Trigger Warning for rape apologism/denialism and discussions of sexual violence and rape culture.

School is supposed to be a safe place for students to learn and interact with their peers. But as far too marginalized persons know, schools frequently present an environment that is the exact opposite, from being sites of sexualized gender-based violence, to racialized violence, to homophobic and transphobic violence, and other forms of physical assault and emotional injury. Too often, we think of harassment and violence in schools as “the way things are” — how they have always been, how they will always be, and something we are all helpless to change. Rarely do we recognize that these kinds of traumas don’t have to be a part of growing up, but are usually just an exaggerated (or usually exaggerated) reflection of what takes place in adult spaces.

And even more rarely do we discuss how the schools themselves, those tasked to protect students and make schools a safe place, are actively reinforcing and/or perpetuating violence themselves.

This weekend, Amandaw linked to an article on her Tumblr about a lawsuit in which a school allegedly made a rape victim “bait” in a “sting operation” to catch teens “having sex” after school. But it gets worse. Because Upper St. Clair High School failed to provide safe exit from the school to the victim, as one responsible teacher originally proposed, and instead forced her to stay on school grounds, she was raped again, along with another girl.

According to the brief by the student’s attorney, on Feb. 4, 2008, the girl went to one of her teachers, Esther von Waldow, and told her that a boy, with whom she’d had previous problems, had forced her to have sex with him after school. The Post-Gazette does not identify victims of sexual assault and has not identified the accused rapist, who pleaded guilty in juvenile court to sexual assault.

The girl told Ms. von Waldow that he forced another student to have sex, as well.

Ms. von Waldow, according to the brief, immediately went to school administrators with concerns and offered several options to make sure the girls in question got home safely. They included offering herself to walk the girls to their school bus.

But, the filing said, school Principal Michael Ghilani had a different idea.

“Instead, Ghilani wanted to keep Jane Doe on school property and not let her leave. Ghilani’s plan, known as the ‘sting operation,’ was to use Jane Doe as ‘bait’ to lead the school administrators to [the boy] and perhaps other girls.”

According to a court filing submitted by the school district, Dr. Ghilani didn’t believe that the students were in danger or that any safety concerns were present. Instead, he thought students were having consensual sex in school after hours.

He devised a plan to have school police officers follow the students in question to determine who they were and where they were going.

“Security personnel followed the students. Whether the sexual activity was alleged to be consensual or nonconsensual would not have altered the plan,” Upper St. Clair said in its brief. “The plan to was to monitor the students and stop the students before any sexual activity occurred.”

The officers followed the students and believed that they had gone home for the day.

However, an officer working night duty later saw on a school surveillance camera that the boy and another girl were back on the premises.

Though the officer then did rounds to find them, he never did.

The girl’s attorneys contend that two girls were raped in the stairwell that afternoon, including their client.

“Ghilani’s ‘sting operation,’ which prevented von Waldow from placing Jane Doe on her bus and out of harm’s way so that she could be used as bait, resulted in her being violently raped. Ghilani and the school district acted in utter disregard of her welfare.”

Oh boy.

If the allegations against the school district are true, I really can’t imagine a greater breach of student safety and trust. I don’t care how many security officers are following or supposed to be following the students in question — rape victims should never be used as “bait,” let alone as a means to catch students having consensual sex. That this was the plan doesn’t seem to be denied, but instead rather implicitly confirmed through statements by school representatives reproduced up above.

The logic behind the idea is terrifying.  One is left presuming that Principal Ghilani saw Jane Doe’s report of being rape as not falling under the category of “real” rape, and thus related to the consensual sex he was trying to stamp out. It’s an incredibly revealing tactic, as it shows that Ghilani strongly prioritized busting students having consensual sexual contact (in an admittedly inappropriate location) over adequately and responsibly responding to claims of sexual violence. As is so common, consensual female sexuality is seen as a bigger threat to order than male sexual violence.

In its defense, the school district only confirms that this was their line of thinking.¹ Rather than denying that any “sting” was planned at all — apparently, there’s too much evidence that it was real — they’ve just resorted to calling Jane Doe a lying whore:

But in court documents filed by the school district, there are allegations that relationships between the boy in question and several of the girls who claim to be victims were consensual. The district argues that the girls liked him, and were jealous of the others.

In one court filing, the district said that it could dispute whether the student who filed the lawsuit has been raped.

But following the incident, the girl’s attorneys contend in documents, the suspect sent the girl this text message:

“im soo sry i didn’t mean 2 make u cry. i’m cant believe i just raped u well bout time u read dis i mite b dead.”

School officials also claim that they knew nothing of any sexual assaults by the boy until the morning of Feb. 5, 2008 — the day after the alleged “sting.”

So not only did Jane Doe make up both rapes, but the sting operation came about because the principal thought that the student had reported consensual sex to her teacher? Yes, I see how that makes sense. Throw in something about how victims of sexual violence really wanted it and like to fight over their rapist, and no one will notice the illogical nature of the claim! Everyone eats that jealous, boy-obsessed teenage girl shit right up. Also, stuff about how girls and women who claim rape are really just dirty sluts in denial.

I’m honestly not even sure which facet of this case I find most appalling — the lesson that if you report being raped to your school, they’ll use you as a method to catch other students doing allegedly naughty things rather than protecting you; or the lesson that if you report being raped to your school, they’ll respond to their own culpability in the situation by telling the national media that you wanted it, anyway.

I guess that if there’s any “good news” in this case, it’s the fact that we don’t have to choose between condemning the two. The entire story is filled to the brim with victim-blaming, rape apologism, and enabling of sexual violence. And barring an enormous bombshell that the Upper St. Clair School District has in its back pocket, what they’ve admitted to alone shows that they’re responsible for repeatedly and persistently fostering an environment where sexual violence is encouraged, both by placing the situation on the back burner and refusing to listen to rape victims when they come forward.

I’m incredibly pleased to be able to pass along some great news for a change — the Tribal Law and Order Act, which I  had previously urged all of you to support, and which the infinitely awesome Pretty Bird Woman House vocally approves, has passed both houses of Congress and it set to be signed by President Obama today.

A measure designed to ease stubbornly high rates of violent crime, including rape and sexual assault, within Indian reservations will be signed into law by President Obama on Thursday.

Advocates of the Tribal Law and Order Act, which took three years to put together and passed the Senate last week, say it will ensure that more crimes, including murders and serious assaults, are reported and prosecuted amid worries that many cases go unpunished.

The measure gives tribal courts tougher sentencing powers and sets stricter rules to gather and collect more data on crimes. Special U.S. prosecutors will be appointed to tackle what advocates of the law describe as an epidemic of violence.

