in 21st century canada, judges are still blaming rape survivors for being raped

I saw headlines from this story when it first broke, but it took a while to muster the nerve to click. I post now without adequate comment; I'm too nauseated to write anything.

In Manitoba, sexual assault means having to say you're 'sorry'
By Christie Blatchford

Along with no jail time, judge sentences defendant to write his victim a letter with "a fulsome apology"

She was just 26, and is petite. She was intoxicated and vulnerable. She was raped, briefly penetrated anally, and subjected to oral sex. She was so afraid of her attacker that, by the side of a highway in the middle of the night, she fled, pant-less, and ran through dark woods, trying to flag down help.

And, most chilling, the young woman feared her assailant might kill her.

These are the facts, as they were established in court, in the sex assault case that last month saw Kenneth Rhodes of Thompson, Man., given a conditional sentence - no jail time - of two years less a day.

When a precis of the presiding judge's remarks hit the media a week after the Feb. 18 sentencing, it sparked a firestorm.

By month's end, the province filed a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council, and Judge Robert Dewar of the Court of Queen's Bench was temporarily prohibited from handling cases of a sexual nature.

But a transcript of the proceeding received on Thursday by The Globe and Mail reveals the matter as even more troubling than it may first have appeared.

Judge Dewar convicted Mr. Rhodes, who at 40 is much older and larger than the victim, of sexual assault.

As part of that process, he made certain findings of fact, among them that the woman had asked Mr. Rhodes if he was planning to kill her; that when she complained of pain during a digital assault, he told her that it "would only hurt for a little while," and that when she walked with Mr. Rhodes, to his eye allegedly willingly, she had picked up a stick (the inference is to protect herself) and gone with him only because she was afraid.

And, as senior Crown attorney David Gray reminded Judge Dewar that day, when convicting Mr. Rhodes, the judge himself had found "three independent indicia" that the woman had rebuffed his advances - once in the back seat of a car as they were driven by friends from a bar parking lot to a nearby lake, a "certain coldness" to her demeanour, and that she'd "gone off into the bush."

Yet Judge Dewar appeared to have difficulty getting his head around the fact that the victim didn't consent to have sex with Mr. Rhodes.

"And then the no," the judge said at one point, "she says no when?"

"When she says no by saying - that hurts," Mr. Gray replied.

"Okay," said the judge. "That's the time."

Judge Dewar quoted his own reasons at length when finally sentencing Mr. Rhodes.

"It must be acknowledged that the parties met in what can only be described as 'inviting' circumstances. At 2:30 on a summer morning, two young women, one of which was dressed in a tube top without a bra and jeans and both of whom were made up and wore high heels in a parking lot outside a bar, made their intentions publicly known that they wanted to party," he read aloud from his conviction decision.

Later, the judge said, when Mr. Rhodes saw his friend making out with the victim's friend, it "could further heighten the anticipation in the mind of the accused that further sexual activity could well occur." As he inimitably put it, to Mr. Rhodes, it seemed "...the door was then not closed to further sexual activity... he honestly believed that the increased sexual activity was still a possibility."

Then, in an astonishing apparent reference to the fact Mr. Rhodes had digitally penetrated the woman, the judge said, "Even his sexual activity, bizarre as it was and as hurtful as it was to the complainant, cannot be said to be only self-gratification. It had the characteristics of a clumsy Don Juan."

Especially jarring is how defence lawyer Derek Coggan and the judge appeared to fail to grasp what the Alberta Court of Appeal has called the violence inherent in any major sex assault, this despite the fact that Crown Sheila Seesahai argued this very point forcefully.

"It's not as though he was violent towards her except for the unwanted sexual act," Mr. Coggan said. "He did not raise a fist to her. He did not scream at her. He did not yell at her. He did nothing - her fear of him was not brought forth by his actions."

Perhaps the young woman's fear was also ... just in the air that night.

Why, Mr. Coggan said, Mr. Rhodes even thoughtfully "picked up her pants and her shoes and held onto them while he waited for her to come out of the bush."

The judge concluded, "Make no mistake Mr. Rhodes' failure to make inquiries warrants sanctions. Apart from anything else, women deserve respect and consideration. And when strangers are involved, greater care must be exercised in showing that consideration because there is no track record of familiarity on which to gauge the consent."

