Victim blaming
Lucid Interval : Victim blaming
First posted 05:27am (Mla time) Nov 15, 2005
By Rowena Guanzon
INQ7.net
WOMEN’S groups, including the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women-Asia Pacific and the Women’s Crisis Center Inc., are keeping a vigilant eye on the rape case filed in Olongapo City by a 22-year-old woman against six US marines. People are watching the progress of this case, which is not, as Senator Dick Gordon said, “an isolated case.”
We cannot view this as just one rape case, because there were previous rape and acts of lasciviousness complaints filed in Ologapo City against US soldiers before this one (but which were probably settled out of court), and this rape case is the first to be filed while the Visiting Forces Agreement is in effect. It will have a bearing in the preparation of the Implementing Rules and Regulations on the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), and when the VFA is up for review. Rape should fall under “extraordinary cases” in which the US cannot request a waiver of the primary jurisdiction of the Philippines. In international law, rape, especially in genocide
cases, is a crime against humanity.
I received letters from three American men, and I am quoting them here so we can appreciate that there are American men who are ashamed of what happened and some who blame the victim.
Tom Mather wrote: “I for one am ashamed to my wife, children and my family there in the Philippines that such an act has been perpetrated no matter if she was raped or otherwise. Their failure to act as ambassadors to the Philippines is an embarrassment to me as a former Marine as well as Husband and father to Filipino citizens.”
Jason More, who is engaged to a Filipina, wrote: “I fear that these men thought that they could get away with it, since the Philippines is regarded as a Third World country…. I hope that a message can be sent that just because someone may be poor, it doesnt give anyone the right to abuse the rights and spirit of another person.”
An equally interesting letter is the one sent to me by one who wrote: “As an American, I don’t care who do it, only that they get punished and that it serve as a lesson to all. However, you ask us to have faith in the Philippines justice system. Excuse me? The system that has thousands of cases languishing for years, mostly because corrupt judges are paid off or just too incompetent to get their work done? You want us to just hand the soldiers over to that system?
“I would … if the system were efficient, open and fairly corruption free as in, say, Singapore. But if it’s going to be the Philippines, it should be only when there can be full assurance of a fair trial. Not the silly leftist nonsense coming out of you, Rowena. You only want liberal-leftist hate to be part of this. Instead of really caring about women, you care principally about using the rape case to advance your leftist agenda against the US, our soldier-heroes in Zamboanga, and others. You don’t care about that unfortunate (but very foolish — what was she doing driving off with five drunken strangers at night from a bar?) — woman.”
As you can see, the last, who calls me a “leftist” and urges me to stop all the “emotional nonsense,” probably expresses what some people in the US government believe, and that is that they do not trust that their boys will get a fair trial in our judicial system.
I have to agree, the public perceives that many of our judges are corrupt. But if the writer is correct, who stands to gain from this corrupt system? Is it not the accused US soldiers, who have the dollars to pay? The complainant or her lawyers (and I know the two women lawyers personally) will not bribe the judge, not only because they don’t have the money but also because they won’t.
He also blamed the victim for “driving off with five drunken strangers at night from a bar,” which is what some people, including Filipinos, also say even if they do pity the woman. She did not “drive off” with them, she was taken to the vehicle, and the driver could not tell if she was lucid or not when she was being brought to the vehicle. I have handled three rape cases in which the victims were drunk or had passed out before they were raped.
Just because the woman agreed to have a drink does not mean that those men had license to rape her. Americans surely could not forget that one of their champion boxers was convicted of rape even if the woman agreed to join him in his hotel. The court held that when a woman refuses to have sex and she is forced, that is rape.
It is the same in our jurisdiction, where having carnal knowledge with a woman who is unconscious is likewise rape. Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. wrote in his dissenting opinion in People vs. Baygar (1997) that what is essential is that the woman did not have informed consent.
In that 1997 case, a Caucasian woman accused a friend of her boyfriend of raping her while she was asleep. The trial court convicted the accused, but the Supreme Court acquitted him.
In December, the University of the Philippines Center for Women’s Studies, with the support of the United Nations Development Fund for Women, will publish a book for judges that will include a critique of some decisions of the Supreme Court, as well as decisions that are recommended for use by judges. This is part of the Gender Justice Awards project.
Victim blaming in rape and other sexual abuse cases is well and alive not only among our readers and neighbors but also among our judges and prosecutors. It is unfair and wrong to place the burden of proof on the woman to show that she did not invite the rape or that she resisted it. Worse, the “death before dishonor” belief pervades in the minds of many of our judges, which is both archaic and has no basis in law. The Anti-Rape Act of 1997 in fact states that any form or expression of resistance is sufficient to prove that force was used upon the victim.
Being raped is not “emotional nonsense.” All women know that. Unfortunately, many men don’t.
November 29th, 2005 15:23
I MUST SAY. it is a sad reality that rape litigations/ inquiries in general are always swamped with prejudicial/vexatious scrutinies to the victims. whatever the precedent circumstances of such occurrence, it is nevr a humane demeanor to blame the victim, more so bombard her with degrading, unsolicited comments when you don’t even know the least bit of it. I mean who wants to get raped? it is called rape in the first place because it is done against her will or consent. waht can make a victim go through the huniliations of public trial, retell gain and again the harrowing and nauseating ravishing done to her, have her private parts examined by a medico legal officer and nevertheless subject herself to mockery by people if it were not for the sole purpose acquiring justice and retaliation against her perpetrators.the writer is right to aver that a cry of rape is not an emotional nonsense. for me, it is but the least thing to do to be heard by those who regard victims as nothing but prostitutes who didn’t get their asking price.
has anyone watched the 1980’s film, THE ACCUSED starring Jodie Foster? watch it.
November 29th, 2005 15:23
it’s like saying that prostitutes cannot get raped. sad to say that a lot of filipinos still has that mindset that when somebody rapes a person, he/she asked for it in the first place. it’s the kind of misguided thinking that forces rape victims to be silent about what happened to them.
November 29th, 2005 15:23
Prostitutes are the least to get believed in rape instances and cases, but that doesn’t change the principle that when forced into sexual act, it is rape. Rape is no respecter of victims’ disposition and status in the society as it is no respecter of time and place. A prostitute’s cry of rape may be preposterous to us, however, let us be objective with the whole inquiry because however we take the word of the complainant against that of the accused, and vice versa, it is ULTIMATELY still about CREDIBILITY.
am getting way off the topic here. sorry.