‘Forced Sexual Activity’
January 14, 2008Language and its use is very powerful. Take for example Cross-Country Checkup on CBC yesterday. They were talking about the Toronto District School Board Report released last week. Rex had Julian Falconer on who headed the commission that produced the report. I must say that I was very impressed with how Mr. Falconer grasped the issues. He was discussing the rate of sexual assault of young women in schools and the abysmal rates of reporting. His conclusion that for a young woman to report brought down the whole weight of the legal system, her parents etc was not working. After consulting with women experts in this matter he came to the conclusion that the issue should be handled like abortion. A young woman can make her decision about terminating her pregnancy without the involvement of parents. This way, he reasoned, young women are more likely to report the crimes committed against them school authorities and then the schools can take action against the perpetrators. To the parents who would complain that they would want to know if their daughters had been raped he basically let them know that under the current system they don’t know and at least if young women are reporting more then perpetrators are being dealt with and the parents may find out at some point. I was very impressed with Mr. Falconer’s clear and concise thinking around these issues. But I digress.
Back to the language issue. I hate it when people use euphemisms. Rex seemed to have a hard time with the word rape so he called it ‘forced sexual activity.’ What a way to diminish what is actually happening. Last time I checked ‘forced sexual activity’ is rape. Why can’t we call it what it is? Even sexual assault puts a softer touch on rape. We need to demand that violence, like rape, be labeled appropriately. If we do not then we risk a minimization of a huge crime committed mostly against women. You can bet that if it were the young men being raped it would not be called ‘forced sexual activity.’
Another one that is really pissing me off these days is the term ‘gender-based violence.’ I am not sure why we are calling violence against women ‘gender-based violence’ now. Again, it is throwing ambiguity at an all to real and serious issue. When that term is used people have to stop and think about what it could mean. Most people only see two genders (that is a whole other post) and so they have to stop and think about this applies to men. Well it doesn’t really. The bottom line is that in ‘gender-based violence,’ for the most part, men commit violence against women. Julian Falconer did not discuss violence perpetrated by females in schools. I am sure there is some. But for the most part it is young men who commit these crimes against their peers.
What are the solutions? I am not really sure. I do know that we have to call it like we see it. We need to expose violence against women and we need to call ‘forced sexual assault’ rape. As a society we need to address male privilege and how we keep passing it on to young men. Men need to take responsibility for their actions and women need to hold them accountable.
January 14, 2008 at 6:47 pm
One guess on Rex’s euphemism. I wonder if he thought he was using a broader term than “rape.” He might think of rape as meaning only vaginal or anal assault, when apparently at least some of the forced activity is oral. Is it called rape if oral sex is forced?
January 14, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I would call forced oral sex rape as well. There are other terms that can denote less forms of sexual assault - like unwanted sexual touching, groping, grabbing etc. I think any kind of penetration - whether it be vaginal, oral or anal is rape.
January 14, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Looks like the law agrees with you. I wasn’t sure. I’m certainly willing to characterize forced oral sex as rape.
I’m OK with the term “sexual assault” as well, though, because assault is violence or threat of violence, and it’s good to remind people that rape is assault, intended to cause harm, not sex the way consensual sex is.
January 15, 2008 at 5:02 am
Recently, the appeal launched by a young woman in Lincoln, Nebraska, intellectual backwater that it is, against a judge who refused to allow the word “rape’ TO BE USED IN A RAPE CASE, was overturned.
Yeah, really.
It is to weep.
Published Tuesday | September 25, 2007
Judge throws out alleged rape victim’s federal lawsuit
BY LESLIE REED
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU
LINCOLN — A federal judge threw out a lawsuit challenging a state judge’s order barring the use of “rape” and other words in the trial of a man accused of sexual assault.
U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf ruled Tuesday that Tory Bowen, the alleged victim, and her attorneys had not given him justification to “stick his nose” into a pending state criminal case.
“There is not the slightest reason to believe that Judge (Jeffre) Cheuvront is acting in bad faith or to harass Ms. Bowen,” Kopf said in a 17-page order dismissing the lawsuit.
“This case is not ‘extraordinary.’ Witnesses who also claim to be victims are subjected to all sorts of limitations on their testimony in all sorts of criminal cases in all sorts of courtrooms for all sorts of reasons. Ms. Bowen and her case are not special.”
Kopf’s order, however, was not unsympathetic to Bowen.
“For the life of me, I do not understand why a judge would tell an alleged rape victim that she cannot say she was ‘raped’ when she testifies in a trial about rape,” he wrote in a footnote.
“Juries are not stupid. They are very wise. In my opinion, no properly instructed jury is going to be improperly swayed because a woman uses the word ‘rape’ rather than some tortured equivalent for the word.”
Bowen’s attorneys are reviewing Kopf’s ruling to see if there is potential for appeal, said Wendy Murphy of Boston, one of the lawyers.
“What I appreciate is the fact that the judge, plainly and repeatedly, has said he is not persuaded that Judge Cheuvront was correct in his ruling on the language order,” Murphy said.
Cheuvront, a Lancaster County District Court judge, entered an order forbidding Bowen or anyone else in the courtroom from using the terms “rape,” “victim,” “assailant,” “sexual assault kit” and “sexual assault nurse examiner” during the trial of Pamir Safi, 34, who is accused of raping her in October 2004.
Safi’s lawyer did not respond to a message left at his office Tuesday.
The alleged sexual assault followed a night of drinking at a downtown Lincoln bar. Safi said the two had consensual sex. Bowen has said she has no memory of leaving the bar with Safi or of consenting to sex. She said she woke up the next morning to find him on top of her.
The case has twice ended in a mistrial, the first time in November, when jurors could not reach a verdict, and the second in July, when Cheuvront ruled that an impartial jury could not be seated because of courthouse demonstrations by Bowen’s supporters.
The case is expected to go to trial a third time later this year or early next year.
In her federal lawsuit, Bowen said Cheuvront had infringed upon her rights to free speech, due process and to peaceful assembly. Kopf, however, ruled that Bowen still has “adequate opportunity” in the state courts to try to overturn the judge’s language order.
He said Cheuvront already had given Bowen a hearing to allow her attorneys to argue against the order. He said a prosecutor may be able to persuade Cheuvront to change his mind. If Bowen refuses to comply with the order and is held in contempt, he said, she could appeal that finding.
May the goddesses have mercy on us.
January 18, 2008 at 12:43 am
I’m writing anonymously as there as people who read your blog who are aware of me in real life and I don’t really want anyone’s pity and feel that revelaing my identity might affect that. If you chose to delete this comment as a result of my anonymity, I do understand.
Many moons ago I was one of those young girls in high school who chose not to report the man who raped me. There were a number of reasons why. One - I wasn’t sure if what happened was “rape”. Was it consentual? No. Did I protest? Not really. “Rape” seemed like such a serious and scary word that I was scared to use it. Two - my father was involved in law enforcement in my small town and who I was was well known. I felt uncomfortable about reporting a crime that my father would have been privy to details only known to law enforcement. Three - I wasn’t “hurt” per se, so I felt like I just wanted it to go away. And lastly, I ended up electing to mete out my own type of justice….. and sent some friends and had his arm broken. Wrong? Yes. Satisfying? Hell ya.