He ruled out a jail term, saying that prison "in my view, for non-thinking behaviour tends to stifle constructive change rather than encourage it." He noted that by being sentenced to house arrest (but for work), Mr. Rhodes would miss out on the freedom "to fish, to camp, to go out and visit."

The judge's sentence is well-known by now - a conditional sentence of two years less a day, with the usual mandatory bans and reporting conditions.

But what isn't is that Judge Dewar also ordered Mr. Rhodes to write his victim a letter with "a fulsome apology" for his conduct within 30 days of the appeal period expiring.

Yes, indeed. That's bound to smart.

More:

Rape victim 'inviting,' so no jail, Judge rules woman's clothes, conduct ease blame on attacker

Judge removed from cases "of a sexual nature"

Transcript of decision

Read More

u.s. war on women continues and escalates: planned parenthood under attack

The US war on American women has escalated lately (as opposed to the US war on Afghan and Iraqi women, men and children, which continues at the same torrid pace). Please read below for important information about the US government's attack on Planned Parenthood, and how you can help.

* * * *

Two weeks ago we saw the redundant law-enforcement expression "forcible rape" used to strengthen the Hyde Amendment, which already appears to be iron-clad.

When public outrage forced the woman-haters to retreat from that, they proposed a bill that would allow hospitals to let a woman die rather than perform a medically necessary abortion or even transfer the woman to a facility that would perform one.

Another Republican initiative would redefine the language of the criminal codes of the state of Georgia, with the express purpose of making it more difficult for rape victims to report the crime. From AMERICAblog, quoting the Democrats:

Georgia state Rep. Bobby Franklin . . . has introduced a bill to change the state's criminal codes so that in "criminal law and criminal procedure" (read: in court), victims of rape, stalking, and family violence could only be referred to as "accusers" until the defendant has been convicted.

Burglary victims are still victims. Assault victims are still victims. Fraud victims are still victims. But if you have the misfortune to suffer a rape, or if you are beaten by a domestic partner, or if you are stalked, Rep. Franklin doesn't think you've been victimized. He says you're an accuser until the courts have determined otherwise.

To diminish a victim's ordeal by branding him/her an accuser essentially questions whether the crime committed against the victim is a crime at all. Robbery, assault, and fraud are all real crimes with real victims, the Republican asserts with this bill.

This must reflect the belief that women falsely accusing men of rape is such a major issue that it requires action on a state-wide level. In reality, rape and sexual assault remain horribly under-reported, especially where the victim knows her assailant.

In Texas - a state with no money and virtually no public services - Governor Rick Perry wants to require sonograms for all abortions, and require the patient to listen to the fetal heartbeat. (This local article about the bill says it would require women to listen to "their baby's heartbeat".) Perry fast-tracked this bill by calling it "emergency legislation".

Ohio is considering a bill that would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which, because of new technology, can occur as early six weeks after conception.

There's a whole bunch more like this. I won't list them all. And we must always remember that laws mandating obstacles to abortion will always disproportionately affect low-income women, as women with the economic means can travel for services. They shouldn't have to, but they can. For working-class and poor women, no such option exists.

While those bits of legislative violence against women happen on a state level, a wider war on women is waged by the US Congress. Right now it focuses on Planned Parenthood, one of the very best - and most necessary - organizations in the US.

An attack on Planned Parenthood is an attack on all low-income women and their children, on teenagers seeking health information, on battered women who need confidential help, on people with no health insurance trying to raise healthy children. An attack on Planned Parenthood is an attack on affordable health care, pregnancy prevention and safer-sex education.

For almost a century, Planned Parenthood has been filling the gap left by the irresponsible, negligent US government. Now, armed with the results of an anti-choice sting operation that managed to catch one irresponsible staff member, Congress is gunning for Planned Parenthood.

Gail Collins of The New York Times sums up the situation in this excellent column.

As if we didn’t have enough wars, the House of Representatives has declared one against Planned Parenthood.

Maybe it's all part of a grand theme. Last month, they voted to repeal the health care law. This month, they're going after an organization that provides millions of women with both family-planning services and basic health medical care, like pap smears and screening for diabetes, breast cancer, cervical cancer and sexually transmitted diseases.

