|
March 8 is International Women’s Day – a time to inspire women, celebrate the achievements of the feminist movement in the past and challenge remaining barriers to gender equality in the future. But the recent events concerning the sexual assault of women in Canada chill any optimism that may arise from progress made on women's rights in the past decades. Unless some have been living in caves, they have likely come across this message: no matter how a woman dresses, sexual assault is never acceptable. It is a myth that the victims of rape invite sexual assault by dressing in a certain way. But some people are still acting as if they were trying to keep such a rape myth alive.
On January 24, 2011, during an information session held at Osgoode Hall Law School on campus safety, Police Constable Michael Sanguinetti said “I’ve been told I shouldn’t say this” and then nonetheless proceeded to suggest that women could avoid being sexually assaulted by not dressing like “sluts.” Facing backlash from his comment, Sanguinetti expressed his regret in a letter of apology to Osgoode: “I am embarrassed by the comment I made and it shall not be repeated.” With a stroke of a pen, has the idea lurking behind the officer’s safety tip instantly vanished?
On February 18, 2011, Justice Robert Dewar of the Queen’s Bench in Manitoba blamed the victim outright in a sexual assault case. At the case’s sentencing hearing, Justice Dewar handed down a two-year conditional sentence with no jail time to the offender Kenneth Rhodes (aka what the Justice called the “clumsy Don Juan”). According to Dewar, “sex was in the air” before Rhodes raped his victim at the side of a highway outside Thompson, Manitoba as Dewar found the victim’s outfit (high-heels, a tube top and makeup) a contributing factor to the sexual assault. Dewar’s conduct has sparked complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council, fueled by the fear that the judge’s comments will prevent sexual assault victims from coming forward. As a result, he will stop handling cases of a sexual nature pending review. With the outpouring of by and large condemnation of Dewar, has the idea lurking behind the judge’s decision suddenly cast away?
Dewar’s words conjure up a frightening reminder of the late Justice John McClung’s written opinion cited in the landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v. Ewanchuk, 1999 1 S.C.R. 330. McClung strongly professed his anti-feminist sentiment; ironically, he was the grandson of Nellie McClung, one of the famous five women from the Persons Case who is still one of many women celebrated for her feminist achievements. In the 1999 landmark case regarding implied consent, the Supreme Court rejected the assumption that a woman who isn’t modestly dressed consents to sex. The case involved a 17-year-old woman who was sexually assaulted by Ewanchuk after he interviewed her for a job. In the Court of Appeal, 1998, 57 Alta. L.R. (3d) 235, where the accused’s acquittal was upheld, McClung felt relevant to note the attire of the victim, stating “it must be pointed out that the complainant did not present herself to [to the accused] in a bonnet and crinolines” (para.4). Underpinning McClung’s comment is the belief that a woman’s dress can invite sex and therefore, a woman that bares more skin is suggesting her consent. The judge also felt it was important to bring in the fact that the victim was a mother of a six-month-old baby and lived with her boyfriend in an apartment shared with another couple (para.4) as if the victim’s prior sexual experience were of importance. He downplayed Ewanchuk’s actions as “three clumsy passes” (para.5), and concluded by trivializing the matter at hand by saying that "[i]n a less litigious age, going too far in the boyfriend's car was better dealt with on site -- a well-chosen expletive, a slap in the face or, if necessary, a well-directed knee” (para.21).
In Ewanchuk, Madam Justices L'Heureux-Dube and McLachlin delivered separate opinions that agreed with the majority but went further. Justice McLachlin, as she was then, said: “Such stereotypical assumptions find their roots in many cultures, including our own. They no longer, however, find a place in Canadian law” (para. 103). Justice L'Heureux-Dube expressed that McClung’s comments “help reinforce the myth that under such circumstances, either the complainant is less worthy of belief, she invited the sexual assault, or her sexual experience signals probable consent to further sexual activity” (para.89). McClung was so outraged by L'Heureux-Dube’s opinion in particular that he sent a letter to the National Post, calling her opinion a “graceless slide into personal invective” and suggesting she could be a “plausible explanation” for the spike in male suicides reported Quebec; these words caused a public firestorm given that her husband, Arthur Dube, committed suicide in 1978.
Justice McClung was not alone. Before the release of the Supreme Court decision, the Globe and Mail asked in its October 17, 1998 editorial “Context and Subtext in Sexual Assault: Unraveling the Legal Complexities of Yes and No”: “Are we offering judicial protections to complainants at the expense of the equality and judicial rights of defendants – the overwhelming majority of whom are men?” After the release of the Supreme Court decision, Claire Hoy of the Toronto Star attacked the “feminist hijacking of justice,” criticizing the Supreme Court Justices for “reshaping society to fit their own politically inspired image.” In supporting her position, Hoy cited Toronto Lawyer Edward Greenspan. Greenspan expressed that demanding McClung be removed from the bench or censured "means the feminists and their fellow travellers have created such a repressive and authoritarian world that certain words are not only unacceptable, but now constitute misconduct.” Incredibly, Marjaleena Repo, a self-professed feminist, sided with McClung by stating that “The Ewanchuk ruling is no reason to rejoice, One thing is missing from the Supreme Court’s decision: common sense” in the Globe and Mail on March 4, 1999. She characterized the controversy as “a minor molehill” where “a man trying to entice a woman to make love to him, and being rejected – has been turned into the mountain of a major criminal offence.”
