Trigger Warning for discussions of child pornography and child sexual abuse.

In Hobart, Australia, a family court has made a truly confounding and infuriating decision to require two girls to visit their father every other weekend, including an overnight stay — even though the father has been convicted on child pornography charges, the ruling also acknowledges the need for a lock on the girls’ bedroom door, and at least one of the girls is very much unwilling to go on such visits:

A Family Court judge in Hobart has ruled that the girls must visit their father every second weekend provided another adult is present in the home overnight.

The father involved in the case has been convicted of accessing child pornography and possessing child abuse products. He will remain on the sexual offenders register for at least another year.

But the judge has declared that it is in the best interests of the girls, aged eight and 10, that they spend time with their father, who cannot be identified.

He says there needs to be a lock on the girls’ bedroom door as the “father acts impulsively from time to time and that the children need some protection from him, especially at night”.

The mind absolutely boggles.

As some commenters have noted over at Hoyden About Town, it’s absolutely true that there’s no indication that the girls have ever made allegations of abuse against the father. (ETA: Not exactly true. See update.) Possessing child pornography is not the same as abusing one’s own children.

But I think it’s also important to explicitly note that child pornography charges should not ever be construed as “non-violent.” Possessing child pornography does not involve physically enacting abuse yourself. But child pornography involving actual children is by its very nature violent, since what is depicted in child pornography is always abuse. The creation of child pornography requires the rape of children. The ability to possess child pornography requires the rape of children. The act of watching and enjoying child pornography requires watching and enjoying the rape of children and condoning the rape of children. Possession of child pornography inherently requires violence. And while not only condoning but enjoying that violence is not necessarily evidence that one is willing to personally inflict similar violence with their own body, it is a pretty big risk factor.

And so is so-called impulsive behavior that requires little girls to lock their bedroom door every night to make sure that daddy doesn’t get in. The fact that such a requirement exists isn’t evidence that the judge considered all angles to the situation and made a nuanced decision based on all of the facts available — it’s evidence that all of the facts available showed considerable reason to believe that the girls would be unsafe around their father, and that the ruling wholly disregarded their safety by trying to present it as something open to compromise.

How is a second adult in the home at night supposed to protect against abuse? A great deal of child rapes take place with a second parent in the home, fast asleep in bed, unaware of what is being committed down the hall. Is the second adult required to stay awake all night and sit in a chair outside the girls’ room? If so, is the knowledge that it is needed supposed to make the girls feel safe? What if the girls — again, they’re 10 and 8 — forget to lock the door? What if their dad sneaks a moment with them and assures them that it’s really unnecessary? What if the lock is easy to pick or break? (Have you seen the kinds of locks that usually come on bedroom doors? They’re not exactly high security.) And who are these girls to trust and turn to for help if one of these things happens and the father does something abusive? The same adults who put them in an abusive situation to begin with?

Further, it’s impossible to argue that the decision was made with the children’s best interest in mind when (at least) one of the children disagrees with it herself.

Former magistrate Barbara Holborow is upset by the decision and says one of the girls said she did not want to visit her father.

“That view should be respected, no matter what the age of the child,” Ms Holborow said. “And unless you’re doing that, you cannot say it is in the best interests of the child.

“She doesn’t want to be there. That’s in her best interests. Don’t let her go. If she doesn’t go, unless another adult is accompanying the other child, she shouldn’t go either.”

Ms Holborow says it is not enough for the judge to place conditions on the visit and think nothing untoward will happen.

“My goodness it’s not as simple as that,” she said.

“As for the children staying over there? No. School holidays? No. Visits? Yes – a trip to the zoo or to some other entertainment, but never sleeping over at this stage of their lives.”

…

“We’re treating him as though he’s entitled to this, to visitations, but I don’t believe he is.

“I think you just need common sense. You cannot get over the statement by that little girl. She doesn’t want to be there.”

It would seem that the father has likely either done something directly to one or both of the children to make the girl uncomfortable or afraid around him, or that the girl is very reasonably afraid of him after learning that he was convicted on child pornography charges. There are of course other possibilities, but these seem the most probable. And explicitly ignoring the girl’s own autonomy and personhood simply because of her age not only puts her physical safety at risk, it’s also an emotionally abusive action in itself.