Our legislative slogan for 2011: Let Them Use Leeches.

“What is more fiscally responsible than denying any and all funding to Planned Parenthood of America?” demanded Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the chief sponsor of a bill to bar the government from directing any money to any organization that provides abortion services.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t use government money to provide abortions; Congress already prohibits that, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. (Another anti-abortion bill that’s coming up for hearing originally proposed changing the wording to “forcible rape,” presumably under the theory that there was a problem with volunteer rape victims. On that matter at least, cooler heads prevailed.)

Planned Parenthood does pay for its own abortion services, though, and that’s what makes them a target. Pence has 154 co-sponsors for his bill. He was helped this week by an anti-abortion group called Live Action, which conducted a sting operation at 12 Planned Parenthood clinics in six states, in an effort to connect the clinic staff to child prostitution.

“Planned Parenthood aids and abets the sexual abuse and prostitution of minors,” announced Lila Rose, the beautiful anti-abortion activist who led the project. The right wing is currently chock-full of stunning women who want to end their gender’s right to control their own bodies. Homely middle-aged men are just going to have to find another sex to push around.

Live Action hired an actor who posed as a pimp and told Planned Parenthood counselors that he might have contracted a sexually transmitted disease from “one of the girls I manage.” He followed up with questions about how to obtain contraceptives and abortions, while indicating that some of his “girls” were under age and illegally in the country.

One counselor, shockingly, gave the “pimp” advice on how to game the system and was summarily fired when the video came out. But the others seem to have answered his questions accurately and flatly. Planned Parenthood says that after the man left, all the counselors — including the one who was fired — reported the conversation to their supervisors, who called the authorities. (One Arizona police department, the organization said, refused to file a report.)

Still, there is no way to look good while providing useful information to a self-proclaimed child molester, even if the cops get called. That, presumably, is why Live Action chose the scenario.

“We have a zero tolerance of nonreporting anything that would endanger a minor,” said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood. “We do the same thing public hospitals do and public clinics do.”

But here’s the most notable thing about this whole debate: The people trying to put Planned Parenthood out of business do not seem concerned about what would happen to the 1.85 million low-income women who get family-planning help and medical care at the clinics each year. It just doesn’t come up. There’s not even a vague contingency plan.

“I haven’t seen that they want to propose an alternative,” said Richards.

There are tens of millions Americans who oppose abortion because of deeply held moral principles. But they’re attached to a political movement that sometimes seems to have come unmoored from any concern for life after birth.

There is no comparable organization to Planned Parenthood, providing the same kind of services on a national basis. If there were, most of the women eligible for Medicaid-financed family-planning assistance wouldn’t have to go without it. In Texas, which has one of the highest teenage birthrates in the country, only about 20 percent of low-income women get that kind of help. Yet Planned Parenthood is under attack, and the State Legislature has diverted some of its funding to crisis pregnancy centers, which provide no medical care and tend to be staffed by volunteers dedicated to dissuading women from having abortions.

In Washington, the new Republican majority that promised to do great things about jobs, jobs, jobs is preparing for hearings on a bill to make it economically impossible for insurance companies to offer policies that cover abortions. And in Texas, Gov. Rick Perry, faced with an epic budget crisis that’s left the state’s schools and health care services in crisis, has brought out emergency legislation — requiring mandatory sonograms for women considering abortion.

You can sign a letter of support for Planned Parenthood, donate to their foundation, or learn more about what they do.

Read More

q. when is rape not rape? a. never. rape is rape is rape.

Q. What could be worse than being raped and then becoming pregnant?

A. Being forced to carry the pregnancy to term against your will.

In case you haven't seen this yet...

US lawmakers are seeking to redefine rape in an attempt to strengthen already horrendous anti-abortion laws. Since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except when the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. (Please note: 1976 Hyde, not 2010 Stupak.) This new bipartisan proposal would take away that last bit of protection.

House Republicans wasted no time in declaring their legislative priorities for the 112th Congress. The first: repeal health care for millions of Americans. The second: redefine rape. A day after repealing health care, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act, a bill that would not only permanently prohibit some federally funded health-care programs from covering abortions, but would change the language exempting rape and incest from rape to "forcible rape."

