In the UK, a recent government review on how rape cases are handled has come to some surprising and controversial conclusions about how the statistic that only 6% of reported rapes result in a conviction has been used:

Baroness Stern’s independent report into how rape complaints are handled called for politicians and campaigners to stop quoting the 6% figure. Stern said the way it had been used was “extremely unhelpful” and misleading, because it suggested there was little chance of attackers being found guilty in court. The fact that 58% of cases that reached court resulted in a successful prosecution was more relevant, Stern said.

Campaigners accused her of missing the point that many rape complaints never get to court, often because of problems with the police and prosecution system. Baird said she too thought the reports-to-convictions rate remained important.

…

Baird said more needed to be made of the 58% figure, which had increased by more than half since 1997. The government’s interim response said it agreed with Stern that the way statistics were reported too often did not reflect the reality of what happened in the courtroom.

The Stern review was commissioned by the government last year in response to concerns over the conviction rate. Baird said at the time that the report should offer answers on how to drive the rate up.

The crossbench peer instead came back with a report that called for a broader measure of success to be adopted, with support to victims to be given equal priority. She criticised the focus on the 6% figure, saying it remained important but was “not the be all and end all”.

While she heavily implied it in her quotes above, she also specifically argued that use of the statistic was preventing victims from reporting their rapes to police:

The report called for an end to the use by politicians and campaigners of the much-quoted 6% conviction rate, which represents the proportion of reported rapes that end in a conviction for rape itself. It was misleading and may be putting victims off reporting attacks, Stern said.

Unsurprisingly, as the articles note, there are many who disagree with her.

It seems that two things are being conflated here by Baroness Stern: harm being done to victims, and victims deciding not to come forward and press charges.

If there’s evidence out there that the decision to not press charges is harmful to victims, I’d love someone to show it to me.

But until that’s the case, it’s a false equivalence being suggested. I do not support discouraging victims from reporting if they want to report, in any way shape or form. But I also do NOT support, have never supported, and never will support actively lying to or misleading victims in order to encourage them to report their rapes when doing so only lead them into a criminal justice system that is an absolute mess, and will, statistically, leave their attackers off the hook.

There’s a reason that the criminal justice process is so frequently referred to as “the second rape.” It’s because not being believed, having to relive the rape over and over and over again in front of strangers, having to sit in the same room as your attacker during court (if you’re lucky enough to make it that far), and then most likely watching your rapist walk free and vindicated at the end of it, is traumatizing as hell. I am frankly disgusted, purely nauseated, by the suggestion that purposely leading anyone into that without the full knowledge of what they’re up against is something morally required of us. As far as ethics go, I say that they require the exact opposite.

Since starting this blog, I can’t even begin to tell you the number of stories that have been told to me about awful, cruel, and fully unacceptable interactions with police and prosecutors. They’re left in the comments of this blog all the time. They’re sent to me in email. It gives me a deep sense of satisfaction that I’ve managed to create a space where so many feel comfortable doing that. It also gives me a deep sense of how entrenched and widespread the problem is.

It’s not mentioned in any news report I found that victims not “coming forward” means them not seeking medical care and/or not seeking counseling and/or other recovery-related services. If the study did show that, it would be something far worthier of consideration than what is being presented here. But what Baroness Stern seems to be arguing is that telling the truth about conviction rates and pressuring the criminal justice system to improve isn’t so much directly harming victims as it is preventing equally important issues from being addressed:

Providing specialist care for rape victims should be given as high a priority as the conviction of the rapists, a review said on Monday.

Crossbench peer Baroness Stern, urged for independent sexual violence advisers (ISVAs) to help victims recover after an attack and asked every police force to set up a specialist rape unit by next year.

The ironic thing is that I strongly agree with her in terms of victim care and the need for increased focus on it. I also agree with a significant portion of what she says in this audio interview. The problem is that addressing the low conviction rate for rapists, as well as the poor treatment of victims at the hands of police, need not be mutually exclusive with providing therapeutic care and ensuring that victims can access the tools they need to assist recovery. Indeed, if the only means through which a victim has access (or believes they have access) to such things is through the police, then that is your problem right there.

Providing better victim care, and realizing that a successful court case isn’t the end of the ordeal for a victim, doesn’t require minimizing the truth about conviction rates. It doesn’t require covering up the kind of treatment that previous victims have received at the hands of law enforcement. It doesn’t require using a far prettier though highly misleading statistic. It doesn’t require shifting resources from one area to another. It just requires more resources, a greater focus, and a more comprehensive and holistic look at sexual violence. Pretending that it’s an either/or choice and we must stop talking about the 6% conviction rate in order to talk about other things that matter to victims is frankly disingenuous at best.

I want to see more rapists convicted. I want more victims to have their day of justice. I was more victims to feel comfortable coming forward when that is what they want to do. I want the law to take rape seriously, in every single corner of the world that exists. I desperately, desperately want that.

