience fair, balanced and reasoned because what happened to her is – beyond a shadow of doubt – awful and because she was able to tell us exactly how awful it was?

Thoughts?

Forget The “Sex Predator”, How ‘Bout His Wife, Eh?

A brief MediaWatch-ish post for you this morning. I was reading “the papers” online and when I reached the bottom of the page, noticed Fairfax’s ‘Top Stories’ lists for their various interstate publications. This headline was holding the #1 spot in the BrisbaneTimes.com.au “charts”:

Naturally, I clicked on the story, detailing the sentencing of Luke James Colless, who pleaded guilty to “five counts of rape, five counts of assault with intent to commit rape, six counts of sexual assault and two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, over the attacks on 11 women”. Well, you might not assume as much given the story’s headline, but the “wife” in question rated a mention that lasted for less than a sentence; she wasn’t even noted by name. Here’s the full extent of the rapists’ wife’s appearance in the article:

Colless’ barrister Tony Kimmins said despite his offending, his client was supported by his wife and family.

And that’s it. In other words, out of the 556 words in the article, approximately 17 made any reference whatsoever to his wife.

What gives, brisbanetimes.com.au? Exactly which champion is coming up with your headlines? This may seem like subeditorial semantics, but there’s something particularly insidious about this headline that ignores the full horror of Luke James Colless’ crimes and, instead, makes some sort of Tammy Wynnette-esque comment on his wife standing by her man.

I hope I’m not the only one who thinks a simple “Sex predator faces life in jail” would have sufficed.

NON SURVIVOR SYNDROME

Some of you may be aware of the term “white woman syndrome”. Not to be confused with “missing white woman syndrome” (though there are similarities) WWS generally refers to situations where the distress and or guilt of a white person about [a specific act of] racism overshadows any focus, conversation or energy being directed towards discussion or action about racism (or in fact the experiences of the individual who has experienced the original act of racism). The result will often be energy being directed away from the real issue or event and instead towards comforting the white person who has become upset about it.

Well, I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently and I’ve come up with a new term: Non Survivor Syndrome. It doesn’t refer to exactly the same kinds of behaviour but I think the example of WWS is a fairly good start to explaining what I mean. (Also: I know that starting a critique of emotional appropriation by appropriating another term is problematic and I’m happy to hear critique of that in the comments.)

If you haven’t been raped, if you haven’t experienced sexual assault, then you do not know what it is like. There is a whole world of pain and unhappiness and grief and fear that you do not understand. It doesn’t matter if it happened to your best friend or your sister or your neighbour or your partner. It doesn’t matter if you’ve spent weeks or months or years working with and supporting survivors. It doesn’t matter if you’ve watched SVU. If it hasn’t happened to you, then you do not understand.

I’m not saying that survivors shouldn’t be supported. I’m not saying that non-survivors shouldn’t be allies to victims of sexual assault. I’m not saying that non-survivors shouldn’t stand in solidarity with those who have been assaulted, shouldn’t listen to what they want or need and try and follow through. I’m not saying that non-survivors shouldn’t try their damnedest to try and understand what a survivor is going through and be there for them. What I’m saying is that if it hasn’t happened to you then you don’t know.

I say this because I’m getting a little tired of non-survivors appropriating the emotions and reactions of survivors. I’m tired of non-survivors having emotional breakdowns just because they have to deal with someone who is a known perpetrator. I’m tired of hearing non-survivors compare their experiences of dealing with a perpetrator as somehow akin to those of the person who was assaulted. I’m tired of communities rallying to support non-survivors in these situations whilst people who have been raped and have been assaulted are left in the cold, without the same support, because – maybe – it’s not as safe for them to express in public how uncomfortable or distressed they are, or how difficult the situation is for them. I’m tired of a whole world where non-survivors voices and needs are put before those of survivors and heard more loudly with no one questioning this or pulling it apart. I’m not talking about perpetrators being heard and survivors being silenced, we all know that happens and frequently. I’m talking about people who claim to stand in solidarity with survivors and who claim to have an understanding of sexual assault talking over the top of those who actually know what it is like.