Unsurprisingly, fathers’ rights activists — who always say that they do not support abusers or unsafe situations for children — are hailing the decision as the right one:

John Abbott from the fathers’ rights group Blackshirts says the court has taken all precautions to protect the children.

“What we have here is a situation where there’s no real allegation that the court has found against the father molesting his own children,” he said.

“And we have to keep in mind that alienating children from parents is a very serious matter.”

Much more serious, it would seem, than forcing children against their will into a situation with their father so unsafe that they shouldn’t be allowed to be alone with him, and cannot sleep in their own beds without first ensuring that the door is locked.

It’s true that parental rights should be terminated with the utmost care and hesitancy. Historically and currently, the right to remove children from the homes of their parents and deny parents access to their children has been used as a misogynistic, racist, classist, ableist, homophobic and transphobic tool of oppression. And separating children from their families without due cause can itself be a highly abusive act.

But while the right to parent one’s own children is an incredibly important right, it’s not a right that should ever come before the safety of children. Rights are only rights until they infringe upon the rights of others. And the father’s right to parent in this case most certainly, as the ruling itself even acknowledges with all of its stipulations, infringes on the right of the girls to safety and to choose whether or not they must interact with someone who they explicitly do not wish to interact with. It does not work the other way around.

The idea that a parent’s ties to their children are more valuable than the children’s safety is one that frequently ends in abuse and trauma, and sometimes ends in even worse tragedies. I hope with everything I have, for the sake of those little girls, that I and so many others are worried over a possibility that will never materialize. In the unspeakable event that we are not, the father will be 100% responsible for his actions. But the judge will also bear some of the liability and guilt for whatever happens to those girls. And taking responsibility after the fact simply isn’t good enough.

UPDATE: This article states that there are indications of abuse allegations, namely that “the father had invited one of the girls into his bed, and had ‘demonstrated affection toward her in a way that was, in all the circumstances, inappropriate for a child of that age’.” Even worse, the court actually heard these allegations and believed them. This of course only makes the situation all the more troubling, and validates my inclination to believe that the father had done something to frighten and/or traumatize the oldest child. Thanks to Akeeyu for the link.

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.

In a recent post, I mentioned a rape case in which a San Antonio police officer allegedly raped a trans woman while on duty. I also generally discussed the fear that a lot of trans* folks have of the police, based on a long history of profiling and abuse. A recent blog post over at San Antonio Current reveals specifically some of the depth of the problem:

After nearly three years of quarterly trainings by the all-volunteer Police Officers Training Committee, only one session for more senior officers has been held. That meeting exposed innate prejudices among officers, according to training committee member Antonia Padilla, which she attributes to negative interactions with transgender individuals on the job that are likely exacerbated by a lack of exposure to those with less traditional gender expression.

They’re prejudices not typically found among the younger cadets, she added.

In the above, the blog post’s author Greg Harman calls the transphobic prejudices held by the officers “innate.” I believe that he meant to say “ingrained” and have absolutely no desire to pick on him or make petty arguments, firstly because it’s easy to get two words confused and I’ve done it myself on many, many occasions, and secondly because I’m grateful that he wrote this post.

But I also think it’s worth emphasizing in any context and at any opportunity provided, even when not directed at anyone particular, that prejudice is not ever “innate.” Because too many people actually seem to think that it is. Prejudice is not the result of DNA or some kind of “natural order,” it’s the result of individuals absorbing and learning prejudice from a prejudiced culture, having their prejudice reinforced and supported, and failing to personally challenge their own privilege and assumptions. It’s not inevitable, it’s actively manufactured. And the manufacturing process is also actively ignored and denied.

The post continues with Padilla describing a training session:

The trainings include a definition of terms, brainstorming about stereotypes, and breakout discussion groups. “It’s in these small discussion groups that the tensions in the veteran officers became apparent,” Padilla said. “Most everyone expressed some sort of, ‘Hey we’ve been cops for years and we know what it’s about. We have to deal with it on a daily basis. It’s not pretty and we don’t like it. We just wish it would go away’ is basically what they were saying.”