By narrowing the Hyde Amendment language, Republicans would exclude the following situations from coverage: women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator, women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped, and minors impregnated by adults. . . .

172 Republicans — including sixteen women — and lone Democrat Rep. Daniel Lipinski (IL), chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus — readily support the new standard.

[UPDATE: The Washington Post issued a correction to point out that Lipinski is not the sole Democrat supporting the bill. As of today, Democratic Reps. Dan Boren (OK), Jerry Costello (IL), Mark Critz (PA), Joe Donnelly (IN), Mike McIntyre (NC), Collin Peterson (MN), Nick Rahall (WV), Mike Ross (AR), and Heath Shuler (NC) are also sponsors.]

"Forcible rape" is a redundancy used in FBI crime statistics to denote that a weapon such as a gun or knife was used by the rapist, or that the victim was beaten in addition to having been raped. It is by far not the only form of rape or sexual assault legally recognized as a criminal act. Rapists can be and are charged for rape where no weapon is present and where no additional violence - other than the rape itself - is present.

The rape of a minor by an adult is always legally rape, regardless of weapon. The use of drugs to facilitate a rape constitutes legal rape. And so on.

We should also acknowledge how this law would punish women not only for being raped, not only for becoming pregnant as a result of that rape, but for being poor. Like most anti-choice and anti-woman laws, this law would disproportionately affect low-income women. Which are disproportionately and rapdily becoming most women in the US.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic Congressperson from Florida, strongly denounced the bill and its sponsors on The Raw Story:

"It is absolutely outrageous," Wasserman Schultz said in an exclusive interview late Monday afternoon. "I consider the proposal of this bill a violent act against women. . . . to suggest that there is some kind of rape that would be okay to force a woman to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, and abandon the principle that has been long held, an exception that has been settled for 30 years, is to me a violent act against women in and of itself," Wasserman Schultz said.

. . . .

The pro-abortion-rights group NARAL lashed out at the measure's backers, calling it "unbelievably cruel and heartless toward survivors of rape and incest."

"We are seeing more and more anti-choice lawmakers who are willing to deny survivors of rape and incest access to abortion care," NARAL president Nancy Keenan told Raw Story. "If they can't block access altogether, they will work around the edges. Rep. Smith's 'Stupak on Steroids' bill is an example of this piecemeal strategy because it seeks to make the narrow exceptions for public funding of abortion care for rape and incest survivors even more restrictive."

Wasserman Schultz also said the bill contradicted the GOP's core political philosophy.

"Even though Republicans say they want government out of our lives, this is the most intrusive governmental act that we've probably seen to date in the personal lives of women," she said.

US readers, please contact your representatives to express your outrage at this bill. Go here: Stop the Attack on Women's Health and Safety: Oppose H.R. 3!.

If you want to help in a more direct way, you can donate to the National Network of Abortions Funds. N-NAF raises money so abortion clinics can serve women regardless of their ability to pay for procedures. A gift to N-NAF is a direct action you can take to help a low-income woman take control of her life.

Read More

naomi wolf: typical responses to rape and the global collusion in silencing dissent

Naomi Wolf, HuffPo:

How do I know that Interpol, Britain and Sweden's treatment of Julian Assange is a form of theater? Because I know what happens in rape accusations against men that don't involve the embarrassing of powerful governments.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is in solitary confinement in Wandsworth prison in advance of questioning on state charges of sexual molestation. Lots of people have opinions about the charges. But I increasingly believe that only those of us who have spent years working with rape and sexual assault survivors worldwide, and know the standard legal response to sex crime accusations, fully understand what a travesty this situation is against those who have to live through how sex crime charges are ordinarily handled -- and what a deep, even nauseating insult this situation is to survivors of rape and sexual assault worldwide.

Here is what I mean: men are pretty much never treated the way Assange is being treated in the face of sex crime charges.

. . . . [Continue reading for Wolf's recounting of sex crimes globally and in the Western world and what typically happens to men who rape.]