But I don’t support a by any means necessary approach. The way to accomplish these goals is not to sacrifice victims to our alter of supposed good intentions. It’s not through lying. It’s not through further tearing apart lives. It’s not through saying “yes, you should report,” while not having anything available for those who follow the directive and do. And it’s not through fudging numbers so that victims feel better for a little while, before they learn the truth the hard way.

via Hoyden About Town

Another round of allegations of sexual violence committed by Catholic priests has begun, this time centering in Germany. It is, of course, far from the first time that a culture of rape and silence within the Catholic Church has been exposed, though the problem rages on and denials as to the extent of the violence continue from officials at the top.

This time, though, they’re also denying an accusation about why there are so many sexual abuse cases within the Church:

The Vatican on Sunday denied that its celibacy requirement for priests was the root cause of the clerical sex abuse scandal convulsing the church in Europe and again defended the pope’s handling of the crisis.

Suggestions that the celibacy rule was in part responsible for the “deviant behavior” of sexually abusive priests have swirled in recent days, with opinion pieces in German newspapers blaming it for fueling abuse and even Italian commentators questioning the rule.

Much of the furor was spurred by comments from one of the pope’s closest advisers, Vienna archbishop Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, who called this week for an honest examination of issues like celibacy and priestly education to root out the origins of sex abuse.

“Part of it is the question of celibacy, as well as the subject of character development. And part of it is a large portion of honesty, in the church but also in society,” he wrote in the online edition of his diocesan newsletter.

It’s not often that you’ll see me agree with anything the Catholic Church has to say with regards to rape within their ranks, so be sure to mark this date on your calenders.

The suggestion that priests may be raping children because they are required to take a vow of celibacy is both absurd and utterly enraging. I think the long-term and imposed suppression of any and all expressions human sexuality is generally going to be a very unhealthy thing, and for that reason as well as my disdain for portrayals of sexuality as dirty and morally wrong, support the repeal of the celibacy rule. But I can tell you right now that of all the damaging side effects of the demand that priests be celibate, inclination to rape is not one of them.

Placing responsibility for rape on the celibacy rule by nature removes part of the responsibility from the perpetrator. It also buys into and perpetuates the age old myth that rape is about sex. That rapists rape because they’re just so damn horny. That they can’t help themselves, what with all of their sexual attraction to their victims. To say that rapist priests commit rape because they’ve gone so long without being able to engage in consensual sex is to say that sex is synonymously related to rape. It is to suggest that one is a replacement for the other. It is to suggest that rape makes a more sensible breakage of one’s vows that consensual activity. And it is to suggest that rapists are compelled by something other than their desire to inflict harm.

Rapists choose rape not to get off sexually (though this is usually viewed in their eyes as a “bonus”), but to exert power and control over another human being. Rapists choose to rape because they reduce the humanity of other people in their own minds. Rapists often choose children as their victims because children are made particularly vulnerable to abuse through limited abilities to defend themselves and the constant presence of adult authority. Rapist priests may very well be more likely to choose children as their victims because of children’s particular vulnerability to authority, and their huge amounts in their communities. People in positions of power have frequently felt drawn to power, and therefore may be more likely to abuse — particularly in contexts where there are few consequences, as the Catholic Church has proven itself to provide. Rapists rape because they feel that their own desires come before the desires, autonomy, and human rights of other people.

They don’t rape because they’re in desperate need of sex. It should also go without saying that (while of course rapists are sometimes gay) they don’t rape because they’re gay:

A report endorsed in 2004 by the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference, however, argued that an understanding of the problem of clerical sex abuse isn’t possible without reference to both celibacy and homosexuality, since the vast majority of U.S. abuse cases were of a homosexual nature.

While stressing neither celibacy nor homosexuality causes abuse, the report said “The church did an inadequate job both of screening out those individuals who were destined to fail in meeting the demands of the priesthood, and of forming others to meet those demands, including the rigors of a celibate life.”

The assertion that homosexuality may have something to do with the decision of some priests to commit sexual abuse is simply an attempt to stigmatize and vilify LGBT folks, in this case particularly gay men, something the Catholic Church is already excellent at. It is to buy into the myth that gay men’s sexuality makes them predators, to further the idea that non-straight sexuality is “deviant,” to to say that “deviant” sexuality is the cause of rape.

It’s also purposely obscuring the issue to suggest that “the vast majority of U.S. abuse cases were of a homosexual nature.” No. The vast majority of known U.S. abuse cases within the Catholic Church were committed against boys by men. That is a hugely different matter. And, in fact, a vast majority of rapists who favor male children as victims identify as straight (pdf). This is no different among priests.

To claim as fact that such abuse is “homosexual” is to blatantly stigmatize BTLG people. The rape of a male person by another man is no more “gay” than a rape of a woman by a man is “straight.” Rape is violence, not sex. And violence doesn’t have a sexual orientation.

The argument that priest sexual abuse is about either celibacy or a non-heterosexual sexual orientation reinforces dangerous rape myths that only create the cultural circumstances that allow rape to be so prevalent in the first place. These assertions also allow the Vatican an easy rebuttal to questions surrounding sex abuse within their ranks, when what we should really be discussing is why so many of their priests feel comfortable violating other human beings, and why the Church seems to have frequently been willing to help them cover it up.

Via the Daily Beast comes some rather distressing if entirely unsurprising news. In the wake of the recent devastating earthquake in Haiti, sexual violence against women is also on the rise, and beginning to turn into a crisis of its own. (Trigger Warning on the linked article.)