One officer in particular kept referring to transgendered individuals as a “subset,” Padilla said. “He was saying subset like every 30 seconds. ‘Oh, you’re in a subset this and you’re subset.’ I felt, and this is just my opinion, I felt he was actually instead of saying subset he really wanted to say sub-human. I really had to sit on my hands with that guy.

“Just the very fact they feel that way when dealing with someone is going to cause them to have less empathy, or even no empathy, and to feel like, ‘They don’t really matter. They’re not important. And we don’t have to offer them the same level of civil protections … We’ll just treat them as less than human and it’s OK and nobody’s gonna care,” Padilla said.

Officer Craig Nash, arrested on charges of sexual assault and official oppression in the alleged rape, is a seven-year veteran officer.

These views aren’t exactly news or in any way surprising, but it is fairly rare to see someone affiliated with a police force directly describe them.

Like bigots of all stripes, these officers seem to blame their prejudices on the group being oppressed. If only that group wouldn’t behave so “poorly,” then there would supposedly be no prejudice.

But it’s clearly prejudice in the first place that allows bigots to view individual actions as evidence that their prejudice is well-founded. As many have pointed out before me (but for which I have sadly been unable to relocate specific links), the actions of individual members of oppressed groups are viewed as representative of the whole group in ways that actions of privileged folks are not. When a black person steals something, it’s seen as evidence that black people are thieves. When a white person steals something, it’s evidence that that person is a thief. (The fact that the rape victim here is apparently Latina is also worthy of noting.) When a woman chews you out, it’s seen as evidence that women are bitches. When a man chews you out, it’s evidence that that man is an asshole. When a disabled person is in a bad mood, it’s seen as evidence that people with disabilities have miserable lives. When an able-bodied person is in a bad mood, it’s evidence that the person just isn’t feeling so great.

I can assure you, and bet whatever ridiculous amount of money you like, that trans* folks do not make up the majority of folks the SAPD arrests or negatively interact with. I feel absolutely positive that a majority of those folks are actually cis. And yet, these officers do not seem to have an ingrained prejudice against cis folks or argue that their specific experiences with cis folks prove something negative about cis folks in general. The only reason their interactions with trans* folks have lead to this kind of thinking is because they were already starting from a position that cissexual and cissgender identities are the only proper identities, and that transgender identities are “wrong” and “deviant.” And the fact that they were already starting from that position almost certainly also alters their interactions with trans* people, making them more confrontational, dangerous to the trans* person, and overall more likely to see a situation result in an outcome that can be used by the officers to reinforce their biased views.

The fact that new recruits are the main focus of sensitivity trainings when prejudiced views seem to only harden over time is a huge failing. And it also strikes me personally that “sensitivity” training isn’t exactly what’s needed. Sensitivity training is about how to interact respectfully with a person, which is well and good and certainly needed. Clearly, since the force that claims to be taking the rape allegations so seriously misgendered the victim in the arrest warrant.

But officers don’t just need to be sensitive, they also need to stop profiling and to treat and view other people as human. The fact that officers apparently just want trans* people to “go away” isn’t the result of a lack of sensitivity — it’s the result of cissupremacy and hate. The fact that such folks are in charge of public safety necessarily means that certain members of the public are going to be left very, very unsafe.

Trigger Warning for descriptions of sexual violence and rape apologism.

The NY Review of Books has published an article by David Kaiser and Lovisa Stannow about the enormous problem of prison rape in the U.S. and how to adequately address it (h/t).

The authors describe in detail the sickening severity and tremendousness of the problem, and how it is only exacerbated by the apathy of those with the power to help victims. A very small excerpt (again, trigger warning):

When Laura Berry told the Arkansas corrections officer who had raped her that she thought she might be pregnant, he forced her, according to the commission’s findings, to drink turpentine and quinine, hoping that would induce an abortion. After Kenneth Young was raped at knifepoint by a cellmate in Pennsylvania, he flooded the cell to attract the attention of officers, and as punishment was put in a “dry cell” for ninety-six hours, with no access to running water, a shower, or a toilet—forced “to live in his own excrement,” as a court later put it. Alisha Brewer told our organization, JDI, that she was raped by three different corrections officers as a twenty-two-year-old prisoner in Kentucky; she reported the last two incidents, and was punished with more than four months of punitive segregation and loss of sixty days of good time on her sentence. Another prisoner who wrote to us, and who for obvious reasons prefers to remain anonymous, quoted the male officer who was abusing her: “Remember if you tell anyone anything, you’ll have to look over your shoulder for the rest of your life.” We get letters like this every day.

