Sexual harassment and the Nats

Julie has covered John Key's disturbing sense of entitlement in his local cafe, where he clearly feels he can treat a woman as his own personal property because she's waiting tables.  Not much more to say there.

I've lots more to say though about the patterns of behaviour from this National Government.

It's not the first time a National MP has been caught out treating hospitality staff with disdain.  When Aaron Gilmore resigned after asking bar staff "Don't you know who I am?" because they refused to serve him, John Key said it was "the right decision."

It's also not the first time sexual harassment scandals have bedevilled the personnel in this government.  Or even the second or third time.

First there's Michael Woodhouse, before he was even in parliament, telling the student press in Dunedin what he thought of young women:

"I love spring around here, it's bloody fantastic, the skirts were never this short in my day."

He was a 42 year old father of three at the time.  Now he's the Minister of Police, responding to the Police bungling of Roastbusters. 

Then there's Minister Richard Worth, serial sexual harasser, forced to resign after the Police began investigations into his behaviour.  John Key "washed his hands" of Mr Worth at the time.

Or what about Gerry Brownlee appointee to CERA, Roger Sutton, who had to resign after being found guilty of sexual harassment?

And then there are the allegations from Dirty Politics, about National Party pollster David Farrar organising parties for "National Party friends" which treated Young Nats women as potential "targets". 

It's almost like National Party men and friends of National Party men think women are playthings for their own amusement.  That it's ok to touch us when we don't want to be touched, text us when we don't want to be texted, call us when we don't want to be called, make sexual comments about us when we are walking around our campuses, and target us for sex when we are drunk (otherwise known as rape).  National Party men appear to think women at work - or anywhere else - are fair game for whatever they feel like doing to us.  Hell, John Key appears to think even little girls are on the menu for unwanted touching.

What's the answer to this blatant, entitled sexism?  To be fair, lots of the culprits have gone already.  But it's scarcely an individual issue when it's happening this frequently.  If John Key wants to show he doesn't condone sexual harassment, he might have to think about more than just his own apology, more than just curtailing his own behaviour.

He might need to change the culture in his party.  He might need to work out how he shows New Zealand women that he does have some respect for us.  He might need to stop presiding over a government so blatantly tilted towards the powerful.  And he might need to start keeping his creepy hands to himself.

rape culture in canada looks very much like rape culture here

[trigger warning for many of the links which describe some pretty violent behaviour]

i had a bit of spare time yesterday, and instead of catching up on my to-do list, i started catching up on my blog reading.  and i came across the rape allegations against a canadian radio broadcaster by name of jian ghomeshi.  if you haven't heard about the case, there's a detailed backgrounder here. 

short version: mr gomeshi runs a very successful radio show on canadian broadcasting corporation (CBC).  friday week he gets suspended.  last sunday he got fired.  he does a pre-emptive facebook post, trying to explain away a newspaper article he knows is going to be published about his violent sexual & physical assaults (the freelance reporter has been in contact with him over several months).

in the initial articles, four women tell their stories of harrowing encounters, anonymously.  they choose to remain anonymous because they fear the public backlash, they know that mr gomeshi is in a position of power & has considerable wealth, and they also have BDSM discussions via text that they know will be used by people to dismiss the stories.  it's as if they are perfectly aware of the way society treats women who come into the public eye retelling their experience of sexual assualt.

oh wait, there is a woman who did in fact tell such a story about mr ghomeshi, without revealing his name but giving enough details for people to identify him. and here is what happened to her:

“In the days that followed, Ciccone received hundreds of abusive messages and threats. An online video calling her a ‘scumbag of the Internet’ has been viewed over 397,000 times.”

i'd recommend clicking through to read the full article for examples of what has been happening to other women, particularly in relation to #gamergate.

the initial responses were pretty concerning.  last monday (when the canadian star article appeared) and tuesday, there was pretty wide support for mr ghomeshi & some of the fears of the anonymous women were played out.  why didn't they go to the police?  this was all a result of an ex-girlfriend seeking revenge on mr ghomeshi (his own framing in the facebook page).  he is such a nice guy.

but by thursday, 4 more women shared their stories via the star.  another woman chose to anonymously share her story in a CBC interview. 2 women give their names when relating their experiences, one an actress, another a lawyer.  a twitter account is found that alleged sexual violence back in april.

finally, after so many other women speak out, there are multiple investigations.  the CBC has launched an independent investigation, since 2 women staff members are amongst those who have come out in public to share stories of sexual harassment.  the police finally announced they were launching an investigation, although to date they haven't spoken to mr ghomeshi nor have they laid charges.  carlton university has launched an investigation as they are concerned about the safety of women students who had field placements at CBC.

mr ghomeshi's PR firm has dumped him as has his agent, and those early prominent supporters are now backtracking and apologising.

so.  the initial reaction is still a concern.  then there is the shaming and harassment of women who make complaints.  as others have stated, questions need to be asked of the CBC who received a sexual harassment complaint several years ago.  how much did they know about his activities, and how much was covered up.  it appears that there were a lot of rumours swirling around about mr ghomeshi, and yet no concrete action was taken.

there is a real concern that these women didn't feel safe enough to come forward with a complaint.  it says a lot about the canadian justice system, it also says a lot about the culture and online harassment (which can quickly turn into real life harassments when the attackers target workplaces & publish home addresses etc).

i can't help but draw parallels with nz and the roastbusters case, along with so many others. the same basic issues are at play here.  in canada, there is some real anger which may result in positive change at a structural level.  we are still waiting for any significant changes to happen here, although i am hopeful that there will some decent educational programmes running in high schools soon.

but we need so much more.

*****************************************

there are few other links that are well worth a read: this is also a good summary of the case; this piece looks at the possibility of narcissism; actually a good piece around the BDSM issues; and john scalzi makes some good points.

starting a conversation

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Rape Culture: We're soaking in it

NB:  These points may already have been made, and made well, elsewhere. I've been largely keeping away from the Roast Busters stuff as I have other stuff going on currently that leaves me in a bad place to be dealing with that.  Hopefully this adds to the discussion, and the progress we MUST make, rather than just being a repetition.  Strong content warning for sexual violence.

Roast Busters is not new.  It is not some heinous development in human history.  Human history IS Rape Culture.  Rape Culture is a norm of centuries' duration we are trying to change, to overcome.  Well some of us are, anyway.

Rape Culture seems particularly bad right now because you are all seeing it.  It was there all along, so saturating us that it is the air we breathe.

Rape Culture is a society where the first things many people will consider when they hear of a rape include role of alcohol consumed by victim, role of clothes worn by victim, lack of parental supervision of victim,
instead of the reprehensible actions of the rapist.

Rape Culture is a society where victim blaming happens constantly.  Where female friends of the rapists speak out in the media to deny the accusations on their behalf.  Where those female friends may have been raped too, in the same circumstances as those they deny, and they can't face that they were raped too, because that is just too hard to deal with.*

Rape Culture is a society where a public health promotion agency deliberately uses fear of rape to scare women into drinking less alcohol, in the process promulgating a number of really really super unhelpful myths about rape and passing them off as truth.