On top of the catastrophic earthquake that has left more than 200,000 dead and 1.2 million people homeless, the sexual violence felt to me like an unimaginable betrayal of humanity. But once you’ve seen the camps for Haiti’s displaced, it is easy to understand how the abuse of women and girls can happen.

During our mission, we were in 15 of the largest camps for displaced Haitians, and we documented four gang rapes in Parc Jean Marie Vincent camp alone. The camps are unsafe places, and many women live with strangers, having lost contact with family members and friends. Their access to food and water is compromised. They bathe and wash children in public places. Although some latrines have been provided, there is no separation of facilities for women and men—and no lighting—so these are unsafe after dark. Three weeks after the quake, Parc Jean Marie Vincent camp had not received any food, contributing to an atmosphere of anger and anxiety. There were no police or U.N. forces patrolling. The camp is on open ground, allowing anyone to enter the camp and the shelters.

Horrific though it is to consider, and unbelievable thought it may be, sexual violence usually tends to rise in disaster situations, wherever and however they occur. As in times of calm and normalcy, rapists generally seek out access to victims who are the most vulnerable, whether it be because of intoxication or unconsciousness, or (for example) prejudice regarding disability or gender identity that can be easily exploited. When disaster strikes, when so many lose so much, everyone automatically becomes more vulnerable to everything, from weather, to food shortages, to predators. To rapists, those newly vulnerable women look like potential victims.

In order to abuse people, rapists first abuse circumstance. This story is not about what Haitians do in a time of crisis. This story is about what rapists do in a time of crisis.

Though the article notes that — like in most countries — rape was a problem in Haiti before the earthquake (rape apparently only became recognized as a crime in 2005), the fact is that even with the best starting point, laws do extremely little when there is no order to work with. And when misogyny and a male sense of entitlement over female bodies is more or less a worldwide norm, some will choose to rape. Put these two together, and you’ve got an epidemic. With the rebuilding process in Haiti expected to be so slow and difficult, and the long-term international aid expected to be much less abundant than the immediate aid was, there is even greater room for concern.

As noted in the article, what is needed in the short term is vastly improved shelter and privacy, greater security, and actual stability in terms of reliable food, water, and health care access. I imagine that non-rapist men, who almost certainly still make up a majority, are also needed to actively take up the cause against violence. And in the long-term, what Haiti needs is for countries like the U.S. to start taking responsibility for their own part in exacerbating this crisis, and to respond by rectifying those wrongs with real justice.

Yesterday, International Women’s Day, Amnesty International released two reports on sexual violence against women and judicial response to this violence. The report Breaking the silence: Sexual justice in Cambodia focuses on how police corruption intimidates, frightens, and harms victims in Cambodia who attempt to come forward, usually with one’s chances of justice falling along class lines. I haven’t yet had the time to read the entire 60 page report (pdf), but regardless wanted to draw attention to the shameful situation, and the parts of the report I have been able to examine.

Demanding cash bribes from victims and/or their families before agreeing to an investigation is the most common act of corruption on behalf of police. In addition to this being a generally horrific request, the fact is that many Cambodians simply do not have the funds to pay the bribe, or must endure extreme hardship to do so. From the actual report:

A clear majority of interviewees told Amnesty International that they had paid bribes to the police, or had been asked to pay bribes but did not have any money. In 21 of the 30 cases victims reported that police had “investigated” the incident. Sixteen of these responded that they knew they had had to pay bribes to ensure an investigation. Typically, they were asked for between five and 10 USD to initiate an investigation, which almost none of them could afford.

In some cases, police will offer to take other forms of “payment” in exchange for starting an investigation — such as one case Amnesty International found, where a police officer told the mother of a victim that he would investigate the rape, if only she complied with his rape of her first:

Two perpetrators raped Mom five times in 2006, when she was 11 years old. Her mother went to the district police, where the police chief asked her for a 10 USD bribe to pay for “the investigation and stationery”. When she did not have the money he requested, the police chief asked her to meet him at a hotel room, suggesting that sex in lieu of money would facilitate the investigation of the rape of her daughter.

Some police officers interviewed by Amnesty International argue that the requests for bribes are the result of underfunding. While this may be to blame for some of the behavior on behalf of police, it doesn’t explain nor justify a climate in which sanctioned rape via coercion and duress by police officers is seen as a valid exchange for an investigation into a different rape. Further, even insofar as it is true, this underfunding nonetheless causes appalling and terrifying treatment towards survivors (emphasis mine):

Police officers who wished to remain anonymous told Amnesty International that their experience in working directly with victims and criminal investigations confirmed this bleak situation. They complained they had no available budget to conduct investigations, and therefore either had to ask the complainant to provide funds; not conduct an investigation; or pay with their own money. Clearly, the prevalence of corruption in the police force takes place in a context of inadequate resources allocation.

Police told Amnesty International that a lack of budget blocked them from acting in ways that ensures the well-being of the victim. For instance, when victims and suspected perpetrators were transported to court for initial questioning, police officers said they typically transport them in the same car, often sitting together in the back seat. Police officers also explained that families of victims and perpetrators were generally also required to split the transportation cost.