The president is due to sign the bill into law during a ceremony at the White House on Thursday afternoon.

In the U.S., there is currently an epidemic of sexual violence against Native American women — the rate of rape against Native women is 2.5 that of all other women in the U.S., and more than one in three Native American women will be raped in her lifetime. While some perpetrators are indeed Native themselves, a vast majority of the rapists (86%) are non-Natives, usually white men, who have come onto Native land. Until now, such rapists have often been able to rape with impunity, not only because of the socially marginalized social status of their victims (something rapists tend to seek out), reluctance by victims to report, and poor handling of cases by police — all serious problems and facets of this issue on their own — but also because of confusion and loopholes regarding legal jurisdictions for non-Native perpetrators on Native land.

The Tribal Law and Order Act works to correct several of these problems:

Under the new rules, the Justice Department will have to maintain data on the cases it does not pursue to prosecution. It will also have to share with tribal justice officials any evidence in cases not prosecuted.

The act also aims to clear up jurisdictional loopholes that allow some crimes to slip through the net. It will allow selected tribal police officers to enforce federal laws on Indian lands, whether or not the offender is Indian.

The National Congress of American Indians says it hopes the measure will mean that more sexual assaults carried out on the reservations by non-tribal members will be punished.

Tribal courts will be allowed to sentence offenders to up to three years in prison, increased from the current one-year maximum sentence.

All tribal and federal police officers in the reservations will receive extra training to interview sexual-assault victims and collect evidence from crime scenes.

That the new law will not only provide stronger oversight to U.S. federal handling of sexual violence against Native women, but also strengthens the power of tribal officers and justice systems to enforce the law is absolutely vital, for several reasons. Firstly, victims may simply not believe in U.S. models of justice, holding their faith rather in their tribal systems. Secondly, the U.S. justice system has been known, as has been extensively documented on this very blog, to treat rape victims very, very poorly. The more marginalized a victim is, whether on the basis of race, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, class, or other identifier, the worse treatment they are likely to receive. Further, the U.S. government has done more harm and violence to Native peoples than can be easily or adequately expressed. It makes sense that rape victims would not trust the U.S. justice system to fairly and reasonably handle their case, and may trust their own tribal systems to treat them better. It also makes sense that victims would not trust the U.S. government to do any harm to them as Native people, and would better trust their own tribal systems to better respect their rights and humanity.

Most importantly, whatever a victim’s reasons and whatever a victim’s inclinations, it’s my understanding that the law will give them something of a choice regarding how to proceed.

The sad news is that while this should be a bill that absolutely everyone who’s not a rapist can get behind, 92 Republicans actually voted against the bill in the House. Interesting that they chose a vote regarding the physical safety of Native women and their ability to find justice for the violent crimes committed against them to make a “statement” about legislative procedures. At least we know where their priorities lie.

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

Earlier this week, a jury ruled against a woman who sued the Girls Gone Wild franchise on the grounds that they damaged her reputation when they included footage of her being forcibly disrobed in one of their DVDs (h/t). The woman, identified in the case as Jane Doe, never gave consent for her breasts to be showed on film, audibly refused to lift up her top for cameras, and never signed a consent form. Nevertheless, when another woman came up from behind Doe and suddenly pulled her tank top down — sexually assaulted her — her breasts were exposed and the footage was used.

A St. Louis Circuit Court jury deliberated 90 minutes before ruling against the woman, 26, on the third day of the trial. Lawyers on both sides argued the key issue was consent, with her side saying she absolutely refused to give it and the defense claiming she silently approved by taking part in the party.

The woman, identified in court files as Jane Doe, was 20 when she went to the former Rum Jungle bar in May 2004 and was filmed by a “Girls Gone Wild” video photographer. Now married, the mother of two girls and living in the St. Charles area, Doe sued in 2008 after a friend of her husband’s reported that she was in one of the videos.

“I am stunned that this company can get away with this,” Doe said after the verdict. “Justice has not been served. I just don’t understand. I gave no consent.”

But Patrick O’Brien, the jury foreman, told a reporter later that an 11-member majority decided that Doe had in effect consented by being in the bar and dancing for the photographer. In a trial such as this one, agreement by nine of 12 jurors is enough for a verdict.

“Through her actions, she gave implied consent,” O’Brien said. “She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing.”

There is something gravely, gravely wrong in the U.S. court system when a jury foreman can say that a sexual assault victim “knew what she was doing” and therefore deserved what she got, as a means for deciding how he did in the case.

There is a long, well-documented history of coercion in the making of the Girls Gone Wild films. The women who are featured in the videos are not paid, but rather compensated with tee-shirts. They are plied with drinks by the crews, and then incessantly cajoled and egged on until they do what the cameramen want. Oh, and the company’s sleazy founder Joe Francis has been informally accused of rape. There’s no doubt that some women do actually want and choose to be featured in the films. But their agency and choices don’t erase or excuse Girls Gone Wild’s long track record of gaining “consent” that is not informed, meaningful, or enthusiastic, from women who are known and desired to be in no state of mind to make a decision that very well may stick with them for the rest of their lives.

But that’s not even what we’re talking about here. Girls Gone Wild’s history is relevant, as this case is a part of a long line of purposefully coercive, non-consensual, and potentially illegal behavior. But the issue in Jane Doe’s lawsuit wasn’t the more complex one of whether her consent was meaningful and adequate under the terms it was obtained. The issue is that there was no consent. And Girls Gone Wild knew that, and just didn’t give a shit.

I don’t know the law well enough to know whether or not the jury made the technically correct decision. But I do know that something is seriously wrong here when a woman’s sexual assault is used by a company for profit, without her permission. I do know that something is seriously wrong when “implied consent” — in spite of explicit non-consent, no less — is taken as a valid legal defense. And I do know that something is seriously wrong when a jury decides that a woman who is in public has no legal right to how her body is used by other people.

It’s rare that classic victim-blaming memes are used quite so blatantly and explicitly in court. Usually, lawyers try to be a bit more covert about exactly what kind of prejudices they’re playing into. I feel as though this example is so clear that it hardly needs my parsing, but I’ve been known to overestimate other people’s understanding of rape culture.

When O’Brien despicably said, “She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing,” what he was saying was, “She was being a tease. She totally wanted it. And if she didn’t actually plan to give it up, she deserved to have it taken from her against her will.” What he was saying was, “Look what a slut she was being, dancing in front of our cameras.” What he was saying was, “She’s a slut, and sluts deserve what they get.”

One has to wonder how he sleeps at night. But what went ignored in his argument, and apparently by the rest of the jury, was the simple fact put forth by Doe’s lawyer:

“Other girls said it was OK. Not one other one said, ‘No, no,’” Evans said. “She is entitled to go out with friends and have a good time and not have her top pulled down and get that in a video.”

