In advancing women's sexual rights in Canada we have made a critical error. We have deleted the word rape in public discourse and done a disservice to society as a result.
Rape was reclassified as a type of assault in the Criminal Code of Canada in the early 80s. Prior to this, sexual assault was referred to as rape, indecent assault or gross indecency, depending on the type of crime.
There was a need to broaden the definition of rape to include other sexual acts which didn't include penetration but were a violation of a person's sexual integrity. The law also made the wording more gender neutral to reflect the reality that women were not the only one's being violated, but men and children could be victims as well.
Fast forward to 2012 where there are now a few categories of assault: sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threat to a third party or causing bodily harm, and aggravated sexual assault. This continuum of violence as it is referred, can include inappropriate/unwanted touching, forced kissing and rape.
As a result of these amendments, lawyers cannot bring up a woman's sexual history or reputation to use against her in trial, husbands can now be charged with sexual assault and men can get equal treatment under the law. Personally, I could never argue against these changes.
However, I believe society has a case of disassociation when it comes to the term "sexual assault." It is problematic when ten people give you ten different definitions of a crime. I want details. I want specifics and I want the word rape brought back into the lexicon of everyday discussions.
I want this change because rape means something different to me than inappropriate touching. I may change my route home or mode of transportation if I know there is a rapist on the streets. But more importantly having those details gives me a sense of the gravity of the crime.
I want to hear the police describe the crime as a sexual assault: rape. Sexual assault: inappropriate touching. Sexual assault: forced kissing.
Sexual assault seems like the last frontier when it comes to divulging details. We discuss at length how a person was murdered, tortured or bullied. Regardless of our comfort level we are told the excruciating details of the crime.
We describe murder as first or second degree, what instrument used to kill them and how. We describe fires in terms of five or three alarm. We describe the severity of earthquakes on a richter scale. All across our vernacular we give the level of severity. Yet for some reason, I never know when someone has been charged with sexual assault, what that actually means.
Although this topic is more complex than what I have described, I believe by providing society and frankly providing women with more details about sexual assaults, we impart
more control. We allow women to control how they use the information. Ultimately, isn't this issue all about control?
However, I also agree that it has the effect of minimizing the distinction between forced penetration and forced kissing. Penetrative rape can cause so much further harm to a victim, including but not limited to: risk of STD's, unwanted pregnancy, and critical injuries that may render them infertile or incontinent. This is all on top of the emotional trauma that is shared by all victims of sexual assault. Under the current system, it does not appear that this distinction is made clear enough in the criminal sanctions, as well as the warnings to the public.
If you want to understand why the Criminal Code was changed to replace "rape" with "sexual assault" then you would do well to start by reading the concurring opinion of Madam Justice Bertha Wilson in R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 SCR 833 (http://canlii.ca/t/1ft9w), which, in relevant part, provides:
"Sexual assault is a crime of violence. There is no requirement of an intent or purpose beyond the intentional application of force. It is first and foremost an assault. It is sexual in nature only because, objectively viewed, it is related to sex either on account of the area of the body to which the violence is applied or on account of words accompanying the violence. Indeed, the whole purpose, as I understand it, of the replacement of the offence of rape by the offence of sexual assault was to emphasize the aspect of violence and put paid to the benign concept that rape was simply the act of a man who was "carried away" by his emotions."
A tiny child, three years old, is repeatedly attacked by her mother's boyfriend, who sticks his fingers and some toys into her vagina whenever her mother is away. Since a penis wasn't involved, the attackers lawyer can argue that no rape occurred, and then get a lesser sentence. Yum!
Or, how about let's talk about the different kinds of rape, like "forced rape" "illegitimate rape" "gang-rape" "date rape" "blood hole rape", isn't this fun? And not exploitative or dehumanizing or anything?
I'm sure sexual assault victims would really love to be separated off into an "officially or unofficially raped" box as well as have to live through the experience. Grown men and boys, especially straight ones, I'm sure they'd be much more comfortable prosecuting an attacker with gang-rape rather than aggravated sexual assault. It would be best if they could describe how penetration actually occurred. Did it go all the way in? Did someone lost their erection before they could get in it? Oh, then yes, he gets a lesser sentence or a different one.
Sexual assault is only broken into four types generally, not the "ten" you allege in this strange article.
The current definitions of sexual assault are not fully defined by penetration and we should never go back to when they were. To do so is to diminish victims everywhere.
I'd say, "Tuesday, at noon! Bring your own popcorn, next!!"
"Sexual assault" can be any number of things - touching a woman's breasts, her backside, caressing her check, etc, etc.
The incredibly narrow definition of rape that used to be in Canada's criminal code (unwanted sexual penetration of a woman by a man who was not her husband) is obviously outdated... and good riddence to it. But I still think when most people hear "rape" they only think of a certain kind of sexual act. I'm wondering then, how you think "rape" should be defined, if it were to be brought back into the criminal code? Would it include acts that were not penetrative? Where would the line be drawn between rape and other forms of sexual assault?
Rape is not something that is only committed by a stranger lurking in the shadows. I don't think there's any ambiguity when I read in the paper that a neighbourhood has been hit with "a string of sexual assaults". I'd probably assume it wasn't a string of forced kissing and change my route home.
Quote: "For years we’ve been telling young women that it’s up to them to avoid sexual assault. The “Don’t be THAT guy” poster campaign breaks the mold by speaking directly to young men." (campaign: http://www.crimepreventionottawa.ca/en/initiatives/dont-be-that-guy).
Let's call rape, rape.