In other words: Never in twenty-three years of reporting on and supporting victims of sexual assault around the world have I ever heard of a case of a man sought by two nations, and held in solitary confinement without bail in advance of being questioned -- for any alleged rape, even the most brutal or easily proven. In terms of a case involving the kinds of ambiguities and complexities of the alleged victims' complaints -- sex that began consensually that allegedly became non-consensual when dispute arose around a condom -- please find me, anywhere in the world, another man in prison today without bail on charges of anything comparable.

Of course 'No means No', even after consent has been given, whether you are male or female; and of course condoms should always be used if agreed upon. As my fifteen-year-old would say: Duh.

But for all the tens of thousands of women who have been kidnapped and raped, raped at gunpoint, gang-raped, raped with sharp objects, beaten and raped, raped as children, raped by acquaintances -- who are still awaiting the least whisper of justice -- the highly unusual reaction of Sweden and Britain to this situation is a slap in the face. It seems to send the message to women in the UK and Sweden that if you ever want anyone to take sex crime against you seriously, you had better be sure the man you accuse of wrongdoing has also happened to embarrass the most powerful government on earth.

Keep Assange in prison without bail until he is questioned, by all means, if we are suddenly in a real feminist worldwide epiphany about the seriousness of the issue of sex crime: but Interpol, Britain and Sweden must, if they are not to be guilty of hateful manipulation of a serious women's issue for cynical political purposes, imprison as well -- at once -- the hundreds of thousands of men in Britain, Sweden and around the world world who are accused in far less ambiguous terms of far graver forms of assault.

Anyone who works in supporting women who have been raped knows from this grossly disproportionate response that Britain and Sweden, surely under pressure from the US, are cynically using the serious issue of rape as a fig leaf to cover the shameful issue of mafioso-like global collusion in silencing dissent. That is not the State embracing feminism. That is the State pimping feminism.

Thanks to James for sending.

Read More

women against rape: "a long tradition of the use of rape for political agendas"

Further to my recent post, "thoughts on rape charges against julian assange", please read this excellent letter by Katrin Axelsson, of Women Against Rape, published in The Guardian.

Many women in both Sweden and Britain will wonder at the unusual zeal with which Julian Assange is being pursued for rape allegations (Report, 8 December). Women in Sweden don't fare better than we do in Britain when it comes to rape. Though Sweden has the highest per capita number of reported rapes in Europe and these have quadrupled in the last 20 years, conviction rates have decreased. On 23 April 2010 Carina Hägg and Nalin Pekgul (respectively MP and chairwoman of Social Democratic Women in Sweden) wrote in the Göteborgs-Posten that "up to 90% of all reported rapes never get to court. In 2006 six people were convicted of rape though almost 4,000 people were reported". They endorsed Amnesty International's call for an independent inquiry to examine the rape cases that had been closed and the quality of the original investigations.

Assange, who it seems has no criminal convictions, was refused bail in England despite sureties of more than £120,000. Yet bail following rape allegations is routine. For two years we have been supporting a woman who suffered rape and domestic violence from a man previously convicted after attempting to murder an ex-partner and her children – he was granted bail while police investigated.

There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women's safety. In the south of the US, the lynching of black men was often justified on grounds that they had raped or even looked at a white woman. Women don't take kindly to our demand for safety being misused, while rape continues to be neglected at best or protected at worst.

Katrin Axelsson
Women Against Rape

Many thanks to reader Eric for posting this in comments.

Read More

thoughts on rape charges against julian assange

It need not be said - but I will say it anyway - that I stand in solidarity with victims of rape and sexual assault, everywhere, always.

But somehow, it must also be said that not all accusations of rape are valid and true.

Historically, women who reported rape were easily dismissed, or rape went largely unreported, because the victim and assailant knew each other, or had had consensual sex on other occasions, or the victim was sexually active, or any number of dangerous myths used to control women's behaviour. This has changed - although not entirely - in North America, because of the influence of feminist activism, but is still the case in many parts of the world.

Also historically, rape has been used as a weapon against powerless men. In the US South, African-American men were routinely accused of rape before they were lynched and murdered. These accused men had not adequately displayed their submissive status, whether intentionally, as an act of resistance, or in the imagination of their cowardly white oppressors. Black men would be accused of rape, hauled off into the woods, tortured, often castrated, then murdered. Their transgression may have been as simple as looking a white person in the eye.