Even when families can pay for an investigation, nothing akin to justice is usually actually done. Indeed, rather than a court process with the potential for incarceration for the perpetrator, most rape cases are handled through a mediation process, with a monetary payment to the victim (or victim’s family) as the best outcome:

Extra-judicial settlements are widely used in rape cases; several high-ranking officials believe it is the most common “solution”. In Khmer, the term samroh-samruol is used for this mediation process, which is typically initiated and facilitated by police at the commune or district levels. The police act as a mediator between the families of the victim and the perpetrator, and seek to secure a monetary settlement from the perpetrator or his family to the victim or her family, on the condition that the victim withdraws any criminal complaint. The mediator receives part of the settlement. Around half of the interviewees had experienced such intervention.

Partly accepted as alternative justice, and by some perceived as “the best option available,” extra-judicial settlements are not recognized as a legitimate form of remedy in Cambodian law. Nevertheless, they continue and the authorities recognize that they are widespread.

…

Although the samroh-samruol is an intervention that is sometimes perceived as providing some “closure” for the victim, several of its characteristics indicate that it may perpetuate the stigma facing victims of rape. One source also said that some victims do not want to receive money, as such a transfer would make them look “cheap,” or as indicated in the case referred to on page 25, would lead the police to perceive the rape as consensual sex. Several of the victims who had received, or agreed to receive, money expressed fear or anger that the perpetrator remained at large and that he could repeat the offence against other women or girls.

Now, my personal reaction to the idea of sitting in a mediation session with my rapist is simply that I can imagine few things more horrifying and triggering. But at the same time, I know that all victims have different needs, and think that alternative avenues should be open for victims to explore, should they want them. I also understand that different cultures have different methods of dealing with crime, and I am entirely open in general to the idea of community solutions to violence that do not involve the prison system.

But all of that said, this is not a community-based solution, but an illegal government practice that seemingly involves a lot of exploitation. Further, it’s unclear that the victims going through the process actually desire to, rather than simply perceiving it as their only option for their perpetrator to be held accountable at all. And importantly, these kinds of solutions are absolutely useless if they do not require real accountability from the perpetrator and address the roots of violence, but only allow him an easy out and opportunity to offend again.

But the police corruption is often worse, still. As in so many parts of the world (including the good ol’ U.S. of A.), it can extend to outright violence, usually against the most vulnerable targets. In addition to the coercive sexual violence against poor women, referenced above, police are also quite likely to be the original perpetrators of sexual violence against sex workers. When sex workers are raped by non-police, they are thus also extremely reluctant to seek out help from law enforcement (emphasis mine):

Amnesty International interviewed two sex workers who reported that uniformed police officers had raped them. In both instances, the victims had been rounded up in raids on sex workers and first encountered the perpetrator while in police custody.

Police had arrested Thavy together with four other sex workers in a Phnom Penh park in November 2009. They were taken to the nearest police station, where a few officers, who appeared to be drunk, beat the detainees with their batons on the ankles and forced them to clean the toilet. A uniformed policeman who did not work at this particular station was also there. After a couple of hours at the station, he approached Thavy and forced her to go with him to a guesthouse in another part of town, where he raped her.

…

Sex workers are particularly vulnerable in their relations with police, which translates into a very low reporting rate of rape, regardless of whether the perpetrator(s) was a policeman or not. All five sex workers interviewed by Amnesty International had been raped numerous times, but none of them had ever gone to the police. Four had concluded that the police pose a danger to them, not a means of protection or assistance. One had not even known that she could have reported the incident to police.

The nauseating icing on this giant, repulsive cake, is that rates of rape in Cambodia also appear to generally be rising.

The report has its flaws. First of all, it seems to wholly ignore the experiences of trans* and intersex victims, as well as victims who are men and boys — in part because this is the general framework usually used when discussing sexual violence, and in part because, as the report notes, data on sexual violence in Cambodia is so generally scarce. Further, while Amnesty International offers its own long list of recommendations at the end of the report, it doesn’t seem to reference any specific Cambodian organizations by name, and discusses their work only in terms of limitations. And while I think AI is a fabulous organization, one which I have financially supported myself on numerous occasions, I’d still much rather that support and recognition go to established, on the ground activists who have the best understanding of their own situation. If you know of any such organizations, please pass along the information, as I’d be more than happy to highlight their work here.

Those substantial limitations in mind, however, the information contained in the report is immensely valuable, as is likely the publicity it will generate. I urge you to give it a closer look yourself, and to help spread the word.

There are exceedingly few places in the world where trans people are truly safe. Turkey, then, is only one of many, many countries where trans people, usually trans women, are violently attacked and murdered at epidemic levels simply for being who they are. The abuses there, however, could be considered particularly bad — and regardless, should not be accepted anywhere.