Most women (and I suspect many men) have rape stories; their own, or those of others who have shared with them, things they have seen, things they themselves have done.  For me they are the stories of others, or near misses, but the chance that I will be raped at some point in my life is really very high - 1 in 4 women and girls in New Zealand have had that awful dehumanising experience.  I read once that 1 in 5 New Zealanders have asthma.  Amongst women being a victim of rape is more common than being asthmatic.

And we don't need more research actually.  There is a whole lot.  I'm not well placed to link, but Scube did, and I'm sure others have heaps of good links they can provide in comments.

What we need is more action.  More action by the State.  NGOs, individuals, groups formal and informal all do what they can, but they do not having the resources, the status or the longevity of central government.  We know enough to act; act effectively, efficiently and make a real difference.  Yet we don't.

We don't when we are the Government.  We don't when we are the Police.  We don't when we are people of high profile with significant media platforms.  Denial is a way of coping, I guess, because otherwise we have to accept that what we did to others could have been rape, what others did to us was rape, what we didn't stop happening to someone we love was rape.  What we allow and even encourage is Rape Culture.

We're soaking in Rape Culture, and it makes it hard to see.  When these moments come we must examine our complicity while we still can, so that once this case has faded we can still see the edges of our own enabling, and stop.



*  I have seen this happen first hand, and have no knowledge that this is at all the case in the Roast Busters situation.

government inquiry on sexual violence services

i've only just heard that there is a parliamentary "inquiry into the funding of specialist sexual violence social services".  submissions apparently close this thursday, 10 october.

you can find a link to a pdf copy of the press release on the right-hand sidebar of this page.  it gives the terms of reference of the inquiry:

The terms of reference for the inquiry are to review:

• the state of specialist services and determine whether they reflect an integrated approach to service delivery, full coverage, and best practice

• specialist services, including those for Māori and other diverse ethnic communities, and assess whether they are accessible, culturally appropriate, and sustainable.

i wouldn't have thought there was a need for a full inquiry to know that sexual violence services are grossly underfunded, and have been for many, many years.  there's some good information in this article, which tells us about the inquiry into funding that has already been done:

These funding issues were investigated in 2007 when the Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence was set up to advise Government on how to prevent and respond to sexual crime.
The Taskforce’s 2009 report recommended “effective funding of front-line services for victims and offenders”, immediate changes in the justice system, and a coordinated response to the problem from “across the social, health, education and justice systems in partnership with the community sector”.

and look at this: you can still download a copy of that report or even a summary of it from here (see box on right side).  one of the main points in the summary is:

ensuring a coordinated response as work continues across the social, health,ƒ ƒeducation and justice systems and in partnership with the community sector

and page 3 of the report has this:

Specific Taskforce projects have focused on understanding sexual violence from a Mäori cultural perspective. This work includes a case study of the Tiaki Tinana rape prevention education project; a stocktake of kaupapa Mäori and tikanga services; and Te Puäwaitanga o Te Käkano.

in fact, the only thing missing from the report, and it is a big omission, are the needs of "other diverse ethnic communities".  i don't know that there needs to be a whole commission of inquiry on it - maybe they could have consulted with ethnic communities to see what could be added to the 2009 report.  i have some ideas on that.

it seems to me that this inquiry is just the government trying to look like it's doing something, without actually doing something.  they've shown that they are not prepared to make the difficult decisions, especially around changes to the justice system.  while simon power was making progress in this area, judith collins made it clear when she took over the justice portfolio that she wasn't prepared to make any changes.

neither have the government committed to decent funding for rape crisis centres.  if they had, wellington rape crisis wouldn't have needed to take funding from hell's pizza, and auckland sexual abuse help line would not have been close to shutting down so many times over the last few years.

still, i suppose we must play the game and put the time into resubmitting to this inquiry, re-doing work that has already been done.  long-time readers of the blog will remember the submission we put in from THM on the original inquiry.  i'll be submitting again, in the hope that there might finally be some concrete action, some minister that actually has the courage to bring about change.

if you're in hamilton, link house are doing a submission-writing workshop on thursday morning, specifically to help in writing submissions for this inquiry.  contact me at info@anjum.co.nz if you'd like further details.

Sexual abuse and culture

There's an interesting article from Joseph Harker, essentially arguing that whiteness is invisible when we talk about sexual violence, a privilege not enjoyed by Muslim people:

Every day across Britain, it seems, there's a new and horrific revelation of sexual abuse: last week we had the guilty plea of veteran TV presenter Stuart Hall, who confessed to 14 cases of indecent assault against 13 girls, the youngest only nine years old.  Days earlier the possible scale of child abuse in north Wales children's homes was revealed.

But after the shock has subsided and we have time to reflect on these revolting crimes, the main question in most reasonable people's minds must surely be: what is it about white people that makes them do this?

While Mr Harker has left alone the obvious male connection that all of these perpetrators - white and non-white - have in common, he raises a valid point, well.  And one which is just as relevant in Aotearoa, where as Moana Jackson points out the Kahui twins, Nia Glassie and James Whakaruru are household names, while the Nelson twins, Timothy Maybin and Samantha Nelson are not.

What I'm slightly disappointed by in Mr Harker's article though is the lack of attention to power in other ways.  Sexual violence thrives in situations in which there are power imbalances.  Predators target vulnerable people.  Child sexual abuse perpetrated by adults is in the main not by "paedophiles" but by men who have sexual relationships with other adults as well as targeting children. 

This power might be institutional - Jimmy Savile say, with his powerful role within the entertainment industry in the UK.  Where there seems to be a problem, given the Coronation St roll call of men accused of raping children is growing.  Institutional power within educational organisations, or community groups for children, or religious based organisations, or residential services for children, or facilities to care for children.  Social power that comes with adulthood, or being a caregiver, or helping out with babysitting.

We need to ask questions of culture if we want to prevent child sexual abuse, but they need to be much broader than racist deficit assumptions for Muslims, Maori or any other people of colour.  What was the culture in the British entertainment industries which has led to a Police investigation arresting  pop star Gary Glitter, comedian Freddie Starr, DJ Dave Lee Travis, publicist Max Clifford and comedian Jim Davidson, alongside of course the Jimmy Savile revelations and the recent arrest of Rolf Harris?

How many children and adults did these men sexually assault?  How many people knew about it?  What did they tell themselves?  How can we stop that happening again?

The Steubenville rape convictions put the spotlight on the inability of young sportsmen to identify sexually assaulting a near comatose young woman as something unacceptable.  One teammate of the convicted rapists who saw the rape and walked away had just moments earlier stopped another teammate from drinking and driving.  How do we shift those cultural norms, so that young sportsmen are just as determined to stop their teammates raping as driving drunk?

The most important issue, whenever we are talking and thinking about culture, is that the analysis - and the shift to building and supporting protective social norms - needs to come from within the group of interest.  I don't know why the British entertainment industry has been providing such a safe place to abuse for men for decades.  But people working there will.