This truth, that women have a right to be in public without being assaulted and then having their assaults distributed for profit, seems irrefutable to everyone who views women as human beings. But clearly it’s an easy thing to dismiss for Girls Gone Wild and the jury who sided with them. In their eyes, women who leave their homes, who have the audacity to dance for cameras, who “know what they’re doing,” simply cannot be violated, because they have no right to consent or non-consent at all.

Trigger Warning for discussions of sexual violence and police violence, specifically including violence against sex workers and transphobic violence.

Earlier this year, I wrote about an Amnesty International report about sexual violence against women in Cambodia, and the judicial response (or more accurately, lack of judicial response) to sexual violence. A section of that report dealt with sexual violence against sex workers, and the fact that good portion of such violence is actually committed by law enforcement officials.

Now Human Rights Watch has released a more detailed report specifically about police abuses against sex workers in Cambodia, including but not limited to sexual violence. You can view and download the full report here. The Human Rights Watch press release states:

Police arrest sex workers in regular sweeps on the streets and parks of Phnom Penh. Some of the violence is opportunistic, while other abuses commonly occur in periodic crackdowns and raids by police and district authorities, at times targeting sex workers specifically  and other times picking up sex workers along with other groups of marginalized people on the streets.

Police abuse sex workers with impunity. Sex workers told Human Rights Watch that police officers beat them with their fists, sticks, wooden handles, and electric shock batons. In several instances, police officers raped sex workers while they were in police detention. Every sex worker that Human Rights Watch spoke to had to pay bribes or had money stolen from them by police officers.

A 2008 Cambodian law on trafficking and sexual exploitation criminalized all forms of trafficking, including forced labor. Human Rights Watch found that police officers at times can use those sections of the law that criminalize “solicitation” and “procurement” of commercial sex to justify harassment of sex workers. The provisions are also broad enough that they can be used to criminalize advocacy and outreach activities by sex worker groups and those who support them.

Human Rights Watch urged the Cambodian government to consult with sex worker groups, United Nations agencies, and organizations working on human rights, trafficking, and health to review and address the impact on the human rights of those engaged in sex work of provisions in the 2008 law on trafficking and sexual exploitation, before implementing those provisions.

In Phnom Penh, police refer sex workers to the municipal Office of Social Affairs and from there to NGOs or the government Social Affairs center, Prey Speu. Conditions in Prey Speu are abysmal. Sex workers, beggars, drug users, street children, and homeless people held at Prey Speu have reported how staff members at the center have beaten, raped, and mistreated detainees, including children. Local human rights workers, citing eyewitness accounts, allege that at least three people, and possibly more, were beaten to death by guards at Prey Speu between 2006 and 2008.

This is sadly the problem with far too many efforts that purport to be anti-trafficking: they actually don’t work to prevent or address trafficking, but merely serve as a cover to abuse all sex workers and trafficking victims. The stigma, revulsion, and misogyny (combined with many other prejudices) directed at sex workers is enormous. And verbal taunts and harassment easily lead to physical and sexual violence. Dehumanization of sex workers through slut-shaming, classism, transphobia, etc., enforces a culture that turns the other way to such abuses, or actively affirms them. And while not the only perpetrators, law enforcement is always first in line.

That’s why it’s absolutely vital that anti-trafficking efforts actually involve groups made up of trafficking victims and sex workers, to ensure that the law will truly be used to assist those who are victims and not work to create new ones. And it’s also why, as the report addresses (starting on page 60), the U.S.’s inability to do its job as a member of the international community without imposing moralization and anti-sex mandates on other governments is so problematic:

The US is one of Cambodia’s largest bilateral donors, and a major donor supporting antitrafficking efforts in Cambodia. Under the Bush administration, the US government maintained that in order to combat trafficking, countries should take steps against prostitution. National Security Presidential Directive 22 stated that, “Our policy is based on an abolitionist approach to trafficking…. In this regard, the United Statesgovernment opposes prostitution and any related activities including pimping, pandering, and/or maintaining brothels as contributing to the phenomenon of trafficking in persons.”

Since 2003, US legislation dealing with HIV/AIDS and human trafficking has required recipients of international anti-AIDS funding to have a policy “opposing prostitution and sex trafficking” as a condition of receiving funding. The legislation bars the use of funds, to “promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution.” This provision was retained when the law was reauthorized in 2008 and remains in force. In May 2010, the US government issued implementing regulations that largely mirror those imposed by the Bush Administration.

This anti-prostitution stance combined with the impact of the annual US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons report seemed to show US support for the Cambodian government’s efforts to criminalize voluntary sex work.

…

While there is no language concerning criminalizing sex work as a means to combat trafficking in the MOU, US policy on sex work under the Bush administration was quite clear. In supporting these efforts in Cambodia, the US failed to consider the context of a police force long known for its problems with corruption and for committing abuses against sex workers with impunity, when it pushed for the 2008 law [that authorized brothel raids and street sweeps].

Nice job, U.S., nice job.

One critique I had about the Amnesty International report was a failure to take a look at experiences by trans* individuals. The HRW report specifically interviewed multiple trans women sex workers. While the information provided about trans experiences is hardly comprehensive, and while it’s highly unfortunate that HRW seems to take pains to separate out trans women sex workers from “female” sex workers and uses other problematic language, some level of inclusion is both positive and illuminating. In the press release, a woman identified as Neary recounts:

“Three police officers beat me up seriously at Wat Phnom commune police station after I was taken from the park. One of the police officers pointed his gun at my head and pulled the trigger, but the bullet did not fire. They kicked my neck, my waist, and hit my head and my body with a broom stick. It lasted about half an hour. I begged them not to beat me. The police officers were cruel and they did not tell me any reason why they did this to me. “

And in the full report (page 33), she also states:

Sometimes the police say, “A-khtoey [a disparaging word for a transgender person] you fuck up the ass. You have HIV/AIDS and you infect other people. You deserve to be shot.”

Unsurprisingly, wherever there is misogynistic violence, there will also be specifically transmisogynistic violence, and it will always be magnified.

At over 70 pages, the report contains a whole lot more than I’ve highlighted in this brief overview, including many more personal testimonies from sex workers who have experienced abuse by police. I strongly urge you to take some time to browse through it, or at the very least read the full press release, and pass it along.

Trigger Warning for descriptions of sexual violence, poor responses to rape allegations, and discussion of a possible murder, possible suicide.

Last month, Akhona Geveza (above), a young South African woman who was participating as a cadet in the Transnet National Ports Authority’s Maritime Studies Programme, was found dead, floating overboard.

Only a few hours before she died, a report was made to the shipmaster that Geveza had been raped by a senior official.