I know that those close to survivors – particularly if they were around when the assault happened – have their own world of rage and grief related to what happened. I know that you generally won’t want to be around the person who perpetrated an assault against someone you care about. That’s fine, that’s fair, that’s normal and being able to express that is important. But your reaction to the perpetrator, your reaction to being near them, your emotional reaction to their presence or even existence: it’s not the same. The way that person makes you feel is not the same as the way the survivor feels. The way that person affects your life – even negatively – is not the way it affects the survivor’s life. The way any random perpetrator makes you feel is not the same as the way a survivor feels when they are around one.

I recognise that labelling this behaviour as I have is fairly problematic in itself. Most women I know have been the victim of a sexual assault of some kind. To level the term ‘non-survivor’ at another person makes a claim to a whole world of information you may not be privy to. Everyone has the right to not tell every single person they know – or even anyone – about their experiences. No one should be forced to justify their actions or emotions with an explanation about something they don’t really want to talk about. I’m not criticising people who work as allies to survivors or stating that only people who have experienced sexual assault should talk about it or work to stop it.

I’m saying that unless you’ve experienced it you don’t know what it’s like. I’m saying that sometimes non-survivors need to shut up and let survivors lead and be heard. I’m saying that in any specific situation the person who has been assaulted is the person who should be most important – even if other people around them have had a similar experience. I’m saying that in general non-survivors need to start thinking about how much space and how many experiences they are claiming to be privy to. I’m saying to non-survivors that getting upset on someone else’s behalf or about a situation you have never experienced but ‘can only imagine’ is actually really silencing. Your pain and rage is not less meaningful or less real, but it is incomparable to that of someone who has been sexually assaulted.

Kyle Sandilands: “Rape Happens”

As Caitlin yesterday noted, Kyle and Jackie O – and, by extension, 2Day FM – have been embroiled in a particularly distasteful “scandal” after a 14-year-old girl they cornered (at the request of her mother) and forced to take a lie-detector test live on radio yesterday revealed she’d been raped at the age of 12 – to which Sandilands’ response was “Right… and is that the only [sexual] experience you’ve had?”

On today’s show – and via the News Ltd stable – Sandilands and Jackie O have responded to the fury that rightly exploded within both the media and broadcasting industry and from rape counsellors, and child psychologists (and, and…). Prepare yourself to be enraged/appalled/mind-blown by Sandilands’ defense of his behaviour on-air (emphasis mine):

“It is just one of [those] things, unfortunately rape happens in society.”

Incredible. Not only has the poor girl had her rape revealed on live radio (and then played and replayed on various media sites) – not to mention being in the “care” of a mother who evidently knew about the rape but did nothing about it, and forced her to discuss her sexual activity and drug use on live radio – but now she has Sandilands essentially shrugging and saying “shit happens”.

No, Kyle, it’s not just “one of those things” – and I dread to think where we’ll end up as a society if people think that “rape happens”. Get this idiot off the air, NOW.

Update: tigtog from over at Hoyden About Town has set up a comprehensive site, Sack Kyle & Jackie O, which offers all the background information you need on the debacle, plus instructions as to how to lodge a complaint – the latter being particularly important, as ACMA won’t formally investigate 2Day FM over the matter unless written complaints are sent to the broadcaster first.

Morons On Radio

I’m not really sure where to start with this one. There’s so little analysis need, it’s just fucked.

The rather odious team of Kyle Sandilands and Jackie Henderson host the 2DayFM radio breakfast show “The Kyle and Jackie O Show” out of Sydney. One on their segments on the show is a lie detector test, publicised on their website as:

“Cheating, drinking, lesbian marriage – we’ve revealed it all as we strap Sydney into the dreaded Lie Detector.”

A brief survey of the website also brings up other segments of, uh, interest. I won’t link to them but there is a photo gallery featuring shots of Sandliands’ wife – Tamara – from a recent Ralph magazine shoot, a segment where they scare their boss with a snake and he “screams like a girl” and a competition for ‘Sydneys smallest man’ where if you show the on-air duo your penis and it’s small they will give you money.

This morning for the well hyped lie detector segment a woman brought her daughter in to interrogate her about her experiences with sex and drugs. Before the interview even started the young woman said to Sandilands:

“I’m scared … it’s not fair.”

The interview should have stopped here. It didn’t.

A Sentence Reflects Its Crime – But What Is “Less-Serious Rape”?

