Ahhh. Good old Canadian justice...a judge confirms this cop's statement..."
don't dress like a slut if you want to avoid sexual assault".
WINNIPEG—A rape victim is slamming the controversial decision of a Manitoba judge who gave her attacker a lenient sentence on the basis she may have sent mixed signals about her sexual intentions.
...
Kenneth Rhodes was given a two-year conditional penalty last week which allows him to remain free in the community. The Crown wanted at least three years behind bars, citing numerous case precedents which suggest that is the starting point for a major sexual assault.
What were the 'mixed signals' you might ask?
Queen’s Bench Justice Robert Dewar disagreed, saying the victim gave out signs that “sex was in the air” through her suggestive attire and flirtatious conduct on the night of the attack. He called Rhodes a “clumsy Don Juan” who may have misunderstood what the woman wanted when he forced intercourse along a darkened highway outside Thompson, Man., in 2006.
“That’s bulls—,” the victim said Thursday. “I did say no to him. I kept saying no. He knew that I didn’t want (sex).”
But wait, the judge had more to say!
Rhodes and a friend met the woman and her girlfriend earlier that night outside a bar under what the judge called “inviting circumstances.”
Judge Dewar specifically noted the women were wearing tube tops with no bra, high heels and plenty of makeup.
“They made their intentions publicly known that they wanted to party,” said Judge Dewar. He said the women spoke of going swimming in a nearby lake that night “notwithstanding the fact neither of them had a bathing suit.”
Yes, all of this clearly means "fuck us, whether we consent or not!"
Or more accurately, the judge is saying that their 'attire and conduct' communicated consent.
Fucking scary.
The woman who was raped has this to say:
“I wasn’t dressed like a skank. I was like 20 years old, wearing a tube top. It was summer,” said the victim who cannot be identified as she is the victim of a sexual assault.
“This is a different case than one where there is no perceived invitation,” said Judge Dewar. “This is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behaviour.” Judge Dewar said he didn’t want to be seen as blaming the victim but that all of the factors surrounding the case must be viewed to assess “moral blameworthiness.”
So a rape is just 'inconsiderate behaviour' if you're dressed in a tube top. And he's not blaming the victim, just assessing her moral blameworthiness.
“I’m sure whatever signals were sent that sex was in the air were unintentional,” he said. The Crown has 30 days to file an appeal of Judge Dewar’s decision. No decision had been made as of Thursday.
So the judge admits that there is no evidence that any 'signals' or communicated consent were made intentionally...yet somehow women, by virture of their 'attire and conduct' gave out
unintentional signals!?
But hey, this 'inconsiderate behaviour' is no big deal...after all, the perpetrator's lawyer says:
...Rhodes never threatened the woman, didn’t have a weapon and was simply “insensitive to the fact (she) was not a willing participant.”
Well golly...he was just 'insensitive' to the fact that she didn't want to fuck him! That's not a crime, right?
Judge Dewar agreed the case was not “typical” of ones the courts often see and shouldn’t be viewed as a precedent.
How nice of him to qualify himself, while the 'inconsiderate, insensitive not-rapist' walks around free on his conditional sentence.
But hey. This just confirms what so many of you guys already seem to know, hey? Women are just asking for it, even if they say no...and if you get this judge, he'll agree with you.
Rape away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some thoughts on the ruling, and the judge who made it.To borrow from the league-leading Alberta Court of Appeal, whose best minds are merely light-years ahead of the rest of the country in their treatment of sexual assault (not to mention in their use of plain and muscular English), the “starting point” for a discussion of Manitoba Judge Robert Dewar may just be that he is a blockhead.
...........
Among the common-sense conclusions from that three-member panel, all men, was this: “It is surely not provocation, for example, simply to be a woman, or to be attractive, or to be prettily attired.”
......................
In 2007, [Parliament] removed from judges any power to grant conditional sentences for any sexual assault or other serious personal injury offence.
In other words, the sentence Judge Dewar handed Kenneth Rhodes, in that smarmy language, is now forbidden.
Mr. Rhodes had the good luck to rape – er, behave inconsiderately toward – his victim by a dark highway outside Thompson in 2006, the year before the law took effect.
Rulings like this cause Parliament to pass a law prohibiting judges giving conditional sentences for this sort of crime. Unfortunately the victim was raped before this prohibition came into effect. I certainly hope that upon appeal, the principles inherent in the prohibition are upheld despite the legal loophole in question.