“Crown Prosecution Service (UK): Discipline Judge Farrell and appeal against the lenient rape sentences”
Two men in Luton who raped an 11-year-old girl have been sentenced to just 40 months despite guidelines recommending a sentence between 8 – 13 years for those convicted of raping a child. The reason for this lenient sentence was the judge’s assertion that the girl looked older than her age. He also claimed that she was a “willing” participant in her own rape.
Roshane Channer and Ruben Monteiro attacked the girl and even filmed the ordeal. In this situation, a young girl being approached by two adult men is very likely to face emotional manipulation, intimidation and to be coerced. Even if a minor wishes to be or is sexually active, that does not excuse an adult’s abuse or exploitation. A child, no matter how knowledgeable they believe themselves to be in such matters, will not have the emotional maturity, confidence or judgement to fully consent.
Judge David Farrell QC excused the rapists by focusing and proportioning blame onto the child. Victim-blaming in rape cases is sadly pervasive in our culture so it is therefore important that those with judicial power understand the severity of rape, especially when the victim is a minor. No matter what age she looked, no matter how “willing” she appeared, she was still a child in a vulnerable position. The law that was supposed to protect her has failed her. Please sign and show your support.
“Despite her age it is accepted that she was a willing participant, but the law is there to protect young girls from this type of behaviour and [...] from themselves.” – Judge David Farrell, suggesting a child can simultaneously be a rape victim and a willing participant.
Sign the Change.org petition here
I can’t say “a new low”, because they already hit rock bottom with their PETA porn channel, where they planned to intercut pornography with images of animal cruelty.
Their new campaign aims to make veganism ‘sexy’ by suggesting that a vegan man will be able to “bring it like a tantric porn star”. Their video shows a woman limping and wearing a neck brace, plus leaving the house in just her underwear and a (short) coat, implying she’s been left too dazed to get dressed properly.
The tag line is “BWVAKTBOOM” – “boyfriend went vegan and knocked the bottom out of me.”
They’re not just showing a woman dazed and injured by sex, they’re showing that she likes being injured by sex; once she’s back in their flat, she throws a bag of groceries at him with a ‘sexy’ smile on her face, implying she can’t wait for him to injure her some more.
The voice-over at the end invites the viewer to visit a website in order to get info on how to go vegan ‘safely’ (I had a look, it’s more pornified shit – eg wear goggles so you don’t get cum in your eye!).
The campaign is doubly offensive, first of all trivialising sexual violence, and secondly implying that women enjoy being injured by sex really (the woman’s ‘sexy’ smile will be remembered more than the male voice over about ‘safety’).
We know why PETA does this, it generates ‘controversy’ it gets them attention and it gets them donations – who cares if not one single person is converted to vegetarianism/veganism?
As an interesting aside, this new campaign is up on PETA’s international website, but no mention of it on their UK website. Could this have something to do with the ASA’s (Advertising Standards Authority’s) new powers to cover on-line material? It could easily be classes as an advert for veganism.
PS: I’m not going to link to any of this crap, you can find it easily if you want to.
From IBTP, go read the whole whole thing.
Convincing women that they are being unreasonable, that dudely porn use is natural, normal, and even necessary-for-his-health behavior, and therefore you should support his porn use, and by the way you’ll never even find a dude who doesn’t use porn — this one of the most successful misogynist campaigns of the modern megatheocorporatocracy.
The truth is that if you’re with a guy who uses porn, you’re with a guy who at his core believes that women are subhuman fucktoilets.
Women never want to believe this, for about 386 reasons. The idea of being objectified by the entire ruling class of default humans is too awful to contemplate. The implications are unthinkable. Women disdain to consider that life under the auspices of a culture of domination inexorably taints all relationships. But mostly they just don’t want to have to confront the porn-usin’ dude they love, the dude who will think they are being unreasonable, the dude they know will dump them before he’ll give up his porn.
The Women’s Support Project has released a series of booklets on sexualisation and grooming aimed at parents and adults who work with children.
They can be downloaded from here
From the review of ‘Girl Model’ in the Observer yesterday:
This deeply dispiriting documentary follows the 13-year-old Nadja on a hopeless journey from her home town in Siberia to Japan and elsewhere after being recruited by a dubious model agency and told to give her age as 15. It is a tragic story of exploitation and human indifference, and she was fortunate perhaps only to finish up in debt to her employers rather than working as a prostitute or sold to international sex traffickers.
Unilad.com, a British site for male students, has temporarily shut down after publishing a piece that encouraged rape. “If the girl you’ve taken for a drink… won’t spread for your head, think about this mathematical statistic,” they wrote, “85% of rape cases go unreported. That seems to be fairly good odds.” Under the subsequent apology (“We took things too far”) some of the site’s 8,000 daily visitors left their own comments. “Nobody minds a bit of casual rape banter,” wrote Daena. “Rape only happens because lasses can’t handle the banter,” said Adam. “[This apology is] Proof women don’t understand freedom of speech and banter,” added Andy.
From Eva Wiseman in today’s Observer, who also says:
I wasn’t shocked by the Uni Lad piece – not as shocked as many of the men I know, who reeled with offence. I was offended by their insistence it was comedy (no), sure, but I wasn’t shocked. I wasn’t shocked because this is what the internet looks like, often. Online, especially, say, under a comedy YouTube video, or comment piece about street harassment, Uni Lad-style banter thrives. I wasn’t shocked, but I was oddly troubled – it made me think about how confusing it must be to be an 18-year-old boy, frantically trying to stay afloat in a lido of banter, where everything’s a laugh and what you say is hardly ever what you think, reasserting your sexuality every 10 minutes as if refreshing a screen.
I recently responded on a comment thread re. my opinion of ‘queer’ porn – the subject deserves a longer, more detailed blog post of it’s own, and I should write up my notes from the Challenging Porn Culture conference as well, but in the mean time, I was reminded of this image I came across recently, on the Radicalboners tumblr: