Posts Tagged ‘sexual assault’
Posted by caitlinate on January 29, 2011
Reading the (online) paper this morning, I saw that two Collingwood AFL players have been cleared of sexual assault charges by police. I don’t know very much about that case and don’t really want to say anything specific about it. More, it made me think about whether I could recall a single case where a football player had ever actually been convicted.
I can think of lots of cases where yet another football player has raped or sexually assaulted a woman. This seems to happen quite a lot. But I can’t think of a single time I’ve heard of a player being convicted of the charges laid against them. It seems I am more likely to read about police dropping charges, police not pursuing charges and the DPP not pursuing a hearing. What the hell is going on? Are players being convicted on the quiet or is there really a pattern of no convictions recorded against any footballers on rape or sexual assault charges? If I can think of five different instances of a footballer player raping or sexual assaulting someone last year I can only imagine how many other instances of this occurred. So why aren’t any of the perpetrators ever having to take responsibility for their actions? A few weeks suspended from the club and then a loud welcome back into the bro-hood does not = taking responsibility. How many women don’t come forward with what happened to them because they know nothing will be done? How many do come forward and are ignored, or are paid for their silence? Is it really true that we don’t hold AFL footballers accountable for their actions and their violence towards women?
I recognise that statistics for prosecution against non-AFL perpetrators aren’t exactly high. But for there to have not been a single successful prosecution of an AFL player for sexual assault ever – or at least in recent history – makes it seem like there is something more than your standard victim-blaming hetero-patriarchy happening here. I know that there are groups and organisations and individuals working with football players to try and teach them that, you know, sexually assaulting people is wrong. I know that the AFL and clubs are – publicly at least – trying to change the culture within football to eradicate this kind of behaviour. I would really like to believe that there is something changing. That these players are getting it into their thick skulls that rape and sexual assault are not okay, that treating women like your property is not okay, that consent is a really great thing. But I also wonder how well that message can sink in when at the same time all these (generally speaking) able bodied, heterosexual, white men are worshipped as heroes and given status, prestige and a lot of money. When they are repeatedly told that what they do for a few months a year is really important and should be taken really seriously at the exclusion of all else. When, every week, hundreds of thousands of people all over the country agree. The sense of entitlement these guys would be walking around with, the exaggerated sense of entitlement they display, is astounding but in the end, not really so surprising.
I’m not advocating for these dudes to all go to prison. I don’t think sending people to prison is going to solve rape or is going to actually stop any person – footballer or not – from raping another. I also don’t think that the people with the power to imprison others even have the fucking right to do so in these cases, considering their culpability in protecting rape culture. Cops, judges and AFL officials have repeatedly shown scant respect for the law or for the people who have been assaulted – far too impressed by the glory of the football player, far too invested in protecting these symbols of white patriarchal heterosexuality. The amount of effort that goes into protecting these players from being adults and taking responsibility for their actions is staggering:
Former detective Sen-Det Scott Gladman claims that a 2004 rape charge against Saints star Stephen Milne collapsed amid a campaign of threats and intimidation from inside Victoria Police and by powerful club backers.
The woman, known only as Kate, claims that in 1999 police waited two days before visiting the crime scene, failed to get the suspect’s DNA, and records of his interview with police disappeared. Kate has told ABC1’s 7:30 Report program while she has now reached a confidential settlement, she was originally offered $20,000 to keep quiet. Victoria Police declined to be interviewed because it says it cannot comment on any payments because of strict confidentiality clauses. The allegations come two months after former Carlton president John Elliott said the club had paid hush money to women who claimed they had been assaulted or raped by its players.
In 2007 Brodie Holland was fined $2,500 for his role in a fight with a young woman over a taxi cab. After Hollands fiancee was involved in a scuffle with the woman, Holland approached calling the woman a “stupid slut” before trying to tackle her, placing her in a headlock after which she bit him on the stomach, before striking her in the head with his fist. His court appearance was pushed back on two occasions so not to clash with his football commitments; once he faced court no conviction was recorded and no punishment handed out from his club, Collingwood.
The uncensored contract, obtained by AAP on Tuesday, states that Victoria Police could not comment on its own investigations into any AFL player, coach, board member or even staff without consulting the league. The football body was also given permission to “investigate matters of illegal betting” and other serious crimes from drug trafficking and domestic violence to sexual assaults. The police-AFL “relationship” was struck so both could investigate “any criminal activity that would be prejudicial to the interests of the AFL”, the contract says.
I think these men as individuals need to be taking responsibility for their actions, yes. This needs to not just be going to court and trying to avoid a sentence. It needs to not just be letting some gender studies lecturers from your local university come down and ignoring them while they explain to you why what you’re doing isn’t okay. It needs to be footballers finding ways within themselves and within the macho, football-centric social groups they are a part of to break down these ideas and attitudes that cause so much harm. Not waiting for other people to solve it for them but actually recognising what’s going on and doing something to change it. It needs to be AFL footaballers taking responsibility as a whole.