That is why, following yet more murders, Turkish and international activists have sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Turkey, demanding both protection of trans people and real efforts to change the social attitudes which make this violence acceptable. An excerpt from the letter appears below:

In order to end the ongoing violence and murders of transgender people in Turkey, we respectfully urge the Turkish government to take the following measures:

• 1. Ensure an effective investigation into the murders of Fevzi Yener, Derya Y., and Sinasi Halimoglu, which will be capable of leading to the identification and prosecution of the alleged perpetrator(s) of these crimes. Ensure similar steps are taken in the event of any future crimes against the LGBT community.
• 2. Enact anti-discrimination legislation that includes sexual orientation and gender identity as protected status.
• 3. Collect, analyze and disaggregate national and local data on violence, including violence on the grounds on sexual orientation and gender identity as a recognized category.
• 4. Provide training to law enforcement authorities on issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.

1. Include sexual orientation and gender identity in school curricula as a way to combat gender stereotypes.

• 6. Establish permanent communication mechanisms between the police and Turkish LGBT organizations.
• 7. Revise the Law of Misdemeanors (No. 5326) that provides police the option to fine or otherwise treat individuals as criminals on the grounds of their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. The vagueness of this law-which purports to “protect public order, general morality, general health, the environment, and the economic order”- allows for prejudicial enforcement by police.

The full English text of the letter can be found here. (Here is the Turkish version.) I highly recommend that you take a moment to go read it, for further context regarding Turkish trans folks’ situation.

I have little else to add, other than to repeat that violence against trans people is an epidemic in many parts of the world, including in the U.S., where I’m writing. The violence is not going to end until we eradicate transphobia, and transmisogyny in particular, and put to rest the idea that cissexual and cisgender identities are superior to and more “real” than transsexual and transgender identities. And that is an enormous and international task.

I found the news of this letter via Helen G at Bird of Paradox. At the bottom of her post is a long list of links to other posts she has written on trans rights (or more accurately, the lack thereof) in Turkey over the past year. I strongly encourage you to click through and view that list of links, at the very least, as a visual reminder of the magnitude of the problem, and to take the time to read some of them.

A particular rape case has been making the rounds lately, for its especially ludicrous and misogynistic outcome. In short, a U.K. woman made allegations of a gang rape by five perpetrators. The case made it to court. And then, the judge ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict when “evidence” was presented — not by the defense, but the prosecution — showing that the alleged victim had made statements online about her fantasies involving group sex. The revelation that she had had group sex fantasies was, in fact, the entire reason presented for the dismissal of the case. Indeed, agreeing with the prosecutor, the judge remarked that with the admission of these fantasies, “her credibility was shot to pieces.”

Many have written about this case by now, ranging from the F-Word, to Penny Red, to Pandora Blake (Note: images on this site may be NSFW). These are all great posts that each touch on several important points — I particularly like Pandora’s concise statement that “Desire is not consent. Consent is consent.” — and I highly recommend that you go check them all out, right now, if you have not already. Especially since I’m going to avoid repeating those points very much here.

Because with all of the astute analysis I’ve seen, one thing I’m not seeing discussed a lot is the nature of the fantasy itself. I’m very, very glad, on the one hand, to see that a fantasy of group sex is not being treated as some sort of abnormal, shameful thing for a woman to fantasize about, and that women are not being treated as immoral for having sexual fantasies at all and particularly immoral for having a fantasy that involves multiple partners. This is very important, and good on everyone for it.

But I also think it’s important to acknowledge the cultural context in which the decision was made. And that cultural context is one of a world in which group sex is seen as being among the most debasing things that a woman could think about, let alone do. In a misogynistic world where sex is seen as inherently degrading to a woman’s sense of integrity, sex with multiple partners at the same time is seen to leave her with no integrity left at all.

And so while I’m willing to be entirely proven wrong, and while I put absolutely nothing past the courts at this point, I think it’s a lot less likely — possible, but less likely — that we’d be seeing this case exist if the woman had fantasized about “vanilla” intercourse with a single partner, and then was raped by a single man. I think this case is less about whether or not a woman has a right to refuse consent to something she has previously expressed interest in — though it certainly is about that as well, and this is an ongoing source of horrific rape trial outcomes — but more about whether or not a “slut” has a right to ever say no to anything. The victim in this case has been officially portrayed, by way of her fantasy and cultural attitude towards it, as a “slut.” And the answer to the question by the prosecutor and judge alike is “no, a slut does not have that right.”

Again, in our society some women are more vulnerable than others to both sexual assault and rape apologism. And though virtually any woman can be made to be seen as unrapeable, some women start out closer to that status already. Among the many factors that can make a woman unrapeable in the eyes of our society, including race, gender identity, and disability, is the willingness to behave sexually. “Sexual” women are automatically seen as less rapeable than “chaste” women — “bad girls” more unrapeable than “good” ones. And women who behave sexually in ways that are less culturally approved are more unrapeable still.

This inevitably influenced the decision here. Judges and prosecutors are not magically immune from thinking nasty things about “sluts” when most of the general public does the same, nor are they immune from thinking that a fantasy about group sex makes a woman a dirty, dirty slut when this misogynistic notion is culturally ingrained.

The very official reason behind this decision seems to be “she openly fantasized about doing it, and thus she likely consented when the opportunity was presented to her” — and that assumption is a problem of proportions so enormous it’s impossible to overstate. But the prejudice behind that reason is “look what as slut she is, thinking about group sex with several men — how could a slut like that have possibly said no?” And that? That is an epically huge problem, too.

