Background: A rape trial was stopped because the alleged victim was deemed undeserving and the jury, incapable of assessing fact from supposition. The judge had 'major concerns' about the woman's credibility.
Because the woman alleged she had been raped more than once, she is less worthy of belief. In other words, if you've been raped once, you cannot be raped again.
The woman's 'demeanour' was 'off the wall'. In other words, there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' way to react to being raped and/or to testifying or being cross-examined in a courtroom.
The woman had the appearance of being 'strung out on drugs.' In other words, if you use substance, you cannot be believed and even a judge with no expertise in substance use, knows when someone is 'strung out on drugs'.
Assumptions and myths about rape , not evidence drove the decision to stay the charge.
No other charge within the Criminal Code of Canada brings as much scrutiny to the complainant as does sexual assault.
Join us in demanding that the legal system stop blaming survivors and educate themselves about the realities of sexual assault.
Thank you for reading this story...
More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all. But media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our only supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help.
If everyone who visits rabble and likes it chipped in a couple of dollars per month, our future would be much more secure and we could do much more: like the things our readers tell us they want to see more of: more staff reporters and more work to complete the upgrade of our website.
We’re asking if you could make a donation, right now, to set rabble on solid footing in 2017.