Her death, which has just today been released to the media, is now being investigated to determine whether it was a murder or a suicide.

Geveza’s stint aboard the Safmarine Kariba ended tragically on June 24. At 10am that day she told Shipmaster Klaudiusz Kolodziejczyk that she had repeatedly been raped by a senior officer aboard the British-registered ship. According to a report by Kolodziejczyk, he immediately confronted the officer and convened a conference with him and Geveza for 11am.

When she failed to arrive for the meeting, a search was conducted. Kolodziejczyk, alerted by some pills and a bottle of thinners found on the forecastle of the ship, sounded the alarm and called sea rescue from the port of Rijeka in Croatia.

Three hours later, Geveza’s body was found floating in the sea.

Her father, John Geveza, said the career of the bright young woman – his only child – had represented hope for her unemployed parents.

“I won’t rest until the person or people responsible for my daughter’s death are in jail,” he said.

…

On the night before she died, Geveza confided in a fellow cadet, Nokulunga Cele. Cele made a statement, a copy of which the Sunday Times has seen. In it she explains how Geveza had told her that the chief officer had forced himself on her several times.

Cele said the Ukrainian officer, whose name is known to the Sunday Times, apparently first tried to kiss her while he was teaching her to swim early in May. The officer later apologised to her and called her to his room where he allegedly raped her.

Cele said Geveza was not willing to report the matter to the shipmaster because she feared that nobody would believe her.

The article details how Geveza’s experience with sexual violence on board the ship was not at all unusual — many other Transnet program cadets, both male and female, report being raped by senior officers, being sent home because they refused to perform sex acts, and/or being forcibly impregnated.

I think there’s a really good chance here that we’re looking at a murder case. Frankly, at first glance, the thought that officials were considering any other possibilities seemed ludicrous and offensive. But after looking at the details, a suicide does indeed seem just as likely as the alternative. Not only because sexual assault itself usually results in horrific, profound trauma, but also because the situation here was handled absolutely abhorrently.

First of all, there’s the detail that is included in the above article excerpt: Shipmaster Klaudiusz Kolodziejczyk’s solution to the report of Geveza’s rape was to convene a meeting between her and her alleged rapist (whose name has not been released). To repeat, the alleged rapist was also her superior officer.

What on earth was anyone thinking?

There’s no word in any article I found on whether or not Kolodziejczyk’s actions followed standard protocol. If they did, this is a dangerous, inexcusable system. If there is no standard protocol, that’s even more dangerous and inexcusable. And if there is a different protocol that Kolodziejczyk failed to follow, he needs to be out of a job immediately.

Setting up a meeting between an alleged rapist and alleged rape victim as though the situation constitutes some kind of “personal problem” is rape apologist in the extreme. There are indeed some cases where a victim would like the opportunity to privately confront hir accuser — it certainly doesn’t seem to have been the case here, though, and that decision should never be made for the victim. It should never be a default option. A “meeting” between two officers, the superior officer having been accused of rape, is not the same as an investigation. It is the same thing as retraumatizing the victim, and expecting hir to “work it out” with hir alleged abuser.

Of additional concern is a fact often left out or only expressed vaguely in most articles I found. It turns out that Geveza never reported the alleged assault at all. The friend she confided in, Nokulunga Cele — who admits above that Geveza was unwilling to report — reported it for her.

Let me repeat that: Akhona Geveza never reported her rape. She never wanted to report it. She expressly said that she did not want to report it.

And yet, it was reported on her behalf, regardless. Against her wishes. Without her consent.

I can’t bring myself to unabashedly beat up somebody who was most likely only trying to help, and who is likely already beating up herself worse than I ever could. But look. This needs to serve as an example, because people need to stop doing it. You can think you’re helping a rape survivor all you want. You can really, truly believe that you’re doing the right thing. But if your version of helping is doing exactly what the rape survivor told you she didn’t want to do, seemingly without consulting her, that is the very last thing from helping. It is putting her physical and emotional safety at extraordinary risk. It most likely won’t end with her death, as it did here. But it will result in damage. Betrayals of trust and violations of personal agency, especially when it comes to matters so incredibly dire, always, always do.

Akhona Geveza is dead. Whether she was murdered because she dared tell anyone what was done to her, or whether she committed suicide because she was raped and then severely revictimized by those who didn’t take her wishes and autonomy into account, we will have to wait to find out. The investigation might be biased to protect those in power; and in any case, it might take a while. But no matter what the outcome of the investigation into Geveza’s death, there is little doubt that, one way or another, rape culture is what killed her.

The ultimate goal here for the future ought to be and has to be to end the Transnet culture of sexual violence. But as much as I wish it weren’t true, that’s going to take a while. So in the  meantime, and as a part of achieving that ultimate goal, non-rapists in the Transnet program need to start acting responsibly, too. Setting up a private meeting between an alleged rapist and their alleged victim — unless specially requested by the victim — is not how you deal with sexual assault claims. When someone tells you as a friend that they’ve been raped, your job isn’t to make decisions for them, it’s to listen and ask them how you can best be supportive. Not bullying, not prying, not taking away their autonomy. And setting Transnet aside for a minute, these are rules that people could frankly stand to learn just about anywhere. They’re lessons we all need to learn, lest we risk putting other people in life-threatening danger.

Trigger Warning for graphic descriptions of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and police violence.

In Illinois, a sheriff’s deputy for Lake County has been arrested on charges of attempted sexual assault while armed and false imprisonment while armed, in neighboring Kenosha County. Both crimes are felonies. Jack Johnson (left) allegedly harassed, sexually assaulted, and physically restrained an ex-girlfriend while she was at work. He is currently on administrative leave and in jail with $5,000 bail for his alleged crimes:

According to a criminal complaint, Johnson went into the cell phone store in Twin Lakes about 10:45 a.m. to talk to the clerk, a former girlfriend.

The woman said Johnson had called earlier about a broken cell phone, but when he came into the store he insisted they resume their relationship, despite his marriage and her engagement.

“What’s it matter? It’s just a piece of paper,” Johnson reportedly said.

The woman said Johnson repeatedly asked her to kiss him and promised to leave if she just “gave him what he wanted.”

After suggesting a coin toss to settle the matter — “heads he gets what he wants, tails he’ll leave me alone,” the woman told police — but finding he had no coin, Johnson allegedly suggested a game of rock, paper, scissors, then said he’d leave the woman alone if she hugged him, the complaint says.

Johnson then admitted to “stalking me for months,” the woman said, including stopping at the store for weeks to try to see her; she was not there.

