You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Canadian Justice?’ tag.
Ms.Murphy describes the radical treatment necessary in order to make our society a livable place for women:
“Without the things women are expected to provide in order to “prove” abuse — pictures of injuries, hospital records, DNA — we are already not believed. In fact, “believed” is the wrong word — we are not understood. It is not understood that “consent” does not negate male violence and it is not understood that abuse comes in all sorts of forms, most of which are unprovable in court. It is not understood that pornography grooms women to accept abuse and that gendered socialization teaches women to politely absorb sexual harassment. It is not understood that the limited “sex-positive” discourse pushed by liberals gaslights women into believing they are “prudish,” “uptight,” and “anti-sex” if they don’t accept a male-centered vision of “sexuality.” “Believing women” is not the only thing we must do in these circumstances.
I understand the anger women across Canada are expressing at this unjust verdict. I can only imagine the pain Ghomeshi’s victims are experiencing today. But I don’t, for one minute, believe that a guilty verdict is enough, in terms of holding men to account and changing the public’s view of male power and abuse. We, as a society, are responsible for having that conversation and for effecting real change, in terms of ending male violence against women.”
Just a reminder to the wimmenz, your “NO” is really just a yes in disguise and yes, how you dress will make you rape worthy or not. Attitudes from the 50’s? Hell no, here in the 21st century we have misogyny blooming in full masculine glory, and we should rejoice! (?)
“A convicted rapist will not go to jail because a Manitoba judge says the victim sent signals that “sex was in the air” through her suggestive attire and flirtatious conduct on the night of the attack.”
Are you kidding me? But it gets better.
“Kenneth Rhodes was given a two-year conditional sentence last week which allows him to remain free in the community, in a decision likely to trigger strong debate. The Crown wanted at least three years behind bars.”
Sir…Sir! Please hold out your wrist…fetch the wet noodle. *whap* You Sir have been punished!
“Rhodes and a friend met the 26-year-old woman and her girlfriend earlier that night outside a bar under what the judge called “inviting circumstances.” Dewar specifically noted the women were wearing tube tops with no bra, high heels and plenty of makeup.
Which really means: ignore everything I say and stick your penis in my vagina.
“They made their intentions publicly known that they wanted to party,” said Dewar. He said the women spoke of going swimming in a nearby lake that night “notwithstanding the fact neither of them had a bathing suit.”
Holy Frak! These sluts were asking for it!
“The foursome left the parking lot and headed into the woods, court was told. Rhodes began making sexual advances towards the victim, who initially rejected him but later returned his kisses. Rhodes then forced himself upon the woman once they were alone.”
The frigid bitch was playing coy and obviously got what she deserved! But let’s here the longer version in Lawyerese.
“She had a very different understanding of what was in the accused’s mind than he did,” said Coggan. He said Rhodes never threatened the woman, didn’t have a weapon and was simply “insensitive to the fact (she) was not a willing participant.“
Ohhhh, now I get it. He was insensitive to that fact that he forcibly had sex with an unwilling partner. I’m guessing the screaming and the sobbing and the consistently repeated “No’s”, not to mention the struggling, suggested he should continue…
Where does one even start? How women dress determines if they are “asking for it” or not? Or perhaps the venerated idea that one “yes” cancels all the “no’s” after? It is shocking that such attitudes still rest in the minds of supposedly educated people. Consider the impact on women who have been raped:
“Lorraine Parrington, who co-ordinates the sexual assault crisis program at Klinic, a community health centre in Winnipeg, said Dewar’s remarks show there needs to be more education about how women should be treated in sexual assault cases.
‘I was appalled. I was outraged. I was disheartened.’—Lorraine Parrington, counsellor
Fewer than 10 per cent of sexual assault cases are actually reported and Parrington worries Dewar’s comments will discourage future victims from coming forward.
“I’d like to say I was shocked. Unfortunately, I’m not after doing this work for lots of years,” she said. “But I was appalled. I was outraged. I was disheartened.”
Men have to learn women can change their minds, and no, at any point in an encounter, means no, she said.
“People have a right to change their mind. If I decide that I want to be engaged in certain sexual behaviour with somebody I can do that and I’m allowed to say, ‘Stop, I don’t want to do it any more.’ That needs to be respected.”
One part of this quote really jumped out at me…I’ll repeat it:
“Men have to learn women can change their minds, and no, at any point in an encounter, means no, she said.”
You don’t say. Women as autonomous beings, not just objects for the male gaze? Get out of town. If our culture was not a rape culture men would not have to “learn” this simple little fact, it would be implicity known from sea to frakking shining sea. But no, it is most explicitly is not known, hence we get men who are “insensitive” to women’s wishes when it comes to sex, and really it must have been her fault for skinny dipping earlier and wearing high heels and a tube top.
This ruling is being appealed and had better be changed forthwith. The women of Canada are watching.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…