Yesterday, an update from Proud Fringers scrolled across my Facebook page regarding Vic Toews and his desire to re-introduce the term ‘rape’ as opposed to the now used ‘sexual assault’. With everything this government has been doing to crush women’s groups and anything resembling forward thinking and social progress I found it hard to believe that he was doing this in my best interest – or the interests of women as a group. So I thought I would dig a bit deeper.

My first question was, “Why was ‘rape’ removed as a charge and replaced with ‘sexual assault’ in 1983?” From the articles I checked, the change was instigated by women’s groups themselves, not for political correctness, but to reduce the stigma that women experienced as ‘victims of rape’ and to include people who had perhaps not been ‘penetrated’ (as rape was then defined) but were still violated (Tibbetts, Renner, Tang).

Back then, it was almost impossible to get a rape conviction, the vast majority of cases were not brought to police, let alone prosecuted, and sentences were very light. Sadly, this is still the case today, however the stigma has been reduced and more women do come forward.

It looks like Toews is trying to change the law so that they can more easily implement their legislation to eliminate pardons for sex crimes against children, the feeling now being that having three levels of sexual assault makes it too ‘confusing’ to figure out who should be allowed pardons and who should not.

Toews admitted that there may be issues with the change but brushed them aside, saying, “I understand the desire not to victimize women again in the court system, but that is something that may have to be looked at in the future” (Tibbett).

Very reassuring. It seems to me that with their brilliant legal minds they should be able to craft legislation that distinguishes between the three levels of sexual assault and does not re-introduce a term that led to the stigmatization of the victim and reduced the chances of conviction. How about we don’t roll the clock back 27 years but instead look towards a future where women are not treated as disposable property?

1. Denis VD Says:
   May 15th, 2010 at 5:32 pm

   I have to disagree with you on this one on behalf of Rape victims and for the sake of clarity – which is always a good thing. This story very accurately captures my thinking – from a woman who has been a victim of sexual assault.

   http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/call+rape+rape/3032019/story.html

2. Vanessa Says:
   May 17th, 2010 at 10:09 am

   (copied from my Facebook page where I also replied to you) I know we can agree to disagree, and reading the column did not change my mind in any way – though I thought her summary justice was rather amusing, it isn’t an appropriate way to deal with a societal issue.

   On the other hand, I think this is an excellent summary of what happened with the change in law. In particular, it gives a very good explanation of the three levels of sexual assault in the table on the 5th page. I can see no reason why the government cannot just say that anyone convicted of SA3 is considered a dangerous offender and not available for pardon.

   On the other hand (yes, the third hand), from the definitions, though maybe not the practice, it is possible to commit ‘rape’ (penetration) at any of the 3 levels. Interesting. Let’s keep exploring. What do you think of the article?