Initially I began reading this report on the sentencing of serial rapist John Xydias with a sense of justice being served, a feeling that at times can feel increasingly rare when it comes to the sentencing of sex criminals. Victorian Supreme Court Chief Justice Marilyn Warren sentenced Xydias to 28 years in prison after he pleaded guilty to charges stemming from a history of criminal sexual behaviour that almost beggars belief (particularly upsetting is the fact that many of the victims were not aware of the assaults until they had been shown the video tapes by police):

He pleaded guilty to 86 charges, comprising 25 of rape and 61 of sexual assault, in a series of sex attacks on 11 women between 1991 and 2006,

He rendered the women unconscious, probably with the date rape drug Rohypnol, before sexually assaulting them and filming the attacks.

Too often, rapists receive sentences that in no way reflect the seriousness of their crimes (particularly in light of the ongoing damage it wreaks on their victim’s life) – that is if they receive sentences at all.

However, I was shocked when I read this particular passage of Justice Warren’s sentencing (emphasis is mine):

“Your offending was sustained over a period of 15 years, your conduct was not low-level or less-serious rape.”

It’s particularly disappointing as I feel it lessens the impact of a sentencing statement that otherwise conveys the severity of Xydias’ crimes. As she then continues:

“The worst aspect of your conduct was the degrading and dehumanising of your victims,” she said.

“The community will not tolerate the abuse, degradation and humiliation of women as you have carried out.”

All true, but I read the entire thing but what stuck in my mind was the passage I emphasised previously.

What on earth is “low-level or less-serious” rape? Would “the community” tolerate these supposed “low-level” offenses, thus necessitating a lighter sentence? Rape is rape. I appreciate that she perhaps was referring to relative levels of physical violence with regards to the act, but even then, surely the core issue is that the rape itself – the sexual assault – is the most damaging part of the crime for the person who suffers the attack?

The perceived semantics and language of rape – witness the ongoing debate about “grey rape”, “marital rape” and “date rape” (with many pundits and politicians seemingly believing the latter two don’t even exist) – are doubly frustrating because the fact that we even need to argue about the impact of language in these situations demonstrates that the seriousness of rape is still doubted or misunderstood. If a man rapes me, no matter whether I am given a black eye, a slit throat, a drink laced with drugs, or a bunch of flowers afterwards, a man has still raped me. When will the wider community (and, importantly, the legal world) realise that the issue is not (primarily, at least) what happened before, during or after the rape, but the rape itself?

What do you think?

(PS go here for Hoyden About Town’s excellent discussion of the use of passive voice in reporting rape and sexual assault – something that, in rare respite, hasn’t happened in today’s coverage of Xydias’ sentencing.)

Excuses, excuses, excuses

I wish I could say I was surprised. From an opinion poll commissioned by the British Home Office:

How acceptable or not do you think it is for a man to hit or slap his wife or girlfriend in response to … ?

Would you say that a woman SHOULD BE held responsible, should be PARTLY held responsible or should NEVER be held responsible if she is sexually assaulted or raped in the following circumstances?

- Full Poll Results.

Thanks to Claire for the link.

Women Are Always To Blame

I’m pretty tired right now so this may not be the best written post ever. But! We’ll try anyway!

The government has a new anti binge drinking campaign out – aimed at the 15 – 25 age demographic. The Age refers to the campaign as ‘graphic’ and had an article about it in the Saturday paper which can be found online here. The link also has the actual advertisements embedded in the article.

The campaign theme is “don’t turn a night out into a nightmare” and is based on showing ‘regrettable’ behaviour you might get up to whilst binge drinking. The intent, it seems, is to embarrass teenagers into not binge drinking!

Nonetheless, the campaign in itself is probably necessary and I haven’t reflected enough on the overall idea to either criticise or praise it at length. Overall. One element though does make me really, really, really angry.

One of the ‘embarrassing’ things one might get up to when drunk is “be filmed having drunken sex”. Says The Age:

One advertisement depicts a teenage girl getting drunk at a house party and eventually having sex on the lawn while being filmed by laughing party-goers. It finishes with a reminder that one in two teenagers will do something they regret while drunk.

Sorry, what?

Creative directors found that girls were more susceptible to a message that social embarrassment could be caused by regretted sex acts than any health risks caused by alcohol.

This [section of the] underage drinking ad is meant to be from the perspective of the female. You see a hand with a cup of – presumably alcohol – repeatedly raising to the camera, a male enters frame and speaks to the camera/girl and then finally we see the girls feet on the ground and her underwear being removed, with the male standing above her unzipping his pants. This is followed by the text ‘one in two Australians aged 15-17 who get drunk will do something they regret’.