I don't think we should be scared of talking and thinking about culture when it comes to preventing sexual violence.  In fact I think it's imperative we do that work, if we want protective social norms which promote respect, safety, mutuality and consent as foundations.

We just need to be looking at our own cultural belongings first and foremost.  There's plenty of social change to go around.

Bennett to stop sexual violence

So responsibility for responding to, and presumably preventing, sexual violence will apparently now sit with the Ministry of Social Development.  Welcome news it's in one place, hopefully setting up best practise services adequately funded all over Aotearoa New Zealand, for the first time.

So let's try what a serious blueprint for that might look like, just in case Minister Bennett and MSD need some ideas.  Funding survivor agencies, they could do worse than look at the Everyone Needs the Right Help campaign, currently holding launches all over the country as communities ask:

There are whole groups of people in New Zealand without access to the support they and their family or friends need to recover from sexual violence.
One in four girls, one in ten boys, one in two trans* people and up to 90% of people with disabilities are likely to be victims of sexual abuse/rape in New Zealand. They all need help.

 

















Research shows the earlier survivors are able to access specialist support to recover from sexual violence, the better at managing the traumatic impacts they become.  Adequately funded survivor services all over New Zealand is not only the ethically right thing to do, it will also have real impacts in our communities in terms of well-being.  This means people being able to call a 24 hour helpline.  This means having advocacy and counselling available as and when it is needed.  This means specialist knowledge to understand, mitigate and explain the complex impacts of trauma. 

Turning to working with people who cause sexual harm, we have strong evidence that early intervention in sexual offending works, and given adolescence is a trigger period for sexual offending, it should be a priority for us.  Just 2% of adolescents who completed a treatment programme sexually re-offended in a 2007 evaluation.  The younger the adolescent, the more likely they were to complete the programme. 

We also know the vast majority of people who cause sexual harm will never end up in the justice system, so community treatment alternatives are critical.  Adequate funding for community programmes to which people - mostly men, as we know 99% of those perpetrating sexual offences against adults are men - can self-refer could make a huge difference to re-offending.

And then there is prevention.  Imagine if we were not just having to respond to the preventable tragedies that are incidents of sexual violence.  Imagine if every child in New Zealand was brought up knowing they had safe adults they could tell if anyone did anything to them that was abusive, and knowing that they got to decide who touched their body.  Imagine if our schools were required to promote effective anti-bullying programmes which targetted in particular homophobic and sexist bullying (linked to later perpetration of sexual harassment).  Imagine if our sexual and relationships education focused on developing and sustaining encounters and relationships where mutual respect was the base value.  And imagine if enthusiastic participation was something our culture expected from every sexual encounter, not a lack of a screamed "No" signalling good enough consent.

Minister Bennett, this is a good deal for you.  You cannot possibly do worse than the last twenty years of governance in our communities when it comes to preventing and responding to sexual violence.  You could certainly do a whole lot better.

No immunity for child sexual abuse

Mostly, I stay away from commenting on issues involving religion.  I am an ignorant atheist, scarcely qualified to venture into discussing matters of faith which are exceptionally well-considered by others, not least THM's own stargazer.

But the free pass the Catholic Church has given to it's members to sexually abuse children is not just about religion, it's about power, and I'm going to wade in there.  There are adult survivors of child sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic Church staff in at least 65 countries.  The numbers of people harmed will be in the many thousands - one survivor support group alone has 12,000 members.

Turns out it wasn't enough for Pope Ratzinger to just move priests from parish to parish while they were sexually abusing children, rather than take action against them.  Nor was it enough to take years to respond to allegations when he was chief enforcer for the church in the years before his papacy, allowing priests more opportunities to abuse.

No, now he is apparently seeking immunity from plans of a European state to issue a warrant for his arrest - sent to the Vatican on 4th February, just a week before Pope Ratzinger resigned.

Not content with staying in the Vatican forever in the hope justice will not reach him there, he's also arranged a meeting on February 23 with the Italian head of state, President Napolitano to beg for Italy's protection in allegations of child sexual abuse crimes.

Where will the Catholic Church, the Vatican and the Italian government decide to stand on the issue of child sexual abuse?  With the thousands and thousands of survivors around the world, and international criminal law?  Or with a man, sheltering other men, who carried out and/or enabled rapes of thousands of vulnerable children to carry on for decades?

What about teh menz?

I don't know about other feminists, but I have very little patience with people who want to undermine equity driven responses to women's oppression by insisting instead that we focus on men.

"Why isn't there a men's refuge?"  "Men should be able to go on Take Back the Night too, we experience violence on the street as well."  "Women are just as violent as men."  "Men can be victims too."

My lack of patience is not because I don't care about men.  In fact, paying attention to masculine people's experiences has been and continues to be vital to feminist aims of gender equity.  No, it's more that I believe the vast majority of people who raise these issues are just interested in obscuring gender oppression.

There are women's refuges because in the 1970s and 1980s, women started opening their homes up to other women who were being beaten by their partners.  We took over empty houses, and they were filled with women and children not happy at home.  The state responded, eventually, by providing cheap and mostly nasty state housing for us, and Refuges sprung up all over the country. 

Those Refuges, forty years later, are still busy.  The state's response has improved and women and children are now more able to stay at home - but there are still times when a protection order is just a piece of paper, or the only way to get some sleep is to leave the place he dominates, or there is literally no where else to go, for far, far too many women.

We don't have men's refuges because men have never organised in this way to keep other men safe from violence or the threat of violence.  Of course, in New Zealand, a woman is murdered every four weeks by her male partner or ex-partner.  For men, murders by female partners happen just under once a year, usually in self-defence.  So it's no surprise men have not set up men's refuge - just somewhat surprising we still have to have this conversation.

I could go on about this ad nauseum, but instead I'd rather point to when asking "what about teh menz?" is genuine.  The sexual abuse of boys is heavily under-researched and poorly understood.  When Ken Clearwater started talking about the sexual abuse of boys, it was pretty lonely.

Now, Ken is the "self-appointed National Manager" of the Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Trust.  He has supported the set up of seven support groups for men around the country, travels regularly to talk about male sexual abuse internationally, and continues to do extraordinary work with male survivors, literally saving lives.  The Male Survivors Trust is linked into national sexual violence networks, and Ken continues to challenge sexual violence understandings by describing the blocks to men talking about sexual abuse and/or being victims.

He is, quite simply, an extraordinary man, who in asking "what about teh menz?" actually meant it.  His advocacy for male survivors extends feminist understandings of sexual violence, because it pushes us to pay attention to power, rather than use gender as shorthand.  The men Ken works with often come to him after experiencing sexual abuse in institutions where as boys, they were targeted because they were vulnerable.  In asking "what about teh menz?" Ken Clearwater pays attention, in vital ways for feminism, to the ways masculinity norms damage men.

So there's my challenge - next time you hear or see this question - tell the person concerned to do a Clearwater.  If their concern is real, we might just see some further exploration of power and gender which is good for all of us.

