You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2009.
Let’s rewind a little to get the background of what has transpired in this rape/unrape situation.
” On the evening of July 29, 2004, then[a female private in the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve] says she was celebrating the end of a military training course with her fellow reservists, including her mom, and instructors at Debney Armoury on Roper Road when her life took a shocking turn.
It was during those celebrations that she says she was raped.”
(Trigger Warning) – This story is fairly repugnant from beginning to end.
The title of this newspaper article, from the SUN, one of my favorite newspaper chains to hate for their artless casuistry is patriarchal gold – “Career dream shattered“. Not “brutal rape in bathroom stall” or “Female Recruit Assaulted and Raped” … no no nothing like that. That might actually place the focus on the victim, and that clearly, is unacceptable (and worth a post all on its own).
“Officers in the course really need to have their training down because no one knew what to do,” she said.
Let me go out on a limb here and speculate that “no one knew what to do” really meant that is ‘how are we going get out of this situation with Savage’s reputation intact’. The Armed Forces are not exactly known to be a bastion of liberal ideals and progressive thought.
“I was told to seek medical attention before I went to the police. Then, at the base, the nurses explained they didn’t do rape kits, so I had to wait until they were all done for the day before they would take me to the Royal Alex.
“The site nurses didn’t have a kit and said the police had to bring it.”
Some 17 hours after the alleged attack, Santonne says she was finally assessed by a doctor.
Hmm…raped, shuffled around for 17 hours – we certainly do not live in a patriarchal society here.
Her comments:
Now, [she] claims she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and has no intentions of pursuing a career with the military, adding she initially entered the reserves because she was anxious to serve her country and see the world.
“For me, it’s now a lost cause,” she said.
The results of the first trial on January 8th, 2008 (note the time of the rape, was 4 years ago) was a conviction, but watch the defense comments for the set-up…
“An Edmonton soldier was sentenced Monday to three years in prison for raping a young female recruit. Orman Savage, 38, was convicted in August of sexually assaulting the woman during a party following basic training three years ago.
Provincial court Judge Albert Chrumka agreed with Crown prosecutor Avril Herron, who argued that a prison term is the only just sentence for Savage.“
Right on forces of justice! A sorely won victory…?
“Savage and his supporters have steadfastly maintained his innocence throughout the trial. Defence lawyer Brian Beresh said Monday his client will immediately launch an appeal.
“The appeal will be based on what we consider to be procedural unfairness at the trial,” Beresh said.”
I am curious about what procedural unfairness (you will see this material again) really means in the context of this case. As the judge says the defense managed to shoot itself in the foot several times during the trial –
“In his ruling last summer,[Judge] Chrumka called Savage’s testimony at trial “ludicrous” and “concocted.”
“You seem to be your own worst witness,” he said, adding the testimony was “so fanciful it is unbelievable.
“Chrumka said he believed the testimony of the woman, who was 21 when she was attacked.”
The case was appealed and brought before a different court. The previous ruling was overturned and a woman was ‘unraped’.
“A former Edmonton soldier said he feels as if he’s been released from a nightmare after being acquitted Friday on sexual assault charges following an earlier conviction.”
— “All I can say is that I am glad to see that this nightmare is over after five and a half years and to finally see justice actually be done,” Savage said outside court.”
You should not say anything. You found a judge and jury willing to listen to the archetypal anti-woman, rape culture approved, victim-blaming that is so perversely common in our society. Watch and weep…
1. “Savage claimed it was the woman who made sexual advances.”
And therefore got what she deserved because one alleged “yes” cancels out the sobbing, pleading, resisting “no’s” that come after. This is bull-cookies of first fracking order, the legal notion of consent needs to be changed NOW.
2. “The young recruit fell backwards while she was hunched over the toilet, vomiting, Savage told the jury. As he helped her up, she threw her arms around his neck and said, “I’ve been wanting to do this for a long time.” Then she tried to kiss him, Savage said.”
Because it is so obvious that she wants it, oh damn, for sure with all the vomiting retching and other pleasantness that goes along with expunging your stomach contents. It just screams ‘sexy time’.
3. […] defence lawyer Brian Beresh challenged the credibility of the female recruit.
“I would suggest much of her story is like a Hollywood script,” Beresh told jurors. “But she’s written the scenes to be all in her favour.”
Ah yes, here we have the procedural unfairness rearing its ugly head. The last time around we did not actually properly attack the female victim and her integrity; instead we made ourselves look stupid – recall Judge Chrumka’s previous comments: Savage’s testimony at trial [was] “ludicrous” and “concocted.”
How one gets from essentially incriminating oneself to suggesting that the female private’s story is like Hollywood script is really quite beyond me.
The immoral of the story if she’s puking drunk and mumbles something vaguely coherent toward you, its a fracking green light for the frak-fest to begin. Don’t consider the physical context (vomiting in a bathroom stall), her state (drunk enough to lose consciousness and void her stomach), or her rights (not to be used as a piece of meat for your momentary pleasure).