It is not suffice to excuse the actions of these people by saying they are just idiots. They are not stupid. For example, Dewar was appointed to the bench two-years ago, after practicing civil law since 1974; McClung had nearly 20-years of experience on the Alberta Court of Appeal before Ewanchuk. Why did they behave this way?
Louise Shaughnessy, from the National Association of Women and the Law, was once quoted by the Globe and Mail as saying: “This all goes back to having to educate our judges.” That was in 1998 in Brian Laghi’s February 21 story “Alberta Judge Stirs Outrage in Sex Case, 17 Year-Old Girl Not Wearing ‘Bonnet and Crinolines’ ”. Shaughnessy also called for more federally appointed female judges. But over a dozen years later, people like Dewar still said what he said.
Now Sanguinetti and Dewar have heard that implying a scantily dressed woman invites sexual assault for which she is to blame is not acceptable; but no one knows whether they have listened. The pair will most likely hold their tongues when speaking about sexual assault in the future, but it is too optimistic to believe that this time around the message will take a strong foothold of the psyche of people who share their perspectives; the problem is bigger than them.
Canada is ranked relatively high in the world in United Nations Development Program’s Gender Inequality Index or World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Index in terms of variables such as positions of power held by women and women’s education attainment, but we are in denial if we don’t think we have a societal problem based on the two recent incidents.
We must look deeper to uncover the root causes that keep rape myths alive. Otherwise, a woman’s “signals” will continue to be “misunderstood” by those who express their support for rape myths aloud and those who condone them in silence. In the tragedy of rape, the victim should never be hurt by the aggressor first and then by the society at large.
7 Comments
Congratulations on an exceptionally well written and inspiring piece which outlines how damaging "stereotypical assumption" can be to the administration of justice and to the safety and protection of women in our society. Unfortunately, it is not until these hidden attitudes are expressed publicly that one realizes that our justice system has been infected with the contagion ("rape myths")...."sex was in the air", "when no really means yes", and you can "avoid sexual assault; don't dress like a slut." There should be a zero tolerance policy, for any member and/or representative of the justice system, who expresses personal views/opinions in support of misinformation about the violation of another person (woman or man) through the criminal and cowardly act of rape.
The cure is much easier than we realize. Continue as you are doing and write about these cases, identify the "myths" on a case by case basis, examine the flaws in a justice system that allows these attitudes to persist, lobby for a zero tolerance policy which would allow for formal discipline of judges and/or police officers who make unsubstantiated, demeaning and degrading public statements blaming the victims of rape.
"But the recent events concerning the sexual assault of women in Canada chill any optimism that may arise from progress made on women’s rights in the past decades."
So two off-colour remarks are of equivalent weight to, s.15 of the Charter, the Morgentaler decision, the enunciation of human rights codes in all provinces prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, etc?
First, I thought this blog was supposed to be about the Supreme Court, or at least the law. If I wanted ill-conceived political commentary, I'd be reading the website of the Toronto Sun.
Second, the above demonstrates that the authors have no sense of discernment. Does an elephant weigh as much as a pea? Obviously not. Why then are the expostulations of some cop and a few hand-picked judicial geezers, all of whom were scourged in the national media, law journals, etc., at the time they said what they did, considered a slight of sufficient weight as to undercut _all of the other changes_ that have taken place over the past few decades?
Get off the soapbox, girls. You're more than half of recent university admits; usually more than half of law school admits; more than half of medical school admits; suffer suicide, accidental death and death by violence far less frequently than your male counterparts; live longer; and make more money, adjusted for age cohort. Only "idiots," albeit idiots of a different sort than those you describe above, would believe that Canadian women are victims of anything.
Jesus, I just re-read and noticed that you also managed to include Eddie Greenspan in your list of idiots. You people are completely out to lunch. Can we have an editorial policy, please? Or maybe just an editor?
Hmm....it seems you really like writing the word idiot. Thanks for sharing.
Yes, we constitute more than half of law school admits, and more than half of medical school admits – but why should that progress be used against us? Feminism has brought us a long way, but there’s still so much more that needs to be done in Canadian society. Discrimination against women may not be as blatant as it was 40, 50, 60 + years ago, but it’s still there.
As a male, ask yourself the following:
1) Have you ever been concerned about wearing a wedding band into an interview for fear that the interviewers may subconsciously discriminate against you because you as a potential hire may have to take maternity leave if you wish to start a family?
2) Have you ever felt unsafe walking at night in a downtown neighbourhood past a group of men – so much that you would cross the road and walk on the other side or take a different street?