Consent at the Ivy Bar

Rape culture is all around us, right?  Excuses for sexual behaviour in which one person's desires are constructed as all important and the point of view from which an encounter is judged, and the other person's ability to name what happened as unacceptable are undermined.

Setting rape up as something people "deserve" when they behave badly.  Blaming, women in particular, the person who is raped because they drank something/wore something/said something/did something that made it inevitable that someone else would choose to force them to do sexual things they didn't want.

Making fun of consent as something that is "for pussies".

The Facebook page of Wellington's under reconstruction "gay" venue, the Ivy Bar, offered up taking photos of "tradies" to their Facebook fans.  When one fan suggested that if they were going to take photos of "tradies" and put them online they needed to have said "tradies" consent, another made the comment above - not only unchallenged by Ivy as hosts, but liked by them.

Consent is certainly for women.  And for men.  And for transpeople.  And for intersex people.  And for those for whom those categories do not feel quite right.

Making fun of consent anywhere is concerning, and it happens far too often.  Making fun of consent in a venue seeking queer custom, part of the queer community, shows a devastating lack of attention to one of the saddest outcomes of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia - sexual violence.

Queer people experience sexual violence because we are queer, as hate crime.  And we experience sexual violence, just like straight people, within relationships and hook-ups, because some of us choose to over-ride consent.  The reasons for this are complex - to do with gender rules which say that men always want sex, so how can they say no?  Gender rules which tell women that asking for the sex we want makes us sluts.  Rigid gender policing which constructs some kinds of bodies as deviant and wrong, invoking shame and lack of entitlement around being treated with respect and care.  Homophobia, biphobia and transphobia teaching us that there is something wrong with how we desire.

Trans* people experience higher rates of sexual violence than anyone else, at 50%.  Indications are that other queer people also have high rates of unwanted, coerced and forced sex - sexual violence.  For non-heterosexual secondary school students in New Zealand, one in three have been touched in a sexual way, or made to do sexual things they do not want to do - again, higher than rates for heterosexual students.

So Ivy Bar - epic fail.  Treating consent as optional in a queer space dismisses many of your patrons' experiences.  Describing consent as "for pussies" has the delightful added bonus of denigrating women's bodies to support your very own brand of rape culture.

It's hard enough to name queer experiences of sexual violence, and that work, world-wide, is only just beginning.  We could do with insiders in the queer community not shutting it down.  I'll be avoiding Ivy, when they re-open, until they can do better.  Feel free to let them know what you think.

UPDATE (the next day):  Comment about consent being "for pussies" has been deleted and Ivy Bar have this to say on their Facebook page:

We have deleted ****s comment. *****s comment I believe was regarding consent for a photo to be taken. Regardless, I can see how his comment can be mis- interpreted the wrong way and we have removed his comment. We certainly do NOT endorse rape of violence against anyone. Thanks for your comments. We will certainly look closer at future comments from here. Regards Greig Wilson

a culture of silence

i've been reading about jimmy savile, and the news that is now coming out regarding allegations of sexual assault [trigger warning for these links which contain descriptions of sexual assault and rape].  some of which he appears to have admitted to quite clearly in his own autobiography.  it seems that the police are now investigating, even though the alleged perpetrator is now dead, and i'm really hoping that the investigation will shine some light on the people who may have been complicit in allowing this offending to continue, even though they knew something criminal was going on.

people in a similar position to those who enabled the offending of jerry sandusky by their silence, or what should be called active covering up.  and people who are or were also offenders.  maybe i'm being overly optimistic, but i'm really hoping that this inquiry will lead to criminal prosecutions and some justice.

mostly because there is nothing worse than having this stuff hushed up.  there has been such a silence around sexual assault, particular of young people by much older adults, in a variety of social settings. it's time to pick apart the reasons for that silence, and to challenge each and every one of them.

complicity is a separate issue - those who actively provided sexual abuse victims, or provided places for the assault to happen.  they are committing a more direct crime.  i'm talking more about those who know or strongly suspect offending is taking place but do nothing.

one of the main reasons for silence is to protect an institution or organisation.  i have real difficulty with this one.  it seems to stem from "the greater good" type of argument, in that the institution/organisation is providing such a valuable service to so many people, and a few victims of sexual abuse should not be allowed to put that to risk.  especially since they could be making it all up anyway, right?  it's such a stupid way of thinking, because of the sheer lack of humanity, but also because of the lack of logic.  the organisation will be found out hiding or covering up sexual abuse - sooner or later - and then the fallout is going to be much worse than if they took the first case seriously, ensured that justice was done and put in place measures to ensure the safety of all people within the organisation.

another reason is that people don't want to be dragged into the situation, don't want to deal with the nastiness that comes with being a whistle-blower.  it's not just the victims who get blamed for doing [xyz] action that lead to the abuse.  other parties who try to something about it are just as much targets, criticised for trying to ruin someone's life, that someone who now gets defined as a pillar of the community or a nice young man whose shining bright future is about to be ruined, or a good person who works so hard for charity (this latter being all the more sickeningly ironic because it is often the charity work which allows the perpetrator to cherry-pick vulnerable victims, as it appears mr savile was able to do).

it's tough to be the one that calls out sexual abuse, especially when others in the family/ institution/ organisation gather around to protect the perpetrator and to isolate & shame the victim and those associated with her.  the consequences can range from isolation and ostracisation to outright bullying and threats of physical violence.


one of the reasons for silence, or for the cover-up, that i find most difficult to deal with is the "protection of the victim" defense.  i've seen this so very often, and it sickens me every time.  the argument goes like this:  if the offending is brought to light, the damage to the reputation and the very life of the victim will be so high that it's better to be kept quiet.  in some cultures, a young woman will be considered as tainted, she will never receive an offer of marriage, even though she is the one who has been offended against.  in pretty much all cultures, there will always be doubt that she shouldn't have allowed herself to be in a situation that such a thing could have happened to her.  she is culpable of the crime against her for any number of reasons, so best that it is all hushed up.  let the victim be sent away, or let the perpetrator be sent away, but let the reason never be known.

the thing is, with the latter defense, cultural norms and practices make the reasoning valid.  the appalling treatment of victims of sexual abuse means that it is much easier, much more the logical option to stay silent.  and when we have silence, we have conditions where sexual abuse and violence continue & even flourish.

perhaps this is why i'm hopeful about the police inquiry into the alleged crimes of jimmy savile.  so many women have come forward to speak out.  the culture within the BBC and other media organisations is coming out into the open.  i'm really hoping that there are some people who are feeling incredibly scared right now, because the crimes they have committed might come to light.  and maybe, just maybe, we'll see a culture change that makes life safer for a lot of people.

The comedy of our justice system

Content note: this post discusses a disturbing case in which child sexual abuse has been repeatedly minimised by our courts.  The links post to material which may trigger distress because they feature either details of the case or Judge comments, please be careful.

The Comedian who admitted he sexually assaulted his daughter is due back in court, after the Crown appealed Judge Cunningham's original sentence from nearly a year ago.  This case caused an uproar, as New Zealanders were outraged that a Judge could essentially say child sexual abuse wasn't that big a deal because the person abusing was funny.