Trigger Warning for descriptions of sexual assault, apologism, and victim-blaming

At a New Year’s party in Sweden, a 17-year-old girl laid down to sleep on a sofa. The 49-year-old father of the boy hosting the party proceeded to lift up her skirt while she was unconscious and photograph her genitals. He then, in some unspecified manner, spread the photo to other people.

The victim pressed charges, once she learned of what had been done to her. Then, the court dismissed the charges — not because they found that there was insufficient evidence, or because the victim changed her mind about pursuing the case, but because they said that lifting an unconscious person’s skirt without her consent and photographing her genitals, also without her consent, is not against the law.

A court in Halmstad on the southwest coast of Sweden has dismissed charges against a man who reportedly took a photo of a 17-year-old girl’s genitals while she was sleeping. The court said that the incident was was not a punishable offense.

…

Citing several other cases, the Halmstad district court said that the man had not committed a crime. There is no general prohibition against photographing people without their consent. The same applies to people who are asleep.

The fact that other people have seen the photograph, as claimed by the prosecutor in this case, doesn’t make the incident a punishable offense either, according to the court.

What we’re looking at here is a legal system which has absolutely no respect for women’s bodily autonomy — a legal system that says “so long as she’s there, you can do whatever you want with her.”

This is not a purely theoretical interpretation of the decision. What the court has opted to do here is say that a certain type of sexual assault is acceptable — and so you better believe that the type of guy who gets a kick out of sexual assault is thanking his lucky stars for this green light and breaking out his camera as we speak. Sexual predators have a tendency to enact their violence in ways they think they are most likely to get away with, and take cues from social attitudes and the judicial system in terms of which victims are seen to be the least sympathetic, most marginalized, and most unrapeable — so thinking that no sexual predator will read of this decision and start acting accordingly is naive at best.

But what we have here is not only the assertion that no parts of one’s body are ever private and that consent is not needed to photograph them, but also that one’s body does not have the right to be free from physical assault. The photographs themselves were certainly a sexual assault. But so was the act of lifting up the victim’s skirt without any form of permission — a type of assault which I would like to believe is illegal in Sweden, and so presumably the court simply decided didn’t count. Again, she was there.

This isn’t a view held only by a misogynistic court, the idea that hey, there was no physical injury, so how could non-consensual touching possibly be a violation or assault, it’s one that is unsurprisingly shared by many members of the general public. In the comments to the original article (not recommended, trigger warnings apply), while many thankfully note the appalling nature of the decision, others blame the victim for allegedly failing to wear underwear. Of course, they have no evidence that she wasn’t wearing underwear, only an absence of its mention in the description of the assault. But that doesn’t stop them, any more than does the fact that what one does or does not wear under one’s own clothing is nobody else’s business. Only sluts don’t wear underwear under a skirt. And, as we know, sluts always totally want it. Especially when their all existing in public and such, and dressing as they want, as though they deserve some sort of bodily autonomy.

My first inclination upon reading this story was to think that the court made a grave and reprehensible error through a very narrow reading of the law, and that legislators needed to immediately close what was quite possibly an unintentional loophole. Sadly, I should have known better than to have given anyone the benefit of the doubt here. Because the last line of the article makes note of a previous case, on which this decision was based. And it is abhorrent:

The court cited a Swedish Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) case that cleared a man who had been brought to trial for filming sexual intercourse without the consent of the woman involved.

Presumably, this other case didn’t happen within the past couple weeks, and yet here we are, with the problem persisting. The Swedish Supreme Court ruled that the autonomy and rights of women become irrelevant once any kind of sexual consent has been given. She agreed to intercourse, and therefore the man she was with could do whatever the hell else he liked with her.

The same rule applied to this decision, though what the victim did consent to changed. In this case, she consented to falling asleep near someone who had the inclination to sexually assault her. Or, perhaps, she consented to not wearing underwear under her own damn skirt. Or, at the very least, she consented to existing as a woman outside of her own home, and didn’t remain absolutely vigilant during every single second that she did so. And that, apparently, is more than enough consent for absolutely nothing else to matter.

Trigger Warning for rape apologism and graphic descriptions of sexual violence

In Sydney, a U.S. sailor has been acquitted on charges of raping a sex worker who told him to stop — even though he admitted, in court, to using a “lock down maneuver” to pin her to the bed.

A New South Wales District Court jury cleared Petty Officer Timothy Davis, 25, of a charge of sexual intercourse without consent, with the aggravating factor of causing the woman actual bodily harm. The charge carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison.

Davis was one of 3,000 Marines and Navy personnel on shore leave in Sydney after the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu and guided missile destroyer USS Halsey arrived in the port in October, 2008.

The woman told the court she had protected, consensual sex with Davis at the brothel where she worked, but said he became aggressive when she told him his time was up and forced her to have unprotected sex. The jury was shown police photographs of scratches on the woman.

Davis denied forcing the woman to have sex, but admitted in court that he used a “lock down maneuver” to pin her to the bed when she said she wanted to stop. He told the court he backed off when she kicked him, though he said he muffled her mouth with his hand when she began to scream after he demanded his money back.

Could we possibly be reading this correctly? Let’s try another source:

She said he “ripped” off his condom, telling her he had paid for sex and he was going to finish it off “like a real man”.

