Canadian sexual assault victims have little confidence in the justice system

In today’s Province there was a report on the results of a survey of victims of sexual assault. The demographically–diverse survey interviewed 207 people. The results are very consistent with what activists have been saying for years.

Among the results:

• Two thirds of both male and female victims of sexual assault had no confidence in the justice system, ranging from actually filing a complaint on forward.
• A majority of people did not report either sexual assault or sexual abuse to authorities. Reasons given include fear of victim–blaming and a fear of not being taken seriously.

The results were released late last month. I searched for it on the Department of Justice’s website, but couldn’t find it.

Anyway, the implications of this survey are clear. We need to restore confidence in the justice system.

We could get billions in revenue

A new study has determined that more than 366,000 British Columbians use marijuana, with the market value of their purchases being about half a billion dollars a year, According to the study, taxing it (the same as with alcohol or cigarettes) would bring in billions in new revenue (links removed):

The researchers also point to data from Washington, which recently held a successful referendum to legalize pot, that suggests the same number of pot smokers in that state could bring in $2.5 billion in taxes over five years in a regulated system.

This is one of the reasons why marijuana should be legalized. It would free up money spent prosecuting and incarcerating non–violent criminals who harm no one other than themselves. It is especially important, as the legalization in Washington state could cause a grey market of British Columbians going there to get their marijuana. Completely legalizing it here would prevent such an event. As it stands, a potential boost to ours (and more diffusely, the Canadian economy) is being lost and undercut.

And this study shows yet again why socons should never be allowed to control the public purse. Given the chance, they’ll always deny revenue and blow the budget on puritanism, going after people for doing something they probably do themselves.

Study: crime bill to make reintegration harder

A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal reports that the Reformatory crime bill (C–10) will lead to difficulties in integration of released prisoners. From a newspaper report on the study (since I can’t find an abstract):

Canada’s omnibus crime bill will lead to more physical and mental “degradation” among prisoners and risks their reintegration back into society, warns an article in Canada’s leading medical journal.

[...]

Without more resources, more prisoners will overwhelm already overburdened prison mental health services, he said, “and that continues to be an issue after someone is released from jail.

But remember, the Reformatories and Harpercons are Tough on Crime™. Wait, actually, they aren’t. What they really are is tough on criminals, which is not the same thing as being tough on crime. By making reintegration harder it makes them more likely to become career criminals

And many people in jail are for non–violent victimless/consensual crimes, like drug use and possession. If we ended the War on (some classes of people who use some) Drugs, if we quit wasting money punishing people who harm no one but themselves, and if we treated drug addiction like the medical problem it is, we’d do far more to save money and prevent crimes. That way we can get around to punishing real criminals who really do harm others and are a threat to society.

You go girl!

I can’t say I endorse her methods, but still this is full of win.

International human rights groups ought to defend this woman, as she is likely to face heavy jail time for standing up for her rights.

Update 2012–09–22: According to information I found at Muslimah Media Watch, attacks against such clerics are not rare, and that the particular cleric that was beaten did not file charges, although the local judiciary might still do so.

Book Review: Titanic Survivor

Jessop circa 1916, in her Voluntary Aid Detachment uniform. A larger, uncropped version of this photograph appears in the book. The writing that is cut off at the bottom says “Your loving sister, Violet”.

Titanic Survivor: The Newly Discovered Memoirs of Violet Jessop Who Survived Both the Titanic and Britannic Disasters (Sheridan House 1997) is the memoir of ocean liner stewardess Violet Jessop (pictured), for whom ending up where the action was was a major constant in the first part of her life. The book is edited and annotated by maritime historian John Maxtone-Graham. The book covers the first part of Jessop’s life, from her childhood in Argentina until the 1930s. It includes brief eyewitness accounts of the sinkings of the RMS Titanic and HMHS Britannic. However, despite being aboard when the incident took place, Jessop makes no mention of the RMS Olympic‘s collision withe the HMS Hawke.* The book also includes several rare photographs and appendixes, one of which lists the ships Jessop served on, dates included.