But perhaps their most shocking part of the article for many will be their claim that these atrocities do not need to continue:

One of the most pernicious myths about prisoner rape is that it is an inevitable part of life behind bars. This is simply wrong. As the variance in the BJS findings shows, it can be prevented. In well-run facilities across the country it is being prevented—and this shouldn’t be surprising. After all, the government has extraordinary control over the lives of those it locks up. Stopping sexual abuse in detention is a matter of using sound policies and practices, and passing laws that require them.

If we think rape is bad, one of the worst things a person could force another to endure, we should find prison rape to be especially horrific. For rape in prison involves not just rape, but also being legally kept captive either by or with your rapist(s), for an extended period of time.

Rape in prison is also a form of social discrimination and violence. In prison, as with everywhere else in the world, rapists deliberately seek out the most vulnerable potential victims, whether it be with regards to physical ability, social stature, or both. Even within prison, a place that makes all of its inhabitants marginalized, the most marginalized and the most vulnerable are still the most likely to be raped. Rape in prison is horrific violence, human rights abuse, and personal act of control, but it is also a means of reinforcing abusive social hierarchies of power.

As prison inmates are overwhelmingly and disproportionately likely to be poor, rape victims are also likely to be poor. As prison inmates are overwhelmingly disproportionately likely to be of color as opposed to white, rape victims are also disproportionately likely to be of color. As rapists attack those they perceive as the most vulnerable and least protected, rape victims are overwhelmingly disproportionately likely to be trans*, queer, people with mental health issues, and/or people with other disabilities.

In additional to being a general human rights abuse, rape in prison is a targeted human rights abuse. It’s an abuse targeted at those already most likely to be abused by social systems, hierarchies, and prejudices. It is racist, it is classist, it is misogynistic, it is transphobic, it is homophobic, and it is ableist. The refusal to do anything about it, the complicity and even encouragement from so many quarters, shows that the targeted and prejudiced nature in which these already horrific abuses are carried out is not accidental. It’s not even negligent. It’s deliberate.

While no one ever deserves to be raped, even if they are rapists themselves, and while the article rightly notes that corrections officers make up a majority of prison rapists, the fact is also that inmates convicted of violent crimes are the most likely inmates to act as rapists. And since rapists seek out the most vulnerable victims, inmates convicted of non-violent crimes are the most likely to be raped. While it would not be at all acceptable even if it was, rape also does not act as a deterrent to future crimes. It just creates victims who have nowhere to turn, no one who cares, and who are actually likely to commit more crimes upon release as a method of coping with their extraordinary trauma.

The problem is that too many people believe that rapists are the ones being raped, and too many people believe that rape is an appropriate form of punishment. The problem is that the right to not be raped is not seen as a fundamental human right. And prisoners are not seen as deserving of fundamental human rights, anyway.

The problem is also that too many people think their tax dollars are worth more than the human rights of those they see as sub-human. Because in spite of the fact that there are standards that could be put in place to reduce the rates of prison rape now, the main holdup is apparently money:

The main concern expressed by opponents of the commission’s standards is that observing them will be too expensive. One PREA provision barred the commission and the attorney general from establishing standards “that would impose substantial additional costs compared to costs currently expended by Federal, State, and local prison authorities.”

Indeed, even the authors of this piece — who overall, while being a little too apologist towards corrections officers for my taste, still appear to care about this issue vastly more than the majority of the population — take the time to carefully note:

Still, no one doubts that bringing corrections systems across the country into compliance with the standards will require money, and everyone acknowledges the importance of this consideration.

This is where it becomes time to take a cold, hard look at our priorities in life. Because, by the standard laid out here, I am officially classified as “no one,” and proudly so. Personally, I actually don’t acknowledge the importance of the money consideration, at all. I’m really spending most of my time acknowledging the importance of not giving serial rapists captive and indefinite victims.