3) Why does the number of female partners in firms on Bay street Toronto constitute less than 20% of all equity partners, even though women constitute half of law school graduates?
4) Why are most young women ashamed today to label themselves a ‘feminist’?
Today’s Canadian woman may not be a victim in a traditional sense of sexism, but nobody can deny that sexism does not continue to pervade our society. While we do not have to protest to gain the right to vote, Canadian women and their many talents are still not equally represented in a number of areas: in politics, as in the corporate world or academia, the barriers that women face are systemic and structural.
While I could go on in much further detail about this topic, attempts to disregard “the victimization of women” or sexism in Canada continue the chain of off-coloured remarks against Canadian women emerging as of late.
“get off the soapbox girls”
Yes Roger women may account for half of undergrad admits, law-school admits, and medical school admissions as well – so what? While women are receiving equal education, 15% of Canadian female students report being sexually assaulted. So yes- “off coloured” remarks made by “some cop” in response to a campus rape are significant despite your comparison to them being pea sized. It is the work of “off coloured” remarks such as this that blame, re-victimize and silence rape victims contributing to the fact that rape continues to be the most under reported violent crime in Canada.
Before you condescendingly encourage the “girls” to “get off the soapbox” (feminists aren’t “girls” or always female by the way) consider the following: Yes, Canadian men may suffer more death by suicide and by violence however:
- Women are 3 to 4 times more likely to attempt suicide, twice as likely to experience depression, twice as likely to be hospitalized for anxiety in comparison to men
- One in seven Canadian Women lives in poverty.
- 91 % of rape victims are female and 99% of perpetrators are male.
- Canada has the fifth highest rape rate per capita, globally
- Canadian women with university degrees earn 74% of what men of equal education earn
Despite your claim of equality based on University Admissions- Canadian women continue to be victims of sex discrimination, rape, domestic violence, spousal homicide, objectification, and the feminization of poverty every day – so thanks for the offer but I think I will stay on my soapbox for a while.
In general: ZzzzzzZzzz soooo sleepy, aka. contemporary feminists should try arguments conceived more recently than the 1970s.
In specific, Achoneftos:
1) I can beat you: I have been consciously discriminated against on the basis of my gender and ethnicity. This is called "employment equity," aka. historical score-settling, as I personally had nothing to do with employment conditions thirty years ago. We could cite reams of stats on male participation in nursing, social work, primary education, etc., but I'm afraid none of those are particularly supportive of your position.
2) Yes, because the likelihood that I will be assaulted, robbed or murdered is several factors higher than the likelihood that any woman will face sexual assault, either from a stranger or someone she knows.
3) First, you're assuming a 1:1 ratio between equity partners and law school graduates, which is some highly suspect reasoning: lots of people try to get to Bay and fail, and lots of people aren't interested in the first place. You might want to look at whether or not women and men are equally interested in knocking back 90-hour weeks for ten years to get their shot at a partnership, and while you're doing that you can explain why female attorneys are disproportionately found in the government/non-profit/poverty law sectors. Could it be -- gasp -- that CHOICE accounts for some of the difference?
4) Because feminism isn't relevant to most young women today. They're equal or better, and they know it. Asking why people aren't interested in adopting political position X is asinine. You think it's a problem because you have a priori decided that society is manifestly unfair to women.
No one can deny? I'm denying it, as are most men, and as are the young women you apparently can't enlist in your cause.
In specific, Barber:
1) Lots of questionable statistics without attribution. 85% of men polled think that you're making up your facts. I can do it too!
2) Are suicide, anxiety and depression caused by society or by genetics? SSRIs seem to undercut your argumentative thrust, which I believe rests on the notion that the so-called patriarchy is responsible for mental illness. Also, far more men are successful at killing themselves than women, but I doubt you're interested in that.
3) Poverty: cruise over to http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/FAMIL41A-eng.htm. I see about a two percent difference between the number of men and women in low income both before and after tax.
4) Statscan doesn't count "rape" and hasn't since the new offences against the person became part of the criminal code in the 80s, so I'll just call BS on your rape stats. If you want to roll over to Juristat, you'll find some interesting data: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/85f0033m2008019-eng.pdf . Most sexual assaults (81%) involve unwanted sexual touching. Most are not reported because the victims don't think that the assault was important enough to report. Rates have declined by over 50% in the past twenty years. Twenty percent of victims are male, putting the lie to what you said, and leaving aside the fact that men are far less likely to report either sexual assault or intimate partner assault. Half of those accused are convicted.
5) Control income patterns for hours worked per year and the level of employment experience of the individuals in question and your 74% figure vanishes. Shape the data for recent demographic trends and you'll notice that in urban areas, young women with university degrees are out-earning their male counterparts.
Aka. get over it. As I said, Canadian women aren't victims of anything. Some activist-types do propound the notion that they are perpetually victimized in the face of plain data demonstrating the contrary, however, as it's been a useful ladder to all kinds of preferential treatment in business/academia/government/etc. So rock the soapbox, girl; just remember that neither young men nor young women are buying what you're selling.