Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Was it 'sexual assault'?

http://bit.ly/i3Mgje

An Ottawa police officer Sergeant has been charged with sexual assault in connection with the arrest of Stacy Bonds.

Readers will recall the Bonds case involved a September 2008 arrest in Ottawa. Ms. Bonds was arrested and police conducted a controversial strip search. The search was captured on surveillance video (apparently without the police noticing) and then posted on-line (after judicial permission) by the Ottawa Citizen.

The video shows 27-year-old Bonds being kneed several times, forced to the ground and pinned by four officers before having her bra and shirt cut off with scissors.

The surveillance video was critical -- absent that video the sworn testimony of several police officers would certainly have led to Ms. Bonds' complaints being dismissed and, in all likelihood, to her being convicted of assault police.

In any event, the blogosphere is filled with commentary, some of which argues that sexual assault is ridiculous because there was no issue of sexual gratification.

That analysis misunderstands what sexual assault is and how it is analysed. Sexual assault is not viewed from the standpoint of the criminal but rather from that of the victim.

Was this victim's sexual integrity violated by a specific assault?

⁠Sexual ⁠assault is very much concerned with consent.  Its purpose is to protect the "personal integrity, both physical and psychological, of every individual": R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330, at para. 28.  "The inclusion of ⁠assault⁠ and ⁠sexual⁠ ⁠assault⁠ in the Code", Major J. continued, "expresses society's determination to protect the security of the person from any non-consensual contact or threats of force".

Accordingly, if an assault goes to the sexual integrity of an individual -- whether or not sexual gratification is a motive for the criminal -- the assault is a sexual assault. The Bonds case is now before the Courts but the focus of the prosecution will not be on what the accused sought as much as what the accused did and how that impacted on Bonds.

21 comments:

rww said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Leftist nonsense. Rape is rape. The intention of the accused should count for something. Should count for everything. Maybe the cop is guilty of brutality. But sexual assault. That's an assault on language.

SuLinSoffer said...

Actually why would we care what the criminal wanted. Do we care why someone robs a bank? To buy a car or drugs or give to the poor? It's the effect on the bank that counts. If some guy squeezes my teat I don't really care if he's doing it for his own jollies or to see if I am wearing falsies. Sexual assault is what the victim sees.

trollslayer said...

You're all mindless left wing trolls.

Anonymous said...

The principle feature of liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things -- war and hunger and rape -- liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things. It's a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don't have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal.

Dr.Dawg said...

Geeze, James, looks like an election is in the wind, if the trolls here are any indication.

Obviously you are right about sexual assault. I thought the notion of "sexual gratification" went out with the removal of the word "rape" from the CCC.

ValeRayAbarca said...

African proverb: "The ax forgets, the tree remembers."

Maya Angelou, Even the Stars Look Lonesome, 1997

Enough of the bullshit from ranters. This cop and his cohort saw a young uppity black woman and punished her for being what she was. He humiliated her on purpose and that's sexual assault. He did it before and will do it again unless we all say stop.

Cops aren't always right. In fact, in general they're wrong.

James C Morton said...

Dr Dawg -- not sure if it means an election but is certainly shows the national divide. I'm a little surprised at the strength of feeling against the standard definition of sexual assault.

Dan F said...

For every assault by police that we see, because it just happened to be caught on video, I wonder how many we don't see.

Power corrupts, and we have given these individuals a tremendous amount of power in our society. It is imperative that measures be taken to prevent them from abusing this power.

The Rat said...

I guess we can forget mens rea? Since when has it ever been the viewpoint of the victim that decided the crime? Or has sexual assault become some new strict liability crime?

The Rat said...

The more I read SuLinSoffer's post the more I think liberalism has become some out of touch aristocracy. If you have to ask why we care about the motive behind robbing a bank, or say stealing a loaf of bread, then you are seriously lost.

BenZoma said...

Dr Dawg has it right. Crime is punished for the moral wrong. That's why we have a mental component. Otherwise everything might as well be absolute liability. Moving everything to the victim's perspective means saying 'who cares what was intended'. I'm not sure that's liberalism. Liberals seem to think motive is all (unless you are an Israeli: read Jew). Regardless, it's weak minded (which Israelis are not!!!).

Anonymous said...

We have Dogs and Rats. Where are the Cats???

Anonymous said...

Rape is not a joke. I feel for Bonds. She'll never recover fully. I didn't.

NYR said...

Ben. You are confusing a Dawg and a Rat

Anonymous said...

Rape fantasies are common among both sexes. Women want to be raped and me want to dominate. That's why rape will always happen.

BeckyC said...

"Women want to be raped and me want to dominate.". What planet are you on? And geeze I hope you just can't spell and intended to say "men want to dominate". Either way your thinking is at least 100 years behind the times. Or you are in the Iranian government.

WorshipfulMaster said...

Geeze Louise. Maybe the cop's not guilty. If he had reasonable apprehension that should save him?

Anonymous said...

They should have all been arrested and charged; they should have been 'named and shamed.' These anti-social elements must be rooted out lock stock and barrell, and preferably exiled from the county.
No ifs, no buts.

Frances Wood said...

@The Rat - it's not about mens rea - if there was an intent to commit any assault, the mens rea analysis is over. Whether it's a SEXUAL assault is determined correctly from the perspective of the person being violated. Much research will tell you that most sexual assaults are about power, control and violence, not about sexual gratification. And this incident was definitely about power and control.

SuLin's analogy is apt.

The Rat said...

@Frances Woods - I won't argue what the law might say, I will argue that it is wrong. You are advocating for a greater penalty because of the type of assault yet you let the victim decide that. Mens rea goes to the guilt of the perpetrator and only the perpetrator can truly know it. Assault and sexual assault are two different crimes, and one may be guilty of first but that cannot mean that guilt in the second is automatic. It is still the perpetrator's view that matters, the intent of the crime.

We have had many "gay bashings" in Vancouver recently, but listening to the victims it becomes apparent that some of these have more to do with confrontational jerks who happen to be gay rather than actual hatred of gays. Still, under your reasoning once an assault occurs, it is automatically gay bashing if the victim is gay and says they "feel" that it was. This is bad law.