The Comedian will be in back at Auckland District Court at 10am, Friday 27 July.  Judge Mark Perkins will be sitting, and he has already said:

...he must decide how much the man's daughter has been affected by the offending. "There is an argument that the [psychological] effect on the child of the offending is a result not of the offending itself but the actual breakup of the family."

Right.  So it's not the child abuse that's the problem, it's the fact a woman decided not to remain in a relationship with a man who sexually abused their child.  Because if she'd chosen to stay, that would have been fine with everyone, right?

And then there is the report from the child psychologist, who says this wee four year old girl feels responsible for the incident, and has twice been referred to Auckland Sexual Abuse HELP for specialist counselling.

The psychologist noted she had developed "a strong sense of doubt about her own self worth". She was also pulling her hair - a "behavioural disturbance" associated with stress.

I wish I could be in Auckland for this sentencing.  If any feminist action is planned, please let us know and we'll post details here.  That court date again: Auckland District Court, Friday 27 July, 10am.

Is Judith Collins tough enough?

Back in April this year, the Law Commission consulted the New Zealand public on their review of alternative trial processes for sexual violence.  This was driven by years of awareness that court processes were not working well within the justice system, from those who support survivors, from legal academics who specialise in this area, and from survivors themselves.  The Law Commission proposals were supported by ALL of these groups and more - even high profile defence lawyer Greg King acknowledged the need for reform.

So courts are failing to deliver justice around sexual violence, there's a process in place to review it all, and the suggestions the Law Commission has come up with - after international research into alternatives - are roundly applauded.

The consultation received about 500 submissions, which reinforces how important this issue is to the New Zealand public.  The review began under Simon Power, who said in his valedictory speech that justice in cases of sexual violence was a debate parliament needed to have:

It's our job to tackle the tough issues, the issues the public pays us to front up to, and come to a view on.  There are many debates that Parliament does not want to have for fear of losing votes or not staying on message: abortion, adoption law, children’s rights, and sexual violence issues. I don't share this timid view.

Surely people don’t run for Parliament claiming they want to “make a difference”, only to vote for the status quo, otherwise presumably they would be so satisfied with the way the country was running that they wouldn’t feel the drive to seek public office in the first place.

We need politicians brave enough to "tackle the tough issue" of a failing justice system.  Is the current Justice Minister, Judith Collins too "timid" to follow up on the Law Commission review of alternative trial processes for sexual violence and see this lengthy, considered and well-informed process through?  Is this review going to be pushed into the "Too Hard" basket, waiting until we have a politician who will be brave enough?

Sexual violence is not a political issue in the conventional sense.  It's a community issue, affecting survivors and people who cause harm, their families, friends, lovers.  But we need political leadership to improve our failing justice response, to "make a difference."

If we care about survivors, we need to contact Judith Collins and ask her to be tough enough to push for the changes the justice system needs. 

We need to let her know we are waiting, or we may be stuck with a status quo everyone agrees is an abject failure. 

It is rapists who are responsible for rape

Trigger warnings for rape, substance abuse and addiction, general enragingness.  Also excessive use of CAPS LOCK.


I heard a little bit about Lindsay Mitchell's latest Truth column on Twitter on Friday, but no one could provide me an online copy.  Today someone rectified that in comments here (thank you, kind of).


Now Lindsay and I disagree on many things.  We often have those agreements online, through the medium of blogging, but normally we manage to be remarkably civil for two people who disagree so fundamentally.


I really struggle though finding civil responses to this incredibly harmful rape apologist Truth column from Mitchell.  


1.  It is not necessary to put rapes in scare-quotes, especially when you are already using alleged in front anyway.  Quote marks are for quotes, and here are some examples:  Calling rape a "sex 'accident'" is so incredibly awful that it should be erased from the english language and never ever used again except to point out how awful it is.  Ditto for "retrospectively unwanted sex".  


2.  If a friend came to me and told me she'd been raped while she was drunk (or a male friend for that matter) then my first response would not be to have questions, but to offer support and love and whatever else they needed BECAUSE THEY ARE MY FRIEND.  


3.  The legal standard may be guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but when I'm not a judge or a jury member I am quite at liberty to make up my own mind to believe the person who was raped, which is what I intend to do, especially if they are my friend, but also as a point of principle to somehow slightly re-balance the constant disbelief that rape victims face at every turn.  Hurtful, harmful, unnecessary disbelief that Lindsay is perpetuating with this column.


4.  No one asks for rape.  It is rapists who are responsible for rape.  Being incapable of giving consent means you have NOT GIVEN CONSENT.  Sex without consent is rape.  It's really quite simply.  I thought former ACT candidate's were generally big on people having free will and giving informed consent and all that jazz?  


5.  "I’d talk it out and insist she mentally take some responsibility for what happened, learn from it and move on. And I’d forgive her, so she could do the same. "  This HORRIFIES ME.  If anyone has had that conversation with anyone I know who has been raped you better not ever tell me because I will explode with anger.  All over you in a hideous mess of brain matter and internal organ-ness.  I am not entirely sure I am exaggerating.


6.  Suggesting that the best response is to totally sweep any such incidents away from any examination whatsoever is just so irresponsible that I cannot believe Truth even published it.

I'm going to stop at 6 points.  I have to because otherwise I could write and delete and write and delete and write all night and still not be any further on with saying what I want to than just saying this:

It is rapists who are responsible for rape; minimising, excusing or denying this is unacceptable to me.

Saying no to the All Blacks

Another rugby tour, another allegation of sexual assault by a rugby player, this time Junior All Black Nathan Harris, accused of raping a woman in a South African hotel after losing a big rugby match.

It's worth paying attention to how this case is reported - whatever the outcome - because it's instructive of how "mainstream" New Zealand deals with sexual violence.

Firstly, there was point blank denial:

The New Zealand Rugby Union has spoken with 3 News and completely denies their players were involved. 

The same day, the story changed somewhat, with NZ Rugby Union general manager acknowledging that there had been some kind of discussion with Police before the Baby All Blacks left South Africa and that the NZRU will co-operate fully:

“Neither team management, nor NZRU have been contacted by the local authorities since then or advised of any further issues or inquiries. If we are contacted we will cooperate and help in any way we can.  The team has just returned from South Africa, and we will discuss the matter further with team management in due course.   Our understanding of the matter is that the allegation is focused on one player.” 

It's at this point we also find out that the woman concerned had come to the hotel to meet player/s, and that she may have been drunk.  Neither of these things mean, of course, that she could not be raped - because rape is simply about non-consensual intercourse - but nonetheless, we know these things now.

The next day, we hear more from the NZRU.  It turns out one of their players was actually asked for a DNA sample before leaving South Africa.  We also find out the woman concerned cannot remember what happened, and cannot identify the alleged rapist.  If this is true of course, it makes any sexual contact at all illegal.  In South Africa, as in New Zealand, it is not possible to give consent if you are so drunk or incapacitated by drugs that your judgment is negatively impacted.  This is tricky in court - how drunk is too drunk? But if someone says what happened to them wasn't what they wanted, and they are so drunk they cannot remember, consent is definitely compromised.