When Johnson again promised to leave in exchange for a hug, the woman said she hugged him briefly. Johnson, who was wearing his deputy’s uniform, including a bulletproof vest and gun, then asked to use the restroom. As the woman tried to get back to work, Johnson said a pipe was broken in the bathroom.

When the woman went to investigate, she said “he grabbed both my wrists up by my chest, blocking the doorway.” He also exposed himself, the woman said.

After Johnson let the woman out of the bathroom, she said he grabbed her and tried to put his hand down her pants. He also said he wanted to handcuff her.

Surveillance video reportedly shows Johnson opening and closing handcuffs and grabbing the woman’s hair.

Yet again, we have a case of a police officer using his status as a cop to bully, harass, assault, and detain a woman whose body he feels entitled to. If anything is unusual about the story, it’s the fact that the victim felt safe going to the police with a complaint of sexual assault by another officer, and was seemingly taken seriously and actively encouraged by investigators throughout the process. It’s of course good and important that they did so, but the fact remains that by the time the victim was filing a report, anything the officers did at that point was harm reduction. Damage had already been done on the force’s behalf. Responding appropriately is vital, but it’s not enough on its own.

I feel like I have been writing an awful lot, lately, about police officers using their positions of authority as a means to commit abuse, and specifically with regards to sexual violence. I’m not actively seeking out these stories — they’re finding me, whether it be through links that people send to me, or what comes up when I look for the latest news stories about gender-based violence. I choose to keep writing about them not because they’re fun or because I really enjoy repeating myself, but both because I think it’s really important to emphasize the magnitude of the problem, and because a couple of really important things need to be made clear.

Firstly, the issue of police violence is not one that should be centered on individuals. The individual police officers who commit violence are always 100% responsible for their actions, and deserve to be held accountable just as much as anyone else. Indeed, I actually think they have more accountability, due to the power that was abused as a part of their crimes. Further, some abusive police officers undoubtedly would have abused regardless of whether or not they ever wore a badge. Johnson here, particularly, strikes me as someone who likely would have engaged in harassment and assault whether or not he was in uniform, and then proceeded to use his role as a police officer to his advantage.

But a good number of abusive police officers — again, who are entirely responsible for their violence against others, no matter what their reasons for committing it — probably didn’t join the police force because they actively desired to beat or kill black men, or sexually harass and threaten and assault trans women, or use violent force against people with disabilities. Systemic problems within the force, combined with social oppression and prejudice that is present virtually everywhere, taught them that these things were acceptable, or even necessary. The gift of state power combined with public reverence for it has taught them that they have a right to abuse the same marginalized people they are supposed to protect. And taking one cop who took those lessons to heart out of the force is important, but it won’t solve the problem — because there will always be another officer who has been trained within that same system to take his or her place. Bigger things, much bigger things, need to change.

Secondly, while there are many, many systemic problems that work to create abusers, it’s important to remember that a good number of abusive officers were already abusive when they became cops. Plenty abused prior to joining, or had plans to use their state power to abuse from the very beginning. Yet, while the law enforcement system did not create these abusers, this is still a systemic issue for law enforcement.

I’ve made it clear in the past as well as in this post that I don’t buy into the “rotten apple” theory of police violence. I think it’s false, deliberately misleading, and incredibly dangerous. But if we were to ignorantly accept it as fact — and insofar as it is true that many abusive cops would have turned out to be abusive people regardless of whether or not they ever joined the force, or joined the force specifically to have an opportunity to abuse — we really need to acknowledge why exactly it is that so many individuals who want to commit violence are gravitating towards a career in law enforcement. We need to recognize that this is not an accident, and that it’s about more than access to a gun, but also about access to extraordinary, unquestioned, and undeserved power. It’s also about expanded access to a litany of excuses and justifications for their violence. We have to take notice of the fact that when so many abusers want to work for your institution and use it as a cover-up for their violence, you are doing something wrong. You are doing something to attract them, and to tell them that with you, they will be safe and supported.

This isn’t about rotten apples. Jack Johnson is not an abnormality, and neither are his crimes. This is about our system of law enforcement, and the violence, unquestioned authority, and sense of entitlement that it breeds among officers as an implicit part of the package.

Thanks to s.e. smith for the head’s up.

Trigger Warning for discussion/descriptions of sexual violence.

Last week, Amnesty International released a report about how women in some areas of Nairobi, Kenya are afraid to leave their homes at night to use the bathroom, due to the persistent threat of sexual violence. The report, Insecurity and indignity: Women’s experiences in the slums of Nairobi, Kenya (pdf), is 64 pages long, and I haven’t been able to do more than skim it. This shortened version, Risking Rape to Reach a Toilet: The Experiences of Women in Nairobi, Kenya (pdf), is however only 12 pages, highly readable, and includes many direct quotes from Kenyan women themselves.

The shortage of toilets (including latrines) and places to wash in the slums exacerbates women’s insecurity and heightens the risk of gender-based violence.

Most slum residents use shared pit latrines, with as many as 50 to 150 people sharing one pit latrine. It can take 10 minutes to walk from the user’s home to the toilet, a dangerous journey for women, particularly at night. As a result, many are forced to resort to “flying toilets” – disposing of human waste by throwing it into the open in a plastic bag.

There are also some community toilets in slums for public use. However, these usually charge a fee. At about 5 Kenya shillings (US$ 0.064) per visit, the fees are unaffordable for many women, particularly those with children. These toilets are also closed at certain times, especially at night. Many close at 8pm.

Many women have to wash in their oneroom houses, despite the lack of privacy. For some, latrines are the only private place to wash while for others, there might be a small bathroom adjacent to the latrines.

These are shared by tens of households and are often unhygienic. The inaccessibility of toilets and bathrooms seriously compromises women’s right to privacy. Poor sanitary conditions also result in poor health and escalating health care bills for families. Less well-documented is the impact of the lack of toilets and bathrooms on women’s security.

Particularly after dark, the lack of toilets and bathrooms near their homes puts women at great risk of violence, including rape. Most don’t dare leave their homes because of the dangers lurking on the way.

Many women have suffered rape and other forms of violence as a result of attempting to walk to a toilet or latrine some distance from their home.

To avoid these dangers, women sometimes wash or use latrines in groups or ask male family members to accompany them at night. However, this does not alter the fact that facilities are inadequate and inaccessible. And many single women who are heads of households cannot call upon male family members. Using toilet facilities at night is simply not an option for most women interviewed by Amnesty International.

The report then goes on to discuss the necessity of creating sanitation services in these areas, and calls for an increase in police presence. Again, you really should go read the whole thing.

