In light of Wednesday’s court decision acquitting Bassam Al-Rawi—a taxicab driver who was found not-guilty of sexual assault—at least two protests, a group letter-writing session and a change.org petition have surfaced online.
Individual voices reeling from a judge’s controversial decision.
“I’m feeling a bit outraged,” says Amanda Dodsworth, who is organizing the March 7 protest. “I think that screaming into the void on the computer isn’t gonna cut it.”
A second protest is scheduled for March 8. Both are taking place at Grand Parade Square.
Al-Rawi was charged in May 2015 when police found a female passenger, unconscious from intoxication and naked from the waist down, in his backseat. The woman’s DNA was found on Al-Rawi’s mouth.
During the trial (which was covered by Metro Halifax on an ongoing basis), the woman said she couldn’t remember much of what happened after leaving a downtown bar.
In judge Gregory Lenehan’s decision this week, he said “A lack of memory does not equate to a lack of consent” and “Clearly a drunk can consent.” The words spread across the internet and were quick to gain the attention of educators and advocates against sexual violence in other parts of the country.
When Dodsworth read about the verdict, she “couldn’t make sense of it.”
The complainant “had everything you would think would be required,” she says. “She had an eye witness who was reliable, in the form of a police officer. She had DNA evidence. She was clearly unconscious.”
Dodsworth also questions Lenehan’s assessment that the woman could have consented before falling unconscious.
“If you’re drunk enough to wet yourself and pass out, you likely weren’t able to give consent in any time 20 minutes before that.”
Elise MacIntyre is hosting an event geared towards writing letters, also in protest of the verdict.
“Absolute best case is that he’s not a judge anymore,” MacIntyre says of Lenehan. Judges “need to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.”
She also points to two of Lenehan’s other cases, one in which he told a woman not to breastfeed in the courtroom. The judge also handled the child pornography trial in relation to the Rehtaeh Parsons case, in which the man pictured pressing up against the intoxicated teenager while giving a thumbs-up was sentenced to one-year probation.
“I don’t really think he’s fit for the position he’s in.”
Dodsworth hopes “with enough voices and enough noise,” the judge will “at least” be barred from overseeing cases that involve sexual violence.
It’s already difficult for sexual assault survivors report, and Dodsworth feels this case “sets a really dangerous precedent for other cases that will go forward in the future.”
“This is just another nail in that coffin to stop women from stepping forward.”
Related Stories
“I only ever ride in a cab if I’m ready to fight for my life.”
No safe way home
Halifax taxi drivers keep sexually assaulting their passengers
Years after my own assault, nothing has changed
Sexual Assault Centre sees calls for help rise in wake of Lenehan ruling
This article appears in Mar 2-8, 2017.
No man was ” pictured pressing up against the intoxicated teenager’ but a fellow school student was. In addition, a female adult knew what was going on but did nothing about it and went into another room.
Inconvenient facts.
Seems to me that the taxi driver has been found not guilty in a court of law. We may not like the decisions or agree with them but it doesn’t mean the driver is guilty. I have given consent many times when drunk. Mind you, I have never gotten so drunk that I have passed out. I think the judge’s findings are clearly sound.
This passenger’s DNA was found on the driver’s upper lip. How did it get there if he didn’t have contact with her? Impaired consent is NOT consent. This judge’s comments are the reason the majority of sexual assaults continue to go unreported. I, for one, will never get into a cab alone ever again.
When is the Coast going to start shining a light on the disproportionate number of sexual assault charges being laid against Middle Eastern taxi drivers? These men are being victimized.
Ruby, there was no question that he had contact with her; the question was, did he have consent? The judge found that he had consent. He is not guilty.
While I doubt that he actually had consent, and expect that the woman was not competent to consent even if he thought he did (She said herself that she didn’t remember – not that she didn’t consent, but that she didn’t remember).
I’m not sure what is worse: What I consider to be a vile decision by a judge concerning clearly unethical behaviour (though vile as it seems, maybe not illegal), or pols like Jamie Bailey demanding the judge be sanctioned. There is a reason we don’t elect judges in this country, and a reason that elected politicians are not supposed to interfere in the process. So Jamie: Protest, complain, express your opinions, but you need to stop a little shorter on the ‘let’s make sure we intimidate judges enough that they always decide the way we want’. Because that kind of stupidity will extend to all cases.