I’m thrilled that the authors have taken the time to detail the fact that the cost of implementing theses standards is not nearly as high as many believe. Political history shows us that this is important.

But I’m also just enormously sick and tired and disgusted by the fact that everywhere I turn, this is where the conversation leads us. I’m sick and tired and disgusted by the fact that people are raping prisoners at this very moment, and cost is what we’re discussing.

I hate taxes as much as the next person — really, I can very sincerely say to you right now that I think paying taxes is not at all fun! But when we live in a society where the concern over the possibility of having to pay more in taxes takes regular and uncontested precedence over issues of social justice and even basic human rights — and do not even begin to kid yourself that we do not live in that society in the U.S. right here, right now — we have gone well and truly off the rails. We have sacrificed and abandoned basic decency. We have forgotten what humanity and empathy look like. We are a society that does not even deserve the right to call itself a society, because a society is supposed to provide some sort of collective and collaborative existence.

It has been said by countless admirable people that a society is best judged not by how it treats its most privileged members, but how it treats those who are most vulnerable. When the desires of middle class folks to have a little bit more money to buy nice things with override the right of our society’s most vulnerable members to not be serially violated and abused by the government in which we trust; when our government’s desire to not piss off the middle class folks who elect them with minor tax hikes, and to give themselves nice fat bonuses and financially prop up their friends, outweighs their duty to protect those people whose lives are in their hands; when the best we can all around do is throw up our arms and say “We’d love to do something, but it costs too much,” there is no way to judge that as anything but an absolute, utter, and disgusting failure.

We have failed, we are currently continuing to fail, and as I write this and you read this, there are women, men, and children all over this country paying for it right now.

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.

Trigger Warning for discussions of sexual violence and rape apologism.

You have quite likely read on other blogs about part two of the Center for Public Integrity’s report into sexual violence on U.S. college and university campuses. I wrote about part one of the report, A Culture of Secrecy, back when it was released. And A Culture of Indifference is no less brilliant, distressing and enraging. You can check out all the different sections here: A Lack of Consequences for Sexual Assault, An Uncommon Outcome at Holy Cross,  Lax Enforcement of Title IX in Sexual Assault Cases, and ‘Undetected Rapists’ on Campus: A Troubling Plague of Repeat Offenders. Be forewarned, however, that it may be particularly upsetting or triggering. After merely reading the first section, I was personally so filled with rage that my vision actually blurred for several minutes.

Plenty of bloggers have already written about the general findings, the enormous problem of on-campus violence, and the downright insulting (lack of) response from the institutions where they occur. One particularly great piece was written by Sarah from SAFER, over at RH Reality Check, with my favorite small excerpt reprinted below:

Clearly school administrations do not have the same powers as law enforcement, and as such they cannot technically “prosecute a crime.” But students who choose to use the campus disciplinary system realize the difference. What they expect, and rightly so, is that their school is invested in upholding standards of acceptable and unacceptable student conduct, as they often do when passing judgment in a host of other misconduct cases. Students are routinely dismissed from schools for drug charges and plagiarism. Why should a charge of sexual assault be different? Students are betrayed by their schools not because the school is unable to mirror the criminal justice system, but because the refusal to treat sexual assault as a serious breach of student conduct amounts to entirely dismissing the severity of the crime and the trauma undergone by the survivor.

But as I find myself generally compelled to do when presented with the enormity of rape culture, I want to focus on a few specific, small sections from the report’s findings — aspects of the rape culture CPI exposes which I find to be particularly troubling.

In the first section of the report, a school administrator explains the lack of harsh punishment for those found responsible for sexual violence, and why most are allowed to continue as students:

Not every sexual offense deserves the harshest penalty, they argue; not every culpable student is a hardened criminal. “There’s not a one-size-fits-all in these cases,” contends Rick Olshak, associate dean of students at Illinois State University. He says schools are more likely to expel in cases involving penetration without consent, and clear intent. “It’s the cases in the middle” — involving miscommunication and mutual intoxication — “that are more difficult and that will result in less than expulsion,” Olshak adds.