At this point, we also find out that the NZRU see this allegation as "as serious as it gets" with Chief Executive Steve Tew discussing his concerns about Junior All Blacks:

They get an awful lot of advice, and the dangers of being in a foreign country where you put yourself at risk if you make poor decisions and obviously this young man has made a poor decision and he's now dealing with it.

So the "dangers of being in a foreign country" include making "poor decisions" which you have to deal with afterwards.  Too true.  I'm just not sure I've heard forcing someone else to do sexual things they don't want to do described in this way before.

It's clear at this point who we should have sympathy with - and in fact the player concerned is described as "very upset", what with all the danger in the foreign country I guess.

A couple of days later, the player concerned tells the world who he is, and that he's innocent, but that he shouldn't have let the woman alleging rape into his room.  This is interesting, because now we no longer have a sexual assault case hinging on identification.  Perhaps he knew his DNA test was going to positively confirm sexual contact.  Now, this case is all about consent.

The Baby All Black is innocent, he tells us, and he's sorry he invited the woman back to his room, sorry he let down his team-mates, and sorry his family are having a hard time.  He is hoping for a "good outcome" so he can "get on with his life." 

Another article the same day talks about the "pressure cooker" situation players selected to play rugby for New Zealand face, and notes that some players "transgress".  We also start to get character references from neighbours about what a nice bloke the alleged rapist is.

Can you be a "nice bloke" and rape someone?  Of course you can - otherwise we would have far fewer rapes in New Zealand.  They are not all carried out by scary dudes with "Rapist" tatooed on their forehead.  They are mostly carried out by men who do not recognise, or decide not to recognise, when positive consent has NOT been given.  Alcohol is a factor the majority of the time - it makes it harder to resist, makes it easier to overcome internal barriers around over-riding someone else's wishes, and it makes it more likely afterwards that alleging rape will be difficult, precisely because recall will be diminished and people will consider the victim's drinking makes them partially culpable.

I have some prevention tips for the All Blacks, and they are not about danger in foreign countries.  It's time we started preparing our sportsmen to think about their responsibilities as role models for masculinity.  It's time we started openly talking about consent - what it looks like, how you negotiate it - and insisting it is part of every sexual encounter.  And it's time we demand that the All Blacks, our prime brand, representing all of us in Aotearoa New Zealand, understand consent and respectful relating so well that we never hear another rape or domestic violence allegation made against any of them, ever again.

Other countries do it.  The US and Canada provide sexual violence prevention training for male athletes.  So does rugby league in Australia.  It's not good enough for the NZRU to lie, then claim to take seriously, then excuse allegations of sexual violence.  It's not Andy Haden's world anymore.

barriers

i want to start by thanking LJ for her work on organising this week's series of posts on the law relating to sexual violence.  there has been so much work put into this area over the last few years, with submissions called for and a comprehensive report written.  we then had commitment from the outgoing justice minister, simon power, to push for some serious changes to the system.

it's such a pity that the new minister feels no such commitment.  there are so many people affected by sexual violence, and the majority of those don't even dare to approach the justice system.  it's not only because the justice system is so hostile and challenging - in terms of the financial and emotional costs involved - but also because of the wider societal context.  we live in a society that not only judges survivors but also seeks to put more blame on them than the actual perpetrators of the crime.

the social context also includes the fact that the majority of survivors have been violated by someone they know - often someone they know very well or are related to.  the mere fact of disclosing the crime will mean the destruction of some (or many) relationships, and quite often a backlash from those who are related to the perpetrator and who will also suffer emotional and financial loss if that person is properly held to account for their crime.

the survivor know that speaking up could cause a marriage break-up, could mean that children have to grow up without a parent in their home.  the perpetrator could be the major earner for the family, and the resultant loss income can have consequences for the quality of housing, health and education received by dependents.

not only that, but the survivor will have to deal with the grief of those closest to them - the natural grief that occurs when someone close to you has suffered from something that is devastating.  parents, for example, are likely to feel devastated knowing their child (no matter of what age) has been harmed.  on top of that, they are likely to feel guilt arising from the fact that they didn't do enough to protect that child - even though there is no way to keep anyone completely safe.  still, the mind tends towards the notion "if only i had done ..." or "if only i hadn't...", as if the perpetrator wasn't smart enough to work around your safeguards and to manipulate the situation to their advantage.

most survivors know full well the impact on friends and families, and on relationships.  they know they face a huge barrier in convincing others to believe them.  everything about the way society is set up - from our values to our social and institutional structures - make it harder to speak out and to seek justice.

the very least we can do is to change our justice system to make it less hostile, less threatening for survivors of sexual abuse and violence.

Summing it up for the Law Commission

We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to ask for a criminal justice system which is fairer, more effective and less traumatising for survivors of sexual violence.  But I'm aware many people who want to submit to the Law Commission on alternative trial processes are finding the submission form difficult to use, so I've written some summary points to help.  There are also summary guides from Auckland Sexual Abuse Help here and here.

I support all of the Law Commission recommendations for alternative trial processes for sexual offences.  In particular I support:

1. Establishing Independent Sexual Violence Advisors who can advocate on behalf of victims throughout the police and court processes, including explaining alternatives to the criminal justice system such as restorative justice or kaupapa Maori approaches.
2. Sexual violence being treated by the criminal justice system as a specialist area with specialist knowledge, training and guidelines required.  Aotearoa New Zealand is not alone in the western world in having a justice system which demonstrably re-traumatises victims.  We can lead the world in developing specialist responses and training all court personnel, lawyers, judges and specialist lay jury members in sexual violence.
3. Moving away from the current adversarial system which is a competition, and towards a system of inquiry which is led by specialist, trained judges and lay jury members.    
4. Providing a pathway for people who cause sexual harm who plead guilty to access appropriate treatment through a Specialist Sexual Violence Court system.  We should be making it as easy as possible for people to stop offending and develop skills in taking responsibility for sexually harmful behaviour.  Our processes at the moment do not facilitate behaviour change for offenders.
5. The rights of victims being strengthened at every stage of the court process in line with the Law Commission recommendations.  In particular, the extension of risk assessment to children who may have been sexually abused is most welcome.
6. Alternatives to the criminal justice sector which place the well-being of the victim at the centre, including specialist restorative justices processes or kaupapa Maori approaches.
   

We have until Friday 27 April to let the Law Commission know what we need from our justice system for survivors of sexual violence. You can tell them here, or email at alttrials@lawcom.govt.nz, or post your submission to:
The Law Commission, ATTN: Alternative Trial Processes Consultation, PO Box 2590, Wellington 6140, New Zealand.