But it’s not just them. The clubs and the league and the coaches and everyone directly involved with AFL needs to be taking and continuing to take responsibility for what they encourage. I think that the legal system either needs to stop pretending to believe in the equal rule of law or actually apply it. And I think everyone who loves a team or loves the sport and spends several months a year telling a bunch of men with a ball that they are fucking awesome, that they are fucking heroes, that they are winners and champions and great, that what they are doing is important, that what they do is taken very seriously; I think those people need to think about what kind of culture it is they are actually supporting and what they can do to challenge it.
Posted in sexual assault, Sport, violence against women | Tagged: afl, convictions, cops, football, football players, judges, law, rape, responsibility, sexual assault, the legal system | 5 Comments »
Posted by Mel Campbell on December 21, 2010
This cartoon by Bill Leak, published in today’s Australian, isn’t garden-variety media sexism. It’s an appallingly ill-judged combination of callousness and racism surrounding the Christmas Island asylum seeker shipwreck disaster, and to make matters worse, there’s a jocular rapeyness directed at the prime minister of this country.
Readers, I’m talking about this:
“A hell of a hammering”? It really does beggar belief that Leak could think of no better way to dramatise the political trials Gillard faces over Australia’s asylum seeker policies than to show the prime minister as a distressed, brutalised object.
Depressingly, though, I almost suspect that Leak’s editor at The Australian knew exactly how tasteless and dull-witted the cartoon was, and approved its publication anyway in order to court controversy, and hence, boost circulation and pageviews.
I really struggle to think of any other political cartoon that degrades the holder of the highest executive office in this country in such an ill-conceived, unfunny way. Imagery of shipwrecks and stormy seas has been used extensively in political cartoons in the past – especially in relation to asylum seeker issues – but even a besieged prime minister is usually depicted as a captain going down with his ship, flailing in the sea or clinging to a life raft. Not battered and bruised, on all fours. Not with a police officer standing there, coolly refusing to help.
This is the second time in two days the Australian media have disrespected the Prime Minister. Yesterday, actual airtime and column inches were devoted to gossipy speculation over whether the very publicly unmarried Gillard had finally got engaged, since she was spotted at a press conference wearing a large sparkly ring on her engagement finger.
When asked about the ring, Gillard made light of it. “We have got to that stage in a press conference where it’s got a bit silly,” she retorted.
“I have had that ring for a long period of time and I miscellaneously wear it on my left hand or my right hand, depending on how much handwriting I’m doing. … If it will make you feel better, I’ll slip it back on to the right hand.”
If a male prime minister were spotted without his wedding ring, would the Australian media interrupt a press conference about the National Broadband Network to ask him if he’d left his wife? Let journalists criticise Gillard’s policies all they like, but to discredit them, and her, on the basis of her gender is appalling.
Posted in Media Watch, Politics, sexual assault | Tagged: asylum seekers, Bill Leak, Christmas Island, julia gillard, rape, sexism, sexual assault, The Australian | 5 Comments »
Posted by Mel Campbell on December 9, 2010
I’ve been very uneasy reading the commentary about the pending rape and sexual misconduct charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Of course, I’m suspicious about the timing of Assange’s recent arrest in London, and the effort which international law enforcers put in to ‘catch’ him (whereas dude handed himself in, after keeping in touch with UK police for several weeks prior).
However, as Ms .45 has commented in relation to an earlier Dawn Chorus post, there’s been a pretty distasteful tone to the coverage. The media seem to want to both pruriently detail the allegations against Assange, and to suggest these charges aren’t that serious.
There have been various suggestions that the women were not really raped, but rather were embarrassed at having been ‘played’ by our snowy-haired Lothario (a media narrative we often see in allegations of sexual assault against famous men). Alternatively, they made up the rape allegations for political reasons: they want to ‘bring Assange down’.
Like Ms .45, I’m pretty disappointed that Crikey‘s WH Chong would think “the most sensible reading [of the ‘sex by surprise’ charge] comes from the mouth of babes, Assange’s son Daniel”. What? Someone on the other side of the world who knows as little about these incidents as anyone, and who hasn’t seen Assange for ages? Political commentary doesn’t suit Chong; he should probably confine his thoughts to arts and culture, which is the remit of his Crikey blog.
This Salon article is probably the best rebuttal of all the subtle, hearsay misogyny in other media coverage, while this Feministe post neatly rebuts all the disbelieving sniggering that’s been going on over the charge of “sex by surprise”.