Frankly, if you are a Titanic buff or are looking for detailed book about that ship, then this is probably not the book for you. Jessop does not go into much detail in her accounts, which only occupy three short chapters in the book. Furthermore, she refers to most of her shipmates using pseudonyms. Hence, the only new thing you’re likely to learn is that the ship’s cat was named Jenny.

Likewise, Jessop’s account of her very dramatic escape from the Britannic is also brief.

However, if you are looking for an account of what it is like to be an ocean liner stewardess, then this is the book for you. She talks of the complaints (passengers who want too many flowers to be arranged, one woman who wanted new furniture in her stateroom, the low wages, being away from home a lot). She provides unusual anecdotes and mariners’ yarns.

The annotations by Maxtone-Graham are very helpful, providing the context and background necessary to understand Jessop’s memoirs. For the most part they are not at all intrusive.

Certain episodes related in the book might be triggering for some people: Three times, during the first half Jessop implies that someone raped (without ever using that term) her or attempted to do so (specifically during her childhood in Argentina, while a governess, and while on a ship for the Royal Mail Line). Be aware of this if you read the book.

Additionally, Jessop mentions that she had difficulty first becoming a stewardess because she was “too pretty”. This and the above are examples of why feminism was necessary a century ago. And since they still happen, they are one of the reasons why feminism is still necessary.

So long as the qualifications above are taken into account, I recommend this book.

*The eighteenth chapter of Jessop’s manuscript is missing. Since the memoir is roughly chronological, an account of the collision could have been there, as that is where it would be chronologically.

Picture via the Wikimedia Commons.

"Legitimate Rape"

Reblogged from unrepentant old hippie:

If the Republican Party can survive this kind of vicious idiocy:

Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri who is running against Sen. Claire McCaskill, justified his opposition to abortion rights even in case of rape with a claim that victims of “legitimate rape” have unnamed biological defenses that prevent pregnancy.

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview 

Read more… 125 more words

Update: See also (in the original post) that Akin says he misspoke.

Note: Only what was written by me is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. Everything else remains with the original author.

A lack of relevant difference

In the Joyce Quiverfull book, there is a section concerning some Christian fundamentalists (The Pearls) who, besides advocating that people should use a ridiculous amount of corporal punishment on their kids to “train” them and that women should be submissive doormats, also believe in an excessive form of female modesty, as illustrated by the following passage on pp. 79–80 (my emphasis):

“[They] require wives to dress and behave modestly among men to whom they do not belong, lest the sight of their bodies tempt men into ‘sight’ or ‘thought’ adultery… The lack of men’s responsibility or culpability for their own actions and the acceptance of male ‘urges’ as irresistible forces of nature is the understructure of Christian modesty movements and their secular counterparts: seeing women’s bodies as almost supernaturally perverse and corrupting….”

I’m sure this asshole would agree.

Actually, that person I linked to? He’s a Muslim. But he’s expressing the exact same sentiment as the Pearls: pervasive victim–blaming that blames “immodest” women (those who don’t cover up almost everything) for the actions of others, in one case “Adultery” and in the other rape and sexual assault.

There really, really is no relevant difference in mindset between fundamentalists/extremists of different religions. They’re all misogynist, just with different junk in their heads.

I’m tempted to agree with deBeauxOs as for what to do about him (emphasis in original):

“Well, I want a law making it legal and mandatory for men who believe they will sexually assault women because of the way they’re dressed, or for those who have violated women for those very reasons, to be given skewers to poke their eyes out.”

If you truly believe that a woman’s attire drives someone rape her (as opposed to simply taking responsibility and not being a rapist), do you even know what you’re saying about yourself? That you’re some kind of monster or something. Or even better, if you see something you don’t like, why don’t you just turn the fuck away or close your goddamn eyes? I’m pretty sure yours and almost everyone else’s necks and/or eyelids work just fine.

Either way, problem solved.