In Calgary, there is a most unusual event occurring. An
inquiry is being held to determine whether or not a judge should be allowed to
continue to hear cases. This judge, during a rape trial made a few grossly
inappropriate comments to the victim including
"Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?" (CBC).The
inquiry is unusual in that there have only been two other cases where judges
have been judged by their peers as to whether or not they are fit to be judges.
The fact that the judge made the above comment clearly
indicates that his thinking is out of step with both the law and what many
Canadians think. The law is clear: All that a woman needs to do to prevent rape
is to say "no". For the judge to suggest anything else should
immediately disqualify him for passing judgements on others. On the other
hand.................
I must confess I have a tiny little bit of empathy for the
judge. I don't agree with him. He should have known better but I think it is
fair to say that what is allowable and not allowable in terms of sexual conduct
between two adults is a bit of a moving target. The evolution of thought as to
how two people should relate to each other, specifically sexually, has in the
past thirty years changed in profound ways. It clearly has a long way still to
go. Those values are constantly shifting - moving one would hope to a point
where no one would ever feel coerced to do anything they did not want to do.
But unfortunately the language and the message is not always as clear as it
apparently needs to be.
The question that occasionally floats through the back of my
mind is how does one know that know consent is freely given? There was a time,
not that long ago, when consent was implied if the other person did not say no.
We are, at least in some courts, thankfully well past that point. It is no
longer enough for a person to assume that a kiss or a nice meal in a restaurant
means consent for anything else. It is accepted (I hope) by many/most that
partners need to validate the consent throughout at least the initial stages of
a relationship. And that at any time when either of the individuals expresses
discomfort or concern, the other must stop. The "no" does not even have
to be explicit. I think that is clear. But my question is - in a society that
is still overwhelmingly patriarchal, where power relationships are unequal, where
advertisers target the genders
differently, where the expectations of behaviour and dress are clearly
different - are women comfortable in saying no? Do they know that they can?
" Large numbers
of undergraduates, male and female, also agreed with statements suggesting that
blame for the assault did not always rest exclusively with the aggressor.
Two-thirds agreed that “rape and sexual assault can happen unintentionally,
especially if alcohol is involved”; one-third said it can happen “because men
get carried away”; about one in five said it often happened because the victim was not clear enough about
refusing; and a similar number said that
a drunk victim was “at least somewhat responsible.”
MIT is a university full of some of the brightest young
people in the USA. It is scary that they could think that the victim is at least
partially responsible. As some women continue to rightly place the
responsibility onto men to listen to what their partners are saying and to
respond to it, other women appear to be still looking for excuses to explain
men's assaultive behaviours. As long as they do so - men will use those excuses both be legitimately confused and
to justify their behaviours. Unfortunately people in positions of power such as the above judge will
continue to say dumb things.
No comments:
Post a Comment