But most troublingly for me, some media accounts have suggested that these vexatious charges could only have been laid in Sweden, where feminism has become institutionalised. As Salon’s Kate Harding sarcastically puts it:
The only reason the charges got traction is that, in the radical feminist utopia of Sweden under Queen Lisbeth Salander, if a woman doesn’t have multiple orgasms during hetero sex, the man can be charged with rape. You didn’t know?
The feminist project has long aimed to reach and reform the highest political institutions, and this has happened in Sweden, “where even conservative male politicians call themselves feminists”.
Swedish law has also eliminated many of the subtle anti-victim legal biases that we’ve previously documented here at the Dawn Chorus. The idea that women can withdraw their consent is the backbone of the ‘sex by surprise’ charge, and Swedish activists are now agitating for further reform which recognises that women can signal their non-consent in non-verbal ways.
But I’m getting the disquieting feeling that for the mainstream (and especially the conservative) media, Sweden is becoming a case study in the crazy, Kafkaesque shit that happens if we let those wacky feminists get their hands on the wheel. The central hypocrisy of the Julian Assange coverage seems to be that it’s a good thing for information to be free, but women should be kept down as much as possible – or where would society be then?
Posted in Media Watch, sexual assault | Tagged: julian assange, rape, sexual assault, sweden, wikileaks | 10 Comments »
Posted by Cate on January 22, 2010
I was disgusted to read last night about the new Roger David t shirts that are being sold.
Pics and discovery of these t shirts from here
The t shirts are a new range called “Blood is the new black”. Gagging women, sexual violence, degradation…I mean seriously how can these things be depicted as acceptable themes in fashion? Many of us have long contended that there are sexism and misogny in fashion (see American Apparel’s use of retail staff semi naked in their ads) but this takes things to a new level. I have to wonder who had the great idea of featuring degrading, dehumanising photographs of women on these t shirts. It’s not edgy, it’s not cool, it’s not provocative, it’s simply ridiculous and shows a deep contempt for women. It suggests that violence against women is something which should be sexualised and viewed by a mainstream audience. The name alone, is suggesting that blood (and violence) is in fashion. This is not ok.
These images present the message that it’s ok to present women as restained, dehumanised, blind folded, gagged, mute and blind, their helplessness a source of sexual pleasure.
On the Roger David facebook group, the owner states:
Blood Is The New Black offers independent artists the opportunity the display their work and points of views on one of the most common threads in society, the T-shirt. As with any of “the arts,” discussion, discourse and debate is often sparked, due to unique and controversial ideas. Art is meant to inspire and educate, and the meaning and interpretation is left in the hands of the viewer – we are here to inspire ideas, not mediate or control them.
The artist Dan Monick believes there is little to no meaning behind the shot. “She was wearing a headband and it started to slide down her face and she bit it. The shot is a snapshot from me and Annie hanging out, it is not a premeditated image. I took 3 frames. If I had put any meaning behind the image it’s more about the messed up aspects of Hollywood silencing individuality and unique voice. It’s about Hollywood silencing the human.”
Err… nice attempt at saving face hiding behind the excuse that it’s all about ‘art’. Sounds more like a deliberate ploy to get in the media with some offensive pics. I’ll be interested to see if anyone buys the t shirts, I’d hate to think of a friend, male relative, or young person thinking such t shirts are acceptable because they are created by an artist. Blood will never be the new black. Sexual violence should never be in fashion. Ever.
Write to Roger David here to show your disgust.
Posted in art, Fashion, Sex Crimes, sexual assault | Tagged: Fashion, rape, sexism, sexual assault, violence against women | 10 Comments »
Posted by caitlinate on October 28, 2009
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).
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in law, Media Watch, Politics, sexual assault, violence against women | Tagged: afl, fairfax, football, Justice, legal system, quotes, rape, reporting, sexual assault | 22 Comments »
Posted by caitlinate on October 14, 2009
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?
Posted in Media Watch, sexual assault, violence against women | Tagged: discussion, fairfax, rape, reporting, sexual assault, the age | 9 Comments »
Posted by Clem Bastow on August 28, 2009
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.
Posted in law, Media Watch, Sex Crimes, sexual assault, violence against women | Tagged: brisbane times, legal, Media Watch, rape, sexual assault | 9 Comments »
Posted by caitlinate on August 3, 2009
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.
Posted in sexual assault | Tagged: allies, appropriation, NSS, rape, sexual assault, support, survivors | 10 Comments »
Posted by Clem Bastow on July 30, 2009
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.
Posted in Celebrity, Film & Television, Media Watch, Parenting & Family, Sex Crimes, sexual assault, violence against women | Tagged: 2day fm, idiots, jackie o, kyle sandilands, media, radio, rape, sexual assault | 9 Comments »
Posted by caitlinate on July 29, 2009
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.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Media Watch, Parenting & Family, sexual assault, Uncategorized | Tagged: 2DayFM, jackie o, kyle sandilands, NSW, parenting, radio, rape, sexual assault | 12 Comments »