When do we start treating women as fully sentient, autonomous beings – ya know, the default setting for men?
Sometimes here at DWR headquarters I get a little discouraged by all the people whose beliefs are so horribly vapidly wrong about the reproductive issues women face.
ENTER THE UN: with little snippets such as :
- All women have access to contraception to avoid unintended pregnancies
- All pregnant women have access to skilled care at the time of birth
- All those with complications have timely access to quality emergency obstetric care.
Wow, people working to actually help women, instead of stripping them of their rights.
I am in need of alcoholic libation.
Synapses shutting down…can’t fire neurons… I would not be surprised if she was anti-choice as well, just to round out the crazy.
To start off I’d like to thank Evil Slutopia for bringing this tomfoolery to my attention. I have not commented on the pro-life movement because most of the time their antics speak louder than anything I could write.
I think if the delusional pro-life crowd ever decided to do anything productive I might have a shred of respect for them. Fortunately, I don’t expect to have this worry anytime soon.
One of the many tenets of Christianity that I strongly object to is the notion of Original Sin. Adam and Eve transgressed against the wishes of God, thus we (their descendants) are in need of saving, hence our reliance on Jesus and his crucifixion. It depends on the premise that responsibility and blame for evil acts are passed down from parent to child. For this post I will not focus on why such an idea is psychologically harmful (especially to children), although that would be a valid avenue of criticism. Instead, I think it would be more effective to just show why it is wrong.
Imagine that a man rapes and impregnates a woman. The rapist then escapes the authorities while the woman is left with child. Over the nine month gestation, the police hunt the rapist to no avail. As the mother gives birth to a son, the police get a lead on the infant’s biological father. Three weeks later the police raid the rapist’s hideout only to find that he had committed suicide via drug overdose mere hours before they arrived. At the scene they find a note where the rapist describes his life of murder, crime, and hedonism. Further, he wrote that after having committed all these atrocities, there were no more thrills left for him. And so he decided he best end his life pleasantly, lest someone else do it for him in a much less favorable manner.
What we have here is someone who has done many evil things, done nothing to make up for his misdeeds, and has escaped all punishment. He leaves behind two victims who are denied all forms of restitution, justice, and closure. This is, of course, one of the worst kinds of situations and I don’t pretend to know a good way to deal with it. But one way I know to be wrong would be to apply the principle of original sin.
If responsibility and blame are indeed passed from parent to child, then we need only go to the infant son to extract justice. If the sins of the father are the sins of the son, then the three week old baby is accountable for his mother’s rape. If original sin held true, the righteous thing to do would be to punish the newborn just as we would punish the rapist had he been caught.
If you agree with me that the previous paragraph’s conclusions are not only absurd, but monstrously unjust and immoral, then the same must be said of the Christian notion of original sin. No fair and just adjudicator would ever hold someone responsible for something that they did not do, let alone for something that happened before they came into existence. But that is what Christianity says that their god does. (a great reason to start indoctrinating your children early – ed. )
Here is another quick thought experiment. Think of the worst thing you have ever done in your life. Then categorize that misdeed with a word or short phrase like ‘neglect’ or ‘assault’, or ‘theft’, or ‘betrayal’. Now, would a just punishment for your category of transgression involve crucifixion? Do you think it would require someone to have their hands and feet nailed to planks of wood and then slowly, agonizingly asphyxiate to make up for any of the offences I just mentioned? Absolutely not. The fact is that no one human has ever done anything that deserved anything close to that kind of torture. Even if you believe that the absolute worst of history’s monsters deserve brutal punishment, those rare instances compose a negligible percentage of the population. The point being that humans, as a whole, are not evil beings and we certainly don’t deserve crucifixion or any other torturous punishment by default. But Christianity says that we are and that we do.
Of course, it has to. If we were not responsible for evil deeds done before our existence and we did not deserve a cruel fate, then we would have no need of a savior, no need for a messiah, and no need of Jesus or Christianity. If we are on the whole morally higher than rapists and child molestors (empirical evidence says we are), and if we are answerable only to our own deeds (reason and justice say we are) then the idea of original sin is aboration of truth, a mockery of rationality, and an assault on morality.
I’m not one to pull punches here at DWR, but sometimes you gotta farm out the smack-down. What Pedgehog from Anti-Choice is Anti-Awesome has to say about the people protesting at the clinic. Read the whole post here.
“[…]Also, one thing I want to set straight – you guys are not saving babies. I have worked here for over two years and I’ve never seen one woman change her mind because of the protesters. Some of them change their minds, of course, but for their own reasons. The closest the protesters come to changing minds is when women drive by and are too intimidated or scared by the protesters to come in. If that’s how you want to “save” “babies”, by bullying women into continuing pregnancies, then congratulations. You are absolute scum. […]”
Good show Pedgehog, we appreciate you manning the front-lines against the induhviduals who wish to denude women of their reproductive freedom.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…