Regarding the framing of the issue, on the one hand I certainly commend Amnesty International’s willingness to get involved in an issue as unglamorous as adequate toilet facilities. It doesn’t have the immediate sense of urgency as governmental violence, the persecution of activists, or the execution of political prisoners. People are rather squeamish when it comes to talking about human waste. It doesn’t seem to be an issue that will attract much excited, dedicated attention at all, but it is one that is vital all the same. Sanitary facilities are necessary both as a matter of public health and as a stopgap method of addressing the violence that women regularly face if they attempt to use the toilet at night.

But addressing rape by preventing the specific circumstances in which it occurs is exactly just that — a band-aid, not a solution. It is absolutely important to talk about the violence that women face in these particular circumstances, and to not ignore it as a part of the conversation. But when talking about gender-based violence, it’s always important to address the roots, no matter what the specific context. Men are not raping women because women don’t have a safe and private place to use the bathroom — they’re raping women because they’re rapists, and this lack of security and privacy provides ample opportunity to attack a vulnerability.

As I similarity addressed previously with regards to Haiti, this isn’t an issue of what Kenyan men do when they lack proper toilet access — it’s an issue of what rapists do when they are presented with vulnerable women. Rapists always attack vulnerability, wherever they see it. Creating vulnerability where it need not be does indeed assist rapists, but humanely and properly removing obvious vulnerabilities doesn’t stop rape on its own. Some rapists will undoubtedly decide that it’s not worth the risk to rape, but others will just find a new vulnerability.

And as I addressed recently with regards to the Congo, this is not a case of “Kenyan culture” creating an ideal setting for rape. Irrefutably, Kenya does have a rape culture. But while certainly possessing its own intricacies as any rape culture does, the presence of a rape culture is not unique or specific either to Kenya as a place or the people who live there. Rape culture is virtually everywhere. In some places it just seems more severe, because overwhelming oppressive forces have allowed it to thrive.

So, rapists exploit vulnerability to commit their crimes. Indeed, here, rapists are also engaging in a form of terrorism. Women aren’t just faced with an ever-present threat of rape — terrorizing in its own right — they have been given so much reason to be afraid that they literally cannot leave their homes at night. And when women are terrorized to the point that they cannot even use the bathroom, they are necessarily subjected even further to risk of disease through being forced to engage in unsanitary practice.

But vulnerability here is created through a variety of means, including poverty, a lack of stability, a failure to provide adequate sanitation, entrenched misogyny, and so on. This is important to keep in mind, because proper sanitation — again, while absolutely necessary — is not going to stop sexual violence alone. As already stated, rapists will just find different opportunities for rape. Indeed, the report itself notes, while as far as I can tell failing to connect the two, that most violence women face in Kenya is within the home, usually from husbands, though also from fathers, brothers, etc. Regardless of whether safe, clean toilets are available, that violence is going to continue unless other further steps are taken.

I also really dislike Amnesty International’s insistence on placing the obligation to find solutions entirely at the feet of the Kenyan government. Certainly, a government has an obligation to its people, especially those who are most vulnerable, and the claims against the government in this case are really disturbing. But in countries that have this level of poverty and areas with such a lack of infrastructure, there’s usually a lot more going on than lazy bureaucrats. I know next to nothing about Kenyan history. I’m not going to pretend otherwise, and I strongly encourage anyone who does know what they’re talking about to get involved in the comments. But even a quick skim of Wikipedia tells me that Kenya is a country that was brutally colonized. One can only assume that a mere 50 years after colonization officially ended, the country is severely impacted by the ongoing effects of that colonization, and this poverty is a part of that legacy. I doubt that the Kenyan government is the only one with the responsibility here, because from what I know about colonization in general, I’m entirely sure that they’re not the ones who created the problem.

Of course, that said, I also don’t have a comprehensive solution myself, nor do I think it’s the job of those who colonized Kenya to engage in the “benign” colonization of storming in, taking over, and attempting to “solve” all of the problems there as though Kenyans do not know what is best for themselves. I do know that access to safe, clean toilets is a necessary part of the solution, but only a part. I also know that local women need support for the work that they’re already doing, however they would like it. And I know that the best solutions come from within communities, from people who best know how to address their own needs, and through carefully listening to those needs and asking how they can be best met. I say that a lot more of that and a lot less “bootstrapping” type language would be a good place to start.

As reports of untested rape kits across the U.S. just keep on rolling in, Illinois has passed a law mandating that every rape kit be tested.

Facing criticism that physical evidence from sexual assault cases in Illinois often went unanalyzed, Gov. Patrick J. Quinn this week signed a law requiring the police to test all rape kits. State officials and victims’ advocates said it is the first such law in the nation.

Over the past year, critics had exposed a backlog of thousands of untested rape kits in Illinois, and officials said the law would send an important message.

“As a direct result of this law, we will increase the number of arrests and prosecutions of sex offenders and get them out of our communities and into prison,” said Lisa Madigan, the state’s attorney general.

On Wednesday, Human Rights Watch released a report showing that since 1995, only about 20 percent of rape kits, which contain physical evidence obtained from victims, could be confirmed as having been tested in Illinois. More than 4,000 kits had gone untested, the report found.

…

Under the Illinois law, local authorities must submit evidence collected from a sexual assault criminal investigation to the state crime laboratory within 10 business days. The evidence must be tested within six months “if sufficient staffing and resources are available,” according to the law.

As the article goes on to note, that’s quite the mighty loophole. It’s going to require that advocates stay on top of the issue and force the government to make sure that resources are indeed available. The Chicago Tribune provides more details on the funding situation.

But with the admittedly optimistic hope that things might go according to plan, the passage of this law is an important moment. It takes some degree of responsibility for the rape kit backlog, and acknowledges it as a legitimate problem. It also sets a new minimum standard regarding response for other states dealing with the exact same issue. It’s sad that this is the first law of its kind, when it requires nothing more than basic responsibility to crime victims. But it’s positive that type of law that was well overdue for its first finally has one.

Of course, there are good reasons to ensure that rape kits don’t come to be seen as the be all and end all of sexual violence investigations. Rape kits are primarily useful in cases where the perpetrator is unknown, or a particular suspect denies any sexual contact with the accuser. In cases where a victim knows hir rapist and the accused claims that all sexual contact was consensual — a majority of cases — the rape kit doesn’t do a whole lot. Unless there are major physical injuries, which there usually aren’t, a rape kit can’t really tell anyone whether the contact was consensual or non-consensual.

But I say that anyone who subjects themselves to what is usually the indignity and invasion of a rape kit examination damn well deserves to have hir law enforcement agency take that effort and sacrifice seriously. Sexual assault victims don’t go for rape kit examinations because they think it will be fun — they usually go because they want justice, and want and expect to be taken seriously by investigators. They go because they rightly think that the violation of their bodies matter. And everyone else needs to start acting like those violations matter, too.

