Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

["Juliette Grimmett" <>]

Hi all -

This case is just another version of the horrible case in Italy related
to the survivor wearing jeans.  I see a tube top awareness day in our
future.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/02/25/wearing-a-tube-top-does-not-equal-consent/

Wearing a Tube Top Does Not Equal Consent

February 25, 2011 by Stephanie Hallett · 11 Comments 

In a disgraceful judgment by the provincial court of Manitoba, Canada,
Justice Robert Dewar allowed a convicted rapist to walk away with
nothing but a curfew and a mandatory letter of apology to his victim.
The reason? She was wearing a tube top, high heels and make-up the night
of the rape–and she was drinking alcohol.

Keep in mind that the man in this case was already convicted. The
“did it happen?” factor was not under consideration: This judge
softened the sentencing on the grounds that the rape was acceptable
because the survivor was intoxicated and dressed “suggestively.”

Dewar called the rapist, Kenneth Rhodes, a “clumsy Don Juan” who
behaved in an “inconsiderate” manner after receiving
“[unintentional] signals … that sex was in the air.”

Is it just me, or is it not clear that when a woman refuses to kiss you
back and you have to force yourself on her under a darkened highway,
she’s absolutely not giving you the go-ahead for sex?

The judge also decided that Rhodes is not at risk to re-offend, though
it’s unclear what evidence that judgment is based on. Considering at
least one-quarter of convicted rapists re-offend–along with two-thirds
of never-convicted rapists–I’d say there’s a pretty healthy risk
factor.

Under question, apparently, was the “moral blameworthiness” of the
survivor. Since both Rhodes and the victim were drinking, says defense
attorney Derek Coggan, their ability to send and receive sexual signals
was compromised. “She had a very different understanding of what was
in the accused’s mind than he did,” Coggan said. Here’s an idea:
Don’t have sex with a person so drunk they can’t say yes. In fact,
the Criminal Code of Canada makes it easy for would-be rapists to
understand: The inability to consent (on account of intoxication, for
example) constitutes a lack of consent.

If this case makes it to the Supreme Court of Canada, and I hope it
does, there are strong precedents available to support the survivor
[PDF]. A 1999 Supreme Court decision stated:

    A belief by the accused that the complainant in her own mind wanted
him to touch her, but did not express that desire, is not a defense.

    A belief that silence, passivity or ambiguous conduct constitutes
consent is a mistake in law and provides no defense.

It’s time for a mantra of “Yes Means Yes!”–in life and in law.

Juliette Grimmett
Assistant Director, NC State University Women's Center
Interpersonal Violence Services
3120 Talley Student Center
Raleigh, NC 27695
o: 919-515-2012
f: 919-515-1066
 
Are you a student who needs support for yourself or a loved one
regarding sexual and relationship violence including stalking?  The
Women's Center is now able to offer NCSU students confidential support
services Monday-Friday 9am-5pm. 
PConsider the environment before printing this email or the attachment.