The slight woman said he pushed her head into the pillow, started suffocating her, and had unprotected sex for 30 seconds.

The jury was shown police photos depicting scratches on the woman, who described Petty Officer Davis as an “animal” during an angry outburst at the trial.

In his evidence, the sailor – who agreed his weight was more than double the woman’s – admitted using a “lock down manoeuvre” to pin her down to the bed when she said she wanted to stop.

He said he told her he was going to “finish”, but when she kicked him away, he backed off with his hands in the air.

So, she told him to stop. And even only as far as he admits, instead of stopping as he was told, he pinned her to the bed and told her he was going to continue anyway. I repeat: against her wishes. After she told him to stop.

Which means that as far as any reasonable definition goes — hell, even working off an antiquated and misogynistic definition of rape that requires physical violence to be present — he confessed to raping her.

And yet, despite his clear admission of rape, he simultaneously claimed that it wasn’t rape — as we know, men will frequently admit to behavior that classifies as rape so long as the word rape is not actually used. The fact that he would do so in a court of law, though, is particularly shocking, exposes some extremely concerning cognitive dissonance, and most appalling of all, displays a clear belief by his defense attorney that such a tactic would succeed, and that the jury would accept that cognitive dissonance right along with him.

That belief was, of course, ultimately validated by the jury. But why? Because the victim was a sex worker, and many people believe that sex workers have no right to bodily autonomy, and therefore cannot be raped? Because she had consented to the sex up to that point, and many people believe that women who have consented to sex generally have no right to bodily autonomy, and therefore cannot revoke or renegotiate consent once it is given? Because the rape may have “only” lasted a few moments, and how could a rape — of a sex worker! who had previously consented! — possibly “count” as real rape? Because Davis is a member of the U.S. military, and therefore he doesn’t look how most people expect a rapist to look?

My best guess is that all of these forms of misogynistic prejudice played a role, most likely in the order I’ve listed them. Yet again, even a blatant confession in a court of law is not enough to earn a conviction from a jury pulled from a culture that thinks men are never to blame, and women always are.

After all, the men and their feelings are the only ones that matter:

Davis made no comment to reporters following the verdict, but his attorney, Sam Macedone, said Davis was very happy with the outcome.

“He is glad it’s over,” Macedone said. “It has been very stressful for him.”

Yes, clearly too few of us spend enough time thinking about the toll that rape accusations take on rapists.

link via $pread

Today is the Eleventh Annual Transgender Day of Remembrance. Today is a day to remember the transgender people (or people perceived by their killers to be trans) who have died as a result of hatred and violence, and as a result of the hateful and violent cultures that support the perpetrators. Today is a day to remember those whose deaths authorities and media attempt to sweep under the rug, whose identities are devalued and erased once they are gone, whose murders usually go unsolved. Today is a day to read their names, and not forget.

Here is a list of the 162 known trans people who were killed from November 20, 2008 to November 12, 2009. Most were women. Most were black or Latina. A disproportionate number were sex workers. Several were still only teenagers.

Many of the people listed have had their names, ages, and/or locations recorded; for others, we only know the details of their murders. More still are not listed here at all, because their deaths and the reasons behind them are still unknown to anyone outside of their closest friends and family.

Whoever they were, wherever they were from, and whatever we know or do not know about them, they all need to be remembered, and they need to be remembered equally — along with the reasons why they aren’t here anymore.

Further Reading:

What Does Transgender Day of Remembrance Mean to You? by Monica at Transgriot

International Transgender Day of Remembrance 2009 by kaninchenzero at FWD/Forward

International Transgender Day of Remembrance, 20th November 2009 by Helen G at bird of paradox

the drowned and the saved by Queen Emily at Questioning Transphobia

TDOR 2009 by Chally at Zero at the Bone

Events are being held today in many nations and cities all over the world. Find out if there is one near you.

cross-posted at Feministe

Trigger Warning for transmisogyny and discussions of violence against women

In September, Kristina Muça was brutally murdered in Tirana, Albania. Her neck was slit, allegedly by a man she had only just met. The alleged motives for the crime were, according to prosecutors and to defendant Sefedin Hoxha’s now recanted confession, transphobic hatred towards the victim.

I’ve learned of this story through reader Kim Burton, who translated the local media reports into English and forwarded them to me, among others. She has verified the translations with a colleague and friend. All links in this post are to google documents of Kim’s translations, with the links to the original articles at the bottom of each. Please note that she has translated them faithfully, including the extremely disrespectful and ungendering language that so regularly accompanies reports on violence against trans people, and use caution when clicking through. The reports generally refer to Kristina as a “man,” “homosexual” or “transvestite,” complete with use of an incorrect name, though her boyfriend has strongly indicated that Kirstina identified as a woman, and prosecutors seem to be referring to her correctly. In the sections I have copied into the post, I have redacted Kristina’s male name, changed the pronouns, and altered or deleted some other disrespectful language when not used in direct quotes or noted otherwise by me. The original documents, however, are unchanged.