And for the last time, I'll remind everyone what our national survivor advocate Louise Nicholas has to say:

National Rape Crisis and the Law Commission

Many thanks to Georgia Knowles, National Co-ordinator of Nga Whitiki Whanau Ahuru Mowai O Aotearoa/National Collective of Rape Crisis and Related Groups of Aotearoa for this post. National Rape Crisis was formed in 1982 out of the grass roots feminist movement to eliminate sexual violence. Currently there are nine affiliated centres; Mid North Family Support Rape Crisis and Youth Services Keri Keri, Dargaville SOS, Hamilton Rape and Sexual Abuse Healing Centre, Whangarei Rape Crisis, Wairarapa Rape and Sexual Abuse, West Coast Rape Crisis, Dunedin Rape Crisis, Tauranga Rape Crisis and Napier Rape Crisis.

National Rape Crisis aims to provide a public profile for the issue of rape and sexual violence in New Zealand and our overall goal is the elimination of violence against women and children. We work from a feminist based philosophy of sexual violence that believes that rape is the degradation of a person’s whole self, and includes all sexual acts forced on unwilling participants and all forms of coercion, not only physical. We believe that rape and the fear of rape is a powerful form of social control because they are an invasion of spiritual, bodily and emotional integrity.

Collectively, our centres offer support for women and children survivors of current or historic rape and sexual abuse, their partners, whanau and friends.

We support the possible reforms to the pre trial and trial processes of the criminal justice system proposed by the New Zealand Law Commission. We believe that the proposed reforms have value in creating a criminal justice system that aims to reduce the secondary trauma and victimisation that survivors experience in the current process, and that the reforms are better aligned with survivors own concepts of justice.

Research involving survivors who have been involved in the justice system shows that they regard the criminal justice system as the primary institution for providing justice in response to sexual offences. Being provided with an avenue to achieve a meaningful sense of justice through a formal system response is considered to be of high importance. Further to this, the criminal justice system was considered an important symbol for representing the attitudes of society in regards to sexual violence.

In light of the perspectives of survivors in regard to the justice system, we believe that not only are these reforms extremely valuable for the way that they could change the experiences of survivors in the future who will proceed through the criminal justice system, we can also consider them to be symbolic of what we hope to achieve within our wider communities. These reforms show that as a country, we have listened to the voices of survivors and have acknowledged that they have suffered and been re-victimised within our current justice system and that this is unacceptable. That we believe that rape culture is real and is damaging. That victim blame, disbelief and rape myth are perpetuated and instiutionalised within our current system and the affects of this are serious, and create a barrier to true justice.

Further to this, similar research suggests that survivors conceptualise justice as multi faceted. On an individual level they wanted authorities to acknowledge the wrong that was done to them. They wanted the perpetrators to be identified, made accountable, and to face consequences (although not necessarily through imprisonment). On a local community level, they want resources, support and education. On a societal level, they want authorities to identify sexual assault as a serious issue and to establish processes to prevent further sexual offending.

So “justice” for survivors is enacted through the criminal justice system but also throughout wider society. This is in line with the recommendations of Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence that only 9% of sexual abuse incidents are reported to police so the solutions lie “beyond the criminal justice system as well as within it”. National Rape Crisis support these reforms as one, extremely important, part of the wider efforts of the sexual violence sector in New Zealand. Efforts that include ensuring adequate and appropriate support, and resources, for ALL survivors regardless of their class, ethnicity, gender, sexuality or age. That these resources are available where and when survivors need them, for as long as they need them for, and are not based on obligations. And the considerable work that goes into establishing the provision of consistent and quality education, preventative and otherwise, to all communities in Aotearoa.

The elimination of violence against women and children is paramount to the goals of Nga Whitiki Whanau Ahuru Mowai O Aotearoa and we believe these reforms to be a positive step towards this goal. We encourage everyone to write a submission in support of the Law Commissions proposed changes to the pre trial and trial processes of the Criminal Justice system. The real world knowledge and experiences of individuals and communities is instrumental to creating the changes that we wish to see in Aotearoa.

Cheat Sheet: What the Law Commission says....

If we accept that the criminal justice system doesn't work for survivors of sexual violence now, and that the current Law Commission recommendations are a wonderful opportunity to make the system fairer, more effective, and less traumatising for survivors there is still the question of what the recommendations are saying, and how they might work.

This is a cheat sheet. I've borrowed liberally from the excellent work by Auckland Sexual Abuse Help. Sections refer to the Law Commission document, and I've noted whether the reforms are designed for sexual offences or could be open to all offences.

Section 2: Pre Trial
2A: Laying and reviewing charges - sexual violence
The complainant would be able to request a review of initial charging decisions (whether or not to charge and which charge is laid). The review would be conducted by a senior prosecutor who specialises in sexual offence cases.

2B Role of victim in pre-trial process - open
The victim would be able to request a review of any decision to amend or drop charges. If it was a police prosecutor decision, the review would be carried out by a senior prosecutor. If it was a Crown Solicitor decision, the review would be carried out by a Crown Solicitor based in a different area. This right of review would not apply to decisions to amend or drop charges in the context of a court appearance, where the decision is made in front of a judge.

2C: Guidelines for prosecution of sexual offences
Separate guidelines for the prosecution of sexual offence cases would be established, specifying the particular approach needing to be taken to the decision to prosecute in sexual offence cases. This would not necessarily result in a change to the threshold for evidential sufficiency.

2D Pre-trial evidence issues - open
A case dossier with all evidence available at the time would be prepared by the prosecutor in consultation with the defence. Any defence evidence would be provided for inclusion in the dossier. The expectation would be that all known witnesses would be identified in the dossier, though other witnesses could still be called.

Ideally the judge at the pre-trial stage would be the same judge as at trial. The judge would decide before the trial whether there was enough evidence to go to trial; which witnesses should be called; whether expert evidence was required, and if so which experts should be called; how evidence was to be given at trial, and the extent to which written statements would form the evidence; the complainant could apply to give evidence orally in court if they wished; whether to direct further investigation if the judge considered that it was required.

2E Pre-trial appearance of accused - open
Unless a hearing potentially required the input of the accused, the issue would be resolved by the judge and counsel without a formal court hearing. Formal court hearings would only be held:

• for the entry of a plea after (and not before) legal representation was arranged;
• for case review/callover stage, which would occur only if the defendant’s appearance was necessary to resolve the issue at hand;
• for pre-recording evidence before trial, if any;
• for trial;
• for sentence;
• whenever there was an application that the defendant be remanded in custody.

Section Three: Characteristics of the trial court

3A: Who should determine the verdict? Open to sexual offences; “problematic” offences or all cases able to be tried by jury
The facts in a trial would be decided either by a judge sitting alone or by a judge and two jurors. The jurors would receive a copy of the case dossier prior to trial so that they as well as the judge were familiar with the evidence. The judge and jurors would deliberate together as a joint panel.

3B: Verdict – open
The judge and jurors would give written reasons for the verdict, reflecting the views of the majority about the facts. Conflicts between judge and juror(s) would be noted, but they would all need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the verdict. There would be no majority verdicts. The view of the judge would prevail on matters of law.

3C: Sentencing - application open
In cases being tried by a judge and two jurors, there would need to be a majority view about the factual basis for the offending on which sentencing should proceed. If facts relevant to sentencing had not been determined in reaching the verdict, the judge would ensure that those decisions are reached at the end of the trial. The judge would then impose the sentence using the current process.