When a man who has exposed the crimes of the rich and powerful on an unprecedented global scale is accused of an unrelated crime, hunted internationally and held without bail, we must give serious pause to the validity of the accusation.

Some people react to any accusation of sexual abuse and assault as if women routinely lie about rape to get attention or to get revenge. That's beyond preposterous. It's disgusting and it's dangerous and it's wrong. We must speak out about it at every opportunity.

But other people react to those same incidents as if every single accusation must necessarily be valid. As if, in the history of the world, no one has ever accused a man of rape in order to silence him, or no woman has ever lied about being raped. That's not possible.

It's also inadvertently unfair to women. Women are people. Like all people, women can lie, cheat, steal, murder, support fascism, and any other despicable act you can name. Women are capable of the entire spectrum of human action and emotion, because women are people. One female stereotype is the lying bitch who agrees to sex then blackmails the man with rape charges. The flipside stereotype is the angelic creature on a pedestal who can do no wrong. Neither cartoon helps us achieve true equality.

Women are raped. Men are raped, too. Rape is real, and we must speak out about it.

But defending Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is not defending rape. This morning Naomi Klein posted this on Facebook: "Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that women's freedom was used to invade Afghanistan."

Read More

new tsa airport screening assault regulations, or, security theatre goes x-rated

By now I hope everyone has heard about the new regulations on airport screening from the US's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Full-body scanning equipment ("naked scanners") have been installed in 68 US airports, with more on the way. If you object to increasing your daily dose of radiation, you can opt for a full-body "pat down" by guards, i.e., being sexually assaulted by strangers.

As the ACLU puts it, "Giving people a choice between being virtually strip-searched in an x-ray machine or enduring an aggressive groping is really no choice at all." But don't worry, the person sticking their hands down your pants will be a trained professional. Or not.

You've seen the video of the man refusing the scan at the San Diego airport and the children's book cover parody that made the rounds. (Amazingly, more than one Canadian blogger was fooled!) But the implications for freedom to travel, civil liberties, privacy, and the encroaching police state are deadly serious and very frightening.

Dr. Dawg noted a different kind of climate change because Ezra Levant appears to agree with us. That caused me to click, and here I am quoting that blowhard! Strange bedfellows indeed.

Surprise! Canadian travellers to the United States are now subject to having high school dropouts touch their breasts, penises and vaginas as part of “airline security.”

Sorry, do the words penis and vagina make you uncomfortable?

They certainly make the U.S. Transportation Security Administration uncomfortable.

The TSA can’t even bring themselves to use those words when describing their new “enhanced pat-down” procedure.

You will find them nowhere on their website, including their section on advice for travellers.

They have pages about how to pack your toothpaste.

But they don’t tell you that you will stand in line while a stranger touches you in places that, if done by anyone else, would lead to sexual assault charges.

Oh, by the way: Their touching of penises and vaginas isn’t limited to adults.

They grope children, too. In the past two weeks, the Internet has been flooded by videos taken by passengers on their cellphone cameras, filming their own screaming children being fondled by uniformed officials.

So what’s the new rule for parents to teach our children?

Don’t let strangers touch your privates—unless they say they’re allowed to?

Unless they are in a position of authority? Unless Barack Obama says it’s OK?

Levant goes on to show his true colours when he asks, "Where is the American Civil Liberties Union?" He claims that august organization is "too busy defending the rights of terrorists," and throws in a little Islamophobia into the bargain. Obviously, Levant is either a liar or a fool who didn't do his homework (my money's on liar), since the ACLU has been campaigning against these regulations from the moment they were announced. That's how I first heard about this: through the ACLU mailing list.

Despite Levant's gratuitous bigotry, it's good to see people from all points of the political spectrum decrying this very serious invasion of privacy and unwarranted expansion of government power.

Radiation and naked body images or physical assault, which will it be? I don't love the idea of full-body scans, but I could not endure a pat-down by a stranger. If I literally had to to submit, to save my life, I guess I could force myself to live through it, by reminding myself that I've lived through worse. But I think I would throw up, or pass out - or probably disassociate, which seems to be what my mind does - and I'd very likely have nightmares and flashbacks about it.

And there are millions of people - men and women - who would feel the same way. My friend James sent me this, from Skepchick.