In Hoxha’s initial confession, he used the trans panic defense. Police initially, though differently, also attempted to construe Kristina’s murder as her own fault, and the result of an act of self-defense by Hoxha:

“I took him for a woman, but it turned out to be a man and in the heat of the moment I killed him and I don’t know what I did”, claimed Sefedin Hoxha, arrested two days ago for the murder of [male name redacted], known by the name Kristina.

The police, on the contrary, suspect that the victim and the perpetrator might have clashed following a possible attempted theft. Sources say that so far the strongest suspicion is that [Kristina] wanted to rob her client but, they say, the opposite cannot be ruled out.

Kristina is alleged to have been a sex worker, with Hoxha as a client who was unaware of her trans status, and who murdered her in the “panic” of discovering it. Whether or not Kristina was actually a sex worker, I do not know — I do, however, imagine that regardless of whether or not it is true, prejudice against sex workers is being employed to rally sympathy for Hoxha. Phobia of sex workers only works to compound the trans panic defense — the bigoted and bullshit argument that of course no cis man would want to engage in a sex act with a trans woman, and of course a woman not explaining her trans status is therefore lying, and of course trans women regularly fail to inform potentially violent sex partners of their trans statuses, and of course any heterosexual cis man in those circumstances would react violently — as both trans people and sex workers are regularly portrayed as “deceptive” and out to prey on poor men. Then, police dismiss the admission by Hoxha, and introduce new prejudice against Kristina by portraying her as a thief who initiated the violence.

Some news outlets have also jumped at the opportunity to portray alleged murderer Hoxha as the victim of a deceitful trans woman (please note: original, triggering language retained in this quote to convey the full effect of the apologism):

According to [Hoxha], he had been drinking on the night of the crime and was in a state of intoxication. On the street he came across the transvestite, who offered him sex in return for 500 lek. Being drunk, he agreed and went to a dark place to have sex. At that point the transvestite turned round and prepared for the act. The vagabond from Kosovo turned round right at the point when the transvestite was half undressed and he realized that it was a man. Safedin Hoxha was leaning in a corner and surprised and disappointed, he asked for his money back so that he could leave, but the transvestite said that they could carry on, that there was no problem, and approached the Kosovar. The latter, unable to cope with the situation that had come about, drew a knife from his pocket and stabbed him in the throat.

Hoxha’s drinking has been emphasized here, seemingly to reduce his culpability rather than increase it. In this account, he only paid a sex worker because he was intoxicated, and thus being taken advantage of. In this account, Kristina is also not portrayed as a woman, or even as human — in addition to being referred to as a man, she is also called “it” but as “really” a man.* And, in this account, Hoxha responded calmly to the “surprise” and only upon further deceit and manipulation did he react violently, due to being “unable to cope.”

In other words, male violence against women is stated over and over again to be not the man’s fault, not the man’s fault, not the man’s fault. As always, it’s seen as the victim’s fault for being a woman, for being transgender, for (allegedly) being a sex worker, and for therefore being perceived as not fully human.

And speaking of which, police have apparently used Kristina’s murder as an excuse to persecute trans people and sex workers in the area — with, again, the media portraying cis people and non-sex workers as the real victims:

After the shocking killing of Kristina, the police of the capital city have decided to impose “order”, checking the entire area which is known as a haunt for drug users, prostitutes or transvestites.

…

The area behind the Palace of Culture is known as a place where transvestites and prostitutes congregate, causing serious disturbances for all the inhabitants of the area or for passers-by. In the case of the latter, because there have been no small number of attacks by the criminal gangs, bent on theft. As seen in the photograph above, the police are taking no action to send the lawbreakers to the cells, but think it enough to move them on from the deserted buildings in the centre of the capital, opposite the General Administration of Prisons. The entire “tragicomic” scene unrolls before the eyes of dozens of curious onlookers and the DPB (General Administration of Prisons) security guards, entirely powerless just like their colleagues, to detain the many drug users, transvestites and prostitutes who have found refuge in the deserted buildings. Their freedom of movement has become a major concern for the people living in the area, while anyone might find themselves endangered if for their own reasons their journey takes them to the “heart” of the capital.

…

The area where Kristina was killed is frequented by sexual deviants as well as prostitutes. Police employees have been “patrolling” and inspecting this area for years, but not only do they fail to arrest lawbreakers, they often become the victims of their insults and beatings.

So a trans woman is murdered, and general, cis dominated society not only takes this as a cue to heap abuse on the trans community, portraying them as criminals and “sexual deviants,” but the government uses it as an opportunity to enact more violence against trans people, too. A highly typical story, but a no less disturbing one.

Hoxha has recanted his confession and pleaded not guilty. There is no further news, and the case is presumably working its way through the courts. Kristina has also been buried by her friends.

Everything above is incredibly distressing. And there is no larger message that I have found, other than a reminder of how hostile, dangerous and violent our cissupremacist world is to trans people, trans women in particular. But Kristina deserves to be remembered, and to have what small part of her story we know told. With the Transgender Day of Remembrance being commemorated this Friday, now also seems like a particularly apt moment. May she rest in peace.

*ETA: Kim has emailed me to clarify that she believes her translation was off, and the phrase “he realized that it was a man” should actually be something closer to “and there emerged a man.” Still, of course, extremely offensive and ungendering, but not in the way I had originally understood.