Yes, it looks as though schools are being particularly strict in their criteria — in the third section of the report, one investigating officer actually explains that she did not pursue charges because there were no eye-witnesses to the assault.

But I’m more interested in this broad idea about “cases in the middle.” As if there is a “middle” when you’re talking about rape.

This idea that some rapes are Really Bad Rapes, and other rapes are Eh, Not That Big of a Deal Rapes, is incredibly damaging — especially when the only kinds of rapes that count as Really Bad Rapes are the kinds that are the least common — and also incredibly pervasive. Some rapes are more violent than others, but the bottom line is that rape is rape.

Saying that there are “middle” rape cases, that involve miscommunication and mutual intoxication, first of all, is patently false. Rape does not occur because of “miscommunication” — it just doesn’t. It occurs because of one party’s decision to ignore, disengage from, and/or reject communication. The idea that there are hoards of rapists out there “accidentally” raping is absurd on its face. But even if it was true, it results in a no less responsible rapist. If you don’t want to rape someone, you make sure that the other party is enthusiastically and meaningfully consenting. If you fail to do that and rape someone, there was no accident involved — just the likely and logical outcome of a conscious choice to disregard the bodily autonomy and safety of another person.

Secondly, the criteria expressed so-called “middle” rapes is inherently shaming and blaming towards the victim. Hidden not-so-subtly into the idea that a rape occurred because of “miscommunication” is the idea that a rape wouldn’t have been committed if only the victim had communicated better. When it comes to intoxication, we’re also presented with the paradox that a perpetrator is less responsible for his behavior if he’s intoxicated, while a victim is of course more to blame for hers.

The above statement also suggests that a perpetrator’s “intent” materially matters — that what was in a rapist’s heart is more important than what the rapist did to another person. Even worse, it further divides the hierarchy of Really Bad Rapes and Eh, Not That Big of a Deal Rapes by confirming that the criteria for Really Bad Rape involves penetration — one can presume, from the overarching cultural narrative from which this entire justification draws, that “penetration” in this context means “penetration of the vagina (or maybe anus) with a penis.” Removed from the definition of Really Bad Rape are other non-consensual sexual acts performed on a variety of genitals and other body parts, likely as well as penetration with fingers or objects.

Most likely to be classified as a rape in the “middle” are also those cases that involve the most marginalized victims, whether they be trans*, of color, disabled, poor, etc. Because the number one cultural criteria for classification as a Really Bad Rape is a perfect victim. And in our society, the only perfect victim can be a straight, cis, able-bodied, middle-class, virginal white girl.

A Really Bad Rape also needs a perfect perpetrator — someone ideally the absolute opposite of everything the perfect victim is not. And those who don’t fit the mold of the perfect perpetrator rarely get classified as perpetrators at all, including by schools and their disciplinary procedures:

For instance, IU officials have expelled only one of 12 students found responsible for alleged sexual assaults in the past four years, as compared to seven suspensions and four probations or reprimands. “Our basic philosophy is not to expel,” confirms Freeman. The university will kick out a student believed to be a threat, she says, yet “that does not mean that every single person found responsible for sexual assault gets expelled. They’re not all predators.”

Of course, the fact of the matter is that research shows most rapists are serial rapists. The idea that rape is a one time “mistake” is not only false because rape is a whole lot more than a mistake, but also because rapists usually rape a whole lot more than once.

But even if they didn’t, it would be irrelevant to the larger issue here. Because raping someone automatically makes you someone who preys on other people — a predator — no matter how many times you do it. And because even if the rapist will never, ever rape again, that doesn’t change a damn thing for the victim.

This is the problem with centering perpetrators. Not only do we start wondering what their “intent” was and start howling about “miscommunication” and “mutual intoxication,” we also completely erase the experience of the victim. There’s a reason that, as the report found, so many rape victims leave campuses when their rapists stay. It’s because no matter who else their rapist may or may not rape, that rapist still raped them. Because whether or not the rapist is generally a “predator” is irrelevant when the rapist preyed on them. Because while some victims may be able to tolerate the threat of running into their rapist, of living in the same general area as their rapist, of knowing people who are friends with their rapist, no one should ever have to.