The full-body scanners also involve unspecified amounts of radiation, which several scientific and medical groups, not just the tin-foil hat types, have expressed concerns about. So, opting out of the full body scan seems like it might be a good idea. I’ve had a LOT of x-rays, CAT scans, and MRIs. I’m not Evil Knievel, but I have managed to break a lot of bones, particularly in my head. (Hey! Let’s not extrapolate!)

Anyway, on the advice of my doctor, I’m supposed to limit my exposure to radiation and microwave sources. Ok, simple enough. I opt out of the scan.

Except. When you give the technology a pass, you are now subject to a fairly intimate groin grope and feeling up. A lot of folks have said that if you don’t want to have the scan and fly safely, or accept that some strangers will have to touch you, then you should just not fly. The reality is, though, that for many of us we must fly semi-regularly as part of our jobs. It’s not entirely my choice to fly; I can’t take a week of work off to drive to California and back for a business trip. So, bring on the grope.

Except. I am a rape survivor. And I know that if I am forced to have the kind of circle jerk that I’ve seen on video–where a bunch of TSA screeners surround me and one of them touches me in very private places–there is a real chance I’m going to freak out. Traveling is always very stressful, in part because I have visual processing issues and epilepsy (see above; i.e, fractured head). Add onto that reliving a painful part of my past–someone touching me and I have no ability to say "I don't consent"–I am not a happy traveler.

Don't listen to Ezra Levant. The ACLU is leading the charge against this and you can join them. DHS has been forced to retreat before and we can make them do it again. Sign a petition to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, and share it with everyone you know.

* * * *

Update. Apparently I wrote this whole post without ever mentioning the stupidest thing about this. Luckily redsock put it in comments: None of this will make us any safer. Alternate post title: "security theatre turns x-rated".

Read More

when we train people to kill, why are we so surprised when they kill?

Russell Williams in context:

First: Colonel Williams and violence in the military by Dr. J of your heart's on the left.

Follow the trail of violence from basic training, to whatever foreign war you can think of, and back home again. When we train people to dehumanize and kill other people, why are we so shocked when they do just that?

Then: The horrific Williams murders were about power not personal fetishes by Elizabeth Pickett, writing at Rabble.

These were not only murders: they were rape-murders. Watching media reaction, you'd think Williams' victims were the only women raped and murdered in Canada, ever.

Please read both these excellent pieces: here and here.

If we don't look at this in context of both war and everyday violence against women, it's just another celebrity story.

+ + + +

Others who get it: La Zerbisias and Rose DiManno, who I would have never seen, so double thanks to Antonia.

Read More

stop the deployment of traumatized troops: support ivaw's operation recovery

Iraq Veterans Against the War has launched its first-ever strategic campaign: Operation Recovery. From IVAW:

The Issue

Thousands of troops are being sent to war despite suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and Military Sexual Trauma (MST). Many of us within IVAW have faced or are currently facing deployment as we try to recover from the severe trauma we have already experienced.

While we recognize that we must stop the deployment of all soldiers in order to end the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, we see the deployment of soldiers with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Traumatic Brain Injuries, and Military Sexual Trauma as particularly cruel, inhumane, and dangerous. Military commanders across all branches are pushing service members far past human limits for the sake of 'combat readiness.' We cannot allow those commanders to continue to ignore the welfare of their troops who are, after all, human beings.

There is a problem, a basic right is being denied, and we will organize to get it back.

This issue affects all of us. Everyone needs to recognize that the improper standards of care in the military and VA are harming our brothers and sisters, our nation, and only furthers the cycle of dehumanization and destruction of these wars.

Service Members have the Right to Heal

Because the military is desperate for warm bodies in the field, and the VA doesn't have the resources to serve all those in need, too often service members are conveniently denied care or access to quality mental health screenings. We say, service members with PTSD, TBI, MST, and combat stress have the right to high quality health care. They have the right to seek care and pursue treatments in the best interest of their health and well-being.

Please go to IVAW's Operation Recovery website to learn more.

How does the US military deal with the trauma they create? Ask Ethan McCord. Here's an excerpt from an excellent piece called "Invisible Wounds: Mental Health and the Military," by Mark Thompson, writing in Time magazine.