This is so wrong in so many ways.

Not only does it imply that only the girl will regret it or get herself into that ‘kind of situation’ it also says that she is responsible for what happens to her when she is intoxicated. No questions about consent (particularly when in the ad the guy seems to be more sober than her, though the fact apparently only girls can have this happen to them is also problematic). No public campaign about how having sex with someone who is so drunk they can’t make rational decisions is, oh, rape. No condemning of the people standing at the sidelines and laughing and taking pictures rather than helping. Just condemnation heaped on the girl for drinking so much she got herself into that situation in the first place! Once again! Women to blame for their own rape!

Disgusting.

Doctor Accused Of Raping Patient: Trial Continues

You may recall reading fellow Chorister Caitlin’s recent post on rapist and serial violator of women, Dr Sabi Lai. In an extrodinairy case of injustice for rape victims Lai was reinstated to the medical register by VCAT just a couple of weeks ago. This is despite the Medical Practitioner’s Panel conclusion that he was unfit to practice as a health professional (no shit!). Even more shocking is the fact that Lai has so far managed to escape an actual prison sentence altogether.

Well, this week another case of a Doctor abusing his powers of authority has been brought to trial.

Sulieman Ismail Hamid, an emergency department doctor at the Western Hospital in Sunshine has been accused by a woman (who cannot be named for legal reasons) of two counts of indecent assault, two counts of rape, two counts of sexual penetration of a person under his medical care who was cognitively impaired and two counts of indecently assaulting a person who was under his medical care who was cognitively impaired.

The first incident occurred at the Western Hospital, when the woman, who was a regular patient of the hospital, was seeking treatment in the emergency departement for a drug overdose and self-harm.

“(She) was alone with the accused in the cubicle. . . under the influence of those drugs she had taken at home and the ones given in the hospital. She propositioned the accused using the words f–k me,” Ms Forrester told the jury.

“He said he couldn’t because he was working, but then he rubbed her neck and breasts,” she said.

Two days later the Hamid went to the woman’s house and asked if he could come inside. According to the woman’s lawyer the victim thought that Hamid was merely making a house-call to give her medication so let him inside. Once inside the Hamid first digitally raped the woman and then after an interval where she thought he had left and fell asleep, he then raped her again:

The woman told the court that when Hamid came over to her house she was tired and went back to bed and he followed her into her bedroom.

She said he told her she was attractive and began touching her and kissing her.

“I was telling him I wanted to die and stuff like that,” she told the court. “Then he just got really in to me and started kissing me and touching me.”

She said Hamid began removing her clothes and she was feeling confused. She told the jury Hamid removed her pants and began touching her underneath her underpants. He then digitally raped her.

“I couldn’t move. I felt I didn’t have any bones in my body,” she said. “I think I screamed out . . . because he was hurting me.”

After Hamid left the woman went and told a friend who went with her to the police. A DNA sample was taken and Hamid’s DNA was found on the results of the sample.

Not surprisingly Hamid is denying that occurrence of rape. He is also denying that the woman was cognitively impaired, even though during their first encounter he would have been fully aware that she was mentally and emotionally unstable, she was after all being treated by him in emergency for self-harm and a drug overdose.

I just hope that the judge will see past the original proposition by the victim, and see that the doctor was not simply reciprocating the attention of the patient but using his position of power to exploit the vulnerable woman who looked to him as someone in a position to take care of her, not violate her.

Because regardless of whether the victim did initially proposition Hamid or not, he has committed a grave abuse of his powers as a doctor. The victim had history of mental instability and was not in a position to consent to any form of sexual contact, Hamid was clearly aware of this, and clearly exploiting her vulnerability. By admitting to sex (something he had no choice to do because of the little fact of his DNA) and denying rape he plants the seeds of doubt where in the end it is his word, a doctor (a position which as we have seen with the Dr Sabi Lai case seems to grant a different sort of judicial treatment than usually handed out) against a woman who’s mental health issues could quite easily be twisted by a good defense lawyer to indicate a web of lies.

However regardless of the cases still “alleged” status, the point remains that Hamid should not have responded to the sexual advances of a patient.

He stands guilty of abusing his powers of both masculinity and his medical profession.