3D: Specialist Judges - sexual violence
There would be a specialist training programme for judges who wished to preside in sexual offences cases. After initial training, judges would be required to undergo regular ongoing training to ensure they were up-to-date with recent developments.

3E: Accredited counsel for sexual offence cases - sexual violence
Both prosecution and defence counsel would be required to be accredited - by undergoing specialist training - before they could act on sexual offence cases. Further ongoing training would be required for counsel to remain accredited. Guidelines would set out the accreditation standards and obligations applying to accredited counsel.

Section Four: Trial Procedure
4A: How is evidence presented and who is in control of the process - open
The judge would be in control of the trial process and would be largely responsible for the way in which the evidence was given. The parties would have a more limited role. The judge would decide the order for witnesses to give evidence, and would question witnesses first. Parties would only ask questions of a witness after the judge had finished questioning.

The style of questioning engaged in by both judges and counsel would be substantially different from the style to which judges or lawyers in New Zealand have been accustomed. Significant training would therefore be required to ensure that evidence was elicited in the most effective way.

The witness’ statement in the case dossier would form their evidence but the witness would still be required to answer questions by the judge. However, evidence would be given in more of a narrative than a question-and-answer form, thus enabling witnesses to present their account of events in a more natural and conversational way.

4B: Evidence by the defendant - open
The defendant would give evidence first, unless the judge decided otherwise. The defendant would be subject to questions by the judge, but would not be obliged to respond to questions. The defendant could respond to questions, if he or she chose to do so, by speaking personally or through his or her lawyer. The defendant would be under an obligation to submit to questions whether or not he or she had provided a statement to the Court in the case dossier.

4C: Admissibility of evidence - open
If the fact-finder were to be changed to judge alone or to a judge sitting with two lay jurors, many rules of evidence could be dispensed with. Relevant evidence, including the defendant’s criminal history, would generally be admissible, with its weight being determined by the fact-finder.

Rules requiring evidence to be relevant and avoid unnecessary repetition would still be required. So too would rules about the complainant’s sexual history, because of the impact on the complainant of the admission of such evidence.

4D: Evidence of vulnerable witnesses - open
Cases involving vulnerable witnesses should be fast-tracked wherever this can be achieved, so that the trial occurs as quickly as possible. Where fast-tracking is not possible, pre-recording of evidence (including cross-examination) ought to be considered.

Assistance in answering questions should be more widely available than solely for witnesses with a “communication disability”. This would allow phrasing of questions in an appropriate way.

4E: Role of the complainant - sexual violence
A victim of sexual offending would have an Independent Sexual Violence Advisor (ISVA) allocated to them from the first contact with the Police or another agency. The ISVA would provide support, advice and assistance for the victim until their complaint is resolved. The ISVA would liaise with the Officer in Charge of the case and the prosecutor during investigation and prosecution, and would have the expertise to inform a complainant about issues such as name suppression, the trial process, the stages of the criminal justice process, the role of the prosecutor, the complainant’s ability to have a support person (at trial, when giving evidence, or during pre-trial interview), the role of the complainant as a witness, what to expect from cross-examination and general witness preparation, and other applicable rules of evidence, including the availability of alternative ways of giving evidence.

4F: Child protection orders - sexual violence
If on the balance of probabilities it was determined that the defendant had offended and either the victim in this case or other children were still at risk, the court would have the ability to make child protection orders in relation to the accused. This would be a civil order that would be time-limited, subject to appeal and regular review. Such orders would not involve detention but might cover treatment and non-association with children.

Referral for assessment of risk would be limited to cases where there had been a criminal prosecution (whether that led to an acquittal or a conviction), so a civil order would be available only in those cases. There might be an argument that given that the order is based on the balance of probabilities, it should be available on application whether or not there had been a prosecution.

Section Five: Specialist sexual violence court – post-guilty plea
Where there is a complaint to the Police and an offender pleads guilty to a sexual offence, there would be an option of referral to a specialist sexual violence court. With informed victim agreement, the suitability of the offender for participation in some form of intervention would be the governing criteria for whether the case was dealt with in the specialist court. Cases which did not meet the criteria would progress in the usual way.

The referral would be assisted by a victim impact statement indicating the impact of the offending on the victim, and could include reasons why they support referral to the specialist court in this particular case. Once referred to the specialist court, the judge would remand for a specialist case assessment to ensure suitability for the specialist court process.

After assessment, a report addressing the suitability of the case for the specialist court process and the development of an intervention plan would be delivered to the court; the intervention plan would comprise a tailored set of actions for the individual to complete, to enable them to take responsibility for their behaviour and address its causes, and could include treatment, education, reparations, apologies or other actions as appropriate to the case.

If the specialist court judge was satisfied on the basis of the specialist report that the case was suitable for the specialist court process, the offender would be offered entry into the court and asked to commit to the proposed intervention plan.

Supervision of the intervention would be the responsibility of the specialist team who would have the ability to bring the case back before the court at any time if there were concerns about the offender’s compliance. The specialist court judge would also have discretion to seek periodic reports on the offender’s progress with the intervention plan and bring the offender back before the court.

If the offender was declined entry to for refused to commit to the intervention (or entered but later withdrew agreement to participate), the case would proceed to sentencing in the usual manner.

All counsel appearing in the court would be required to undergo specialist training.

At the conclusion of the intervention, the offender would receive a sentence that would reflect participation in and progress after the intervention, which may or may not involve imprisonment.

Section Six: Alternative processes for sexual offence cases
An alternative process outside of the criminal justice system would resolve sexual offence cases if the victim wished, either instead of a complaint to the Police or at the point of complaint to the Police. The process would be tailored to the nature of the case, the wishes and needs of the victim, and the need to ensure victim safety.

This could only proceed with the agreement of the accused. The case would be assessed by specialist providers to determine whether it was suitable for an alternative resolution process or whether it was unsuitable, for example because the accused’s previous convictions indicated that he or she posed too great a risk to community safety.

This assessment would be carried out in consultation with the police and other agencies where appropriate, such as the Child, Youth and Family Service, in order to properly assess the risk to community safety.

The accused would need to accept that there had been a sexual encounter of some kind and be willing to engage in an alternative resolution process, including agreeing to participate in an appropriate intervention.

Nothing the accused said in the course of the process could be used as evidence in any later criminal proceedings. However, information provided by the accused could be used to trigger further investigation by police, the outcome of which could be used if prosecution for that offence or any other offence ensued.

The process would result in a set of agreed outcomes that might include a requirement for the accused to undergo treatment or education; if an agreed outcome were treatment, then a further assessment would be required to assess the suitability of the accused for participation in treatment.

The case could be referred back to the criminal justice system if no agreed outcome could be achieved or an accused failed to participate in an acceptable way and to fulfill any undertakings made; protocols would be needed for what constituted acceptable participation, and for the conditions under which the case would be referred back to the criminal justice system (for example, additional offending).

If the accused participated in good faith and fulfilled all undertakings, referral back to the criminal justice system for this offence would not take place.