US Army specialist Ethan McCord was one of the first on the scene when a group of suspected insurgents was blown up on a Baghdad street in 2007, hit by 30-mm bursts from an Apache Helicopter. "The top of one guy's head was completely off," he recalls. "Another guy was ripped open from groin to neck. A third had lost a leg... Their insides were out and exposed. I'd never seen anything like this before." Then McCord heard a child crying from a black minivan caught in the barrage. Inside, he found a frightened and wounded girl, perhaps 4. Next to her was a boy of 7 or so, soaked in blood. Their father, McCord says, "was slumped over on his side, like he was trying to protect the children, but he was just destroyed. McCord couldn't look away from the kids. "I started seeing images of my own two children back home in Kansas." . . . .

That night, he told his staff sergeant he needed help. "Get the sand out of your vagina," McCord says his sergeant responded. "He told me I was being a homo and needed to suck it up."

If you're reading this in New York City, IVAW is looking for volunteers to be trained for the GI Rights Hotline. The Hotline is often the only place service members can go for correct, unbiased information on their rights within the military.

There will be a training session on October 23 and 24, both days from 10 am to 4 pm. The training will include information on military law, service members' rights, and conscientious objection. Bill Galvin, an expert soldier-advocacy counselor from the Center on Conscience and War, will speak about military law, discharges, conscientious objection, and discrimination.

Volunteering for the GI Rights Hotline is a unique opportunity to dig in and really support the troops - and support peace. For more information or to attend, use the contact information below.

WHAT: GI Rights Hotline Volunteer Training

WHEN: October 23 and 24, 10:00 a.m. to 4 p.m.

WHERE: IVAW National Office, 630 9th Avenue, Suite 807, New York

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO RSVP: 646.723.0989

IVAW is asking for a $10 donation to help cover their costs. A light breakfast and lunch will be provided.

* * * *

Many thanks to NN for sending me the info on the training session.

Please support Operation Recovery in any way you can.

Read More

open letter to g20 survivor: there is such a thing as being a victim

After watching this, please read my thoughts, below.

What happened to Lacy MacAuley was horrific and inexcusable - and criminal. But she says some things are potentially very painful to other survivors. I imagine MacAuley's intentions are good, but nonetheless, it pains me to see these dangerous statements stand unchallenged.

Lacy MacAuley was a victim. She had no control over the situation and things were done and said to her without her consent. That's what it means to be victimized.

Now she is speaks out as a strong survivor. That is excellent. It will undoubtedly help her healing. But her inner strength doesn't mean she wasn't victimized. It doesn't mean another G20 protester who was similarly victimized and is now depressed or otherwise traumatized is weak or somehow "let" someone into their head.

The idea that no one can hurt you without your consent is both false and dangerous. It is a form of victim-blaming.

If no one can hurt you without your consent, then rape doesn't exist. Torture doesn't exist. Bullying doesn't exist. Abuse doesn't exist. But all these things do exist. Both women and men are tortured, raped, abused, bullied to the point of psychological torture. Not because they are weak. Not because someone "got into their head", but because we do not always have control over what happens to us.

We might not want to believe that, because it makes us feel unsafe. We want to believe if we walk with confidence or carry pepper spray - or, in MacAuley's case, have love in our hearts - that we will not be victims. That's fine if it gives us an illusion of safety so we can get on with our lives. But it's not fine if we negate other people's experience.

I understand that MacAuley is not saying that rape or torture does not exist. She knows what happened to her was abuse and assault. I get that. But, however unintentionally, she is assigning blame to anyone who doesn't share her strong and buoyant attitude. Not only don't we have control over being victimized, we don't get to choose how we feel and react afterwards, either.

MacAuley says she was lucky to escape sexual assault. She was. Other women in the G20 arrests were not as lucky. If any of them are now traumatized from that experience - or if MacAuley develops trauma symptoms later, which is not uncommon - it's not because they let anyone into their head. It's only because they are human.

Read More

young female g20 detainees sexual assaulted by police in jail

Women who were part of the round-up of peaceful G20 protesters were threatened with rape. Other young women were strip-searched by male officers and, in at least one instance that we know of so far, manually penetrated.

Listen as journalist Amy Miller recounts what she experienced and observed.

Please. Stay outraged.

Read More