Further, while rape kits are frequently not integral to the rape case for which they were taken — again, where the accused admits sexual contact — with only about 20% of rape kits being tested, it seems that we sure as hell can’t trust police to pick and choose which kits are processed. Additionally, such kits can help to link known suspects to other crimes where a suspect’s DNA is unidentified. The failure to test rape kits is one way that a lot of serial rapists go undetected for years. And while the number of such cases may be low compared to the overall number of rape kits that are tested, I’d say that in a climate where rape accusers are so rarely taken seriously by police, overkill is both a nice change of pace and a potential show of good faith to do right by sexual assault survivors in the future.

If the law is implemented properly, I think Illinois will see an increase in identifying unknown perpetrators, and linking perpetrators whose identities are known to other sex crimes where there was no DNA match. And that is a good thing, an important thing, even though it’s not the only thing.

Rape myths will persist. Rape apologism will continue largely unchecked. Undoubtedly, police will still fail to follow up on cases even when all rape kits are tested. And even serial rapists will walk free. But if the law is actually enforced, victims won’t be traumatized by what they frequently refer to as “the second rape,” only to find out that they went through the process just to have their kit sit untested on a dusty shelf years later. That alone, in my view, may not be enough, but is well worth the passage of this law and every single dollar spent to put it into effect.

Trigger Warning for descriptions of sexual violence, specifically sexual violence against sex workers.

Continuing in an unfortunately long line of stories about police officers using their state power as a means to commit sexual violence against women, comes this one out of Oregon. An officer named Joshua Jensen (left) was alleged to have forced two women, both sex workers, to perform oral sex on him while he was on duty.

When Joshua Jensen twice arranged to meet a prostitute in a Beaverton parking lot for sex, neither woman knew he was a cop until he showed up in uniform and ordered them behind a garbage container, investigative reports show.

Both women said they were upset and felt they had to go with the officer.  

“When he first took me back behind the Dumpster … my hands were shaking,” one of the victims told The Oregonian Wednesday.

“I was scared – his whole demeanor was very intimidating,” she said. “I really didn’t know what to expect or what would happen.”

In the first incident, Jensen told the woman what she was doing as a prostitute was wrong. Then he asked for oral sex. She asked if she had to, and he said she didn’t. Afterward, he paid her $40.

But with the second woman, Jensen asked her why he shouldn’t arrest her. She replied that she wouldn’t do it anymore.

He said, “Well, if there’s something I want out of it,” then unzipped his pants, reports show.

The woman told investigators and The Oregonian that Jensen then “grabbed me by the back of the head and forced my head down, and I really didn’t have a choice.”

The good news is that Jensen has pleaded guilty. The bad news is that what he pleaded to doesn’t quite add up with the details presented above:

Jensen, 25, pleaded guilty Monday to two counts of prostitution, two counts of official misconduct and one count of coercion, and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. He was not charged with a sex crime and will not have to report as a sex offender when he is released.

Um, what? I’m sorry, how exactly is this not a sex crime?

Detectives who investigated the case were considering first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse, both Measure 11 crimes, police reports show. Those charges require evidence of “forcible compulsion,” said prosecutor Roger Hanlon. Based on the evidence, he said, “he didn’t commit those crimes.”

Forcible compulsion requires an expressed or implied physical threat, Hanlon said. Coercion occurred because of his implied threat to arrest the victim if she didn’t perform the sex act, he said.

“He didn’t force them, but he certainly coerced them,” Hanlon said. “He didn’t threaten to kill them or hurt them, but there was this element of coercion.”

Look, I’m ambivalent right now about categorizing sexual violence via forcible compulsion and sexual violence via coercion as two different levels of criminal offense, though I think the often blurry line between coercion and force creates a strong argument against. What I don’t see any argument whatsoever for, though, is not even classifying sexual violence via coercion as a sex crime.

Because coercion is not consent. And sex without consent is rape. So this, as described, and as Jensen apparently confessed to, is rape. It is rape. Further going back to that often blurry line between force and coercion — again, neither of which count as consent — I think there’s a strong argument to be made that a man ordering you to perform a sex act on him while he has a gun strapped to his hip and a badge saying that he can arrest you anytime he likes very much crosses it. And while I don’t exactly expect prosecutors to recognize as much, contrary to what Hanlon expresses up above, the threat of arrest is a threat of force and violence, especially when the threat is made against someone marginalized and particularly at risk for police violence, like a sex worker.

There are, it seems, at least two things going on here.¹

The first is the often special treatment that police officers who commit crimes receive at the hands of the judicial system. Sadly, with all of the victim-blaming and rape apologism in the legal system, it’d be absurd to suggest that “anyone else” who committed such a crime would receive harsher treatment. But it is probably safe to say that most people who committed such a crime,  saw their case progress to the point of charges being pressed, and then confessed, would in fact probably receive harsher treatment, and would have been charged with a sex crime and been given a longer sentence. This is in spite the fact that law enforcement officials who commit acts of violence while on the job should be held to much higher standards than the average civilian, what with their positions of enormous power and role in representing the government. And yet, the legal system cares a lot more about protecting its own than it does with ensuring that the state doesn’t represent fear and violence.

Just as important and influential in these cases is that unique brand of misogyny reserved specifically for female sex workers. While the victim-blaming doesn’t seem explicit in this case, from what’s being reported, a lot of victim-blaming tropes are poking their heads out. The two most notable among them are the myth that a victim who has had consensual sex with her attacker previously cannot be raped by him at a later date, and that a sex worker cannot be raped at all. While it doesn’t seem that either the prosecution or defense has directly made either of these arguments — and thank god for small favors — it’s difficult to believe that in spite of their exceedingly common nature, they’re not playing a role here.

It’s next to impossible to honestly look at a case in which all evidence suggests that two women who do sex work were raped by a man who had previous paid them for sex, and think that these misogynistic, victim-blaming, sex worker phobic myths had nothing to do with the decision to not charge the perpetrator with a sex crime. All women are at some risk of this level of atrocity, but some of us more than others — and it’s difficult to think that there is an equal likelihood of this happening to a woman who does different work. It’s hard to believe that for most other women, the standard for force would just as readily be placed so high.

One of the two known victims told the Oregonian that she is upset with how the case was handled, and says that she continues to fear for her safety. And why shouldn’t she, when prosecutors have devalued her safety so much that they won’t admit it was ever at risk to begin with?

via Woman Undefined, h/t SAFER

Trigger Warning for rape apologism.

A few months back, I wrote an article for the Guardian’s Comment is Free about a U.K. study, which showed a significant number of respondents thought that some rape victims were at least partially to blame for their attacks. The various reasons that respondents blamed women were the unsurprising — if she had been drinking, if she had worn something revealing, if she had engaged in some other kind of sexual contact with the rapist, etc. — but no less disturbing than they’ve always been.