Better education for judges? Sure. That they always agree with the public, despite what the law says? Careful…
Disliking comments supporting the decision doesn’t make the man guilty. Signing in and thoughtfully commenting adds to the conversation though.
Even if consent was given, her inebriated state negates it.
Anyone has the right to change their mind after giving consent, something this unconscious woman was clearly not able to do.
I’ve never actually heard of a woman, drunken or otherwise, who just offers themselves sexually to a stranger out of the blue minutes after meeting them. It defies logic.
To call for this Judges resignation, please sign the below petition….
https://www.change.org/p/stephen-mcneil-we-demand-the-immediate-resignation-of-the-dis-honorable-gregory-lenehan
John, why not post that with your real name?
No, under the law her consent was NOT negated; you want it to be but the law over-rules you. Again, we may not like the laws but we have to live by them. If you want it changed, maybe you need to see to that?
More cultural enrichment for everybody!
John Lattel nailed it, this prick is trying to get political mileage out of a goddamned court case…lowlife POS.
he had consent. all over him.
So here’s what I don’t get…and please..theCoast…spare me the censorship…this is a legitimate question and I don’t know how to ask it but to just ask it:
If a woman is drunk, where exactly is the line of consent drawn? And how is someone supposed to determine whether a woman is sober enough to legally give her consent for sex? Is it a matter of opinion? Whos opinion?
Well in this case it was the judges opinion but nobody was happy with that…so really…tell me. At what point is a man permitted to accept the consent of a woman?
The way people are going on here, it sounds to me like there is no line..there is no point of consent…and that a woman could claim sexual assault at any time with any amount of alcohol.
If I’m wrong, then someone who feels very strongly about this please explain it.
I’m gay…thank god…THANK GOD I don’t really have to deal with this..but I am very concerned about the parameters here because unless we’re talking about outlawing alcohol consumption to prevent sexual assaults, this line of thinking really could lead to a complete breakdown of the legal system or perhaps society itself.
A man has sex with a woman who had one beer and his life is ruined the next day because he’s guilty of sexual assault (in the eyes of the public, his employer and politicians) because we’re of the opinion that she wasn’t capable of giving consent over that one drink? Is that where this is going?
That’s not gonna fly you know!
It is the law in Canada. An unconscious person cannot consent to sexual activity.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/…
Lack of consciousness negates consent. Every. Single. Fucking. Time.
Oceanchick you sound ridiculous when you say that. Every. Single. Fucking. Time. RIDICULOUS.
And the reason you sound ridiculous is because absolutely NOBODY has suggested that woman was unconscious at the time this alleged sexual act was agreed to EXCEPT the armchair activists participating in these forums. She was conscious at the time she got into the cab…nobody knows when she passed out.
You are simply creating that out of thin fucking air in hopes that everyone reading your rant will adopt it as fact.
You DON’T KNOW what happened in that cab…neither does the judge…and neither does the woman in question. That’s why the cab driver was found not guilty because there was NO EVIDENCE that he did anything illegal.
Now STOP the post truth nonsense.
T the T, you are the one who paints themselves as ridiculous. The woman was in the cab all of 11 minutes before she was found by police. You would have us all believe that she went from sober enough to consent to unconscious in that amount of time?
The most curious part of this case is the number of rape apologists who are rising up to defend the cab driver’s actions. The cab driver (who apparently has a history of this type of behaviour) had a duty, both professionally and ethically, to deliver his inebriated passenger to her destination WITHOUT engaging in sexual activity. Consent cannot be, according to the law, given or obtained from an incapacitated person. Period. Failure to comprehend this truth is why were are in this mess to begin with.
Keep on pushing your agenda, T the T. Then you can tell us all about what it is like to be on the wrong side of history.
There was no proof of consent any more than there was proof of non-consent. The fact that the lady was too drunk to remember indicates she was in no condition to give consent. It doesn’t get much clearer than that.