Why I Am A Feminist 2
Because of stories like this one.
Two years ago, a 12-year-old Cree girl was picked up by some men near Tisdale. They gave her beer and the girl was later assaulted on a desolate country road. Three men were charged, but Edmondson was the only one convicted.
Judge Fred Kovatch said he couldn't ignore allegations the girl had been raised in an abusive home. That evidence, he said, supported the defence theory that the girl was the sexual aggressor.
The judge said while Edmondson was convicted of a serious crime, he suspects the aboriginal child was a victim of sexual abuse by a family member.
Yes, a 12-year-old girl who was raped by her father "asked for it." Yeah, what the hell, she probably came on to her father too, eh Judge?
Via Jane at The Daily Rant
Comments
Asked for it from her father, probably not. But abused children do tend to ask for it, sometimes in very overt ways. Perhaps because they've been taught that their only value is sexual. By their "so-called" parents. Please note that:
During Edmondson's trial, the girl's underwear was submitted as evidence. Semen belonging to the girl's father was found on it.
And none of the men involved really did anything except try.
Read this one. They didn't do anything except 'unsuccessfully attempted intercourse'.
The person who should be prosecuted, to the fullest extent of the law, is her father. And he's barely mentioned, except for his temper tantrum, probably induced by having his incestuous lustee threatened by a rival. She should be removed from her parents immediately. And put into therapy.
Posted by: Kathy K | September 5, 2003 06:25 PM
I agree the father should be tried, especially since they found his semen on her panties. They have physical evidence that he molested her. As for the other men, she was 12. Even if they thought she was 14 as she told them, they were in their 20s. Men in their 20s have no business attempting intercourse with 14-year-olds, unsuccessful or otherwise. And kissing a guy doesn't mean a woman asked for intercourse. The only thing the judge mentioned as to why he thought she might have been the aggressor or a willing participant was because she was abused. That is hardly evidence, doesn't indicate a predisposition on her part to lie about being a willing participant, and in no way mitigates her age (or lack thereof).
Posted by: Lesley | September 5, 2003 07:20 PM
Makes you wish for a new meaning for the phrase "a hanging judge."
Posted by: Justin | September 5, 2003 08:55 PM
"Even if they thought she was 14 as she told them, they were in their 20s. Men in their 20s have no business attempting intercourse with 14-year-olds, unsuccessful or otherwise."
Agreed. Unfortunately, the law in Canada says otherwise - the age of consent in Canada is 14. Although in this case I would have to assume that the "attempt" crossed the boundary of appropriate behaviour regardless of age.
Posted by: Sean E | September 8, 2003 04:57 PM
That's true re: age of consent, but I think that for the 14 age-limit to apply, there has to be a maximum age differential between the two parties. I'm pretty sure being over 20 exceeds that maximum.
Posted by: Lesley | September 8, 2003 10:08 PM
I wish that were the case Lesley, but I don't think it is. I think 14 is the cut-off, unless there is a position of trust, such as teacher-student. There is a rule regarding age differential, but I believe it only applies when one party is under 14 years old.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your post. Just being pedantic, I guess.
Posted by: Sean E | September 9, 2003 10:24 AM