Well, it seems like someone in the Scottish government decided to do something about it. Rape Crisis Scotland has launched the “Not Ever” campaign — the title referring to when, exactly, a rape victim is actually to blame for a rape.

The television ad, which has just been released, focuses on the rape myth that women who dress a certain way are “asking” to be raped. (And thank you, BBC, for putting the word “myth” in scare quotes, as well as “prejudice.” What ever would we have done without that oh-so-subtle dismissal?) The ad can be seen on the Not Ever website or below:

Transcript:

A scene of a party. A pale blond woman in her 20s stands talking to two men, one pale and one with darker skin. She wears a black top and sparkly blue skirt, and all parties hold drinks in their hands and appear to be having a good time.

Woman: (laughing playfully) You’re terrible! (laughs) You’re so bad! Shut up!

Cut to two presumably white men across the room.

Man One: (looks at woman, sucks in air between his teeth) Check out the skirt! She’s asking for it.
Man Two: (laughs)

Cut to scene of the same woman in a department store. She pulls two skirts off the rack, one the sparkly blue skirt she wears at the party, and takes turns holding up each one to her hips. A sales assistant, a pale middle-aged woman, walks up to her.

Sales Assistant: Can I help?
Woman: Yeah, thanks. I’m going out tonight and I want to get raped. (smiles) I need a skirt that will encourage a guy to have sex with me against my will. (holds up each skirt again)
Sales Assistant: (smiles eagerly and folds arms across chest) The blue one. Definitely the blue.
Woman: (nods and smiles)

Woman turns and directly faces camera, with a sarcastic look on her face.

Woman: As if.

Male Voiceover: Nobody asks to be raped. Ever.

Here is what I love about this ad: it treats rape apologist attitudes as a problem, regardless of whether or not they refer to a specific rape. There is no indication in the commercial that the woman has actually been raped. There is no indication that she will be raped. There is no indication that the man who makes the “she’s asking for it” comment is actually planning on raping her, or anyone else, for that matter. And still, in spite of all of this, his comments are dangerous, they have a real impact, and they are worthy of our attention. They’re worthy, in fact, of a PSA about how incredibly fucked up they are. All on their own.

And that, I think, is absolutely fabulous.

Here’s what else I love about this ad: while there’s no indication whatsoever that the man is a rapist, there’s no way to tell for sure that he’s not, either. As Thomas has pointed out many times at Yes Means Yes, while not all men who make rape apologist jokes are rapists, rapists do tend to make rape jokes and apologist comments. Leaving the man’s motives up to interpretation thus manages to do two important things: tell guys who aren’t rapists but think that rape is something fun to joke about that it’s not, as well as tells guys that if their friend is making these types of comments, you should probably point out that it’s not cool. As bystander behavior is incredibly important, I have to say that I love this potential dual effect.

A few points are also scored for the casting. While it’s my understanding that beauty standards on UK television are far less rigid than they are in the U.S., I still appreciate that the man making rape apologist jokes is an average looking guy — not “hot,” not purposely and “demonically” ugly — and that the woman, while pretty, looks like someone you might see walking down the street. Of course, we can also talk about how, yet again, the woman in the ad who is portrayed as most definitely not to blame is presumably white, middle-class, abled, straight, and cis, when women who are not these things are likely to face even worse blame. That’s a disappointment, though on the race front at least it’s worth noting that my research says Scotland is about 98% white — not meaning that erasure is therefore acceptable and harmless, as I’m sure many non-white Scots will tell you, but simply that we’re dealing with a different climate than the ones I usually write about (and therefore can’t effectively speak to).

Sadly, for a campaign which I unusually happen to have very few other complaints about, it all starts to break down on the website.

Most of the material on the site is great. In addition to the section about “dress” that goes with the ad, there are also short but smart sections about rape myths involving “drinking” and “intimacy” — and when I saw that the latter actually used the phrase “sexual autonomy,” I damn near swooned.

The problem is with the “Have Your Say” section of the site. The section can’t be avoided by browsers — excerpts appear right on the front page. As I write this, the five comments scrolling across the front page are as follows, three anti-rape, two rape apologist:

“Rape seems to be the only crime where it’s seen as ok to put the victim on trial.” Natasha, Female from Glasgow

“Every woman has the right to wear the clothes she likes, have fun with her friends and has the right to say no at any point, without the fear of rape.” Jo, Female

“Women need to understand men don’t think logically when they are aroused, and its the way they dress and act that arouses men.” James, Male

“It’s about time there was a campaign about something other than women having to curtail their actions to prevent rape.” Mooji, Female

“Obviously its ridiculous to think that anyone ever “wants or deserves” to be raped but to ignore that how someone behaves affects the possibility of their being raped is foolish and to start a campaign to deny it is irresponsible.” Mark, Male

The comments from James and Mark are the exact opposite of what this campaign is trying to get across — they fully represent the attitudes it wants combat. I could understand taking these comment and addressing them on a serious level as an educational tool. But placing them on the front page of the site uncritically just about undoes the job the campaign seemingly intends to do.

Users are also invited to share their views on the forum (trigger warning). I opted to not delve too far into it, but from what I did see, the many thoughtful users who are posting have not prevented it from nonetheless quickly turning into a space where rape apologist views can be freely aired, often unchallenged. This is especially sad, as I think the user oriented parts of the site have transformative potential — if moderators and educators were watching and engaging with topics, it could serve as a great 101 learning space. Some users are in fact asking questions, and those questions deserve to be answered. Unchecked, rape apologist, victim-blaming tirades, on the other hand, don’t serve to educate anyone of anything.

Website moderation matters. As I’m sure most people here would agree, if you’re going to allow comments, it’s part of the job of running a website. I know better than anyone that moderation can be difficult — it can be overwhelming, it can be triggering, and sometimes it can feel outright impossible. But here, I can’t even see the faintest illusion of trying.

I’d really, really love to see Not Ever get the website situation under control — either moderating out rape apologist comments and discussion topics, or directly challenging them and using them as learning tools when they do appear — because I otherwise think the campaign is pretty great. Great enough, in fact, that I’m really curious as to whether or not they’ll do future ads about rape myths surrounding drinking and intimacy, and look forward to seeing them if they do. I also noticed that they’re doing some polls on the site, with some of the results coming out disturbing — I’d love to see them use the information they gather as a resource for effectively extending the campaign.

What are your thoughts on “Not Ever”?

Thanks to Pamela for the heads up.

UPDATE: Video added, some text updated to reflect that it is embedded in the post. Rape Crisis Scotland has also responded to the critiques of the website in comments!