The threat that a rapist poses to a community at large is certainly an issue, and reason enough for expulsion. But it’s not the only reason, nor should it even necessarily be considered the ultimate reason. The threat that a rapist poses to those already assaulted, whether physical or emotional, is just as real, just as serious, just as valid a justification. No, just as valid an imperative.

Here is where the overarching problem with schools’ disciplinary procedures, as well as the problem with how we as a society evaluate rape in general, comes to light. We spend more time looking at how the rapist thought about the event, rather than what the rapist actually did. We spend more time thinking about how the rapist might have meant things differently, rather than looking at the violence and oppression the rapist actually enacted. And we give more credence to the rapist’s intent than to the victim’s trauma and sense of violation.

And there can simply be no justice for rape victims when the first order of business is always to consider how the rapist feels.

Trigger Warning for discussions of police harassment and violence against trans* people.

The New Jersey police department is being sued after two Newark officers allegedly harassed a trans woman on the basis of her gender identity.

Diana Taylor of Newark said two officers steered their cruiser into her path as she walked down a street two blocks from her home on March 23, 2009. According to Taylor, the officers made fun of her wig and demanded she show them her identification. She didn’t have it with her, but she gave them her legal name, [redacted].

The two officers had placed a bet on Taylor’s gender before they blocked her way, she said during a news conference after the ACLU-NJ filed the lawsuit in Essex County Superior Court on Wednesday, Feb. 17. One said to the other, “You’re right. I owe you $10. It is a man,” Taylor recalled.

She further alleged the officers began tormenting her by calling her a “chick with a dick,” “faggot” and other derogatory names. Taylor added they further embarrassed her by questioning her sexuality as witnesses gathered.

She said the officers handcuffed her and took her to a police station where they searched crime databases looking for a reason to arrest her. Although they found she had no record, Taylor contends police continued to humiliate her by frisking her in a sexually intrusive manner.

What these officers have allegedly done is not in the least bit unusual in terms of interactions between police and trans* people. For many trans* people of all identities (binary, non-binary, agendered/non-gendered, etc.), but particularly trans women, and particularly trans women of color, law enforcement is entirely synonymous with violence.

Threats from police range from “only” misgendering and other verbal harassment, to the denial of medical treatment and other basic necessities in prison, to beatings, other physical assault, and sexual assault by police and/or while in police custody.

Indeed, just last week, a San Antonio police officer allegedly handcuffed and raped a trans woman while on duty.

And so, while I’m sure that someone is aching to tell me that “not all police officers are like that,” it doesn’t change the fact that there is a problem of violence on a systematic level. It doesn’t change the fact that for those living with marginalized identities, the police are not seen as protectors are good people doing their jobs, but as very real threats, and as downright terrifying. It doesn’t change the fact that we live in a culture that sanctions and encourages police violence, and perpetually excuses it with the rationalization that “they must have had a good reason.” It doesn’t change the fact that we live in a culture where trans* people are perceived as “deviant,” where supposedly “deviant” people are perceived as less human, and where bodies perceived as less human are perceived as bodies deserving of violence.

And the fact that all of this is true also doesn’t change the fact that our world should never, ever have to be a place where one can look at what was done to Diana Taylor and rationally think to themselves “thank god they only harassed her,” where one can be logically grateful that the sexual assault — and do not kid yourself that “frisking in a sexually intrusive manner” is not sexual assault — did not turn into an even more violent rape, where one can understandably breathe even the tiniest sigh of relief, because it could have been so, so much worse. That the world is that place right now is a complete and utter horror.

I wish Ms. Taylor the best of luck with her case. I hope she receives justice for what was done to her, and I praise ACLU-NJ for fighting on her behalf.

But history shows us that police brutality and other misconduct is rarely punished, especially when the victim is a person of color or trans* (and Ms. Taylor is both). And it shows us further that even when punished, won cases rarely result in substantial and sustainable change, because the small fear of an outside possibility rarely negates one’s overwhelming sense of superiority, power, and invincibility — and because even if it did, fear does not breed real respect. And as hard as winning a case against a police officer or force is, getting people to view other people not like themselves as real, live human beings is even harder.

via Transgriot

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.